|
|
|
September 13, 2003
Rome wasn't built in a day...
Steven Malcolm Anderson is really onto something (and not what everybody probably thinks) when he says: I'm a girl. I must be a girl. Sex is spiritual. Told you.That was his reaction after reading this: Before the idea of homosexuality was invented (or discovered) by Viennese psychoanalyst, nobody was gay, as we now understand that term. Some men had sexual desires for other men, and some men had same-sex sex with men (although typically, as Dave Bianco points out, not as an exclusive choice). But the creation of what the Victorians called a "third sex" was a social construction, a stigmatized sexual identity, which had as much to do with anxieties about masculinity emerging as we entered the industrial revolution as anything else.Sex role tyrants dictated sex roles, then labeled those who did not conform as deviant. Said "deviants" then counter-reacted, giving rise to the gay movement. People keep reacting, and reacting, and reacting. To what? To the sexual desires of other people? To react to and to "worry constantly about whether or not certain citizens are placing their private parts into the right orifices?" I am not sparing anyone here. Homosexuals, having fallen into this trap, find themselves having to group together and then judge heterosexuals in return, labeling them as a different group. You must decide upon one of two groups, then belong to it, try like hell to conform to it, and label everyone outside it. Pretty soon, you'll start to find you really are different. A little like blacks who are "really" black and make "cultural" demands on others to conform to a similar tyranny. For what end? Why would one man care where another man puts his peepee? Beats me; I have spent decades trying to figure out what the hell is going on. And after I grew tired of reacting, I started asking basic questions, and I came to realize the ancients were right. They didn't label, because it didn't occur to them to care. Having your life ruled by tyrannical labels created by Victorian psychiatrists may be modern, but it is not freedom. That's how insanity prevails. posted by Eric on 09.13.03 at 07:20 PM
Comments
BTW, as far as I'm concerned, people who are concerned about where other people put their peepees are suffering from some kind of disorder. raj · September 14, 2003 07:26 AM Thanks for pointing that out, raj. I used the term "Victorian" to describe the whole period -- as opposed strictly to British subjects of Queen Victoria (who was herself pretty close to the Germans anyway, her grandson Wilhelm holding her hand as she died...) Interestingly, Wilhelm's court was implicated in a "gay scandal" -- which did much to fuel modern bigotry against homosexuals and Jews. Ulrichs' ideas were of course perverted by other "Victorians" -- notably Kraft-Ebing. My view of Ulrichs is that, notwithstanding his idealism, he made a common mistake of projecting his own variety of homosexuality onto others, which did much to lead to the enshrinement of modern stereotypes, with the limitations of which I complain. I see no reason to generalize or look for "causation" of something which is as varied as there are individuals who might be inclined towards sexual relations with members of their own sex. Thanks raj, for visiting my blog! (And by the way I call myself gay because I live in the modern world.) Eric Scheie · September 14, 2003 09:30 AM "And by the way I call myself gay because I live in the modern world." I don't know your situation. I consider myself gay because (i) I am comfortable with my homosexuality, (ii) my boyfriend (of 25 years) and I are both out in our (primarily straight) neighborhood, as well as to our relatives, and more than a few other factors. Query, however, the following. Last fall, in a California newspaper article describing police combatting a problem with men having sex with other men in public parks, public restrooms, and the like, the article quoted a police spokesman as saying that some 80% of those arrested were married, many if not most with children. Now, unless one is to presume that homosexuals (well, those who are not married) are better at evading arrest in such situations than homosexuals who are married, it strikes me that more than a few men who are married are, in fact, having sex with other men in public places. Now, if a polling operation was to go up to these men in their home environments and ask them whether they were homo, bi, or heterosexual, what do you believe they would say? That they were homo or bi? I would tend to doubt it. As far as I'm concerned, "gay" and "straight" are at base socio-political designations. Homo, bi and hetero are used to designate one's sexual orientation. raj · September 14, 2003 10:27 AM I basically agree, raj. I hate the terminology, and dislike judging people by the content of their orgasms. "Gay" or "homosexual" are words I don't need -- yet these words are demanded by those to whom it matters where you put your dick. I call myself gay because, despite my hatred of the categories, I refuse to be bullied by labels. Furthermore, I think anti-gay prejudice is worse than the unnecessary categories. (I suppose I'll go on calling myself gay as long as someone is willing to hate me for it.) Whether they are caught or not, most married men having sex in restrooms would maintain that they are heterosexual, for the very reason that they fear the stigma of being labeled homosexual, bisexual, gay -- whatever sexually judgmental word you want to use. They did not create these categories, though, and I consider them to be victims of social-political tyranny. That does not mean that they should be "outed" or further oppressed by forcing them into new categories which they obviously do not desire. That does not advance freedom; instead it compounds the problem and maintains the stigma. Eric Scheie · September 14, 2003 08:45 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Laughing at the failure of discourse?
• Holiday Blogging • The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The Victorians may have used the term "third sex," but it has been attributed to a German, Karl Ulrichs, who was one of the founders of the homosexual rights movement in Germany. http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/words/thirdsex.htm
I use the gay/straight dichotomy somewhat different from the homo/hetero/bisexual trichotomy. I use the homo/hetero/bisexual trichotomy to indicate the sex of the person that one finds sexually attractive. On the other hand, I use the gay/straight dichotomy to indicate the sex of the person that one holds himself out as finding sexually attractive, in a societal sense. As an illustration of the latter, if one is married, possibly with children, but if s/he has sex on the sly with someone of the same sex, then I would consider him or her straight, even though he may be homo- or bisexual as far as actual attraction is concerned.