Homophobia, Homosexuality and Men

Valmont

I can see the frustration that might arise if a couple's only son is homosexual. They might have had an idea of a family and lots of grandchildren. It's not that big a deal but I wouldn't consider it homophobic to be annoyed.

Pherekydes

mudokon wrote: »

Homosexuality doesnt only occur in the human species.

LOL, yes it does.

hitlersson666

Why do people have a issue with who someone is in love with be it there friend or child!
Who cares I for one don't? If two people are happy together then its a good thing

Boston

Pherekydes wrote: »

LOL, yes it does.

LoL, it's very common in mammals, LoL.

Nevyn

Don't forget avians.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/06/gay-penguin-dads-in-german-zoo-hatch-chick.html

CDfm

Boston wrote: »

LoL, it's very common in mammals, LoL.

The P in Pherekydes stands for pedantic and you usually need to read his statements several times before you dismiss them.

Pherekydes

Boston wrote: »

LoL, it's very common in mammals, LoL.

Most mammals are not homo-.

LOL.

It's like horse trainers going on about their horses having personality.

Homosexuality only refers to same gender sex within the genus homo, i.e.the families of hominids.

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

Most mammals are not homo-.

LOL.

Since we're all getting pedantic, you are mistaking the Latin word 'homo', meaning 'man' or 'person', with suffix that is derived from the Greek word homos, meaning 'same' and for which the opposite prefix is 'hetro' - which comes from the Greek for 'another' or 'different'.

It is used in this context where it comes to homosexuality, but this is by no means the only case where it is - homomorphic or homogeneous are two examples that use the Greek prefix, that have an associated 'hetro' prefixed opposite.

As such it actually has nothing to do with humans.

Of course, at the same time, the 'homo' in Homo Sapian is taken from the Latin. You'll note that in this case it is not actually a prefix but a separate word, this is because (AFAIR) prefixes in the natural sciences are pretty much always derived from Greek.

There is also no such thing as a Hetro Sapian

Boston

Pherekydes wrote: »

Most mammals are not homo-.

LOL.

It's like horse trainers going on about their horses having personality.

Homosexuality only refers to same gender sex within the genus homo, i.e.the families of hominids.

CDfm wrote: »

The P in Pherekydes stands for pedantic and you usually need to read his statements several times before you dismiss them.

Homo means the same. homogenized, homosexual, homogeneous, homonym, homophone. Try not to be so bloody mug when you're in the wrong. Thinking for two seconds about the premise would have lead you to "mansexual" as the meaning of homosexual, and that doesn't make a lot of sense.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Since we're all getting pedantic, you are mistaking the Latin word 'homo', meaning 'man' or 'person', with suffix that is derived from the Greek word homos, meaning 'same' and for which the opposite prefix is 'hetro' - which comes from the Greek for 'another' or 'different'.

It is used in this context where it comes to homosexuality, but this is by no means the only case where it is - homomorphic or homogeneous are two examples that use the Greek prefix, that have an associated 'hetro' prefixed opposite.

As such it actually has nothing to do with humans.

Of course, at the same time, the 'homo' in Homo Sapian is taken from the Latin. You'll note that in this case it is not actually a prefix but a separate word, this is because (AFAIR) prefixes in the natural sciences are pretty much always derived from Greek.

There is also no such thing as a Hetro Sapian

Owed. Weldone Corinthian. It's amazing what a decent education does for a man. Pherekydes should give it a try.

Dr Galen

Boston

You made your point there's no need for the sarkyness dude.

CDfm

I found this on the online etymology site

homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see same) + Latin-based sexual (see sex).

" 'Homosexual' is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it." [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897]

It is easy to understand the confusion and even when it was introduced it was criticised as a term and a made up word. Male "homosexuality" was criminalised and female not.

The use of language is interesting. A gay or a bawdy house was a brothel and gay denoted promiscuity.

Biologically we really do not know the reason for lots of things.
I saw the phrase male-orientated rams used once.You also have intersexuals with predominant gender characteristics.So who knows.

So I think "same sex" or "bi-sexual"are the best and least perjorative terms , IMHO, and you could argue about language till the male oriented cows come home.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

Since we're all getting pedantic, you are mistaking the Latin word 'homo', meaning 'man' or 'person', with suffix that is derived from the Greek word homos, meaning 'same' and for which the opposite prefix is 'hetro' - which comes from the Greek for 'another' or 'different'.

It is used in this context where it comes to homosexuality, but this is by no means the only case where it is - homomorphic or homogeneous are two examples that use the Greek prefix, that have an associated 'hetro' prefixed opposite.

As such it actually has nothing to do with humans.

Of course, at the same time, the 'homo' in Homo Sapian is taken from the Latin. You'll note that in this case it is not actually a prefix but a separate word, this is because (AFAIR) prefixes in the natural sciences are pretty much always derived from Greek.

There is also no such thing as a Hetro Sapian

[sheepish]
Yeah, I stand corrected. Apologies, especially to mudokon. Twas my own pedantic blindness that led me to it.
[/sheepish]

On a related note, we can't use the argument that what's natural for animals is also natural for humans. Some animal species eat their young and kill the young of rivals within their own species, which is all quite natural as it's part of natural selection.

Of course, I'm not implying that homosexual activity is not normal, just saying you can't transfer animal mores to humans.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

It is easy to understand the confusion and even when it was introduced it was criticised as a term and a made up word. Male "homosexuality" was criminalised and female not.

In fairness I doubt you can blame confusion between homo and homòs for the criminalization of only male homosexuality.

Our laws and morals on homosexuality originate from Abrahamic scripture, specifically Leviticus 18:22, which only cited male homosexuality. Much of this may have come down to women not really being seen as fully responsible, or even people. Whatever the reason, it is a non-issue in all the Abrahamiclly inspired texts and so historically, female homosexuality was largely ignored - reportedly queen Elizabeth I refused to believe it even existed.

Ironically Hellenistic morality was the opposite - for Romans male homosexuality was acceptable as long as you were the 'giver' rather than the 'taker', and female homosexuality was instead considered quite a taboo. As for the Greeks, well I hardly need to recount their curiously misogynistic approach to the subject.

Pherekydes wrote: »

[sheepish]
Yeah, I stand corrected. Apologies, especially to mudokon. Twas my own pedantic blindness that led me to it.
[/sheepish]

Hehe...

On a related note, we can't use the argument that what's natural for animals is also natural for humans. Some animal species eat their young and kill the young of rivals within their own species, which is all quite natural as it's part of natural selection.

It can be used as a counter argument against the claim that it is unnatural, but other than that I'd agree with you. Just because something is natural does not make it 'right' and just because something is 'unnatural' does not make it wrong.

If the latter was the case, we probably should just climb back into the trees now.

Boston

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

Boston

You made your point there's no need for the sarkyness dude.

If it wasn't for the "LOL", I wouldn't have been nice.

CDfm

@corinthian - what I am saying is that homosexuality is a term borrowed from psychology and which was coined in different era. Nowdays we are more enlightened and the biology and psychology of it are seen as more complex than the ways they were percieved back then.

I did not blame anything on the wording.

What is true is that in Ireland it was illegal for men to have same sex relationships but not women as it was not a matter which was discussed.

Homosexuality was also looked down on by the pre-christian Vikings.

I only made a comment on "gay" as word usage. It may be that homosexuals dont like the word and a more benign phrase is needed but it seemed odd that militant homosexuals latched on to a word used to describe promiscuity.

When we use the term homosexual though its gender neutral we mean men. No one is really bothered by lesbians and the lack of criminalisation assisted that.

I just think gay is an unfortunate choice of word as not all homosexual men are not flamboyant or promiscuos.

Nevyn

CDfm wrote: »

So I think "same sex" or "bi-sexual"are the best and least perjorative terms ,

Why?

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

What is true is that in Ireland it was illegal for men to have same sex relationships but not women as it was not a matter which was discussed.

I think it was also something that was not even believed. Women were portrayed as not really being sexual creatures, with some exceptions, so the idea that they sought sex for anything other than material gain was a bit alien.

I think there is a modern parallel between this and the idea that women cannot be child molesters or initiators of domestic violence.

Homosexuality was also looked down on by the pre-christian Vikings.

Didn't know that. Live and learn.

When we use the term homosexual though its gender neutral we mean men.

I think you are correct. Personally I see it as gender neutral, but then again I appeared to be the only one to know its etymology here.

I just think gay is an unfortunate choice of word as not all homosexual men are not flamboyant

Thank Christ for that.

mudokon

Pherekydes wrote: »

[sheepish]
Yeah, I stand corrected. Apologies, especially to mudokon. Twas my own pedantic blindness that led me to it.
[/sheepish]

On a related note, we can't use the argument that what's natural for animals is also natural for humans. Some animal species eat their young and kill the young of rivals within their own species, which is all quite natural as it's part of natural selection.

Of course, I'm not implying that homosexual activity is not normal, just saying you can't transfer animal mores to humans.

While I agree up to a certain point on this, it is opening up a very different debate. These natural urges can still exist in the human species but more often than not they are negated by the advanced societal rules we live by.

These rules check if there is a victim in a certain behaviour & if not it is deemed to be okay. These rules are also evolving on an ongoing basis.

The Corinthian

mudokon wrote: »

These rules check if there is a victim in a certain behaviour & if not it is deemed to be okay. These rules are also evolving on an ongoing basis.

This discussion is dangerously close to a humanities one...

More correctly, these rules check if there is a victim, either directly or indirectly, in a certain behaviour & if not it is deemed to be okay. The distinction is important.

For example, if one person throws litter on the ground, then realistically it is going to harm no one. However, if it indirectly engenders a culture of throwing litter on the ground and becomes popular, the aggregate litter will ultimately harm others.

Not saying that homosexuality falls under this 'indirect harm' category though. Just being pedantic.

Boston

Homosexuality was illegal here (up to 1993) on the grounds that sodomy was/is a public health hasard and that homosexuality amoung men undermines the institution of marriage.

CDfm

Tres amusant.

Boston that legislation affected heterosexual and homosexual couples.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Boston that legislation affected heterosexual and homosexual couples.

I think (vague memory) the last time someone was convicted on charges of sodomy was in the late eighties - a case of marital rape, where the husband could not be convicted of rape for lack of evidence or some-such, but foolishly admitted to anal sex with the wife.

Boston

CDfm wrote: »

Tres amusant.

Boston that legislation affected heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Thats just an insult to my intelligences.

CDfm

Boston wrote: »

Thats just an insult to my intelligences.

Sorry Boston - as TC said vague memories of a court case - no insult intended and not feeling smug either.

EDIT -I looked it up and the case which brought the change was one by David Norris lost in the Irish High and Supreme Courts and which he went to Europe on and won and Mary Robinson was his Lawyer

Dr Galen

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Doesn't bother me whether someone's gay or not. It doesn't affect whether I like them or not.

The OP brought up the issue of stereotypes and, unfortunately, these still prevail today. For instance, if I'm in a pub watching football, I assume there are no gay people there. Also, if I meet someone who is camp, I assume they're gay. I think that's just because of the society I grew up in.

This is what I was getting at all along.

What is it about how we're brought up that makes us think this way? Its hardly a conscious thing for most of us. I know for me it isn't, sometimes I really can't help it, and I've met plenty of non-stereotypical gay guys and girls over the years, yet it still happens from time to time.

Mrmoe

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

This is what I was getting at all along.

What is it about how we're brought up that makes us think this way? Its hardly a conscious thing for most of us. I know for me it isn't, sometimes I really can't help it, and I've met plenty of non-stereotypical gay guys and girls over the years, yet it still happens from time to time.

This works the other way too. You can have camp straight guys that people think are gay. I think this is purely biological in nature. The camp guy would be seen as a threat by the typical alpha male in competition for procreation. It is understandable tp demonise your sexual competition.

The Corinthian

Mrmoe wrote: »

It is understandable tp demonise your sexual competition.

How is a homosexual man sexual competition for a heterosexual one?

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

How is a homosexual man sexual competition for a heterosexual one?

Company, friendship,some people talk in a perjorative way about "faghags" (no insult intended).

I have female friends and its purely platonic and my g/f is OK with it. Then there is no sex axe to grind.

I have a good friend who is arm candy.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Company, friendship,some people talk in a perjorative way about "faghags" (no insult intended).

I have female friends and its purely platonic and my g/f is OK with it. Then there is no sex axe to grind.

I have a good friend who is arm candy.

Does not answer my question though.

CDfm

Well its like this.

Just say you have a smart guy at school and he gets a hard time cos he is brainy. He grows up. He make a good living -so he doesnt need to be a tough guy.

Easy.

Dr Galen

i'm sorry but I'm not following. What has that got to do with camp men being sexual competition?

CDfm

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

i'm sorry but I'm not following. What has that got to do with camp men being sexual competition?

What I am saying that camp is subjective and what is camp to a man is not the same to a woman.

Women are not always turned on by the most macho guy but can be attracted by who they percieve as being the most fun or being literate or even having a stable source of income. That does not always translate to being the most macho.

Also, a woman may feel safe around a homosexual because she can have a friendship with a man without any sexual demands. ie he is not a threat to her.She can choose her moment.

Being Dapper,well dressed and well spoken in some circles would be to be classed as camp in others.

Of course, all those things can be attractive too a woman and threatening to other men- of course a woman will like a guy who notices if she has her hair done, notices shoes bag earrings or a new fress or scarf. It stands to reason its compliments.

Mrmoe

The Corinthian wrote: »

How is a homosexual man sexual competition for a heterosexual one?

Maybe sexual competition is the wrong term but reproductive competition would be more appropriate. There may be a genetic link to homosexuality. In this case a man who is homosexual would have an invested interest in supporting/nurturing his sisters children. It would be a biological imperative that he would try an maintain the status quo thus providing a deterent to other males seeking to reproduce or integrate their family unit resulting in decreased resources for their own genetic progeny. There is a more recent artcle in either Nature/The Scientist that I am trying to find and I will upload when I find it published this month or so. Below is an article from a couple of years ago.

Evolution and Human Behaviour

Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 159-167 (May 2007)

Kin selection and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine☆

Paul L. Vasey David S. Pocock, Doug P. VanderLaan

Received 30 April 2006; received in revised form 5 August 2006; accepted 10 August 2006. published online 25 October 2006.
Abstract

The Kin Selection Hypothesis for male androphilia posits that genes for male androphilia can be maintained in the population if the fitness costs of not reproducing directly are offset by enhancing inclusive fitness. In theory, androphilic males can increase their inclusive fitness by directing altruistic behavior toward kin, which, in turn, allows kin to increase their reproductive success. Previous research conducted in Western countries has failed to find any support for this hypothesis. The current study tests this basic prediction of the Kin Selection Hypothesis for male androphilia by comparing the altruistic tendencies of androphilic and gynephilic males in the Polynesian nation of Independent Samoa. In Independent Samoa, androphilic males are known locally as fa'afafine. Altruistic tendencies were assessed using a Kin Selection Questionnaire. Comparisons of the altruistic tendencies of fa'afafine and gynephilic men revealed that these two groups did not differ in terms of their overall generosity and allocation of financial resources toward kin, nor did they differ in terms of general neediness or financial resources obtained from kin. Fa'afafine did, however, report greater avuncular tendencies than gynephilic men. Although the greater avuncular tendencies of fa'afafine support the basic prediction of the Kin Selection Hypothesis for male androphilia, further research is needed before one can conclude that these elevated tendencies represent a specially designed adaptation for promoting the fitness of kin. We discuss a number of sociocultural factors that might promote the expression of avuncular tendencies by androphilic males in Independent Samoa. Our results underscore the importance of testing functional hypotheses in evolutionarily appropriate environments.

CDfm

Wow Mrmoe - some of my friends are female hockey players and who would be protecting whom is not a matter that would be hotly debated.

I know my place;)

It struck me though that my female friendships tend to be with groups whereas my male friendships are with individuals.So how you socialise with women is different too.

Dr Galen

Mrmoe wrote: »

This works the other way too. You can have camp straight guys that people think are gay. I think this is purely biological in nature. The camp guy would be seen as a threat by the typical alpha male in competition for procreation. It is understandable tp demonise your sexual competition.

ok now I understand what your saying (following the next post you made).

So to your mind, a "camp" trait in a straight man is a biological phenomenon?
What about a gay guy being "camp", same thing? or is that sometimes more of a socialised thing?

Mrmoe

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

ok now I understand what your saying (following the next post you made).

So to your mind, a "camp" trait in a straight man is a biological phenomenon?
What about a gay guy being "camp", same thing? or is that sometimes more of a socialised thing?

In my own mind I think biology plays a more important role but sometimes it is hard to tell where biology ends and social aspects begin. Are social aspects just a reflection of underlining biology? I could be completely wrong (and more than likely am wrong) but I think campness/gayness/straightness are all on the same scale of sexuality but at different ends. In some cultures you will have a predominance/acceptance of one more so than the other.

CDfm

I am not so sure.Many performers have exageratted gestures and mannerisms and clothing which could be classed as camp. I work in sales and grooming is important as is communication skills.

I met a customer today and he is a big guy - 4 wheel drive and can change lightbulbs without a ladder or chair. He is homosexual and no way camp or whatever, would fit in any ploughing championship and could kick start a combine harvester.

Another friend I was at a funeral with on Saturday does all kinds of dangerous sports and jobs and is as hetero as they come would be described as camp. Probably because he takes care of his appearence and likes art,literature and would be emotional etc.

The thing they have in common is that they are very secure in what they are.

I can accept that biologically a person has a sexual orientatioin but social behavior is more socialised and acquired.

OldGoat

CDfm wrote: »

I am not so sure.Many performers have exageratted gestures and mannerisms and clothing which could be classed as camp. I work in sales and grooming is important as is communication skills.

I met a customer today and he is a big guy - 4 wheel drive and can change lightbulbs without a ladder or chair. He is homosexual and no way camp or whatever, would fit in any ploughing championship and could kick start a combine harvester.

Another friend I was at a funeral with on Saturday does all kinds of dangerous sports and jobs and is as hetero as they come would be described as camp. Probably because he takes care of his appearence and likes art,literature and would be emotional etc.

The thing they have in common is that they are very secure in what they are.

I can accept that biologically a person has a sexual orientatioin but social behavior is more socialised and acquired.

I understand the point you are trying to make but...
Care of appearence and a likeing for art & literature along with being emotional is now equated to Campness?
So, when I make sure my trainer laces are perfectly aligned before applying my Dax to get the perfect spike of hair is a step towards being camp.
If you then admit to a fondness to Banksy or Jamie Hewlett you are then exagarating that campness?
If you read The Lord of the Ring more then once the levels of campness just piles on until the day that you see United lost 2:0 to City and you break down with a tear of anguish or elation trickleing down your cheek (- depending on the colour of your carefully washed and ironed football shirt).

I care for my apparence, have a fondness for a good book, have been seen in an art gallery on occasion. My sexuality has been questioned on a few occasions but I've never been called camp.
I think 'camp' need a better defination. I would have said that camp is a flamboyant exageration in mannersims. Naught to do with appearance or apprication of the arts.

Giselle

OldGoat wrote: »

I would have said that camp is a flamboyant exageration in mannersims. Naught to do with appearance or apprication of the arts.

Well put, completely agree.

Its a ''theatrical'' way of behaving, rather than a liking for theatre.:)

CDfm

being effeminate in a drag like way exageratted and in bad taste.

funnily enoughI always associated being camp with an english accent or in ireland with a dublin accent "mrs brown " style

i cant imagine a meath accent as camp

fonecrusher1

OldGoat wrote: »

have a fondness for a good book

Seriously reading books is so gay. In fact even touching a book instantly makes you gay. And thats a scientific fact.

CDfm

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Seriously reading books is so gay. In fact even touching a book instantly makes you gay. And thats a scientific fact.

speaking Irish the whole TnG thing has got the ghey -there is something very camp about irish culture now i think of it.

fonecrusher1

CDfm wrote: »

speaking Irish the whole TnG thing has got the ghey.

If your talking about those clowns that speak irish very very loudly in public (often on the phone) to show just how incredibly cultural & clever they are, then yes thats ghey.
I'm all for keeping the language alive but not if its going to be used as a 'look at me!' device.

CDfm

being a mod on boards thats well

ok

that is

Reflector

"just because a man likes a bit of Shirley Bassey and doesn't shy away from a chest wax you assume he parks his bike up the dirt track, how very dare you"

love men and love being a man. nothing wrong with it. Also nothing cooler than straight guys who are totally cool with the gays and couldn't give a ****. Always the smart good looking ones too for some odd reason.

OldGoat

Reflector wrote: »

Always the smart good looking ones too for some odd reason.

*Nodding in agreement - sagely and handsomely.

CDfm

Reflector wrote: »

Always the smart good looking ones too for some odd reason.

I resemble that remark:)

Dr Galen

Reflector wrote: »

Also nothing cooler than straight guys who are totally cool with the gays and couldn't give a ****. Always the smart good looking ones too for some odd reason.

i think its a test tbh mate. Its lifes way of showing you you can't always get what you want. Like my female mate, who is hot, likes beer, football, console games and poker. Unfortunately she's been practically married for as long as I can remember.

amacachi

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

i think its a test tbh mate. Its lifes way of showing you you can't always get what you want. Like my female mate, who is hot, likes beer, football, console games and poker. Unfortunately she's been practically married for as long as I can remember.

Not that you fancy her or anything... :pac:

CDfm

Wondering if she carried you home from the pub/drank you under the table MM.

Dont be bashfull fess up