In our last episode,
<57273d21-449c-4e11-a567-2a00ef77abe8@
x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented turtoni broadcast on alt.atheism:
> On Aug 15, 2:16?am, neo
live.com> wrote:>> Some kind of thinking pattern, philosophy about life and world is
>> involved behind every person's behaviour in society. Either it is
>> based on beliefs, superstitions or science and logic.
>>
>> What philosophy, logic, science makes homosexuals believe that there
>> is nothing wrong in same sex?
> Foucault further argued that it was in the nineteenth century that
> homosexuality came into existence as practitioners of emerging
> sciences and arts sought to classify and analyze different forms of
> sexuality. Finally, Foucault argues that it was this emerging
> discourse that allowed some to claim homosexuality as a human
> identity.
I don't believe this is right at all. I think the reason "homosexuality"
came to be a matter of identity was the rise of romantic marriage, which was
the result of industrialization. Of course, there always were people who
prefered sexual and romantic relationships with person of their own sex.
But before romantic marriage, there was no particular reason for them to
stand out from everybody else. If you go through the list of "great
homosexuals in history" most of them were married to persons of the opposite
sex with which they had children. Oscar Wilde for one was considered a good
husband and loving father. If homosexual were not romantically in love with
their opposite sex spouse --- well, many heterosexuals were in the same
boat. If their romantic affairs occurred outside marriage, so did those of
many heterosexuals and so forth. But when romantic love became the basis of
marriage, it no longer made much sense for those whose romantic interest lay
with person of the same sex. (It also affected heterosexual marriages,
because 'no longer being in love' became a substantial reason for divorce.)
The industrial age made survival dependent on wages from the employer, not
on the homestead, and required such concentrations of labor that maintain a
homestead large enough to produce even subsistence impossible because of
lack of transportation. Urbanization made many minorities visible and
allowed them to form their own institutions. In small towns, every one knew
about Fred & Bob, but few people would take much notice of it. In a large
urban area there would be enough Fred's and Bob's that there might be a bar,
restaurant, or dance hall that could make a profit by serving them. In a
small town or rural, people would know plenty of other things about Fred
and Bob, would know them as whole persons. But in the urban area, all
people would know about people who frequented that certain area would be
that they were homosexual. In the rural area, a widow might have gentlemen
callers who would help her out with chores or gifts of value. In the urban
area she was a prostitute. In the urban area there could be bridge clubs,
old folks homes, religious institution for tiny minorities, and so forth;
because of the concentration of population, there could be institutions for
small minorities, and also there would have to be institutions to replace
services of the extinct homestead: hospitals, and so forth. But with those
institutions came identification. Male homosexuality and prostitution stood
out, not because it was in principal different from anything that happened
elsewhere, but because the first call of the urban labor markets was to
able-bodied men. But eventually the homestead became the modern home --- a
place to eat and sleep, and other human needs were served by urban
institutions of all sorts.
It was the material reality of industrial production, not some zany idea of
scientists, that create the modern gay identity.
> The term homosexual is often used in European and American cultures to
> encompass a person?s entire social identity, which includes self and
> personality. In Western cultures some people speak meaningfully of
> gay, lesbian, and bisexual identities and communities. In other
> cultures, homosexuality and heterosexual labels don?t emphasize an
> entire social identity or indicate community affiliation based on
> sexual orientation"
Look at the economic basis of those other cultures. Many of the rabidly
homophobic states of Africa exist where tolerance --- or in some
circumstances --- approval of homosexuality existed.
> Personally i've never found males sexuallly thrilling although i've
> admired a males body; in the same sense that i might admire any form
> of "beauty".
