Homosexuality and Intimacy
First of all, I am not against homosexuality*^. I believe in personal freedoms, and I think it's ridiculous to tell someone what (or whom) they should or shouldn't love, emotionally, or physically.
What I am against is that in modern Western culture (my culture), people are losing track of the differences between homosexuality and intimacy (or "closeness"), and even friendship. In many cultures past and present, a man holding another man's hand, or hugging him, has been a gesture of friendship or love. In our culture, most people assume that two men holding hands are homosexuals. We don't seem to understand that there can be non-sexual intimacy between heterosexual men.
A football locker room is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Men are naked together, they slap each others' butts, or snap each other with towels. It would seem that this is a perfect example of non-sexual male bonding (or "intimacy"), thus proving me wrong. But having been in locker-room situations myself, I know that it takes about 10 seconds of butt-slapping before the homosexual jokes start flying. Comfortable and a-sexual as naked men might be in each other's presence, the idea of homosexual attraction always looms, prompting them to joke about it, and assert their aggressive (ie: heterosexual) masculinity in order to reassure themselves and others that they themselves are not, in fact, homosexual.
One thing that prompted me to write on this topic was the discovery that some fans of the original Star Trek series have theorized (and written fan fiction) about Kirk and Spock being romantically involved with each other. I find this idea far-fetched, if not ludicrous. Yes, the two are friends, yes, they live on the same ship (albeit, in seperate quarters), yes they "love" each other in that each would lay down his life for the other in a heartbeat, but it's a stretch to think that therefore they would have sex with each other. I recently watched the entire original Star Trek series and it never once occurred to me that Kirk and Spock could be homosexual lovers.
Similar confusion comes up in the Star Trek series Voyager, in which the surrogate mother-daughter relationship between Captain Janeway and Seven of Nine is mistaken, by some fans, for a lesbian relationship.
Heterosexual people in our society are not the only ones who are confused. Homosexuals also blur the lines. This is perhaps more understandable. As an oppressed minority*, it makes sense that they would want to claim something as powerful and pervasive as intimacy as a characteristic trait of homosexuality. I have no problem with this, in theory, but it's gone too far when people begin to think that intimacy between men is a trait exhibited solely by homosexuals.
In one of the commentary tracks to the film The Fellowship of the Ring, Ian McKellan, a gay actor, talks about how he encouraged actor Sean Astin to take Elijah Wood's hand in one scene. McKellan explains that as a gay man, he had a greater awareness of the power of this intimate gesture than the heterosexual actors playing the roles. I agree that it was a good acting choice, and I accept that Ian McKellan is a wise and experienced actor, but it disturbs me that he would choose to credit his sexual preference for awareness of the power of intimacy.
Finally, there is the case of Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series. Dumbledore is a kind and caring man who clearly loves his students, particularly Harry. The book actually doesn't say that he is homosexual, but the author recently said that she "always thought of Dumbledore as gay,"** The fact that Rowling would think of a man exhibiting these traits as being homosexual degrades the notion that a man can be a loving and caring father figure and be heterosexual.
While our culture has gained understanding, in the last 30 years, about the variety of human sexuality, it has also lost understanding about the differences between intimacy and sexuality. Intimacy is not the same as sexual attraction, nor is physical or emotional affection between members of the same sex a marker of homosexuality.
*^A friend of mine pointed out that some people find the term "homosexual" to be disrespectful. I mean no disrespect; when I use this term, I use it in the scientific sense, and am referring soley to a person's sexual preference, or orientation, not their actions.
*The percentage of homosexuals in the United States is commonly thought to be between 5 and 10%.
**http://www.mahalo.com/Dumbledore_Gay_Quotes
What I am against is that in modern Western culture (my culture), people are losing track of the differences between homosexuality and intimacy (or "closeness"), and even friendship. In many cultures past and present, a man holding another man's hand, or hugging him, has been a gesture of friendship or love. In our culture, most people assume that two men holding hands are homosexuals. We don't seem to understand that there can be non-sexual intimacy between heterosexual men.
A football locker room is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Men are naked together, they slap each others' butts, or snap each other with towels. It would seem that this is a perfect example of non-sexual male bonding (or "intimacy"), thus proving me wrong. But having been in locker-room situations myself, I know that it takes about 10 seconds of butt-slapping before the homosexual jokes start flying. Comfortable and a-sexual as naked men might be in each other's presence, the idea of homosexual attraction always looms, prompting them to joke about it, and assert their aggressive (ie: heterosexual) masculinity in order to reassure themselves and others that they themselves are not, in fact, homosexual.
One thing that prompted me to write on this topic was the discovery that some fans of the original Star Trek series have theorized (and written fan fiction) about Kirk and Spock being romantically involved with each other. I find this idea far-fetched, if not ludicrous. Yes, the two are friends, yes, they live on the same ship (albeit, in seperate quarters), yes they "love" each other in that each would lay down his life for the other in a heartbeat, but it's a stretch to think that therefore they would have sex with each other. I recently watched the entire original Star Trek series and it never once occurred to me that Kirk and Spock could be homosexual lovers.
Similar confusion comes up in the Star Trek series Voyager, in which the surrogate mother-daughter relationship between Captain Janeway and Seven of Nine is mistaken, by some fans, for a lesbian relationship.
Heterosexual people in our society are not the only ones who are confused. Homosexuals also blur the lines. This is perhaps more understandable. As an oppressed minority*, it makes sense that they would want to claim something as powerful and pervasive as intimacy as a characteristic trait of homosexuality. I have no problem with this, in theory, but it's gone too far when people begin to think that intimacy between men is a trait exhibited solely by homosexuals.
In one of the commentary tracks to the film The Fellowship of the Ring, Ian McKellan, a gay actor, talks about how he encouraged actor Sean Astin to take Elijah Wood's hand in one scene. McKellan explains that as a gay man, he had a greater awareness of the power of this intimate gesture than the heterosexual actors playing the roles. I agree that it was a good acting choice, and I accept that Ian McKellan is a wise and experienced actor, but it disturbs me that he would choose to credit his sexual preference for awareness of the power of intimacy.
Finally, there is the case of Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series. Dumbledore is a kind and caring man who clearly loves his students, particularly Harry. The book actually doesn't say that he is homosexual, but the author recently said that she "always thought of Dumbledore as gay,"** The fact that Rowling would think of a man exhibiting these traits as being homosexual degrades the notion that a man can be a loving and caring father figure and be heterosexual.
While our culture has gained understanding, in the last 30 years, about the variety of human sexuality, it has also lost understanding about the differences between intimacy and sexuality. Intimacy is not the same as sexual attraction, nor is physical or emotional affection between members of the same sex a marker of homosexuality.
*^A friend of mine pointed out that some people find the term "homosexual" to be disrespectful. I mean no disrespect; when I use this term, I use it in the scientific sense, and am referring soley to a person's sexual preference, or orientation, not their actions.
*The percentage of homosexuals in the United States is commonly thought to be between 5 and 10%.
**http://www.mahalo.com/Dumbledore_Gay_Quotes
posted by Jeffrey Stuart Martin on Thursday, January 03, 2008
7 Comments:
This is partly a linguistic problem. As far as I understand, referring to a gay or lesbian person as a "homosexual" (noun) is generally considered inappropriate and insensitive. It reduces a person to particular physical actions. Those actions are not exclusive to gay and lesbian people, as you correctly note here. All people (not to mention all other creatures) exhibit some level of homosexual activity (defined broadly) though not all possess dominant same-sex attraction.
Anyway, we really need this distinction between sexual orientation and intimacy.
AT
Huh. I've never heard that. I think of the word homosexual as meaning "attracted to members of the same sex", and as being synonomous with the modern meaning of gay. (For the record, I also dislike the shift in meaning of the word "gay".)
That is the issue. "Homosexual" does not necessarily imply attraction or orientation. It can include any other form of same-gender sexual interaction, including for example power and dominance based sexual violence in prisons. Check out the GLBTQFAQ (http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/lgbtqfaq-lgbtq-what-can-i-do-and-other-frequently-asked-questions/ for a useful guide to terminology. I wish it included more explanation on why "Homosexual" is a problem, other than to say that it is one. I've done more of my own digging on that, which is reflected in my prior comment.
AT
I am sad that the group of people we're talking about has felt the need to keep changing their name because of the way others have used their names.
It reminds me of the constant name-changing of other often-maligned groups, such as "developmentally disabled" and "Native Americans".
To me, "homosexual" does not imply any sort of sexual action or activity.
Therefore the phrase "homosexually oriented" might be more accurate. I wonder if that would be more appropriate.
The thing is, you and I don't get to decide. It is a matter of respect to allow groups to define themselves and to use their terminology rather than applying our own.
AT
You should move to Korea! Men here are still very much ok with displaying "homosexual" actions (I have no idea what the pc way to say that is..). Men are very often seen holding hands, or sleeping on each other in the subway, etc.
What bothers me the most is that it takes much more for people to assume girls are lesbians than guys are gay - even if they are doing the exact same actions. Girls have a lot more freedom to link arms, hold hands, sleep on each other's shoulders, etc than guys do (in the North American culture - not here - it's very equal here). Or how they very often portray the homosexualy oriented character on TV shows, or how people assume a character may be homosexually oriented due to the way he/she acts or dresses(ie, "stereotypically" homosexual).
Ok, rant over...
Post a Comment
<< Home