Are You Homophobic?

[+ Charlie]

After our first two weeks together, my partner and I were never sexually monogamous, but most of the time we were committed to an emotionally monogamous relationship. My best friend could never understand that, and couldn't believe that was a "real" marriage; he was serially monogamous with a half dozen men, and a complete slut the rest of the time.

[+ José Soplanucas]

I agree with virtually everything you stated, but the wording here can be given added context.

 

I saw a documentary once made in the UK (can't remember the title) when one guy stated that he never cared about the gay marriage issue. He was fine with multiple partners. Yet he understood that it was important to have equal rights and, thus, have an option not granted before in his life time.

 

However monogamy is not a cut and dry thing. Yes, some of it is institutionalized: regardless of how nebulous many biblical passages are (a.k.a. men mentioned with multiple wives and multiple women for "recreation"), conservative religious heterosexuals make full time commitment to partnerships that don't allow others intimately other than the two involved, often "for the sake of the children" (which we all know is silly), into a big deal. However there are many people both gay and "straight" that want the comfort of a longtime partner. Call it a need for stability? Maybe a romantic notion of having a significant other who will complete one's self? Also the older you get, the lonelier you get. When not successful seeking that one night stand, you do want somebody to fall back on. Also sex is best when your partner knows you better on an intellectual and emotional level.

 

There are many, many of both "orientations" who are less interested in "getting to know you" than just a "blow and go", an instant "release". That is fine. To each their own. Yet not everybody wants to maintain their independence and keep a wall up forever.

 

A lot of homophobia, internalized or whatever, still stems from your outside environment's tolerance for anybody different than other members of your "pack". Many (but not all) of the most outspoken leaders of Gay Liberation in the 1970s were blessed by friends, if not families, who supported them being whatever they wanted to be. Many of the communities that begat these movements were in city centers like San Francisco and Greenwich Village, NYC. (Another great vintage documentary from 1970 involved an interview with two transgenders saying that, at least in the ghetto where they lived in San Francisco, they didn't have to worry about being shot. You can watch it here: https://archive.org/details/casftm_000001)

 

Having confidence because those around you have confidence in you being yourself makes a HUGE difference. Sadly I grew up with a family with intense hatred towards all gays and lesbians. My mother was the worst, but she is deceased and, while it is not good to dwell on those who no longer have control over you, the damage is already done and there are scars that will never heal.

 

I recently saw another movie... yeah, I am going to reference some OLD stuff here. It was a romantic gay drama called A VERY NATURAL THING, directed by Christopher Larkin and you can find a grainy copy on YouTube (possibly with adult verification since there are some brief nude scenes). What I found interesting about it is that the year it was filmed, 1973, was post-Stonewall with marches getting bigger in the streets and new confidence that never existed before, but also no AIDS epidemic yet either and Anita Bryant hadn't gotten started (not that many found her especially scary to begin with, provided there were enough pies to throw) and the main character teaches high school students in NYC. Director Larkin's goal was to create a gay version of LOVE STORY with men questioning: Do I want a long term partner or is this something that has been forced on me by "traditional hetero-normal society"?

 

The character of David was initially a monk, being Catholic and questioning his sexuality, then accepts who he is and no longer thinks God is "mad at me". He starts exploring what he enjoys physically. He has a good friend whom he isn't sexual with, but has great talks with in figuring out who he is. Then he finds a guy he hopes is Mister Right, but this guy clearly doesn't want "marriage". (There is a key scene of the two attending a heterosexual wedding in a church.) They try to stay together by being more "open" and attend a group orgy on Fire Island, but neither is comfortable with the situation. Many reading here would have no issues there, but you have to understand that this character was, after all, a celibate monk once and is still green behind the ears with the whole "comfort with strangers" routine. He is also awkward in his first trip to a bath house after his emotional break up. Later he becomes so cynical that a new guy he meets who wants the same thing he originally did (a long-term commitment) has to convince him to stop trying to find "the perfect" monogamous relationship and just accept things as they come. In short, David got too caught up in his mind over analyzing what he wanted.

 

I don't know. I guess there is no point to this elephantine post. Except we all want different things and I only HALF agree that monogamy is a reflection of homophobia. With that said, there is a pride parade shown in that movie where one guy says he is now happy he can have any partners he wants along with "as many as I want" without being judged.

 

I was just giving an example, I do not want to kidnap the thread about homophobia with a conversation about gay marriage.

Just quickly, I did not mean that monogamia is always homophobic. I gave the specific context of gay politics. Back to homophobia now.

[longtime lurker]

I was just giving an example, I do not want to kidnap the thread about homophobia with a conversation about gay marriage.

Just quickly, I did not mean that monogamia is always homophobic. I gave the specific context of gay politics. Back to homophobia now.

 

Yes, I understood. It just gave me an excuse to talk about obscure movies on this thread.

[rvwnsd]

To answer your question @Lance_Navarro I believe I have some homophobia in my being. Not a lot, but some.

[OCClient]

A friend of mine would grab the little red stir stick from my cocktail and fling it across the bar because it made me look too something.....queeny? My inside voice was telling him "you're not exactly John Wayne." And he sure wasn't! But he sure knew how to re-wire a kitchen and change out a window at home. We come in all varieties. I do like to avoid the conniving ones though.

[+ WilliamM]

My inside voice was telling him "you're not exactly John Wayne."

 

Interesting. I saw John Wayne promoting a film in Boston. He was not "John Wayne" either.

[Kenny]

I have a confession to make. I love straight guys. Not to have sex with or chase after. Not neanderthal, homophobic redneck straight guys, but sensitive, aware 21st-century straight guys to have as friends.

One of the least homophobic guys I have ever known is straight. Until I learned otherwise for certain, I assumed when we met that he was gay. Nope.

[Rudynate]

One of the least homophobic guys I have ever known is straight. Until I learned otherwise for certain, I assumed when we met that he was gay. Nope.

 

 

I like those types, where you just can't tell.

[+ Lance_Navarro]

Interesting. I saw John Wayne promoting a film in Boston. He was not "John Wayne" either.

Interesting. I saw John Wayne promoting a film in Boston. He was not "John Wayne" either.

[Walker1]

I wonder if it has got to do with the times? When I was growing up and where I was growing up, there was a lot of shame in being gay. Like something was wrong with you. I internalized it and it took a while to be comfortable with myself and say F U to people who didn't agree with my lifestyle or choice.

 

But I wonder young adults today, do they grow up with the same shame? Also I am seeing among them many comfortable with sexuality that they play both sides. I myself am beginning to find women attractive -which I never did before. But men are my main thing and have never gone all the way with a woman.

 

In say Uganda or some middle eastern country, you have to hide the gay side or you could end up dead and your whole family shamed. That is different and while I was growing up, being gay was considered to be some sort of sick in the head unnatural thing by my family that was practiced by the big city freaks. Nobody I knew even talked about it .

 

I wouldn't say I am homophobic, but I am sure some of those attitudes must still be hidden in my psyche. I remember going to a rodeo event. There was a mother with a 13-15 yr old kid, flamboyant as could be , dressed like a girl and did not care at all about all the stares and was enjoying him/herself. I was actually embarrassed and wished he would be more appropriate for the location. But it kept bothering me and I realized it kind made me feel uncomfortable as I was so used to behaving "appropriately" in situations and only let my guard down in gay friendly locations. In a way it was poking me as to why I was continuing to behave that way. I am far more open now-as in I don't care. I am never going to shout from the rooftops that I am gay, but neither do straight guys-that I am attracted to men mostly is just part of my life and does not make me ME.

 

Maybe it was homophobia or your own feelings trying to burst out of your carefully constructed ego and you trying to make sure Humpty Dumpty does not break -who knows. In addition, we must be cognizant that it is legal to execute someone for the crime of being gay in some countries and in other countries while not death, punishment may be severe. So apart from western nations, gays have good reason to be afraid.

[Rudynate]

I wonder if it has got to do with the times? When I was growing up and where I was growing up, there was a lot of shame in being gay. Like something was wrong with you. I internalized it and it took a while to be comfortable with myself and say F U to people who didn't agree with my lifestyle or choice.

 

But I wonder young adults today, do they grow up with the same shame? Also I am seeing among them many comfortable with sexuality that they play both sides. I myself am beginning to find women attractive -which I never did before. But men are my main thing and have never gone all the way with a woman.

 

In say Uganda or some middle eastern country, you have to hide the gay side or you could end up dead and your whole family shamed. That is different and while I was growing up, being gay was considered to be some sort of sick in the head unnatural thing by my family that was practiced by the big city freaks. Nobody I knew even talked about it .

 

I wouldn't say I am homophobic, but I am sure some of those attitudes must still be hidden in my psyche. I remember going to a rodeo event. There was a mother with a 13-15 yr old kid, flamboyant as could be , dressed like a girl and did not care at all about all the stares and was enjoying him/herself. I was actually embarrassed and wished he would be more appropriate for the location. But it kept bothering me and I realized it kind made me feel uncomfortable as I was so used to behaving "appropriately" in situations and only let my guard down in gay friendly locations. In a way it was poking me as to why I was continuing to behave that way. I am far more open now-as in I don't care. I am never going to shout from the rooftops that I am gay, but neither do straight guys-that I am attracted to men mostly is just part of my life and does not make me ME.

 

Maybe it was homophobia or your own feelings trying to burst out of your carefully constructed ego and you trying to make sure Humpty Dumpty does not break -who knows. In addition, we must be cognizant that it is legal to execute someone for the crime of being gay in some countries and in other countries while not death, punishment may be severe. So apart from western nations, gays have good reason to be afraid.

 

I saw an episode of a talk show in the 80s, - I think it was "Geraldo." The topic for the day was racism and Geraldo had invited a group of black professionals - mental health professionals, academics and so on. It was a great panel. At one point, the panelists were taking questions from the audience. One young white boy stood up and talked about his racism, and how it seemed to have been burned into his brain. He wanted to be free of it, but didn't know how. One of the panelists, respectfully and gently, said to him, "It's not your fault. You're a product of a racist system, you can't help but be racist." In that one interaction, the mechanisms of self-oppression became crystal-clear to me. We are products of a homophobic system - we can't help but be homophobic. Those awful things that gays used to say about each other? We were only saying what we'd been taught to say.

[LivingnLA]

This is such a wonderful thread. Thank you again for creating it @Lance_Navarro and to everyone for contributing so openly and generously.

 

I imagine it's clear from my post history that I have a "thing" for "straight guys." I've spent years working on my internalized homophobia, racism, and sexism. I've been able to "turn down the volume" on many irrational fears and thoughts developed over my lifetime. I've learned many interesting things about myself and where I come from and I hope that has made me a better father, husband, and man.

 

One of the most challenging issues that I struggle with to this day, is the foundational sexism that underpins homophobia and how that is informed by racism. It's undoubtedly self-absorbed to think so, but I feel as though my emotions are uniquely challenging because I love my wife and the life I've built with her and I also enjoy sex with men. In some ways, I've never felt so free or had such amazing sex as when I'm on my back watching a well built man look down at me as he fucks me. The way it feels to have my legs held open. To want him deeper. The desire to pull him down to kiss him is a very new feeling for me. To realize that my role can be so very different in that situation and what it does to my self-concept and my point of view.

 

I'm rambling some-what, because this profound experience happened this week with a straight guy I've known for many years. I know all of the variables leading up to this experience but I haven't fully processed everything. So you're getting this some-what stream-of-consciousness. I am sorry if it's incoherent. Discoveries frequently are chaotic, accidental, or even tangential. I look forward to processing this recent experience and trying to understand what it means to and for me.

 

All of this, though, I hope will largely be a relic in a generation or two. At least for those privileged enough to have good educations and Internet access. I see it in my kids. My oldest son has a fluidity to his intimacy, physicality, and sexuality that's incredibly challenging for me to understand but as his father, I'm incredibly proud of him. And his siblings are even more complex in some ways. On these topics, I for one, look forward to a brighter future built by the next generation. I hope they consign much of this old baggage to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

Edited December 16, 2017 by LivingnLA

[+ sniper]

 

I'm rambling some-what, because this profound experience happened this week with a straight guy I've known for many years. I know all of the variables leading up to this experience but I haven't fully processed everything.

 

SPILL, girlfriend!

[LivingnLA]

SPILL, girlfriend!

 

It feels private. Like when I'm with my wife. I apologize, but I'd rather not "SPILL."

 

It's unusual for me. Poly has always been intellectually and philosophically interesting but theoretical. I haven't had time to go over everything and settle my thoughts and feelings, but I suspect this man, who's well over a decade younger and happily engaged to a wonderful woman, means more to me than "just" a fbuddy. It's the strangest and most intimate mentor/mentee relationship I've ever had and I need to navigate all of this carefully.

[Walker1]

 

On these topics, I for one, look forward to a brighter future built by the next generation. I hope they consign much of this old baggage to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

 

I don't know. The Ancient Romans and Greek somehow accepted gay love or sex at least. Except they seemed to marry have kids and after a certain age seemed to take on young males as lovers/mentors.

 

From what I hear from my colleagues, many women lose interest in sex after a bit. So maybe it just made sense. Who knows what happened behind closed doors, back then? They didn't have cameras/videos etc-so maybe they were just randy and pretended to be what society wanted them to be?

 

Sexuality has always been fluid, though conservatism seems to clamp down on it and wants to focus on certain acceptable behaviors. It is fascinating indeed.

[samhexum]

[Kenny]

I don't know. The Ancient Romans and Greek somehow accepted gay love or sex at least. Except they seemed to marry have kids and after a certain age seemed to take on young males as lovers.

 

Sexuality has always been fluid, though conservatism seems to clamp down on it and wants to focus on certain acceptable behaviors. It is fascinating indeed.

Hm. Not exactly. As they say, it’s complicated!

 

In ancient Greece, sex was generally understood in terms of dominance, rather than a matter of the sexes of the participants. Sex with a boy was not considered to be a homosexual act, given that the “man” would be taking on a dominant role, and his disciple would be taking on a passive one (“like” a woman). Adult sex between men was considered unacceptable. When intercourse occurred between two people of the same gender, it still wasn’t entirely regarded as a homosexual union, given that one partner would have to take on a passive role, and would therefore no longer be considered a “man” in terms of the sexual union. The passive adult role was looked down on.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Hm. Not exactly. As they say, it’s complicated!

 

In ancient Greece, sex was generally understood in terms of dominance, rather than a matter of the sexes of the participants. Sex with a boy was not considered to be a homosexual act, given that the “man” would be taking on a dominant role, and his disciple would be taking on a passive one (“like” a woman). Adult sex between men was considered unacceptable. When intercourse occurred between two people of the same gender, it still wasn’t entirely regarded as a homosexual union, given that one partner would have to take on a passive role, and would therefore no longer be considered a “man” in terms of the sexual union. The passive adult role was looked down on.

 

It was even more complicated than that. Norms would change from one city state to other.

We cannot properly understand others cultures' sexuality if we look at them from our modern sexual identities.

[Rudynate]

There's lots of difference of opinion on this. You get different stories depending on the historian and his/her bias.

[+ José Soplanucas]

There's lots of difference of opinion on this. You get different stories depending on the historian and his/her bias.

 

I was there.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdrmq2mFZK1qchfeio1_r1_250.gif

[LivingnLA]

I don't know. The Ancient Romans and Greek somehow accepted gay love or sex at least. Except they seemed to marry have kids and after a certain age seemed to take on young males as lovers/mentors.

 

From what I hear from my colleagues, many women lose interest in sex after a bit. So maybe it just made sense. Who knows what happened behind closed doors, back then? They didn't have cameras/videos etc-so maybe they were just randy and pretended to be what society wanted them to be?

 

Sexuality has always been fluid, though conservatism seems to clamp down on it and wants to focus on certain acceptable behaviors. It is fascinating indeed.

 

The Romans and Greeks had completely different understandings of all this stuff compared to modern thinking. The heterosexual and homosexual binary is only a little over a century old. For the Greeks and Romans, man on man sex had much more to do with class/power dynamics that are probably the roots of modern "machismo" concepts in Latin countries. The Romans were similar in many ways to the Greeks, but the Greeks also engaged in pederasty as their adult men of substance would frequently have a young teen boy who would take a submissive role with them for years in exchange for education, development, mentoring, etc.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

 

The expectation that "women lose interest in sex after a bit" is an interesting and complex phenomena. There are some women who seem to have biological reasons for the loss of their libido. And yes, menopause is a powerful change, but many women have wonderful sex lives well into their "golden years." Excluding the cases that seem to have physiological causes, I suspect it's more a reflection on a variety of cultural and psychological issues coupled with your colleagues and their commitments with their women to have healthy and happy sex lives. Relationships take work and keeping sex/intimacy alive and active in a marriage after decades takes time, energy, and commitment by everyone in the marriage.

 

https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2017/sexual-desire-declines-with-age-fd.html

Edited December 22, 2017 by LivingnLA

[+ sniper]

Hm. Not exactly. As they say, it’s complicated!

 

In ancient Greece, sex was generally understood in terms of dominance, rather than a matter of the sexes of the participants. Sex with a boy was not considered to be a homosexual act, given that the “man” would be taking on a dominant role, and his disciple would be taking on a passive one (“like” a woman). Adult sex between men was considered unacceptable. When intercourse occurred between two people of the same gender, it still wasn’t entirely regarded as a homosexual union, given that one partner would have to take on a passive role, and would therefore no longer be considered a “man” in terms of the sexual union. The passive adult role was looked down on.

 

There are plenty of places that view of it prevails today.

[Kenny]

There are plenty of places that view of it prevails today.

Could be. It was repressive 2,300 years ago too.

[longtime lurker]

Hm. Not exactly. As they say, it’s complicated!

 

In ancient Greece, sex was generally understood in terms of dominance, rather than a matter of the sexes of the participants. Sex with a boy was not considered to be a homosexual act, given that the “man” would be taking on a dominant role, and his disciple would be taking on a passive one (“like” a woman). Adult sex between men was considered unacceptable. When intercourse occurred between two people of the same gender, it still wasn’t entirely regarded as a homosexual union, given that one partner would have to take on a passive role, and would therefore no longer be considered a “man” in terms of the sexual union. The passive adult role was looked down on.

 

Ha ha! This video is tailor made for you. Watch with caution...

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by longtime lurker

[SuenosAmor]

I have a lot of internalized homophobia, which I've been working through for most of my life. I've been out since my teens, but it wasn't until my 40s when I became 100% confident having sex with men.

Edited December 23, 2017 by SuenosAmor