People are conservative. We do not like that which deviates from our norms, or ways of doing things. On a sliding scale, as something becomes more personal to us, we are less likely to alter our own behavior, let alone tolerate another's deviant actions. We are especially conservative when it comes to sex; this because, sex is what we are: it is the means through which we were created; it is how we express our wants, needs, desires; and it is how we insure our immortality -- through the procreativeness of it -- through our children.

Sex is the most intimate experience we have, both with another, and with ourselves. As such, it is not surprising how blindly conservative, how utterly intolerant of normative mutation we people are when it comes to this facet of life that is so close to home. And it is now understandable how we "normal" people, us heterosexuals, find "them," homosexuals, so utterly repulsive and degenerate.

But even so, although we find them undesirable as a group, there is one tolerated sub-crossing where the tension is exponentially greater than its nearest partner. To understand this, I need first to list the sub-crossings of tolerance, and then describe them. We know there to be straight (non-gay) males and straight females. We also know there are gay (homosexual) males and lesbian females. When crossing these four groups, we get four sub-crossings of tolerance: straight male / gay male, straight male / lesbian female, straight female / lesbian female, and straight female / gay male.

Let us first look at the straight female / gay male relationship. This interaction seems to be quite common and very acceptable to the straight women. In some cases, it seems that the woman prefers her gay male friend(s) to her straight male friend(s) because she can go out with them (the homosexual male(s)) and she doesn't have to worry about being "hit on" or feel in any other way sexually uneasy. She can just go out and have a good time, and go home alone after the night is through. Sex is not a requirement; it is not even a consideration in this experience. Thus, the women are allowed to just be themselves and have a good time, something they are not always able to do with straight men.

The second relationship, that which exists between heterosexual females / homosexual females, is a little more difficult in the real world, but still not that negatively applied or lived. If there is anything that can be said, it is that the majority of straight women feel sorry for their biologically maladapted sisters. It would be difficult, although certainly not impossible, to say that hetero-women feel threatened by lesbian women, as there are most certainly some women who are uncomfortable around homosexual women; but definitely not as many, and not as predominantly as in the instance of hetero-men / homosexual men (as I will discuss later). For the women who are homophobic, it seems to be more a phobia, or better yet, a strong dislike of the idea of being engaged in a sexual act with another woman. The occurrence of heterosexual-women being afraid that homosexual women will make advances toward them, or in some way violate them, while not nonexistent, is in fact very low; and considerably lower than in the hetero-male / homosexual-male crossing.

Our third group for discussion is that of the interactional crossing between heterosexual males / homosexual females. This is an interesting case; it seems to have several sides. In each instance, it boils down to what can the hetero-male get out of the relationship. First and foremost, men do not generally look down their noses at homosexual women, and they definitely do not fear them. Homosexual women seem to be treated not as women by hetero-males, but more like men trapped inside a woman's body. This makes interaction between the two considerably easier. In fact, it could almost be said that hetero-men think of homosexual-women as "just one of the guys," someone it is okay to go out on the town with, drinking, cussing, and most importantly, girl-scouting. The flip side, however, is that the lesbian women are, in fact, women; and although they are treated as men, by hetero-men, those same men still know they are women. This allows for another way in which hetero-men view lesbian women -- as opportunity. I have yet to meet a man, although I have heard of a few, who would not like to, if not to join in and be a third, at least watch two women "go at it" (have sex). And a lesbian woman can be seen as a tool to use to get one step closer. After all, their sexual practices are already taboo. Why not throw a little normality into the equation and include a man?

However entertaining this brief overview of the first three sub-crossings of tolerance has been, we are now about to embark upon the real purpose of this paper. We are about to discuss the relationship that exists between heterosexual men and homosexual men.

As we know, there is homophobia (fear of homosexuals) in our culture. However, what is not usually expounded upon, but usually obvious is that homophobia usually pertains to the hetero-person's feelings toward the homosexual person of the same gender. What this means is that it would be most likely for a straight female to be homophobic of a lesbian female and at worst, indifferent toward the gay male. As I have, and will show, this is definitely the case with straight men. Straight men, on the whole, we have said, do not seem to mind lesbian women. But the other side of the coin is that in our culture hetero-men, on the whole, are deathly afraid of gay men. It is so deeply woven into our lives and ways of living that if a straight male is not afraid, or at least critical of gay men, he is looked at funny, and even considered "limp wristed" (homosexual) by some straight men. Now that we have recognized the fear and brought it to center stage, we are left with the obvious question: why? Why are hetero-men so afraid of gay men? Better yet, why are hetero-men so afraid of gay men, when hetero-women do not display this great terror and anxiety toward lesbian women? My answer, while short and simple, is rather complicated.

From day one, the first thing our parents, grandparents, family, friends, doctor, etc., know about us, and want to know about us is, "is it a boy or a girl?". And they want to know this, not because it makes a difference in who we are, but it does make all the difference in the world as to who they think we are, and consequently, how they treat us. In earliest history, there has always been a huge contrast between men and women and their roles in society. Men have always been the aggressive conquerors who make those weaker than them subject to their rule; while women have always been the passive little do-it-to-me's. Heck, even the Bible distinctly and definitely declares man's and woman's roles, and all the differences in between. Now who can argue with a source like that; I mean, after all, it's God's own word, isn't it? Or is it?

I don't know, but I think I vaguely remember reading somewhere, or maybe I heard it said that our God, the Christian God, is one of tolerance and love. I don't know -- moot point. But what I am trying to get at, or better yet, demonstrate is that gender roles and biases are as old, and, in fact, older than our recorded history. To reiterate them, very briefly and simply, men are supposed to be dominant, and women are supposed to be passive, or submissive.

Now to the point. When we have a homosexual male, we have, as with all homosexuals, really (both male and female) someone for whom a gender role has yet to be defined. In fact, we have a mixing of gender roles that leaves us with sort of a gray color that society does not have a place designated for on its masterpiece, or more appropriately, working canvas.

While it would make sense that this would create an equally large problem for both homosexual men and women, society has an easier time dealing with homosexual women than homosexual men. When crossing these gender roles in a woman (what society sees as putting a man inside a woman's body), what we get is a masculine woman, upon whom society imposes the characteristics of acting dominantly and feeling free to exert her own will. Society already has a term for women who do this, who exert their own free will over others' attempts to exert their's on her, and the term is "Bitch." While not flattering, it is, none the less, a definition that we already have, for a type of behavior and way of being. Thus, we can classify, by a loose coalition, lesbian women into a preexisting gender role. But men are not the same way. Our society really has no good definition of what you get when you cross the body of a man with the sexual needs and wants of a woman. In fact, when stated like this, it seems like the premises of a joke with the punch line being the homosexual individual. This creates a problem for society, not to mention the individual in the said society.

Now for my hypothesis. It is my position and strong belief that the reason men in our culture are so homophobic is exactly because of this crossing of gender roles. We know from our upbringing that men are supposed to be dominant and aggressive. We also know that women are supposed to want, and pursue sexually, men. So what we get when we cross these two is a man who aggressively and dominantly pursues men for his own sexual gratification. We (heterosexual males) superimpose our own aggressive sexual tendencies and desires toward women upon these homosexual men; and thus, the fear is created by a feeling of the turning, or reversing of the gender roles. Heterosexual men feel like they are spring chickens helplessly waiting to be plucked by these homosexual men, much the same way heterosexual men view women as their submissive pets, or play things.

This is a real threat to a man, especially one who prides himself on his manliness, his ability to exert his will upon and over the will of others. To feel that his will will somehow be overridden in anything is a huge insult to him. To feel that his sexual being (something we have already determined to be at the core of our self identification) is in danger, is deadly.

We are very conservative beings. How else could you explain not having a good working definition for a people who have been with us since the beginning of time? What we need is a definition, and that definition should include tolerance, love, and acceptance.

Homosexual people are just that: people. They laugh, they hurt, and they love, just as heterosexual people do, maybe even more. Lord knows homosexual people are much more tolerant than heterosexual people are; they have to be, our society forces it. Heterosexual men don't have anything to fear. To know this, all they have to do is look within themselves. Heterosexual men are not attracted to all women out there. Neither are heterosexual women to all men, nor homosexual women to all women. So why would it follow that homosexual men are attracted to all men? From what does it follow? It doesn't. Furthermore, most heterosexual men do not overtly seek to dominate women, so why would they fear that all, or even most, homosexual men are seeking to dominate them? It does not make sense. We need that working definition, and we need it now, because our old way of dealing with homosexuals, as a cross between this and a cross between that, leaves us waiting for the punch line; and so long as we think of these people as punch lines in the joke of life, we cannot see them as people. And if we do not see them as people, how can we expect to treat them like people?

Back.

Home.

Downtown.

Questions; Answers; Comments? Talk to me.