|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The future of sexuality
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
Fascinating article here by Peter Tatchall:
The end of LBGT?
"Homosexuality as a separate, exclusive orientation and identity will begin to fade (so will its mirror opposite, heterosexuality), as humanity evolves into a sexually enlightened and accepting society."
Wow. Whatever you may think of Tatchall, no one can deny he is a) A major voice in the conversation on sexuality b) insightful on cultural trends and c) forthright in his views.
What he is saying in this short and under-publicised article is, I think, quite revolutionary. He's saying something distinctly new, and out of step with the doctrines of the LGBT movement over the last 30 or 40 years it seems to me.
The LGBT community has always in most public debate, fiercely opposed the idea that sexuality is cultural, and argued for the "born gay" hypothosis.
This in turn implies a quite clear deliniation between gay and straight. That has two effects: Firstly it acts as a platform for the fight for gay rights, but, in a strange way, it also acts to allay the fears of the social conservatives who are paranoid about a "gay takeover" etc. The gay community says "don't worry we aren't coming for you..we won't change YOUR sexuality (or that of your childrens)". If you are "born gay", then by the same token you are "born straight".
Tatchell seems to be taking, therefore, a big step out of the "orthodoxy" of the LGBT camp. The final four paragraphs are, I would suggest, sociological dynamite. While I disagree with him about whether this is a good thing or not, I actually am impressed with Tatchell for so clearly and starkly putting his vision of the future out there for debate and applaud him for it. I wonder what others think?
Is he getting flak from the gay community for this stance? Does it have implications for the church with regards to gay marriage? Is this a divisive issue within the gay community?
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think it's a new idea really - radical feminists and some gender theorists have argued for decades that sex, gender and sexuality are not fixed categories, but are (partly) socially constructed. And also that as patriarchal society begins to unwind, many apparently fixed things will start to dissolve and blend.
Hence, some people no longer talk about gay marriage, but just marriage.
However, no doubt Tatchell's imprimatur will give it some publicity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
This in turn implies a quite clear deliniation between gay and straight.
No it doesn't. Any bisexual person will tell you that it doesn't. Anyone who is anywhere on the Kinsey scale except the two ends will tell you that it doesn't.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Tachell's last line says that true sexual freedom will come when we quit labeling ourselves with restrictions and I believe that -- just as I believe racism won't end until we quit defining ourselves by race labels.
But I think the future of sexuality is this. Most people will be having sex by themselves, in front of their PCs.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
This in turn implies a quite clear deliniation between gay and straight.
No it doesn't. Any bisexual person will tell you that it doesn't. Anyone who is anywhere on the Kinsey scale except the two ends will tell you that it doesn't.
To expand: the "born gay" hypothesis does not say that everyone is either born straight or born gay. It says that a person's sexuality is innate, whatever that sexuality may be. It doesn't imply that what is 'innate' in a person is always exclusive attraction to one gender.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what Tatchall is saying. What he's saying is that in the future no one is going to care. People won't (and indeed generally don't IME) talk about Gay Marriage. It's just marriage.
He's not saying that sexuality is just cultural. He's saying how we treat it and what we stigmatise, and what's a big issue is cultural. And that the rising generation simply don't care who you screw or how as long as it's safe, sane, and consensual.
People will therefore no longer need to identify as homosexual because if the bigots aren't throwing rocks (not all of which have been metaphorical) there isn't the need to band together over this part of your identity. It will become a factor more like the colour of your eyes - a part of you but one many people won't notice and most of those who do won't worry about. And if there's no stigma aimed either way, people will be freer to explore and not have to worry about identity politics - and most people aren't at the ends of the Kinsey Scale.
I see very little surprising here.
As for implications for the Church regarding gay marriage, the implication this is based on is that the Church has already lost. The only thing its continuing opposition to Gay Marriage is doing is losing even more of the younger generation and further diminishing its already tattered moral authority.
[ 03. September 2014, 12:16: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what Tatchall is saying. What he's saying is that in the future no one is going to care. People won't (and indeed generally don't IME) talk about Gay Marriage. It's just marriage.
He's not saying that sexuality is just cultural. He's saying how we treat it and what we stigmatise, and what's a big issue is cultural.
I agree. That's how I read the article as well.
'Gay bars' are tending to die out because young LGBT people now feel safe, comfortable and accepted in just plain old bars. The separate identity is decreasing because the drivers for being separate are not what they once were. Younger people tend to treat sexuality as a piece of information that's only relevant for the limited purpose of asking someone out on a date.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
This in turn implies a quite clear deliniation between gay and straight.
No it doesn't. Any bisexual person will tell you that it doesn't. Anyone who is anywhere on the Kinsey scale except the two ends will tell you that it doesn't.
To expand: the "born gay" hypothesis does not say that everyone is either born straight or born gay. It says that a person's sexuality is innate, whatever that sexuality may be. It doesn't imply that what is 'innate' in a person is always exclusive attraction to one gender.
Yes, To be forensically fair, you can add other catagories. "Born Bisexual", "Born Transgender" etc etc. That wasn't the point. The point is you are "Born X"...whatever "X" may happen to be for you.
Tatchell at least, doesn't think people are "Born X", whatever X may be...otherwise his article wouldn't make any sense.
Take this paragraph:
"Human sexuality is much more complex, diverse and blurred than the traditional simplistic binary image of hetero and homo, so loved by straight moralists and - more significantly - by many lesbians and gay men."
Tatchell pretty obviously, is not simply meaning by this "There are bisexual people too you know". That's a point too obvious to be worth making. No, what he's saying is that for each individual their innate sexuality is more blurred than a homo/hetero distinction.
If you like, he's implying that we're all, as a tabula rasa bisexual and pushed or pulled by culture, personality, sheer chance..whatever...towards a particular identity "Straight", "Gay", "bisexual".
His implication is that as society starts to care less about whether people are straight or gay, there will be a shift towards a "bisexual norm". with both exclusive hetero and homosexuality seen as lying at the peripheries of human sexual behaviour, rather than it's core.
That's what he seems to be saying to me, anyway. What else am I to make of this comment?
"The vast majority of people will be open to the possibility of both opposite-sex and same-sex desires"
or this:
"Homosexuality as a separate, exclusive orientation and identity will begin to fade (so will its mirror opposite, heterosexuality)"
Whether he's right is debatable, but that does clearly seem to be what he is saying.
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
He's arguing for pansexuality. Basically "fuck anything homosapiens with a pulse".
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
He's arguing for pansexuality. Basically "fuck anything homosapiens with a pulse".
Nope. He's arguing for sexuality not being a big issue. Basically "It doesn't matter who your neighbour is fucking as long as it's safe, sane, and consensual."
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
Tatchell pretty obviously, is not simply meaning by this "There are bisexual people too you know". That's a point too obvious to be worth making.
Why would you say that? Bisexual and transgender people have to constantly remind people that they exist, right here on this Ship. In fact, I reminded you on this very thread. That's exactly the point you're now responding to and acknowledging.
If he's saying, as you claim, that 'for each individual' he's more blurred, then he's presumptuous, patronising and wrong. I spent quite enough years being told I was supposed to be sexually attracted to women, ie be straight. The plain fact is that I don't need to be told now that while it's okay for me to be attracted to men, I'm really attracted to women as well, ie some level of bisexual. That's just the same assertion as before dressed up with a bit more tolerance.
But I simply don't think that's what he's saying.
[ 03. September 2014, 13:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
[Q]If he's saying, as you claim, that 'for each individual' he's more blurred, then he's presumptuous, patronising and wrong.
[/QB]
Well, actually, that's exactly what I think he is saying. And that was precisely what interested me about this article. Is Tatchell actually putting himself out on a limb from his own brethren as it were? From your reaction, it sounds like he quite possibly is.
I think, with respect, you want him to be saying something that he's not...because what he IS saying is actually quite contraversial amongst gay people.
Tatchell has been a figurehead of the LGBT movement for a long time. I wonder if, he continues to say things like this, he might suffer a backlash from his own support base?
I just don't think he's saying anything as benign as "bisexual people exist too you know". The whole tone of the article doesn't fit with that. It's too much of a moot point for him to be writing an article about.
I think often, when someone we *think* we know where they stand on an issue says something that's distinctly out of keeping with the orthodoxy of their own group and our expectations, we tend to make excuses for it and say "oh well, what he may have SAID that, but what he actually meant was..."
You see it all the time with preachers. They say something which manifestly non-orthodox, and then people will tend to dance around it and say "Well, no, what I think he meant to say was.."
I invite you to read what Tatchell wrote carefully. In the mouth of someone other than a figure of the LGBT movement, I think you would be reading this article rather differently?
The point is Tatchell doesn't think this re-drawing of the boundaries of sexuality is a bad thing..he's all for it it seems, and fair play to him for that. He's got integrity to follow through on his own convictions, and I'll always respect that over someone who simply plays the mood music the crowd want to hear...even if I disagree.
[ 03. September 2014, 14:02: Message edited by: 3M Matt ]
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
He's arguing for pansexuality. Basically "fuck anything homosapiens with a pulse".
Thanks for that tone lowering response, but I don't think that IS what he's arguing for.
You *might* think that the way he sees things going could lead to a kind of pansexuality..but that's your (somewhat arguable) conclusion, not what he's saying.
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
I think, with respect, you want him to be saying something that he's not...because what he IS saying is actually quite contraversial amongst gay people.
I would have thought it was just as controversial amongst straight people. Telling people who are happily heterosexual that they ought to be more fluid in their sexuality would be every bit as insulting.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: In fact, I'd say your interpretation of the article is just driving towards the equal and opposite error. Instead of saying "everyone is heterosexual or homosexual" (which is wrong), you're driving towards "no-one is heterosexual or homosexual" (also wrong).
Tatchall's point, as both Justinian and I see it, is that such labels will cease to have significance. And I think that's true. But that does not mean that no-one will ever have an overwhelming/exclusive preference for one gender. Such a proposition flies in the face of the real-life experience of millions.
It certainly flies in the face of people such as myself who cannot possibly be said to have adopted their sexual preference on the basis of any kind of social or cultural pressure. It took me decades to admit that the preferences I actually felt were at odds with the ones that I felt pressured to have.
But it also flies in the face of all those men who enthusiastically loved women, and all those women who enthusiastically loved men, and who didn't ever feel some doubt or pang or uncertainty that maybe they wanted things to be different.
[ 03. September 2014, 14:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
I think, with respect, you want him to be saying something that he's not...because what he IS saying is actually quite contraversial amongst gay people.
I would have thought it was just as controversial amongst straight people.
Maybe just as controversial, but perhaps a little more accurate because of straight privilege. I know I was already an adult, and in fact engaged, before it occurred to me that I was definitely attracted to women too. Since I was a woman attracted to men, I hadn't had to think about whether I also liked people society didn't assume I would like. On the other hand, I'm not saying my sexuality changed, just that I hadn't thought about it before.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
(X-Post: this is still replying to 3M)
I didn't even read this paragraph closely - one of the ones you claim is 'sociological dynamite':
quote:
Gay identity is largely the product of anti-gay repression. It is a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. Faced with persecution for having same-sex relations, the human right to have those relationships has to be defended – hence gay identity and the LGBTI rights movement.
Before saying almost exactly the same thing in my post referring to gay bars.
I think he's absolutely correct. But he's talking about "gay identity" - defining yourself by reference to your sexuality. That's not remotely the same thing as having a homosexual preference.
[ 03. September 2014, 14:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I think this line of thinking will have quite an effect on the debate within the Church, which is nothing that I imagine Peter Tatchel to be concerned with.
Why I think this is that most Christians I know who accept homosexuals within the church do so on the basis that a heterosexual lifestyle is not an option for them, and would still support the traditional christian rejection of a freely chosen gay lifestyle instead of a straight lifestyle, given that both options are open.
I am also more of this persuasion, if I'm honest. This is not the place to get into dead-horse arguments, but I think I could mount a reasonable case for holding a heterosexual relationship as more in-line with christian ethics, but would not extend that to a condemnation of those to whom that is not open.
I do not know whether there is any official or majority view within the Christian LGBT community.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
I wonder how this would serve children and young people.
A friend of mine (now 60) took till she was 26 to realise she was a lesbian because all her lefty Quaker family and social community were so au fait and cool they never mentioned homosexuals/ lesbians at all. OTOH friends who grew up in very strict evangelical churches were aware of their orientation from a very young age because of all the raving against it from the pulpit.
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
I think, with respect, you want him to be saying something that he's not...because what he IS saying is actually quite contraversial amongst gay people.
I would have thought it was just as controversial amongst straight people.
Maybe just as controversial, but perhaps a little more accurate because of straight privilege. I know I was already an adult, and in fact engaged, before it occurred to me that I was definitely attracted to women too. Since I was a woman attracted to men, I hadn't had to think about whether I also liked people society didn't assume I would like. On the other hand, I'm not saying my sexuality changed, just that I hadn't thought about it before.
Yes, I agree. So long as at least some of your attraction is to the opposite gender, there's a lot less reason to push against cultural/social pressure to be attracted to the opposite gender.
I still suspect, though, that at least some people would genuinely find they were still overwhelmingly attracted to the opposite gender even if there was no pressure pushing towards that (just as I found myself overwhelmingly attracted to the same gender despite pressure pushing away from that).
We're never going to get really good data on just where most people fall on these scales until there's no pressure either way. But I'm quite sure I would have noticed if I had any latent heterosexual attraction. For many years, I would have eagerly jumped on any evidence of such attraction and used it as the basis for getting married. Heck, I did jump on any evidence of 'liking' girls, but unfortunately I couldn't ignore the fact that the attraction I felt wasn't sexual. To put it crudely, a girl never made my dick hard.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
Of course, in many other cultures, both historical and current (e.g ancient Greece, pre-colonial Africa, Oceania) Western labels such as gay and straight do not make any sense anyway. Sexuality is simply viewed in a very different way, not in a modernist Western sense where everything needs to be reduced into discreet categories.
So in that sense, Tatchall is simply moving to post-modernism.
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I think this line of thinking will have quite an effect on the debate within the Church, which is nothing that I imagine Peter Tatchel to be concerned with.
Why I think this is that most Christians I know who accept homosexuals within the church do so on the basis that a heterosexual lifestyle is not an option for them, and would still support the traditional christian rejection of a freely chosen gay lifestyle instead of a straight lifestyle, given that both options are open.
Tatchell is very concerned about the church debate because he sees the church as one of the biggest oppressors of LGBTs - it poisons minds with guilt.
As for 'lifestyle', gay and straight lifestyles are largely about shopping, doing the washing up and putting the rubbish out.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
Of course, in many other cultures, both historical and current (e.g ancient Greece, pre-colonial Africa, Oceania) Western labels such as gay and straight do not make any sense anyway. Sexuality is simply viewed in a very different way, not in a modernist Western sense where everything needs to be reduced into discreet categories.
So in that sense, Tatchall is simply moving to post-modernism.
Yes, in fact, I think he is summarizing various post-modern ideas about sex, gender and sexuality which have been around quite a long time. Certainly, in the 80s there was an explosion of material in gender studies, and the idea of 'performing gender' became current, plus of course, many feminist ideas about social construction.
But possibly such ideas are no longer in left-field, but have been absorbed into the mainstream. Hence, 'gay marriage' is an unnecessary term, as is also 'gay lifestyle'.
[ 03. September 2014, 14:57: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I'm not exactly sure how stonespring's thread on sexual choices fits in with Peter Tatchall's ideas, but they seem related. But I'm not sure one can squeeze a square, cerebral peg into a round sexual hole.
(Double entendre just noticed ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) )
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Following hostly consultation, this subject is being corralled and sent to Dead Horses. Feel free to continue just as impassionedly there.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
FWIW, I think 3M Matt is right - and orfeo is wrong - in identifying the main thrust of this article. The author is not merely acknowledging that there are some bisexual people (that there is a B in LGBTI). He is saying that the nature of human sexuality is such that labels like S(traight) and LGBTI do not really mean much, but simply designate narrow extremes on a wide sexual spectrum. The author does note (as does orfeo) that the reduction of "homophobia" means that the need to identify as LG in order to contribute to a culture war is rapidly fading. But he is a lot more radical than that. He is not just saying that there is no longer a need to publicly display these labels, he is saying that they are an artificial construct arising in response to S tyranny in the first place. These labels will not simply be packed away because the war has been won, they will dissolve entirely because they were never real but precisely as badges for that war. With the end of S tyranny, LGBTI will also go the way of the dodo. The author states:
quote:
Gay identity is largely the product of anti-gay repression. It is a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. ... The need to maintain sexual differences, boundaries and identities disappears (or reduces radically) with the demise of straight supremacism.
Furthermore, the author hammers home a point that many gays (and I think orfeo in particular) will be very uncomfortable with. Namely, he insists that the influence of socialisation and culture on one's sexuality is very strong, and hence that both S and LG people are sexually malleable along B lines. As the author notes:
quote:
If sexual orientation was completely biologically pre-programmed, these men would have never been able to switch to homosexuality and then to heterosexuality with such apparent ease. ... Indeed, although sexuality may be substantially affected by biological predispositions - such as genes and hormonal influences in the womb - other causal factors appear to include cultural norms, expectations and opportunities. These tend to channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others. ... Human sexuality is much more complex, diverse and blurred than the traditional simplistic binary image of hetero and homo, so loved by straight moralists and - more significantly - by many lesbians and gay men.
Thus the idea that one is "born to be LG" is refuted by the author just as much (perhaps more so, see last sentence) than that one is "born to be S". There may be a biological predisposition, with different strength in different people, but largely sexuality is an acquired and learned habit.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would have thought it was just as controversial amongst straight people. Telling people who are happily heterosexual that they ought to be more fluid in their sexuality would be every bit as insulting.
The author is not saying that people ought to be more fluid, he is saying that they are more fluid than often assumed. Rather ironically, that people are fluid concerning their sexuality is nowadays much more of a threat to typical LG positions than to "homophobic" S positions. That's because the latter say that people ought to be S, whereas the former often claim that they just are unchangeably LG.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
IngoB, spot on with everything you say.
We can debate whether Tatchall is RIGHT (as in Factually right - all sexuality will change over the next 100 years as a result of the LGBT revolution)
We can also debate whether that is morally RIGHT..
(but pleast..I'd really rather not)
But neither of those things interest me much here...what interests me is that a flagship campaigner of the LGBT movement is saying those things.
I wonder if there is an element of denial here about the depth and radical nature of what Tatchall is saying.
I reiterate: He's someone I disagree with much of the time, but I genuinely think this is an insightful and profound piece of writing his made here, and an extremely radical thing for someone from the heart of the LGBT community to say...and for that I applaud him.
I think he's quite likely right in his prediction..we just differ on whether it's a good thing or not.
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
He's arguing for pansexuality. Basically "fuck anything homosapiens with a pulse".
A) there are plenty of pansexual people out there, and their sexuality is innate so not something to be argued for or against, and B) that's not what pansexuality is about. It's simply not recognising a gender binary, so 'bisexual' is felt to be an inaccurate label. Some bisexual people (such as myself) would reject the gender binary and still call themselves bisexual, some other bisexual people do believe in a gender binary. So the line between pansexuality and bisexuality is blurry.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
he is saying that they are an artificial construct arising in response to S tyranny in the first place. These labels will not simply be packed away because the war has been won, they will dissolve entirely because they were never real but precisely as badges for that war.
The research he references is flawed. Kinsey needs to be heavily footnoted when referenced, the bias is more than obvious. As to the 1965 study, because a behaviour can be modified, this does not mean the behaviour is not innate.
The manifestation of homosexual desire in societies which are less accepting should be proof enough of this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
As a gay person deeply interested in gay rights... I had no idea whatsoever who Peter Tatchall was and so have just had to look him up on wikipedia. Also when people look into their crystal balls and start predicting the future, I generally take that with a grain of salt.
So some guy made a prediction about the future? Big whoop. I guess either he's right, in which case it's not particularly worth arguing about because he's right. Or he's wrong, in which case his opinion isn't worth discussing because he's wrong. That's the trouble with opinions about the future - unless they concern an event that is contingent (eg global warming, running out of oil) that we can take active action to prevent or cause, they're not really worth talking about.
I would express my own partial agreement with the views he espouses: I think that in future people won't bother to say "I'm straight" or "I'm gay" or even think about it themselves overly hard because no one will care. They will just fall in love with whoever they happen to fall in love with, without having to be at all defensive about it or justify their choice of mate to themselves or anyone else.
When you suggest his views are a threat to the gay position I tend to think you're a bit out of date. His views threaten one of the various arguments that was heavily relied on by LG advocates a decade or two ago. But the LG position has since won. It doesn't need arguments any more, or insofar as it does ever need any arguments I am increasingly convinced myself that the only argument ever needed is: "Being nasty to gay people hurts them. Don't do it."
[ 03. September 2014, 21:00: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Tatchell, and others in the po-mo camp, need to be extremely careful with this.
Conservatives have jumped on Queer Theory with glee, and used it to back their gay cure agenda. They'd love nothing better than to eliminate "gay identity," not in the cause of liberation, but as a first step to eliminating homosexuality itself.
To see how easily this can be subverted, witness all those self-loathing "same-sex attracted" evangelicals who get wheeled out. The iron law of unintended consequences is never far away.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I would express my own partial agreement with the views he espouses: I think that in future people won't bother to say "I'm straight" or "I'm gay" or even think about it themselves overly hard because no one will care. They will just fall in love with whoever they happen to fall in love with, without having to be at all defensive about it or justify their choice of mate to themselves or anyone else.
Well, not exactly. Preference won't disapear just because no one cares. No more than the colour of my skin changes is I am someplace where no one cares. So people will still be interested in identification even should they place no right or wrong value.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, I think 3M Matt is right - and orfeo is wrong - in identifying the main thrust of this article. The author is not merely acknowledging that there are some bisexual people (that there is a B in LGBTI). He is saying that the nature of human sexuality is such that labels like S(traight) and LGBTI do not really mean much, but simply designate narrow extremes on a wide sexual spectrum. The author does note (as does orfeo) that the reduction of "homophobia" means that the need to identify as LG in order to contribute to a culture war is rapidly fading. But he is a lot more radical than that. He is not just saying that there is no longer a need to publicly display these labels, he is saying that they are an artificial construct arising in response to S tyranny in the first place. These labels will not simply be packed away because the war has been won, they will dissolve entirely because they were never real but precisely as badges for that war. With the end of S tyranny, LGBTI will also go the way of the dodo. The author states:
quote:
Gay identity is largely the product of anti-gay repression. It is a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. ... The need to maintain sexual differences, boundaries and identities disappears (or reduces radically) with the demise of straight supremacism.
Furthermore, the author hammers home a point that many gays (and I think orfeo in particular) will be very uncomfortable with. Namely, he insists that the influence of socialisation and culture on one's sexuality is very strong, and hence that both S and LG people are sexually malleable along B lines. As the author notes:
quote:
If sexual orientation was completely biologically pre-programmed, these men would have never been able to switch to homosexuality and then to heterosexuality with such apparent ease. ... Indeed, although sexuality may be substantially affected by biological predispositions - such as genes and hormonal influences in the womb - other causal factors appear to include cultural norms, expectations and opportunities. These tend to channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others. ... Human sexuality is much more complex, diverse and blurred than the traditional simplistic binary image of hetero and homo, so loved by straight moralists and - more significantly - by many lesbians and gay men.
Thus the idea that one is "born to be LG" is refuted by the author just as much (perhaps more so, see last sentence) than that one is "born to be S". There may be a biological predisposition, with different strength in different people, but largely sexuality is an acquired and learned habit.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would have thought it was just as controversial amongst straight people. Telling people who are happily heterosexual that they ought to be more fluid in their sexuality would be every bit as insulting.
The author is not saying that people ought to be more fluid, he is saying that they are more fluid than often assumed. Rather ironically, that people are fluid concerning their sexuality is nowadays much more of a threat to typical LG positions than to "homophobic" S positions. That's because the latter say that people ought to be S, whereas the former often claim that they just are unchangeably LG.
I don't think I'm saying half what you appear to think I'm saying.
I don't believe in a simplistic binary image.
And I entirely agree that "although sexuality may be substantially affected by biological predispositions - such as genes and hormonal influences in the womb - other causal factors appear to include cultural norms, expectations and opportunities. These tend to channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others."
The only place I part company is that I don't leap to the conclusion you have, which is not in the text, that there are NO entirely straight or entirely gay people.
Because that involves a proposition that I, as an individual, am attracted solely to men because of cultural norms, expectations and opportunities. A proposition I know to be rubbish.
The problem isn't with the notion that there's actually a wide and varied spectrum and that not nearly as many people are at the extreme ends as is usually supposed. The problem is with exaggerating this and claiming that NO-ONE is at the ends. This simply isn't what Tatchall says anywhere.
The biggest problem is equating sexuality with current behaviour. Which it appears the article may do at one point. As I've stated many times on the Ship, I did not act on my sexual attraction to men for nearly 2 decades. But any proposition that I was not, therefore, homosexual during that period is nonsense. I felt the attraction to men acutely throughout that period.
[ 03. September 2014, 23:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Frankly, I don't think some of you aware that there are gay and lesbian people who treat anyone who shows any same-sex attraction as purely homosexual: "you must be gay, you're just not admitting it because of social pressure".
That is what Tatchall is speaking against in terms of binary viewpoints. And he's entirely correct. But nowhere does he turn around and say to those people "you must NOT be gay".
Frankly, it's ironic that an article that's all about not shoving people into boxes is leading some of you to try to shove me into a box. The entire point of the article is that we'll be a hell of a lot better off when people stop trying to shove other people into boxes and telling them who they are and are not attracted to. If I'm sexually attracted to a woman, I'll be the first to know, not you.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, I don't think some of you aware that there are gay and lesbian people who treat anyone who shows any same-sex attraction as purely homosexual: "you must be gay, you're just not admitting it because of social pressure".
This. LGBT circles aren't some mythical bastion of tolerance; there's a joke that in practice it's more like "l G!!! ... t?" with bisexuals not existing at all. Bisexual erasure is a well known phenomenon in the gay community (as it is in mainstream culture, of course). And that is what Tatchall is opposing here.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I've always suspected that goal of radical groups of gays and feminists is to make men effeminate. Reading this I'm even more convinced of that. It's straight from the devil himself.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
What is so awful about being 'effeminate' - whatever that means? Even if I accepted your notion of a radical agenda - which I don't - what harm would this effeminacy cause? What's so dreadful about a man that has qualities you would label as feminine?
You're reminding me of the pamphlet from the 1980s that said our Sex Discrimination Act was a Communist plot to weaken the nation so that they could invade.
[ 04. September 2014, 03:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The idea is that by taking away their masculinity they're easier to subvert.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The idea is that by taking away their masculinity they're easier to subvert.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) What qualities of "masculinity" would be taken away? What feminine qualities would be added? And in what way would that be bad? If feminine qualities are bad, why are they good for women?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The idea is that by taking away their masculinity they're easier to subvert.
I'm just trying to imagine RuPaul and the Lady Chablis being "easy to subvert."
It reminds me of "Drag Queens of Gor":
quote:
Gor #61, Drag Queens of Gor - The final, thrilling conclusion of the trilogy begun by Hairdressers of Gor. In it, the even the mighty Tarl Cabot finds himself helpless to stand against a virtual army of junior cosmetologists dressed in well printed silk robes as they bitch-slap, pinch and embarrass him nearly to death. Too, he decrees finally that the Priest-Kings should heretofore forbid all Gorean slavers to raid anywhere near the Castro District on Earth to avoid any further such embarrassing mistakes.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The entire point of the article is that we'll be a hell of a lot better off when people stop trying to shove other people into boxes and telling them who they are and are not attracted to. If I'm sexually attracted to a woman, I'll be the first to know, not you.
Gloria in excelsis deo
Here I agree with Orfeo
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I've always suspected that goal of radical groups of gays and feminists is to make men effeminate. Reading this I'm even more convinced of that. It's straight from the devil himself.
Go on them, tell Gareth Thomas he is a delicate little flower.
Not that there would be any problem of he was.
[ 04. September 2014, 03:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The idea is that by taking away their masculinity they're easier to subvert.
What qualities of "masculinity" would be taken away? What feminine qualities would be added? And in what way would that be bad? If feminine qualities are bad, why are they good for women?
Feminine qualities in women are indeed good, just not in men. Effeminacy in a man is in a sense shameful thing which is why the ancients, for example, often castrated and fucked their slaves. By emasculating them they were easy to subvert. Modern ideas of sexuality and gender do the same thing. They make boys into girls and girls into boys. The idea isn't even to make all equal, it's an attempt to subvert the alpha male.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The alpha male. That is amusing. By definition, there is 1 per any group. The rest of you are his bitches.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Feminine qualities in women are indeed good, just not in men. Effeminacy in a man is in a sense shameful thing which is why the ancients, for example, often castrated and fucked their slaves. By emasculating them they were easy to subvert. Modern ideas of sexuality and gender do the same thing. They make boys into girls and girls into boys. The idea isn't even to make all equal, it's an attempt to subvert the alpha male.
"Feminine" and "masculine" qualities are not immutable things handed down from on high. They are cultural constructs that have little to do with biological women and men, not to mention transpeople and intersex people. Being an "effiminate" man is not naturally, essentially, or inevitably shameful -- it's only shameful in a culture that for whatever fucked-up reason places less value on women than on men and imputes to women certain qualities it deems less valuable than others. But there is nothing naturally shameful or degrading about wearing a skirt (ask the Scots!) or treating people tenderly (ask any loving father) or holding hands (ask lots of men from around the world) or skipping (ask a happy five-year-old boy).
In other words, despite being a man, you could not be more wrong.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The idea is that by taking away their masculinity they're easier to subvert.
What qualities of "masculinity" would be taken away? What feminine qualities would be added? And in what way would that be bad? If feminine qualities are bad, why are they good for women?
Feminine qualities in women are indeed good, just not in men. Effeminacy in a man is in a sense shameful thing which is why the ancients, for example, often castrated and fucked their slaves. By emasculating them they were easy to subvert. Modern ideas of sexuality and gender do the same thing. They make boys into girls and girls into boys. The idea isn't even to make all equal, it's an attempt to subvert the alpha male.
Could you please answer more completely on what masculine qualities are being subverted?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
