|
|
Re: Homosexuality: male & female
Stephen Barnard (steve@megafauna.com)
Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:25:30 -0800
The very lovely and talented Lars Eigner said:
>One of the wierdest stories I've heard about justifying bisexuality is
>based on this positional argument. If a man enters another man, then the
>man doing the entry (the aggressor in other words) is still considered a
>completely straight guy, but the guy who was being entered is considered a
>pansy. The justification here is that the aggressor "is just being a man"
>by letting his penis enter any old hole, but the man that allowed that
>penis to enter him is a pansy for letting anything enter him. This is the
>justification used by some Pakistani and Indian men from working class
>backgrounds.
>
>These are all ways to avoid being labled homosexual or bisexual. They are
>excuses in other words.
And then, in respose to Yousuf Khan, who wrote:
>
> >Yes, but doesn't it just go to show how far off people are in their
> >definitions of what is homosexual and what is heterosexual behaviour?
>
the ever more lovely and talented Lars wrote:
> This impression comes from looking at these cultures through our
> own biases. To them, that the partners have genitals of the same
> sex is immaterial. They haven't misidentified homosexual behaviour;
> "homosexual behaviour" is a meaningless concept to them. Rather, their
> concern is whether the person's behavior is consistent with the
> person's role. Two males in the masculine role are forbidden to
> have sex, not because they are of the same sex, but because one
> of them would have to violate the boundaries of his role. However,
> if one of the biological males is in a nonmasculine gender, the
> same people will see nothing wrong with his having sex with a
> male in the masculine role.
>
> Does this make their definitions "off"? Only if you agree
> that people's genitals should be the absolute determinate
> of their behavior. Needless to say, there is no reason a
> priori to assume that one view is superior to other, that one
> is the "right" way of looking of things and the other mistaken.
>
I would say that calling something "weird" and making "excuses" shows a
fair degree of bias. Perhaps the very lovely and talented Lars believes
that everyone else's opinions are due to "bias" but that his own
opinions are cold, hard fact.
Steve Barnard
|