homophobia

[cacian]

is it prevalent still?
and should literature get involved in getting head to head with it?
if so how?

[stlukesguild]

Far too prevalent... especially here in the US. What should literature do to confront it? This would seem to assume that literature is some monolithic entity when it is actually the collected product of thousands upon thousands of individual authors each of who has his or her own goals, ideals, biases, beliefs, interests, standards etc... From my own point of view as a visual artist I can say that there are many social and political issues that concern me... but don't inspire me as an artist. No artist is equipped or even interested in tackling every possible subject that might interest him or her. Personally, I have absolutely no use for any attempt to suggest what artists (or authors) SHOULD do with their art.

[Clopin]

Here's a fun test that anyone can do! First take an ordinary poster board, write something like "YES, Gary marriage, love knows no barriers" or something like that and go stand downtown in your city, then do the same thing a week later but with a poster board that has "God hates fags" on it, or something equally derogatory. Record which one gets you the most negative attention and then report back to us here!

[MANICHAEAN]

Dear Cacian

You might like to rephrase any mention of "getting head."

And while Clopin is introducing a fun religious element of homophobia, lets remember the current Pontiff has said "Who am I to judge?"

There have been a number of authors, who in their work have indirectly tackled this subject e.g James Baldwin. On the other hand I cannot immediately bring to mind, (apart from sections of the Old Testament and a number of African cardinals), any out and out gay bashing writers. Perhaps someone needs to bring me up to date.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

homophobia
Why do we involve this and expanding it in our literature society! One feeling homophobia must keep on his bed examining his bedstead legs and once in a while looking to the ceiling of his room perhaps could find solution to his defect ...I wonder

[Pompey Bum]

MANICHAEAN old horse! Glad am I to see you on these shores again! :)


On the other hand I cannot immediately bring to mind, (apart from sections of the Old Testament and a number of African cardinals), any out and out gay bashing writers. Perhaps someone needs to bring me up to date.

That particular view could be updated, yes. Paul's eschatological ethics as articulated in two of his most influential Epistles (and elsewhere) are indisputably anti-homosexual. In First Corinthians 6:9-11, he says,

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners [malakoi], practicing homosexuals [arsenokoitai], thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

In First Timothy 1:8-11, he says,

But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals [arsenokoitais], kidnappers, liars, perjurers—in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

Unfortunately these verses (and others, such as Romans 1:26-27) had a profound effect on the historical development of Christian gay hatred and continue to keep it alive in some circles today. Not everything can be blamed on the Jewish Bible.

[cacian]

Far too prevalent... especially here in the US. What should literature do to confront it? This would seem to assume that literature is some monolithic entity when it is actually the collected product of thousands upon thousands of individual authors each of who has his or her own goals, ideals, biases, beliefs, interests, standards etc... From my own point of view as a visual artist I can say that there are many social and political issues that concern me... but don't inspire me as an artist. No artist is equipped or even interested in tackling every possible subject that might interest him or her. Personally, I have absolutely no use for any attempt to suggest what artists (or authors) SHOULD do with their art.
''every possible subject'' is rather too challenging but I do not deem it impossible
homophobia is a subject that is very close if not dependent on how we express ourselves in books/language and so if it is prevalent than surely writing\literature is everything to do with it.

[desiresjab]

''every possible subject'' is rather too challenging but I do not deem it impossible
homophobia is a subject that is very close if not dependent on how we express ourselves in books/language and so if it is prevalent than surely writing\literature is everything to do with it.

Corps of writers setting out with an agenda is a recipe for boredom. The subject is boring to begin with.

[Danik 2016]

I don´t think of it as an agenda. That would be indeed boring. What I perceive is authors, artists and even cientists which shed new lights on the more ample themes of sexuality, sexual freedom and social marginality. Some names of the 19th/20th Century spring up, (mostly in Literature)but they need to be completed and updated.
US-Walt Whitmann and Tenesee Williams
UK-Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf and (more modestly) E. M. Forster (particularly his novel Maurice)
Spain- Frederico Garcia Lorca
Brazil- Guimarães Rosa, Caio Fernando Abreu, Marcelino Freire
Science
Austria- Siegmund Freud
France- Michel Foucauld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

[YesNo]

Even science is a form of literature. The survey by Alexander and Young, "The Chemistry Between Us", provides some insight into brain states peculiar to genders, pair-bonding and sexual orientation. Based on this I would say being homosexual is similar to being heterosexual: they are both made possible by brain organizations which are different.

[cacian]

Corps of writers setting out with an agenda is a recipe for boredom. The subject is boring to begin with.

the subject ids boring?
how is that?

[desiresjab]

the subject ids boring?
how is that?

I find all literature whose subject is being gay monumentally boring and preachy. The general public agrees. By and large only gays are interested. My friends who own a video store had to remove Brokeback Mountain from the shelves. After its initial run following heavy advertisements, no one wanted to see it anymore, it was not being rented.

Perhaps it is personal. There are some genres of entertainment that I cannot take. The uplifting sports story where an individual or a team overcomes great odds to capture glory is one that makes me puke. Rock and roll epics, I cannot stand, either.

Great art by gays is a different matter altogether. The world is full of it. Who would refrain from listening to the Nutcracker Suite simply because Tchaikovsky was a nutcracker?

[MANICHAEAN]

Writing about the sex act is difficult to my mind.

Its perhaps all about taking a carnal act and finding the equipoise to express it somewhere between basic rutting and as referred to obliquely in works like "Middlemarch."

[stlukesguild]

''every possible subject'' is rather too challenging but I do not deem it impossible

ANY subject is possible. EVERY subject is not.

homophobia is a subject that is very close if not dependent on how we express ourselves in books/language...

I'm not certain I get what you are trying to say. "Homophobia is a subject that is close"... to whom? I can't say I have ever really thought about it while writing (here excepted) or worked on my paintings. I take that back... there have been a few times when I have painted the male nude with a clear awareness as to just how many are uncomfortable with the subject. Still, I find this has more to do with the audience' discomfort with sexuality as a major artistic theme.

...and so if it is prevalent than surely writing\literature is everything to do with it.

There are many things that are prevalent among our cultures... or among humanity. That does not mean that all literature SHOULD or CAN deal with any or all of these themes. GREED is quite prevalent. Should all Art be about GREED? Hatred and Fear seem to be universal. Should all art be about these?

[Tyrion Cheddar]

Why are you guys going on about homophones? They're simply words that are pronounced the same way as other words but have a different meaning, like carat and carrot, or rose and rose, but honestly, what's the big deal? :biggrinjester:

[HalInc]

Literature with a political agenda isn't really literature. It's propaganda.

[YesNo]

My daughter showed me a recent episode of Veep where the president's lesbian daughter was filming a documentary and dealing with her girlfriend at the same time. It was entertaining.

[desiresjab]

Literature with a political agenda isn't really literature. It's propaganda.

Hallelujah!

[OrphanPip]

Literature with a political agenda isn't really literature. It's propaganda.

A piece of literature or other art that deals with issues of homophobia is not necessarily dealing with a political agenda. Homophobia is a lived experience for many people, we don't look at a piece of literature that deals with themes of heterosexual love or sex as inherently political but a work of literature or film that deals explicitly with homosexual love is immediately branded as political. The commercial aspects of artistic distribution makes it effectively nearly impossible for a film or book to focus on homosexual life without getting relegated to the gay section of a bookstore.

Anyway literature as a concept doesn't exist to serve your personal interests, or that of any particular people. Limiting the discussion to American literature, there is a canon of gay literature from the 70s to 80s that is incredibly important for its value as a form of cultural expression from a time when literature was the only avenue gay themes could be explicitly explored legally. Gay literature, like Kramer's Faggots or The Lonely Heart(which recently got a new version on HBO) are explicitly political but continue to have resonance and interest with audiences despite the relatively passe interest in the AIDS epidemic. Apolitical works like Edmund White's autobiographical novels are more obscure than Kramer because the frankness and openness about gay experiences mostly resonate with gay audiences. Art that is not universal is not bad art, the idea of universality is nonsense. Some art will always have more resonance with certain people because of their past experiences, cultural knowledge, and political views.

Your statement about political values in art is naive. Numerous canonical works are political even though we are now distanced from the political discourse at play: Paradise Lost, The Faery Queene, Candide, 1984, The Jungle, etc.

Edit: And of course homophobia still exists in answer to the OP. I live in a country where gay people can be publicly whipped or serve up to 20 years in jail for sodomy.

[cacian]

Literature with a political agenda isn't really literature. It's propaganda.

how is politics to do with human relations??


My daughter showed me a recent episode of Veep where the president's lesbian daughter was filming a documentary and dealing with her girlfriend at the same time. It was entertaining.

somehow the case of lesbians seems less harsher then that of two gay guys or i may well be wrong.
is it not that it is acceptable for two women to be together but not two guys??

[desiresjab]

somehow the case of lesbians seems less harsher then that of two gay guys or i may well be wrong.
is it not that it is acceptable for two women to be together but not two guys??

This is correct Cacian. The nature of the sexual acts performed by the two sexes is viewed differently. Hershey heaven is not a pleasant thought for most people. Two husky men in greasy buggery violates biblical injunction in the minds of most upright followers of..., well, any traditional religion.

Oddly enough, ancient Sparta encouraged homosexuality in the ranks of its armies, feeling that the men fought harder when they had love bonds. A very practical decision.

[YesNo]

somehow the case of lesbians seems less harsher then that of two gay guys or i may well be wrong.
is it not that it is acceptable for two women to be together but not two guys??

If one is young, say under 13, sexual activity in general would probably seem confusing if not gross.

When one is older the females want to "baby" others and the males want to "protect" the family. A lesbian relationship might seem fine because it is just two females babying each other. A gay relationship may make one wonder if either of the two men are adequately protecting the family against the other. Adulterous heterosexual relationships are a problem because they challenge pair-bonding. The female feels insecurity and the male feels betrayed. I don't think homosexual relationships challenge anything.

People who don't care for such relationships are like the under 13-year-old who does not see the point of sexual relationships at all.

[stlukesguild]

A piece of literature or other art that deals with issues of homophobia is not necessarily dealing with a political agenda. Homophobia is a lived experience for many people, we don't look at a piece of literature that deals with themes of heterosexual love or sex as inherently political but a work of literature or film that deals explicitly with homosexual love is immediately branded as political.

Yes... I question what some are defining as having a "political agenda" or being "propaganda".

This certainly had a political agenda:

http://www.ksarts.com/davis/guernica_bw.jpg

Perhaps it was even propaganda. But it was still Art as well... and very good art as well. There are books and poems and certainly any number of paintings with which I am familiar that dealt with homosexual love and were marvelous works of art that I can appreciate regardless of my personal sexual leanings.

Anyway literature as a concept doesn't exist to serve your personal interests, or that of any particular people. Art that is not universal is not bad art, the idea of universality is nonsense. Some art will always have more resonance with certain people because of their past experiences, cultural knowledge, and political views.

Bingo! There are works of art that explore or convey religious views that I don't share... that I still greatly admire. At the same time, I wholly agree that NOT ALL ART IS FOR EVERYBODY. I understand that what I may find to be an exquisite work of erotic art may not speak to a homosexual or female audience... or an audience that is uncomfortable with art the explores sexual themes.

Your statement about political values in art is naive. Numerous canonical works are political even though we are now distanced from the political discourse at play: Paradise Lost, The Faery Queene, Candide, 1984, The Jungle, etc...

Guernica, many of the paintings of George Grosz, Otto Dix, and Max Beckmann, the graphic art of Käthe Kollwitz:

http://www.spaightwoodgalleries.com/Media/Kollwitz/KK_Aufruhr.jpg

I can't even begin to count the works of art by "old masters" that were political: Michelangelo, Van Dyck, Rubens, Bosch, Bruegel, Delacroix, J.L. David:

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/21/7921-004-D6504A67.jpg

somehow the case of lesbians seems less harsher then that of two gay guys or i may well be wrong.
is it not that it is acceptable for two women to be together but not two guys??

I think a lot of men have fantasies involving two (or more) women and these tie in with lesbian fantasies. Art history is ripe with images of lesbian lovers... but not so images of male lovers.

[HalInc]

A piece of literature or other art that deals with issues of homophobia is not necessarily dealing with a political agenda. Homophobia is a lived experience for many people, we don't look at a piece of literature that deals with themes of heterosexual love or sex as inherently political but a work of literature or film that deals explicitly with homosexual love is immediately branded as political. The commercial aspects of artistic distribution makes it effectively nearly impossible for a film or book to focus on homosexual life without getting relegated to the gay section of a bookstore.

Anyway literature as a concept doesn't exist to serve your personal interests, or that of any particular people. Limiting the discussion to American literature, there is a canon of gay literature from the 70s to 80s that is incredibly important for its value as a form of cultural expression from a time when literature was the only avenue gay themes could be explicitly explored legally. Gay literature, like Kramer's Faggots or The Lonely Heart(which recently got a new version on HBO) are explicitly political but continue to have resonance and interest with audiences despite the relatively passe interest in the AIDS epidemic. Apolitical works like Edmund White's autobiographical novels are more obscure than Kramer because the frankness and openness about gay experiences mostly resonate with gay audiences. Art that is not universal is not bad art, the idea of universality is nonsense. Some art will always have more resonance with certain people because of their past experiences, cultural knowledge, and political views.

Your statement about political values in art is naive. Numerous canonical works are political even though we are now distanced from the political discourse at play: Paradise Lost, The Faery Queene, Candide, 1984, The Jungle, etc.

Edit: And of course homophobia still exists in answer to the OP. I live in a country where gay people can be publicly whipped or serve up to 20 years in jail for sodomy.

You've essentially proven my point. Only very minor writers are going to be tied up with certain groups, times, ideologies, etc. Great literature aims for the beautiful, transcendent and sublime.


how is politics to do with human relations??

Pretty much everything has been sucked up into the ken of politics, much to the detriment of society. Human sexuality is no exception.

[OrphanPip]

You've essentially proven my point. Only very minor writers are going to be tied up with certain groups, times, ideologies, etc. Great literature aims for the beautiful, transcendent and sublime.

You consider Milton, Spenser, Voltair and Orwell to be minor writers?

[HalInc]

You consider Milton, Spenser, Voltair and Orwell to be minor writers?

Insofar as they were propagandist, yes. But they didn't write exclusively about political issues. Orwell wrote about freedom, Milton about evil, Voltaire about suffering. Those are universal themes.

[OrphanPip]

Insofar as they were propagandist, yes. But they didn't write exclusively about political issues. Orwell wrote about freedom, Milton about evil, Voltaire about suffering. Those are universal themes.

That's essentially an arbitrary distinction. You can take something incredibly political like Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and say it's a novel about socialism and food safety standards in early 20th century America. Or you can call it a novel about family struggles or whatever "universal" branding you prefer. All human experiences can be reduced to universals, that's precisely what makes appeal to the universality of literature a superficial appreciation of literature.

My specialty in graduate school was Restoration literature and I have a great fondness for country house poems, particularly because of the range of interpretation one can put onto them. You can take Marvell's "Upon Appleton House" and make a big pretentious hullabaloo about its use of the country house as a microcosm for grand themes effecting the English nation, or you can read it as a finely crafted poem about the beauty of a country house. Neither approach is less significant. A very well written poem about a specific country house of a random forgotten noble that Marvell wanted to impress couldn't be farther from universality, but that doesn't reduce Marvell's status as one of the greatest poets of his era.

[HalInc]

That's essentially an arbitrary distinction.

No it's not.


You can take something incredibly political like Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and say it's a novel about socialism and food safety standards in early 20th century America. Or you can call it a novel about family struggles or whatever "universal" branding you prefer. All human experiences can be reduced to universals, that's precisely what makes appeal to the universality of literature a superficial appreciation of literature.

The Jungle isn't literature.


My specialty in graduate school was Restoration literature and I have a great fondness for country house poems, particularly because of the range of interpretation one can put onto them. You can take Marvell's "Upon Appleton House" and make a big pretentious hullabaloo about its use of the country house as a microcosm for grand themes effecting the English nation, or you can read it as a finely crafted poem about the beauty of a country house. Neither approach is less significant. A very well written poem about a specific country house of a random forgotten noble that Marvell wanted to impress couldn't be farther from universality, but that doesn't reduce Marvell's status as one of the greatest poets of his era.

You're simply making an appeal to vulgar relativism. Anybody with the desire and a few brain cells can try to twist a literary document to mean what they want it to mean. That doesn't mean it's a compelling or persuasive interpretation.

[OrphanPip]

No it's not.



The Jungle isn't literature.



You're simply making an appeal to vulgar relativism. Anybody with the desire and a few brain cells can try to twist a literary document to mean what they want it to mean. That doesn't mean it's a compelling or persuasive interpretation.

I'm not making an appeal to relativism, vulgar or otherwise, I'm arguing that universality in particular is an arbitrary method of gauging the worth of a piece of literature. Precisely because universality is a poorly defined idea that is entirely subjective. I think literature should be considered in reference to its influence, craft and aesthetics relative to the period of its composition. To say Milton wrote about evil is grand, but what does that actually mean. How does Milton conceive of evil? Is it the same as what we think of as evil. Does Milton actually write about evil? Milton writes a great deal about liberty, but Milton's idea of liberty seemed to be the freedom to be some sort of mainline Protestant, liberty didn't include Catholicism. That doesn't square with our own ideas of liberty does it?

Also, The Jungle is clearly literature, it has all the elements of a novel.

[HalInc]

I'm not making an appeal to relativism, vulgar or otherwise, I'm arguing that universality in particular is an arbitrary method of gauging the worth of a piece of literature. Precisely because universality is a poorly defined idea that is entirely subjective.

You're blatantly contradicting yourself. You can't claim not to argue from relativism while also maintaining it's all subjective. It's an inconsistent argument.

I also reject the notion that what constitutes universality is nebulous. Death, fear, loneliness, suffering, desire, beauty, questions of where we come from, why we're here, and where we're going; these are universal.


I think literature should be considered in reference to its influence, craft and aesthetics relative to the period of its composition. To say Milton wrote about evil is grand, but what does that actually mean. How does Milton conceive of evil? Is it the same as what we think of as evil. Does Milton actually write about evil? Milton writes a great deal about liberty, but Milton's idea of liberty seemed to be the freedom to be some sort of mainline Protestant, liberty didn't include Catholicism. That doesn't square with our own ideas of liberty does it?

You're confusing setting with meaning. Writers from a particular place and time will show that influence. If they move beyond that to universal themes, that's when they begin creating literature. War and Peace isn't just a novel about the Napoleonic wars. If it was, it wouldn't be literature.


Also, The Jungle is clearly literature, it has all the elements of a novel.

No, The Jungle is a propaganda piece for socialism in the form of a novel. A rather poorly written one at that. The Jungle is to novels what Birth of a Nation is to film as an artistic endeavor.

[OrphanPip]

You're blatantly contradicting yourself. You can't claim not to argue from relativism while also maintaining it's all subjective. It's an inconsistent argument.


I'm not contradicting myself at all. I said that what constitutes universality is subjective, thus universality is an unreliable metric for measuring the value of literature. This is entirely different from asserting that the value of all literature is relative. I don't disagree that some literature is bad and some literature is good, however I don't think universality is a very meaningful concept to reach those judgements.

Your argument is amounting to a "No True Scotsman" one. Any book that's brought up to challenge your ideas is immediately dismissed as "not literature" without any clear definition of what actually constitutes literature.

Those so called universal experiences exist in pretty much any work of art. Upton Sinclair's Jungle you dismiss as socialist propaganda. However, isn't the struggle of a working man to support his family arguably universal, it's all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness after all. Sinclair was a socialist, but he was a distinctly American one. The Jungle is hardly a spectacular book, but it has continued to have resonance enough that it remains in print 100 years after it's publication.

[HalInc]

I'm not contradicting myself at all. I said that what constitutes universality is subjective, thus universality is an unreliable metric for measuring the value of literature. This is entirely different from asserting that the value of all literature is relative. I don't disagree that some literature is bad and some literature is good, however I don't think universality is a very meaningful concept to reach those judgements.

What constitutes universality isn't subjective. Are you really arguing that death and sufferings isn't a universal human experience?


Your argument is amounting to a "No True Scotsman" one. Any book that's brought up to challenge your ideas is immediately dismissed as "not literature" without any clear definition of what actually constitutes literature.

But I've been clear throughout. Literature doesn't have a political agenda. It concerns universal human themes. So if I dismiss a book, it's either propaganda or it's superficial.


Upton Sinclair's Jungle you dismiss as socialist propaganda. However, isn't the struggle of a working man to support his family arguably universal, it's all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness after all.

No, it's not. There was essentially no character development in the novel. The protagonist was simply lead from one situation after another that showed how terrible capitalism is compared to socialism. It was heavy handed propaganda without any trace of literary merit.



Sinclair was a socialist, but he was a distinctly American one. The Jungle is hardly a spectacular book, but it has continued to have resonance enough that it remains in print 100 years after it's publication.

First, 100 years is hardly a long time. And its continuing resonance has nothing to do with the illumination of the human condition or with the beauty of the prose. There are still socialists around, so the book hasn't been completely forgotten. The Jungle will eventual end up on the same trash heap Che Guevara t-shirts are destined for.

[desiresjab]

Propaganda can be interesting, I have to agree. Upton Sinclair is someone else I was devouring in high school. But let's face it, most propaganda is not literature, even if it can be successfully argued that all literature is proaganda, which it probably isn't. Open propaganda is annoying in general.

[OrphanPip]

What constitutes universality isn't subjective. Are you really arguing that death and sufferings isn't a universal human experience?

They're so universal as to be quite meaningless for evaluating the worth of a piece of literature. You insist the Jungle isn't literature, but it certainly contains explorations of death and suffering (whether it be under an oppressive capitalistic food packing industry or not). Your argument boils down to the statement that literature should contain themes, which is essentially impossible for any narrative text to avoid. However, the concerns and themes of the text, whether they are universal or not should be irrelevant to the value of the text. What's important is how the text handles those themes and how they resonate with the audience. Swift's Modest Proposal is still widely read because it is an expert example of satire, the craft and influence is what's important.



But I've been clear throughout. Literature doesn't have a political agenda. It concerns universal human themes. So if I dismiss a book, it's either propaganda or it's superficial.

Politics is the organization of people with other people, it is itself a universal theme. Why does Milton concern himself with politics with the Parliament in Hell scenes from Paradise Lost? Milton considered politics and political themes to be fitting subjects for his Christian epic. Art is a means of expression, and whether it is political or not is apart from its worth as a work of art.



No, it's not. There was essentially no character development in the novel. The protagonist was simply lead from one situation after another that showed how terrible capitalism is compared to socialism. It was heavy handed propaganda without any trace of literary merit.

It's a passable novel with effectively written scenes and some clunky plotting and a meandering end. Something doesn't have to be flawless to be literature, or even to be influential literature.

Political fiction is a longstanding genre and it's going to continue to exist and be read and it has value. Whether it's Caleb Williams, Hard Times or the Jungle. It's been around for 3 centuries and people are still writing and reading so it must have some merit.



First, 100 years is hardly a long time. And its continuing resonance has nothing to do with the illumination of the human condition or with the beauty of the prose. There are still socialists around, so the book hasn't been completely forgotten. The Jungle will eventual end up on the same trash heap Che Guevara t-shirts are destined for.

100 years is plenty long, I'd reckon more than 95% of what was published initially 100 years ago is out of print and no longer has resonance with audiences.

[Jackson Richardson]

I was going to pop in here with my experiences as a reader and same sex partner for a very long time, but the thread seems to have gone off at a tangent.

Without some sort of understanding and criticism of the world - political, religious, sexual, social, moral or whatever - any work will be very limited. If they are purely written to advance a particular political, religious, sexual or moral viewpoint they will be even more limited.

Cacian's opening question "What can literature do about it?" seems to miss the point, implying literature is unified and primarily didactic.

I'd be happy to tell you about my reading later.

[cacian]

somehow the case of lesbians seems less harsher then that of two gay guys or i may well be wrong.
is it not that it is acceptable for two women to be together but not two guys??

I think a lot of men have fantasies involving two (or more) women and these tie in with lesbian fantasies. Art history is ripe with images of lesbian lovers... but not so images of male lovers.

why do men hold such fantasy??


I was going to pop in here with my experiences as a reader and same sex partner for a very long time, but the thread seems to have gone off at a tangent.

Without some sort of understanding and criticism of the world - political, religious, sexual, social, moral or whatever - any work will be very limited. If they are purely written to advance a particular political, religious, sexual or moral viewpoint they will be even more limited.

Cacian's opening question "What can literature do about it?" seems to miss the point, implying literature is unified and primarily didactic.

I'd be happy to tell you about my reading later.

in what way does it the miss the point?
to imply literature is not didactic is missing the point.
to suggest literature that may tackle issues close to self expression is limiting .
in fact there is a danger of evasiveness because of that.

an expression is born out of frustration and so is homophobia.
I believe the purpose of literature including art is to exploint part of our subsconcious so it become conscious,
literature is bit of an analogy on The taming of Shrew
it is the taming of the few.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think homophobia has a lot to do with location and generation. People who are younger and living in certain cultures (parts of Asia and North America/Western Europe, etc.) are far less likely to be homophobic than people living in, say, Saudi Arabia. It is obviously very prevalent in some parts of the world, that should go without saying, so that answers that, and is pretty much /thread.

[Scheherazade]

The general public agrees. By and large only gays are interested. This is an extremely simplistic (and dare I say "unsupported"?) view... Who is this "general public"? As in any genre, there might be well/poorly written examples but just to claim that "only gays are interested" is misinformed. Are only straight people interested in "straight literature"?


If one is young, say under 13, sexual activity in general would probably seem confusing if not gross.

When one is older the females want to "baby" others and the males want to "protect" the family. A lesbian relationship might seem fine because it is just two females babying each other. A gay relationship may make one wonder if either of the two men are adequately protecting the family against the other. Adulterous heterosexual relationships are a problem because they challenge pair-bonding. The female feels insecurity and the male feels betrayed. I don't think homosexual relationships challenge anything.

People who don't care for such relationships are like the under 13-year-old who does not see the point of sexual relationships at all.I am not following this post at all. Are you suggesting that gay couples do not mind infidelity? And that sexual relationships with "underage" person (ie, say a 13 year-old) is acceptable?

[YesNo]

I am not following this post at all. Are you suggesting that gay couples do not mind infidelity? And that sexual relationships with "underage" person (ie, say a 13 year-old) is acceptable?

I don't know how homosexual couples approach infidelity. The survey that I am referencing to justify my position (see Alexander and Young, "The Chemistry Between Us") pointed out chemical explanations for what has through much of the 20th century been seen as culturally determined gender, pair-bonding and sexual orientation behavior. Basically, the argument is that the "social construction" of these three facets of sexuality is false. Or to put it simplistically, you cannot turn boys into girls by giving them dolls; you cannot destroy pair-bonding by advocating promiscuity and you cannot educate a homosexual to be heterosexual. Gender, pair-bonding and sexual orientation are not socially constructed. They have their origin as dispositions in the chemistry in our brains.

Children younger than about 13 do not have interest in sexual activity. Their bodies haven't developed yet to find these activities interesting. It is not a "fear" of such activity, as the word homophobia suggests, but a confusion associated with it. What I am trying to show is that the heterosexual's confusion with homosexual activity is similar to the under 13-year-old child's confusion with any kind of sexual intercourse.

I don't see how you got anything about having sex with a person under 13 from my post. What the Alexander and Young survey explicitly emphasized is that the old 20th century feminist social construction of gender is false. And so is the religious fundamentalist view that homosexuality is something that can be educated, or "socially constructed", into heterosexuality.

[Jackson Richardson]

is it prevalent still?
and should literature get involved in getting head to head with it?
if so how?

Literature can undermine homophobia by presenting same sex love and couples in an attractive light, or indeed in the past showing that it could exist at all.

When I became aware I had the same sort of potentially weak at the knees feelings for other men that straight boys have for girls, the problem that such a state wasn't meant to exist other than a sinister perversion.

My bookshelves have many examples of novels subsequently written by or about gay men (Armistead Maupin, Alan Hollingsworth, Neil Bartlett, Michael Carson, Michael Arditti, Joe Keenan and others) and the poetry of Thom Gunn. They were often writing about, or taking for granted, a life that was not mine.

The closest literary equivalent to my life with my partner is probably Mole and Ratty in The Wind in the Willows.

[stlukesguild]

Children younger than about 13 do not have interest in sexual activity.

You don't have much experience with children, do you?

[desiresjab]

This is an extremely simplistic (and dare I say "unsupported"?) view... Who is this "general public"? As in any genre, there might be well/poorly written examples but just to claim that "only gays are interested" is misinformed. Are only straight people interested in "straight literature"?

I must have left out a number of gay blockbusters.

[YesNo]

I just watched a movie, "The Kiss of the Spider Woman", that contains a gay character. Danik recommended it. It was directed by Héctor Babenco and based on a novel by Manuel Puig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_fjf01iebc

This could be an example of literature (and at least a movie) that deals with the theme of homosexuality as well as other themes. There is politics in it but no propaganda that I could see.

[Danik 2016]

Here is the thread on the novel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_the_Spider_Woman_(novel)
I read it a very long time ago and the movie remains faithful to the original text if I remember rightly.
The psichoanalytical notes about homosexuality in the novel are downright silly and disgusting.

[OrphanPip]

I must have left out a number of gay blockbusters.

I once taught a course at a college on sexual transgression in literature. It dealt with adultery, homosexuality, radical feminism, S&M and fetishism and most of my students were heterosexual women. Lots of people are interested in these themes besides the people who live these experiences.

[Jackson Richardson]

The ultimate gay blockbuster must be Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu . I'm gay and I'm not a fan. Lots of straights admire it very much.

[DieterM]

Jeez, you read that? I never found the necessary patience… Other blockbusters (sorry if we drift off the subject) in terms of sales numbers are Felice Picano's "Like People in History", David Leavitt's "Lost Language of Cranes", the whole "Tales of the City"-saga by Armistead Maupin, Jeannette Winterson's "Oranges are not the only fruit", to quote only a few. Plus the Thomas Mann-short stories "Tonio Kröger" and "Death in Venice", "The Confusions of Young Törleß" by Robert Musil, the works of Christopher Isherwood. You' ll find other blockbusters written by world-famous authors such as André Gide, Jean Genet, GoreVidal, Marion Zimmer Bradley, ect. etc. etc.