![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Is Homosexuality a Symptom of Empire?
Here’s a fascinating and likely very controversial subject that was brought up by a commenter named ’slomo’ in a previous post. Rather than try to re-hash it myself, here is what this person wrote:
On the issue of homosexuality, there is something that bothers me about it that I have never heard directly addressed. And, in full disclosure here, I’m gay. The fact is that widescale acceptance of homosexuality cannot exist except in imperial civilizations. The reason is that, when human beings are struggling for survival, “alternative” family structures are a luxury and run counter to the collective project of survival. Only when survival is taken for granted (usually at the expense of others far away) can alternatives be supported. I’m painting with a broad brushstroke here, I am fully aware that there are some tribal cultures (not very many) that have accepted homosexuality. It’s not that homosexuality is wrong in-and-of-itself. But it is perhaps a symptom of empire, which I think some of your readers would view as ultimately destructive. If biblical stories are to be believed and trusted, the problem with Sodom (and with the corrupt Roman culture that Paul rails against) has more to do with empire, a symptom of which is homosexuality.
My personal view is that there can be a place for gay people, but our roles need to be understood in terms of our benefit to the survival of our communities, the unique gifts that we bring to the table. I don’t think it makes sense to argue that we have an intrinsic right to exist, because really (in absence of a beneficial role) that right is contingent upon a whole host of other factors, many of which are negative.
I imagine that a person who is openly gay exploring these types of ideas is more than likely going to blow a circuit for a lot of people, which is why I thought I’d promote this to a full-on post by itself and try to generate a separate conversation around it.
- Apocalypse of the American Empire
- Antidote to Empire
- Negotiating a Religious Identity
- The Star Wars, 9/11 Connection
- grimace
- Prev: Philosophical Paganism
- Next: Links, Side-Blogs, Other Plans
December 11th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
I think homosexuality is a culture, a lifestyle. I think we’re all wired for bisexuality. Who hasn’t, at one point in their life, had a thought or fantasy about a same-gender sexual encounter? Every single girl I know has admitted to it. Guy’s won’t admit it, but I’m sure most have thought it. Animals have gay sex all the time!
http://idata.over-blog.com/0/05/17/99/...-a-queue-blanche-amerique-du-nord.jpg
As long as you’re reproducing, nature doesn’t care what your preference is. As for intra-tribal relations, I’m pretty sure that anyone who pulls their weight and doesn’t cause trouble is accepted (but good luck finding a partner).
December 11th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
nobody has a right, intrinsic or otherwise, to exist. what we have is a responsibility to survive. rights are political constructs sold to us to enslave us in a robot existance. when we take responsibility for anything in our lives we gain strength.
i can`t comment on the homosexual issue other than to say that the group has been played like a political pawn recently, like most other distinct groups that have issues regarding the aforementioned rights.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Dude I don’t know about the pawn bit if you read wnd.com there is some threads that it was gay (by implication) and feminist groups that forced Roe v. Wade through, and also supposedly activists set up the state of TX for repeal of the sodomy law there…
You work, you pay taxes, support, I don’t get the thrust of this. It’s a biological dead-end unless you get an egg implanted in you and apparently they don’t need a man anymore for that, fit in with the culture to a general degree and as long as there is no pogrom — I don’t know — I don’t see the logic.
Personally, I think the gay groups have really been organizing and lobbying a lot of stuff, this kinda goes back to the sex ed thread from a few months ago… And jesus, no offense guys but now it is movies about gay cowboys and shit? What the fuck am I supposed to tell my kids … I think empire is giving some leverage to the whole ‘movement’ to demand acceptance with media bandwidth.
-tc
“had some cake and then ice cream, fell asleep and watched tv
grandma take me home”
-Nirvana
December 11th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
This “fact” can be refuted with just two words: Oscar Wilde.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Could you elaborate on what you mean James? Wasn’t Wilde a product of the British Empire?
December 11th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
Thomas:
Uh, try telling them that some people are gay, for starters!
December 11th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Wow, I didn’t realize my comment was controversial enough to merit its own post!
However, I should probably clarify what I meant by “homosexuality”. I agree that we are all hard-wired for bisexuality, with cultural factors influencing where we end up on the Kinsey scale. Clearly some people begin much more towards the homosexual side than the heterosexual side, so there is less “choice” involved for such individuals. So, I’m not talking about the sexual behavior, which most likely exists in every human culture. I am instead talking about a complex subculture that reifies homosexuality into a complex “gay” identity.
And again, I’m not finding fault with the gay subculture or the identity itself. (Well, maybe some aspects of it I am.) But I’m very worried about how a self-identified “gay” person fits into a smaller-scale culture that is living harmoniously with “nature” (which btw is another reified concept that has problems when you look at it carefully).
There are other related issues here. Westerners (Americans in particular) are so obsessed with sex that it makes sense for a person who was wired more for homosexual behavior would identify himself or herself as such. In other cultures, where sex is more tied into procreation and not so much social status, I wonder whether somebody like myself would just simply get married to a woman and we’d both make the best of a less-than-completely-satisfying sex life.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
but once you start telling your kids about people who are gay then they look to you for signals………..personally, my children have to walk in thier boots, my thing is that i owe my children the ways and means to make a living, protect themselves and to be able to tell the wheat from the chaff. i would hope that they feel comfortable enough to be able to tell me what is going on in thier heads as they grow up. i can`t make choices for them once they hit a certain age and i`m going to give them very little idea of what my 45 year old values are regarding how to survive in thier world. i can tell them how i would do things but they have to make the values fit thier world. certainly some things don`t change. but the gay thing? different than when i was a kid, that`s for sure. i will have to do way more listening to my children than talking before i pretend to have an idea about what is going on in my boys heads.
oscar wilde was a guest of the queen at reading jail, my home town. it was a capital offence to be a homosexual in victorian england.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
Well, as far as I’ve often heard, a lot of traditional European cultures work more or less the same way, except you just have a mistress/etc for the “fun” stuff rather than procreation. Wait, isn’t that almost exactly the plotline of that Brokeback Mountain movie? Has anybody seen it who can corroborate?
Does this question come from a sort of post-apocalyptic small community thing? Like what happens to gay people when the Empire falls and in order to survive as a race or community, we’re all gonna have to churn out babies? Is that what you’re asking?
December 11th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
and regarding homosexuality as a product of society. absolutely. people involved in non-reproductive sex could be seen as evidence of a decline in the desire to procreate. there are those who say that the planet is overpopulated. maybe this is an effect. a growth in the emergence of non-reproducing couples, homosexual or otherwise, could be seen as a desire for people to stop the growth of the species. an unconscious cull. we saw a drastic reduction of chinese girls a generation ago that is going to have serious implications for the demographics of chinese culture, i.e. an aging single male population and a diminished pool of women to bear children of chinese decent. this will produce a capital crisis for retirees finding a diminished tax base to provide retirement benifits.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
Indeed.
Well, just to give some context, kissing has already been defined as something a man and woman do. I again, with previous threads in mind, would like at this time to reiterate that I would generally like to gently steer my children down the path that heterosexual relations are generally good and nothing to be ashamed or afraid of in the proper set, setting, and circumstance. They are young and I guess, yeah the nasty annoyed Jersey motherfucker in me sees “My 2 Dads” on at the same time as “That’s So Raven” as some type of “fuckin’ with my program” on some level.
My personal opinion is that orgasm and the endorphin release associated therewith is an electrochemical system designed to reward people for fucking as a primordial directive to procreate and is generally no different from an alleycat’s heat. Therefore, in a brutally Darwinian vein, I must corollate that masturbation and making homonculi and all that other fun shit is generally spurious and will not result in the propagation of your “power upon the land”. Lost genetic code replication processing time. End of story.
Marriage is an artificial institution, I mean, it could be posited the ‘nuclear family’ with 1.5 kids and the white picket fence is only possible with the ‘monopolization of the means of force’ and the full force, faith, and effect of the empire reinforcing the so-called ‘marriage certificate’ and all the _de jure_ privileges accorded therewith.
Otherwise you’d be steppin’ over bodies on the front porch trying to keep people off of your wife.
Why isn’t there gay marriage in the US? How much revenue for the IRS would be lost by all those other people claiming Married, head of household, 2 deductions? Estate taxes?
It’s a lot of fuckin’ issues here, and hey I love sex too, but I “feel like” I refuse to be defined by who I’m doin’. I ain’t hung up on anything. I feel it is unfair to ask my kids who shit in a diaper to gate through that portal yet, but somehow I’m sure it’s on a billboard somewhere. What the reality is, I don’t know, I mean really.
93/93.
“You can deliver me oh Lord
I just wanted to have some fun
All my tears they”
December 11th, 2005 at 10:52 pm
I think you’re trying to argue that imperial Britain didn’t condone homosexuality, therefore homosexuality cannot be a symptom of empire?
I’m saying that a gay identity cannot exist without empire. I’m not saying that said empire necessarily condones or supports such an identity. Oscar Wilde was definitely part of an underground gay subculture, even though it was clandestine and had to be because of the consequences.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Yeah, that’s basically what I’m talking about. Sucks for the woman involved. (Pun acknowledged but not intended). I refuse to do that to a woman, although I could and kind of get away with it. But because I live in a culture where I have moral choices that allow me not to inflict a dishonest sexuality on another person, I believe the right thing to do is to accept the gay identity. But in a different culture, with different social pressures, the right thing to do might be the exact opposite. It’s all about context.
Well, that’s one aspect of it, yes. The best long-term outcome of the current historical trajectory is one where we all downscale. Exactly how to do that and what gets sacrificed is obviously very controversial. I would like to understand how a person like myself fits into such a future.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
slomo, with all due respect, may I ask how empire has arisen from the late ’60’s till now in the US?
I worked in the union library at SoCalEd wherein I read a grievance filed by a gay union member who was fired ca. 1972 because management identified him as potentially ‘deviant’ and a management employee was directed to solicit a date, pick him up, take him to a bar, buy him drinks, and otherwise flirt with him. I believe to recall that the field agent’s report recommending termination due to moral turpitude was concluded at such a time as when the union member put his hand on the agent’s leg at the bar, and left him there with no ride home.
Really, I feel the AIDS virus is a targeted reaction to what the American empire has perceived as actually two threats, IV drug users, and homosexuals. I mean really, what did we get, monkey virus goes to a human, and now we’ve been watching HN51 for like 2 months now and it’s still no go, they’re talking about 1918 and we should ‘be ready’ for it like Padilla’s dirty bomb.
How is it that an moniker, iconified, uhhhh… “defining” “cultural” activity that rationally speaking detracts from making new taxpayers in the furtherance of the fasciae can only exist therein?
I mean the leaves blowing is the wind and all.
I guess I see how there is a certain abundance or additional overhead in the general system to allow the non-productive in a successful economic model, and the sort of leeway we have as americans to generally fuck with anything except the government…
I don’t know, no disrespect, bro.
-tc
December 12th, 2005 at 12:02 am
What makes me stop is the peoples who’ve had homosexuality in non-’Empire’ settings. Take some tribes of Plains Indians - as a social institution, if you were a guy who didn’t want to fight against other tribes, you basically fufilled the same function as a woman - you got married to another bloke and helped provide for him whilst he did the good ol’ hunting and warring side of things. I believe that the Crow tribe had this, among others. Now, obviously you couldn’t help him have more children, and in these societies, every single person counted. Everyone. You needed as many folk as you could get for what they did to survive. Yet this was an acknowledged and accepted social institution, whereby two men would live together and not produce offspring. These tribes didn’t exactly suffer for it. Now, could everyone do it? No, for obvious reasons. But not everyone wanted to do this, and those who wanted to could without any reprecussions. But was it a social institution that involved no second thoughts from anyone else? No. These people still contributed to their group. There are more ways to help your society out than by making kids. Does this kind of jive with what’s been thrown about here?
Also, Thomas, I was a little confused by this - “Therefore, in a brutally Darwinian vein, I must corollate that masturbation and making homonculi and all that other fun shit is generally spurious and will not result in the propagation of your “power upon the land”. Lost genetic code replication processing time. End of story.”
I guess it’s just that my reaction was - and? So? What? Masturbation = ‘Lost genetic code replication processing time? Um, I’m 23, and I’ve been masturbating a lot in the last ten years or so, in part because I am categorically not ready for ‘genetic code replication processing time.’ Babies, right? Yeah, not ready. I just don’t see where you’re going with this line of reasoning. And honestly, what the blazes is so bad about gay people portrayed in non-stereotypical manners in movies? That seemed to come out of left field for me. Your last comment, about a ‘certain abundance,’ is more in line with how I see this sort of thing. As opposed to homosexuality being a symptom of empire. Being exclusively homosexual means that society can afford to pick up the slack of one less reproducing couple. Which doesn’t necessarily involve being an empire.
What about Dan’s comments, about homosexuality occuring among animals who sure as hell do not have empires? Does that matter to this discussion? I take it this is more about the ’sexuality as a defined lifestyle’ as opposed to the actual act of homosexuality, right? But these animals aren’t exactly terrified that they’re loosing precious, making children moments, right?
December 12th, 2005 at 12:04 am
Woops. “But was it a social institution that didn’t give anyone else a second thought? Yes. People were fine with it. It was kind of odd, because it wasn’t nearly as common, but people were fine with it.”
Bloody words.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:07 am
I’m saying empire is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Without the excess resources made available through empire, it is difficult to support cultural diversity. But the existence of excess resources does not guarantee any particular diversification.
I want to be very clear that I support gay rights within the context of our current culture. I want to be very clear that I am not making a statement about gay people. I am simply making an observation about the conditions necessary for a particular phenomenon to occur. And since I myself am part of that phenomenon, I of course want to understand how I fit in the larger cosmos.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:12 am
Hehe, sorry for throwing all the clarification duties into your lap, slomo. I just thought it was really great fuel for conversation all around. Looks so far like I’m correct…
December 12th, 2005 at 12:14 am
charlie: I know about the Berdache, which is kind of the exception that proves the rule. (Never completely understood that phrase, but whatever…) I’m not really talking about absolutes here. And yes, I’m talking about identity, not sexual behavior.
I guess what I’m really trying to articulate isn’t about homosexuality per se. I’m trying to call attention to how our discussions about “ethics”, “morality”, and “rights” are framed by a privileged cultural context where we have an excess of resources and assume that survival is a given. What happens to our “rights” when the resources disappear, when life becomes more dear?
December 12th, 2005 at 12:14 am
While I realize I am coming in very late to the discussion, but there’s something that ties back into mythology, that I think is very interesting. It has some ties with the whole “wired for bisexuality”.
The Greek (and later, Roman) creation myths revolved around the idea that a goddess, or Mother Earth, figure created the “gods” on Mt. Olympus, created the Titans, and then created three races of humans. These humans were very powerful, and were essentially two human beings attached at the back. On the moon there was a race of women (lesbians), on the sun there was a race of men (homosexuals), and on the Earth, there was a race of man-woman (heterosexuals). The gods on Mt. Olympus became so afraid of humanity in its dual forms, that it split them into two. The Romans later moved the lesbian race to Venus, and the homosexual race to Mars.
It’s quite interesting to analyze this myth, because it essentially provides for all 3 types of human interaction within the creation myth. It’s also interesting because of the three sides were equal, then heterosexuality would only make up 1/3 of the relationships.
I also find it interesting because if you combine it with Plato’s allegory of the cave, the numbers get very interesting. If you use 1 and 2 to represent the cave (the first two stages), and 3 & 4 to represent the outside world, then look at the Greek creation myth this way:
Before the “split”, there were three races, which could be viewed as a triangle (the men on one half, and the women on the other half, split right down the center). Thus when the races were split, all that was left was the line of separation. A line separates two objects, and thus the number two relates to the “fall” or descent into the cave, a forceful fall by the “gods” or shall we say, “Archons”.
You can take this anyway you may, but I think there is a correlation here between “splits”, “falls”, and the concept of godesses (Sophia).
I also find it highly relevant to the discussion of homosexuality in a cultural context.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:30 am
Ktulu, I always find your comments very insightful. Have you ever seen “Hedwig and the Angry Inch”? The movie includes a very moving (and amusing) cartoon depiction of the myth you just described.
I believe there is in fact such a thing as a gay “soul” (or at least a gay state-of-being for a soul) in as much as I believe in such a thing as a soul. And I am grateful that I live in a culture that gives me room to acknowledge it. But I also think it’s important to undertand what responsibilities to the larger community I have, what gifts I bring forward. Gay people right now don’t really do that enough. There’s a lot of focus on “rights”, to the exclusion of responsibilities (of course, this is a more general American phenomenon; we’re at a very selfish stage in our history).
December 12th, 2005 at 4:29 am
Are we spirit beings romancing the flesh or flesh beings romancing the spirit. And what is it that we as humans bring to the culture of life on this planet,what justifies human existance? Maybe one celabacy will be in the main stream and psycic orgasim will be comin and every thing will cum full circle. Untill then its just a little bit of distortion so laugh before the clown laugh at you
December 12th, 2005 at 8:29 am
then there was the odd couple, a t.v. show in the seventies that depicted two middle-aged men living together and looking after eachother`s shit (well, not really.) without the sexual content of a homosexual relationship.
i wasn`t suggesting that empire had anything to do with engendering oscar wilde`s condition, but it certainly didn`t condone it. it is an interesting thought that imperialism creates homosexuality. imperial states tend to be fragile and short-lived. maybe we are seeing a signal that our empire is winding down.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
I wish, but I think it’s gonna wind up a little bit more before there’s a big, sudden crash.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
>I guess it’s just that my reaction was - and? So? What? Masturbation = ‘Lost genetic code replication processing time? Um, I’m 23, and I’ve been masturbating a lot in the last ten years or so, in part because I am categorically not ready for ‘genetic code replication processing time.’ Babies, right? Yeah, not ready. I just don’t see where you’re going with this line of reasoning.
My point was that non governmentally Judeo-xian sex for procreation is counterproductive to the empire and has covertly and overtly repressed and persecuted since the 1600’s in the US.
>And honestly, what the blazes is so bad about gay people portrayed in non-stereotypical manners in movies? That seemed to come out of left field for me. Your last comment, about a ‘certain abundance,’ is more in line with how I see this sort of thing. As opposed to homosexuality being a symptom of empire. Being exclusively homosexual means that society can afford to pick up the slack of one less reproducing couple. Which doesn’t necessarily involve being an empire.
I did get a bit muddled, but basically I see the MSM push for acceptance as a possible legitimate tangent based on slomo’s argument in my context of yeah, we have civil liberties and therefore there is the ability to group, communicate and promote a particular agenda, and this has only been really possible in the last 40 years or so.
So it is as dualistic as possible in that the regime that has really been reluctant to legitimize is recently being forced to deal with the issue.
The issue that now that this all is indeed in the open, how am I personally to reconcile my thoughts and wishes with regards to my children’s socialization in this vortex.
-tc
“science fiction writers should probably smoke pot but they probably shouldn’t drink or do blow”
December 13th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
In the original comment, slomo acknowledged that some tribal cultures tolerated (some even celebrated) homosexuality. In his excellent article, Is the Pope Gay? George Monbiot points out the number of gay animals:
It wasn’t just the occasional tribal culture that accepted homosexuality, it was all over the place. The gods of Asgard were constantly engaging in gender-bending and gay sex - in fact there’s a whole debate as to whether seidr magic is just for ergi (gay) men or if straight men can do it too. (Jenny Blain, Nine Worlds of Seid-Magic).
Anyway, what I reckon is that gay sex is natural and serves some as yet unidentified biological function - probably to do with pair bonding. It can also be shown that gay people have different hypothalami. But gay identity is a cultural construct (the same as gender roles are cultural constructs).
December 15th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Looks to me like an instinct that functions as a control on the population level.
There are a certain number of individuals in the group that could reproduce but don’t. I suspect that in the aftermath of a sharp population drop - a famine or massacre, for example - some percentage of the surviving gay members of the group find themselves temporarily feeling reproductive.
My guess is that a tribe with some gay members is better able to maintain the reproductive capacity to recover from a disaster with less overpopulation than one where all the reproductive capacity is active.
If I were to try to verify this, I would graph the percentage of homosexuals in populations against the used percentage of the carrying capacity of the environment. I would be willing to bet that when there are as many people present as the environment can handle, more of them are gay than when there is plenty of wide open space.
Empire tends to happen under similar circumstances, when the capitol is maxed out - lebensraum.
I don’t think homosexuality is a symptom of Empire, I think both homosexuality and imperialism are responses to overpopulation. With the caveats that there is always some level of homosexuality in a population, and always some number of imperialists.
December 15th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
overpopulation or the change in social dynamics of growing populations?
December 15th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
“Anyway, what I reckon is that gay sex is natural and serves some as yet unidentified biological function - probably to do with pair bonding.”
I think this was what I was trying to get at, pretty much on the dot. And I certainly didn’t mean to jump in and accuse people of homophobia - I just wanted some clarifications.
There’s something else that gets perpetuated throughout human history that doesn’t seem to be reproductively viable - self-sacrifice. Not that it happens every day, but people do die for one another (as though people at a Gnosticism blog need to be reminded). This isn’t a very good idea, from the perspective of straight-up passing down your genes, yet it hasn’t been ‘bred out’ of us through self-sacrificers not reproducing as much (if at all). Because it is functional, and adaptive, to society as a whole. In a less obvious way, I think that homosexuality works the same way. Otherwise it wouldn’t be as common as it is, throughout human history, across time and culture.