DiscussionWhy have we (especially L&G) been so hated through history?

submitted by usehername from (self.LGBDropTheT)

What's the big deal? Gender non-conformity? Lack of children? Bisexual behavior has been more common and accepted, especially for soldiers/warriors, but usually they have a wife and kids at home, which I guess is what makes it "okay".

all 36 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SerpensInferna 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I can only provide my own thoughts; I feel that it is a combination of power dynamics in social relationships and the biological urge to reproduce.

Most humans are hardwired to produce offspring. It is such an innate part of our make-up we aren't entirely conscious of all of it, and our societies and cultures are based around the family and raising children. The truth is, up until very recently with the advent of technological advances and the Industrial Revolution, men and women, and their negotiated roles that were practical and based on biology, were incredibly dependent on each other for survival.

Men have benefited far more than women from this arrangement, of course - it seems to me the institution of marriage has been generally disadvantageous to women throughout history. Might makes right, though, and we are not at all far from chimpanzees and gorillas in how we interact with each other.

What it means to "be a man" weighs heavily upon male humans. Social standing depends upon it. If a man is seen as weak or 'womanly', he moves down on the social hierarchy. We're all just navigating power dynamics, and I have seen men become absolutely enraged if that is challenged. A man, who is not manly, and who challenges another man's manhood, is in a dangerous position.

Women, on the other hand, are property, and their sexuality is at the service of the community. Across cultures, men view a woman's unrestrained sexuality as a highly dangerous thing. She is wild and primal and must be tamed by the male principle (men have apparently always thought their dicks can save the world!). It's also far far less threatening than male homosexuality, and human society is pretty patriarchal. Which is why there is just not a lot of lesbian or wlw documentation throughout history - Ancient Greece and Rome are full of accepted pederasty and male lovers, but lesbians are cloaked in the shadows.

As far as the Christian West goes, there's also something to be said for the condemnation of homosexuality by Christianity. Up until Christianity took over Europe, homosexual relations really weren't that big of a deal. However, I do think that a fair portion of what Christianity was trying to put an end to was pederasty, and it became conflated with adult homosexuality as well.

[–]Athelhilda4Questioning 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

As far as the Christian West goes, there's also something to be said for the condemnation of homosexuality by Christianity. Up until Christianity took over Europe, homosexual relations really weren't that big of a deal. However, I do think that a fair portion of what Christianity was trying to put an end to was pederasty, and it became conflated with adult homosexuality as well.

That's not entirely true. In some areas, such as Greece and Rome, pederasty and males who topped were tolerated by society. According to Taticus, however, the German tribes killed gay men on sight.

[–]SerpensInferna 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I would argue that Tacitus included that tidbit to compare how far the Romans were falling morally - the Germanic tribes were the original noble savages, after all. The Germans may have killed homosexual men, but I don't think we can take Tacitus at his word alone.

On the other hand, Aristotle mentions that Celts openly approved of sexual relations between men, and Diodorus writes of how Celtic men had sexual relations with each other in ways that baffled the Greeks because they were not concerned with age or beauty.

So. Take that as you will. We will probably never know the truth, only the truth through ancient writer's biases.

[–]KingDickThe2nd 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

On the other hand, Aristotle mentions that Celts openly approved of sexual relations between men, and Diodorus writes of how Celtic men had sexual relations with each other in ways that baffled the Greeks because they were not concerned with age or beauty.

Can you provide some evidence/sources for this?

The only translations that I can find that state that it involved sex between adult men also convert pederasty into being sex between adult men.

This book translates to both Aristotle and Diodorus as talking about pederasty.

[–]SerpensInferna 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've taken both from "War, Women, and Druids: Eyewitness Reports and Early Accounts of the Ancient Celts", by Philip Freeman (2002).

Aristotle from his "Politics", Diodorus in I believe his "Library of History".

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Non-reproductive monosexuality is incompatible in a world which is very much obsessed with reproduction of future generations, which is why gays and lesbians are hated. When you have an entire group of people of people not conforming to this mindset, we then become the "others" and all societies unite to "frown" upon these others

[–]sloan 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

that's not really true. you're trying to rationalize something by giving it an intellectual veneer. The people who hate us arent scholars and intellectuals worried about lineage or western civilization. She's asking about the very essence of homophobia which elicits great disgust and hatred.

We're hated for breaking gender norms. Gender is about power relations and what you expect from other people, your responsibilities towards them and how you're supposed to treat them. Gender is about what you're entitled to in certain roles. Gay people can elicit massive disgust when straight people assume it means we expect something from them when we dont follow their gender roles and slip into ones theyre not used to. Of course all these things are in the heads of the heterosexuals but they assume certain things about gays and lesbians which infuriate them.

Straight men have certain responsibilities that are infused into their character if they ever want to be a "man". To protect women, to die for them, to sacrifice themselves as "men" when letting the women and children go first on the titanic and be well spoken of or punished and humiliated as cowards if they dont fulfill their duties.

Can you imagine the amount of rage they'd feel if they they felt gay men who were the "bottoms" or whatever but were still males, put a princess tiara on and demanded to cut in line in the titanic above all the men because now these straight men were supposed to be responsible for these gay men they have absolutely no sexual attraction to or duty towards. And the resentment and anger of the women there and their rage at a gay man "stealing their resources", which is the duty of men to "protect" women that women like to exploit and fight and compete over amongst each other. Of course these are all assumptions but they assume if you get fucked like a woman would, then you must want to be assuming the gender role, entitlement and traits of a straight woman, which is where all their assumptions come from

Gender also can become very toxic and can rub people the wrong way. Like how a narcissistic woman can go into a room and expect that every guy wants to do something for her, which just rubs straight men the wrong way. Can you imagine the anger a straight man would feel if some gay person walked into a room and started acting in such a way where he thinks he's some sexy irresistible bimbo and acts like a snotty entitled brat because he thinks he's "cute"?

Straight men and women have also laid claim to certain traits and characteristics for their sex in a competition against one another which sometimes doesnt cut a clean line down the middle because gays and lesbians are down the middle of that line. So women would be highly disgusted and resentful towards gay men because they believe certain human traits are theirs and "how dare gays step into our territory" from things such as empathy, compassion etc and the same goes for lesbians vs straight men.

All of these scenarios are just millions of assumptions made about what you anticipate gay men to be like and what you think they expect from you because of the way they act. Of course it can be reversed, where gay "top" men are seen as intimidating and the rage straight men would feel about being made into "women" and degraded, dominated and debased by engaging in power dynamics with these men who could sexually dominate them.

Heterosexual men and heterosexual women have a great disgust for each other not because of their sex but because of their gender roles. And that disgust they have for each other leaks on to gays and lesbians. Sometimes it's hatred and sometimes its just laughter and mockery. Women in positions of power would be seen as a joke not so long ago. There are some men who would have died of laughter at the thought of a female president because of the assumptions they make about someone's gender (not sex).

All the other answers seem to try and rationalize and give political/structural answers but "ideas" and political beliefs dont inspire disgust towards gays and lesbians. Christian priests didnt just randomly say one day: "ok. you know your gay family members that you have no hatred for? Well, we need to breed more so i need you to uncontrollably be disgusted by them". That's not how any of this works.

Gays and lesbians keep forgetting we were seen as gender abominations in the imaginations of heteros: Gay males painted as cowards by women for not wanting to "serve" them or be manipulated by them because they weren't "man enough" to want the honour of serving a woman and fulfill his role as a man and lesbians were slandered as degenerate beasts who werent interested in pursuing femininity and being a delicate flower to be possessed by a man.

Our entire gay civil rights movement was only allowed to progress when we taught people your sex doesnt have to define your gender and on top of that, gender roles dont always have to be a thing. But there's been a flood of heterosexual men and women so damaged that if they dont fit into their gender roles perfectly, are chopping off their dicks or breasts and coming in to our community to go against the very essence of what we fought for which was that gender doesnt have to be tied to sex. (but they medicalize and pathologize any deviance from gender roles as meaning there's something deeply wrong with you and you must be of the opposite sex and need to change your sex to match a certain personality, which again, goes against the entire history of our movement)

[–]Cass 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You don't understand what gender roles are and how they work.

titanic

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth/

We went through a list of over 100 major maritime disasters spanning three centuries to see if we could find data on survival rates of men and women. We ended up with data on 18 shipwrecks, involving 15,000 passengers. In contrast to the Titanic, we found that the survival rate for men is basically double that for women. We only have data on children for a limited number of shipwrecks, but it is evident that they have really bad survival prospects: just 15 per cent.

let's look at what happens in conservative societies with traditional gender roles when everybody is in danger

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/08/02/4-asylum-seeker-demography-young-and-male/

Since 2013, the demographic profile of asylum seekers in the EU-28, Norway and Switzerland has become slightly more male (67% in 2013, 71% in 2014 and 73% in 2015), with a steady share of asylum seekers arriving under 35 years of age (80% in 2013 and in 2014, 83% in 2015).

UNHCR has to fudge the language in order to cover for the large discrepancy between men and women refugees https://www.unhcr.org/women.html

In times of displacement, this problem escalates. Women and girls make up around 50 per cent of any refugee, internally displaced or stateless population

Internally displaced and stateless are not refugees. I can't actually find any study or concrete numbers on female refugees besides this quote here.

"Gender norms" never benefited women. And this whole thing with chivalry and sacrifice or whatever you're talking about only existed in novels and for people who have a golden image of the good old days.

I don't understand why you have to invent this whole story when you are contemporary with real societies where homosexuals are imprisoned or even executed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43822234 here's a list.

Then you do some research. Since all of those places have access to internet you can find people who will explain why they hate gays.

Specifically regarding Afghanistan, a couple days ago I made a post where I was wondering about the connection between the Taliban, who execute homosexuals and bacha bazi. If those abused boys grow up to become radicalized and join the Taliban then they probably don't make the distinction between pedophile who rapes boys and homosexual.

In fact here's an article which appeared in a reputable magazine about homosexuality in islam. Notice how it's actually about men taking boy lovers. https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/afghanistans-love-hate-relationship-with-homosexuality/

[–]DimDroog 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Straight men have certain responsibilities that are infused into their character if they ever want to be a "man". To protect women, to die for them, to sacrifice themselves as "men" when letting the women and children go first on the titanic and be well spoken of or punished and humiliated as cowards if they dont fulfill their duties.

I always hated this particular line of thinking.

Hated it with a passion.

I'm a woman, for what it's worth.

Your whole comment is pure gold.

[–]TurtleChaos 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I guess it's good then that the whole "men nobly sacrificing themselves for women and children" thing isn't demonstrably true, like, at all. Just go look at the article Cass linked further up the comment chain- "the survival rate for men is basically double that for women." Does that make you feel better?

[–]DimDroog 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The reason I don't like it is because it assumes women are helpless little bubbles.

I'm tired of it.

Does that make you feel better?

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

As always, you make excellent points that need to be heard and discussed.

However, you do not support our movement, and will eventually use our sub to promote your own hatred towards others and blame us for your feelings.

Goodbye.

[–]usehername[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Ban-evasion user

[–]usehername[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

How can you tell?

[–]soundsituationI myself was once a gay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I can't speak for TWF, but for me it's the diction, the tendency towards screed, and (this is the big one and the thing that always gets him or her in trouble) the focus on intersectionality/demonizing subgroups. Hang around long enough and it gets obvious.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The people who hate us arent scholars and intellectuals worried about lineage or western civilization.

That's completely irrelevant. The scholars of religious texts tell the followers what to think.

[–]fuck_reddit 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have a theory that if a group is small enough in the population (say, less than 5%), then the common person rarely interacts with many in said group. There simply arent enough interactions between said group and the rest of society to dispel negative stereotypes and notions, allowing hate against this group to spread and perpetuate relatively unchecked.

Additionally, straight people simply don’t understand same sex attraction. We aren’t like a religion, which can be thought of as a set if ideas. We are an innate urge. It is difficult to gain sympathy for our innate urge when straight people have the opposite in ate urge.

[–]usehername[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But straight women and gay men have the same sexual urge and vice versa for straight guys and lesbians, but there still doesn't seem to be much empathy when it comes to the population at large, especially throughout history and in poorer countries.

[–]fuck_reddit 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I disagree. Those groups are attracted to the same people, but the dynamics and desires of homosexual men and women differ from their corresponding straight counterpart.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m guessing going far back, it’s the non reproduction aspect. You aren’t going to fit in a binary tribe if you aren’t going to marry and assume a specific sex role. Also I think a confusion with pedos and homosexuals becomes part of it. Those attitudes then become part of religions which have great influence on societies, although it can effect non religious ones too.

[–]soundsituationI myself was once a gay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think it might depend on the nature of the hatred, which I suspect varies on an individual basis. Does it come from a visceral disgust? Resentment/jealousy over our failure to conform to expectations? The simple aversion to that which is different? It could also be religiously motivated, although I think that's probably more of a justification for underlying prejudice. These are the big reasons I've encountered. I suspect nonconformity is the most basic one.

[–]JulienMayfair 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One aspect of it comes from the notion of collective punishment for the toleration of "immoral" behavior. In the Hebrew Bible, a consistent theme is that entire communities are punished if they tolerate what's considered immoral behavior, so, in that context, what your neighbor is doing is very much your business. You find that idea resurfacing among Puritans in the 1600/1700s.

And some people still believe this. I remember some old guy being interviewed after an earthquake, and he said, "This kind of thing will keep happening if we don't get right with God."

And a misreading of the Sodom story presented a stark example of how God would punish entire cities. (I think that Sodom was about hospitality and the tension between nomadic and urban existence, not homosexuality.)

[–]TiredTrendersSuper-gay 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Like others have said here already, we L & G don't have kids biologically. Therefore, no new people being made by us to indoctrinate and brainwash into being good little worker bees, for the powers that be to utilize and exploit. Also we "destabilize" the nuclear family structure most societies have normalized by demonstrating, through our mere existence, that there's more to life than grow up, get a spouse and have children.

Do that or you're out, dead, exiled etc. because otherwise you're a burden or an "other" on our town/county/country/region/nation and we don't tolerate that kind o folk round here spiel.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, directing a people's hatred to a certain place is great way of building social cohesion, which is something very valuable, politically speaking.

Gays and lesbians just happened to be the perfect demographic for such a thing: they're a small portion of the population, but large enough to be built up as an actual menace.

This is all about giving someone for the masses to hate, which can unite them and give those in power a nice platform to manipulate them.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

First of all realize that the concept of marriage for love is an extremely new concept. At some point prehistoric tribal leaders realized that their tribe's survival depended on high rates of reproduction.

Gender used to be very important for survival in a preindustrial society. The bible basically explains that people must reproduce as much as possible. For that time period you needed your tribe to defeat nearby tribes. Battles were life threatening and babies had low survival rates.

I know an acquaintance who moved to Japan and complains about how all the gays there are bottoms but for a weird reason. They are trying to be "as gay as possible to get it out of their system then settle down and have a family" so either you instill a sense of duty to create a family or you use fear based tactics to make deviants hated so people in the tribe are afraid to deviate.

If we have an infant survival rate like we now have marriage and reproduction aren't the life and death issues that they once were but the social roles are lagging way behind the reality of our technology.