Aug. 8th, 2004 03:18 am
Thinking out loud
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceI think I may have just hit upon a Holy Grail of understanding the objection to same-sex marriage...
(it's late, forgive the meandering...)
Aside from issues with gender and sexism being part of the root of homophobia, and religious brainwashing messing with people's ability to think logically, I think I've figured out what a big part of the problem with all of this is.
1. Especially in a post-9/11 America, where people are constantly afraid, what people are seeking right now is the comfort of other people, in familiar settings: family, church, community, etc. A lousy economy, high unemployment, and jobs being shipped overseas (thanks, George, you idiot) are also driving people to seek security at home since they no longer have financial security.
2. Due to low visibility, they associate being gay exclusively with avoidance of intimacy and family. Rather than understanding that the craving for casual sex/rejection of relationships is not something which is peculiar to being gay (or being male, for that matter) they believe being gay is only about tea rooms and sex in parks and circuit parties.
3. Because of how so many gay people are pressured into marrying opposite-sex partners, whom they then later divorce or cheat on, homosexuality in general gets blamed for divorce, for people abandoning their families, etc.
4. Therefore, gay people are associated with a destruction of those comfort zones that people are craving so much right now.
What we have to work on, then, is getting people to understand that, while of course there are gay people who avoid intimacy, being gay itself is not the cause of that behavior. The root causes for promiscuity are the same whether the person doing it is straight or gay
A side note here: yes, on a percentage level, promiscuity is higher in both gays and men. I believe the reason for this is because men in American culture are taught to reject emotional intimacy as being too effeminate, and in the case of gay men, emotional attachment often comes with pain due to rejection from friends, communities, family members, etc. They still crave human contact, so they're off every night getting laid (or drowning in porn, etc.) but they're afraid of being hurt (and especially of losing the love of someone they rely on, as they lost the love of a parent/friend, etc), so they reject intimate relationships.
This of course doesn't mean demonizing sex-- that's part of what gets us in trouble in the first place-- but it does mean getting people to understand that the same-sex couples who want to marry are not at all the kind of people who want to make a mockery of commitment and stability, and who actually want to celebrate commitment and stability.
In fact, granting same-sex marriage could very well *increase* the stability of social insitututions for two reasons:
1. Getting straight parents to accept their gay kids, and their gay kids' partners helps keep extended families intact, and assures that support networks grow and thrive, which is good for everyone in them.
2. A rash of same-sex couples settling down, getting married and having kids increases the overall stability of communities. People with stable, loving families are more likely to buy property, pay for local community needs like schools, libraries and public works, and avoid abusing drugs and alcohol (which increase crime.)
Same-sex marriage is not going to destroy families and communities and all those other things that we humans need to feel stable and safe. Homophobia, divorce, cheating, and pressuring people to marry people they're not in love with destroys families. Pushing people to marry when they're too young, to have children they don't want, and demanding that men and women develop into polar opposites that don't understand each other destroys families. And making people ashamed of having sexual desire destroys families, too...
I think the world would be a better place if people had more orgasms. However, I also believe the world would be a better place if people loved each other more, and followed through on their commitments.
(note that the below contains generalizations. Of course exceptions exist, but recognizing and understanding the general tendencies of a population is just as important as recognizing variances)
American culture suffers from a massive Madonna/Whore complex. The asininity (is that a word? it is now) of conservative religion teaching that sex is inherently sinful (prohibitions against masturbation, etc.) has created a population which still craves sex (because that's a perfectly normal biological drive) but which is so ashamed of that craving that it seeks it out only in furtive, secret and largely anonymous ways. Instead of coming home and fucking the daylights out of our partners, we go to strip clubs, or prostitutes or have sex with some stranger we picked up somewhere.
The bizarre gender division wrt sex is also responsible for this problem. We praise and reward hypersexuality in males, and punish anything but chastity in females. For generations, American women have been taught that they have only two functions: mother or faceless whore, and that both sexual desire and respectability cannot be present in the same person. Unfortunately, American men have also learned this about American women, and so many have a hard time feeling sexually attracted to women they have respect for. They've been taught that sex is degrading to women, and so they don't desire it with women they don't want to degrade. They reserve the degradation for the latest centerfold or the girls at Deja Vu.
Likewise, we've also trained people, through entertainment, the media and through mainstream porn (non-mainstream porn is another issue, and another essay entirely) that sex = buff hypersexual teenagers with barely a name and no personality. How can we ever hope that people will stay faithful to their partners through decades of marriage when we've taught them to only sexually respond to people who don't actually exist in real life? Should we at all be surprised when a 40 year old, already distanced from his wife because they rarely see each other, and live very separate lives, would rather sleep with his 19 year old secretary than his wife? He's been taught that the bodies of 40 year old women are not attractive, and that being attracted to someone regardless of their looks is downright unmanly, so it's no wonder that he rejects her, with all the flaws that come with time, stress and motherhood, and picks the fresh meat he's been conditioned to be attracted to. The same problem happens with gay couples, too, and alarmingly, it's also happening within the young lesbian community. The concept of being sexually attracted to someone because you love and care for them, and not because they have a perky ass, is becoming rapidly obsolete.
Tangent: This is, of course, one of my issues with the whole Sam and Frodo thing, too. Modern people don't understand how a person could want to be in a romantic relationship, and even make love to someone merely because of having very strong emotions. People complain that slash "pollutes" or somehow makes their love dirty, because they've been taught three things:
1. That sex is inherently dirty, and therefore it dirties any relationship
2. That gay sex is even more inherently dirty
3. That sexual attraction, based entirely on physical attributes, always precedes love
Far too many people honestly can't fathom the concept of two people having sex because they love each other and want ultimate physical intimacy with each other. They don't get the idea of making love, of bonding with someone through sex. It's like there's this wall set up between love and sex, even within relationships. There is love, which is asexual, and sex, which is emotionally detached. The idea of saying to one's partner: "I love you, and I want to touch you in ways and places no one else gets to, and want to make you feel good" scares the daylights out of some people. Likewise, some women also don't get that loving sex can be a quick, dirty fuck on the kitchen floor just as much as hours-long soft-focus glorified cuddling set to Bolero.
Even as recent as 30 years ago, people were getting married and settling down right out of high school. Going to college, and postponing marriage until late 20s or even later was very rare. Puberty also came later than it is, now. As a result, a person could very well get their first major sexual urges only two or three years before they got married, and sometimes the gap was even smaller. Religious rules about saving sex for marriage therefore weren't nearly as unreasonable as they are now, when a person can have as much as 20 years between their first sexual urges and getting married. Of course, conservative religious leaders' solution to this is to encourage people to marry younger (ignoring the data that proves marrying too young is a huge factor in divorce) but realistically, we can't expect people to be completely celibate for 10-20 years.
That being the case, a period of time of sowing one's oats certainly makes sense. The best marriages are the ones between individuals who are self-actualized, full people, and in modern life, you just don't get that way unless you've been to college, and/or spent some time living on your own as an adult. Likewise, being through a few trial relationships is also healthy, because you learn how to behave in a relationship without the legal and psychological consequences that come with being married. However, I don't think random promiscuity is the healthiest thing to be doing in this oat-sowing period, and I think the emphasis American culture puts on its youth of indiscriminate fucking is really messing people up, because they get used to sex being emotionally detached like that, and then can't switch gears and be intimate once they're with a long-term partner.
In (correctly) rejecting the ridiculous anti-sex edicts of conservatives, too many people are going the exact opposite direction, and rejecting all the "family values" stuff. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I believe in family values. I believe in people creating loving, committed networks, and that children are best raised in households with at least two adult caregivers, if not more. Our primate relatives, after all, exist in tribal and family groups. This nuclear family thing isn't really what we're wired for. Tribal groups don't have to be bound by blood or legality, but they do have to be bound by love and commitment, especially when children are involved. Yet people reject these things just as switfly as they reject Pleasantville-styled nuclear families, and that makes no sense.
I have no doubt that there really are people who are loners, but in my experience, most of the people who claim to not need love or good friends are just protecting themselves. They're afraid of losing that love, so they never get into it in the first place. And, predictably, this usually comes from people who are children of divorce or neglectful/abusive families, or who have been raised in day care and barely know their parents, or, in more traditional families, their father. Everyone wants a family, a tribe. Everyone wants to be loved. Everyone wants emotional and sexual intimacy as well as sexual pleasure. So why are we making this such an either-or situation? Why are we falling victim to the binary thinking that's polarized American culture?
Conservatives like to blame the breakdown of families and communities on women working and people getting away from religion, but that's not the problem. The problem is excessive capitalism, and the drive for monetary success and status. It's a problem of urban sprawl with terrible transportation, and hourlong commutes and 60 hour work weeks, and wanting to have the biggest SUV on the block. It's expensive college education, and poor healthcare, and CEOs making 40 times the salary of the company's lowest-paid worker (and laying people off while they get bonuses.) It's tax laws that favor corporations and not people. It's marketing and advertising and making people feel that they're inadequate unless they buy the latest widget. You want family values? Then pay people a living wage so they don't have to work overtime and can actually see their partner and kids. Refuse to perpetuate the myth that sex only comes in blondes with implants. Refuse to support people who reject their kids because they love someone who has the same plumbing as they do, or because they don't adhere to rigid gender stereotypes. Refuse to close yourself off from loving other people out of fear of losing them.
(it's late, forgive the meandering...)
Aside from issues with gender and sexism being part of the root of homophobia, and religious brainwashing messing with people's ability to think logically, I think I've figured out what a big part of the problem with all of this is.
1. Especially in a post-9/11 America, where people are constantly afraid, what people are seeking right now is the comfort of other people, in familiar settings: family, church, community, etc. A lousy economy, high unemployment, and jobs being shipped overseas (thanks, George, you idiot) are also driving people to seek security at home since they no longer have financial security.
2. Due to low visibility, they associate being gay exclusively with avoidance of intimacy and family. Rather than understanding that the craving for casual sex/rejection of relationships is not something which is peculiar to being gay (or being male, for that matter) they believe being gay is only about tea rooms and sex in parks and circuit parties.
3. Because of how so many gay people are pressured into marrying opposite-sex partners, whom they then later divorce or cheat on, homosexuality in general gets blamed for divorce, for people abandoning their families, etc.
4. Therefore, gay people are associated with a destruction of those comfort zones that people are craving so much right now.
What we have to work on, then, is getting people to understand that, while of course there are gay people who avoid intimacy, being gay itself is not the cause of that behavior. The root causes for promiscuity are the same whether the person doing it is straight or gay
A side note here: yes, on a percentage level, promiscuity is higher in both gays and men. I believe the reason for this is because men in American culture are taught to reject emotional intimacy as being too effeminate, and in the case of gay men, emotional attachment often comes with pain due to rejection from friends, communities, family members, etc. They still crave human contact, so they're off every night getting laid (or drowning in porn, etc.) but they're afraid of being hurt (and especially of losing the love of someone they rely on, as they lost the love of a parent/friend, etc), so they reject intimate relationships.
This of course doesn't mean demonizing sex-- that's part of what gets us in trouble in the first place-- but it does mean getting people to understand that the same-sex couples who want to marry are not at all the kind of people who want to make a mockery of commitment and stability, and who actually want to celebrate commitment and stability.
In fact, granting same-sex marriage could very well *increase* the stability of social insitututions for two reasons:
1. Getting straight parents to accept their gay kids, and their gay kids' partners helps keep extended families intact, and assures that support networks grow and thrive, which is good for everyone in them.
2. A rash of same-sex couples settling down, getting married and having kids increases the overall stability of communities. People with stable, loving families are more likely to buy property, pay for local community needs like schools, libraries and public works, and avoid abusing drugs and alcohol (which increase crime.)
Same-sex marriage is not going to destroy families and communities and all those other things that we humans need to feel stable and safe. Homophobia, divorce, cheating, and pressuring people to marry people they're not in love with destroys families. Pushing people to marry when they're too young, to have children they don't want, and demanding that men and women develop into polar opposites that don't understand each other destroys families. And making people ashamed of having sexual desire destroys families, too...
I think the world would be a better place if people had more orgasms. However, I also believe the world would be a better place if people loved each other more, and followed through on their commitments.
(note that the below contains generalizations. Of course exceptions exist, but recognizing and understanding the general tendencies of a population is just as important as recognizing variances)
American culture suffers from a massive Madonna/Whore complex. The asininity (is that a word? it is now) of conservative religion teaching that sex is inherently sinful (prohibitions against masturbation, etc.) has created a population which still craves sex (because that's a perfectly normal biological drive) but which is so ashamed of that craving that it seeks it out only in furtive, secret and largely anonymous ways. Instead of coming home and fucking the daylights out of our partners, we go to strip clubs, or prostitutes or have sex with some stranger we picked up somewhere.
The bizarre gender division wrt sex is also responsible for this problem. We praise and reward hypersexuality in males, and punish anything but chastity in females. For generations, American women have been taught that they have only two functions: mother or faceless whore, and that both sexual desire and respectability cannot be present in the same person. Unfortunately, American men have also learned this about American women, and so many have a hard time feeling sexually attracted to women they have respect for. They've been taught that sex is degrading to women, and so they don't desire it with women they don't want to degrade. They reserve the degradation for the latest centerfold or the girls at Deja Vu.
Likewise, we've also trained people, through entertainment, the media and through mainstream porn (non-mainstream porn is another issue, and another essay entirely) that sex = buff hypersexual teenagers with barely a name and no personality. How can we ever hope that people will stay faithful to their partners through decades of marriage when we've taught them to only sexually respond to people who don't actually exist in real life? Should we at all be surprised when a 40 year old, already distanced from his wife because they rarely see each other, and live very separate lives, would rather sleep with his 19 year old secretary than his wife? He's been taught that the bodies of 40 year old women are not attractive, and that being attracted to someone regardless of their looks is downright unmanly, so it's no wonder that he rejects her, with all the flaws that come with time, stress and motherhood, and picks the fresh meat he's been conditioned to be attracted to. The same problem happens with gay couples, too, and alarmingly, it's also happening within the young lesbian community. The concept of being sexually attracted to someone because you love and care for them, and not because they have a perky ass, is becoming rapidly obsolete.
Tangent: This is, of course, one of my issues with the whole Sam and Frodo thing, too. Modern people don't understand how a person could want to be in a romantic relationship, and even make love to someone merely because of having very strong emotions. People complain that slash "pollutes" or somehow makes their love dirty, because they've been taught three things:
1. That sex is inherently dirty, and therefore it dirties any relationship
2. That gay sex is even more inherently dirty
3. That sexual attraction, based entirely on physical attributes, always precedes love
Far too many people honestly can't fathom the concept of two people having sex because they love each other and want ultimate physical intimacy with each other. They don't get the idea of making love, of bonding with someone through sex. It's like there's this wall set up between love and sex, even within relationships. There is love, which is asexual, and sex, which is emotionally detached. The idea of saying to one's partner: "I love you, and I want to touch you in ways and places no one else gets to, and want to make you feel good" scares the daylights out of some people. Likewise, some women also don't get that loving sex can be a quick, dirty fuck on the kitchen floor just as much as hours-long soft-focus glorified cuddling set to Bolero.
Even as recent as 30 years ago, people were getting married and settling down right out of high school. Going to college, and postponing marriage until late 20s or even later was very rare. Puberty also came later than it is, now. As a result, a person could very well get their first major sexual urges only two or three years before they got married, and sometimes the gap was even smaller. Religious rules about saving sex for marriage therefore weren't nearly as unreasonable as they are now, when a person can have as much as 20 years between their first sexual urges and getting married. Of course, conservative religious leaders' solution to this is to encourage people to marry younger (ignoring the data that proves marrying too young is a huge factor in divorce) but realistically, we can't expect people to be completely celibate for 10-20 years.
That being the case, a period of time of sowing one's oats certainly makes sense. The best marriages are the ones between individuals who are self-actualized, full people, and in modern life, you just don't get that way unless you've been to college, and/or spent some time living on your own as an adult. Likewise, being through a few trial relationships is also healthy, because you learn how to behave in a relationship without the legal and psychological consequences that come with being married. However, I don't think random promiscuity is the healthiest thing to be doing in this oat-sowing period, and I think the emphasis American culture puts on its youth of indiscriminate fucking is really messing people up, because they get used to sex being emotionally detached like that, and then can't switch gears and be intimate once they're with a long-term partner.
In (correctly) rejecting the ridiculous anti-sex edicts of conservatives, too many people are going the exact opposite direction, and rejecting all the "family values" stuff. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I believe in family values. I believe in people creating loving, committed networks, and that children are best raised in households with at least two adult caregivers, if not more. Our primate relatives, after all, exist in tribal and family groups. This nuclear family thing isn't really what we're wired for. Tribal groups don't have to be bound by blood or legality, but they do have to be bound by love and commitment, especially when children are involved. Yet people reject these things just as switfly as they reject Pleasantville-styled nuclear families, and that makes no sense.
I have no doubt that there really are people who are loners, but in my experience, most of the people who claim to not need love or good friends are just protecting themselves. They're afraid of losing that love, so they never get into it in the first place. And, predictably, this usually comes from people who are children of divorce or neglectful/abusive families, or who have been raised in day care and barely know their parents, or, in more traditional families, their father. Everyone wants a family, a tribe. Everyone wants to be loved. Everyone wants emotional and sexual intimacy as well as sexual pleasure. So why are we making this such an either-or situation? Why are we falling victim to the binary thinking that's polarized American culture?
Conservatives like to blame the breakdown of families and communities on women working and people getting away from religion, but that's not the problem. The problem is excessive capitalism, and the drive for monetary success and status. It's a problem of urban sprawl with terrible transportation, and hourlong commutes and 60 hour work weeks, and wanting to have the biggest SUV on the block. It's expensive college education, and poor healthcare, and CEOs making 40 times the salary of the company's lowest-paid worker (and laying people off while they get bonuses.) It's tax laws that favor corporations and not people. It's marketing and advertising and making people feel that they're inadequate unless they buy the latest widget. You want family values? Then pay people a living wage so they don't have to work overtime and can actually see their partner and kids. Refuse to perpetuate the myth that sex only comes in blondes with implants. Refuse to support people who reject their kids because they love someone who has the same plumbing as they do, or because they don't adhere to rigid gender stereotypes. Refuse to close yourself off from loving other people out of fear of losing them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject