Does male homosexuality relax tensions in society?

[Snarky Oracle!]

Some researchers feel that the normalization -- and acceptance -- of homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, relaxes and reduces tensions in society, and may cause cultures to be somewhat less warlike.

In homo-repressed cultures, which most have been much of the time, not only are gay men suppressed and squelched and forced into the closet, but heterosexual men suffer as well -- affection between straight men is often frowned upon due to the same homophobia that targets gay men.

The result of such standard homophobia is a society that is more violent and warlike.

Who can we blame for this, for this corrosive homophobia that ultimately victimizes everyone?

 

[Crimson]

It probably stands to reason that repressive societies breed aggression, to some extent. On the other hand, overly permissive societies seem to collapse.

So the only solution appears to be a little gay sex for everyone.

 

[Willie Oleson]

So the only solution appears to be a little gay sex for everyone.

Does that equate lots of gay sex with little people? (I mean size, not age).
A friend wants to know.

 

[RandallAdams]

No. Sport culture relaxes tension, which you could argue is homoerotic, but it's not homosexuality per se. If men didn't have their precious sports, they'd be killing each other in greater numbers. Sport allows them to compete in a harmless way.

 

[RandallAdams]

Gay men still like violence, and it's a cliche to say they are all sensitive and delicate. Look at some of their sexual habits, and the domination/submission fetish. Not to mention the fact that some of them are misogynistic. The original SA branch of the Nazis consisted of many gay men - who also happened to street thugs - and Hitler had them executed because he became frightened of the party being aligned with that sexual preference.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I feel Knots Landing on DVD is the answer to all our problems.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It probably stands to reason that repressive societies breed aggression, to some extent. On the other hand, overly permissive societies seem to collapse.

So the only solution appears to be a little gay sex for everyone.

Well, therein lies the conundrum present in today's culture: gay stuff -- or more precisely LGBTQIA+ stuff, has gone into overdrive and, indeed, the culture seems on the precipice of collapse.

But there's a difference in matter-of-fact acceptance (like, say, ancient Rome where there wasn't even a term for homosexuality, and that society -- contrary to rumor, didn't collapse until 200 years after oppression kicked in) and shrill, wildly neurotic political overdrive like we have today where people are asserting their "identities" like crazy and yet fewer people are actually having sex than ever.

So it doesn't seem that homosexuality, or homosexual sex is the destructive thing, but the political identity issues. Because culture-wide gender dysphoria is what tends to precede societal collapse, not so much actual homosexuality.

I've said before, just as I view the "woke" stuff as a rightwing psy-op to sabotage political the left, to turn it woke and turn it stupid and bring it down, I view the transmania of the last few years a scheme to create a backlash to ultimately roll-back basic gay rights.

BTW: why is homophobia considered to be even greater in the black community?

No. Sport culture relaxes tension, which you could argue is homoerotic, but it's not homosexuality per se. If men didn't have their precious sports, they'd be killing each other in greater numbers. Sport allows them to compete in a harmless way.

Gay men still like violence, and it's a cliche to say they are all sensitive and delicate. Look at some of their sexual habits, and the domination/submission fetish. Not to mention the fact that some of them are misogynistic.

Sports "allows men to compete in a harmless way"??

So male homosexuality is "violent" and harmful?

Do you realize that makes you sound homophobic? And, if anything, like a homophobic woman??

 

[RandallAdams]

Sports "allows men to compete in a harmless way"??

So male homosexuality is "violent" and harmful?

Do you realize that makes you sound homophobic? And, if anything, like a homophobic woman??

Men don't kill each other when they are competing over a sports game, but the impulse to defeat one another is still there... what part of this aren't you getting?

I said gay men have the capacity to be just as violent as heterosexual men. To say nothing of the mental cruelty a lot of them inflict on each other.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Men don't kill each other when they are competing over a sports game... what part of this aren't you getting?

I said gay men have the capacity to be just as violent as heterosexual men. To say nothing of the mental cruelty a lot of them inflict on each other.

The original SA branch of the Nazis consisted of many gay men - who also happened to street thugs - and Hitler had them executed because he became frightened of the party being aligned with that sexual preference

Hitler was gay, too. The problem is the closeting. (Or, today, the extremism in the opposite direction, which just pushes "normal" gay folks back into a closet).

No one was seriously suggesting that more people being actively gay makes society peaceful, because gay people are still raised in an homophobic culture and are taught to self-hate, turning that anger out towards others.

The question remains: who started homophobia, something that strangles many cultures, in the first place?

 

[RandallAdams]

Well, of course. No one was seriously suggesting that more people being actively gay makes society peaceful, because gay people are still raised in an homophobic culture and are taught to self-hate, turning that anger out towards others.

The question remains: who started homophobia, something that strangles many cultures, in the first place?

Homophobia probably came about from the monotheistic religions taking root. Once people became obsessed with this idea of divine transcendence and the body being corrupt, it seems to me that things like gay sex were used as examples of sinfulness. The polytheistic religions don't have this preoccupation with the spirit and the invisible kingdom, because their gods manifested on earth and made love with mortals too. Zeus was sleeping with women AND boys.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Women kill their offspring at a much higher rate than men do -- even when the fathers are in the households.

In hetero domestic violence situations where the assaults are bilateral and mutual, men and women initiate that violence equally 50/50. But in households with unilateral violence, women initiate it 70% of the time.

Lesbians have the highest rates of domestic violence, gay men the lowest, and straight couples in between.

So women are not anywhere near as peaceful as we often pretend they are.

And women (sometimes by their own admission) run society.

There is a school of thought that women re-introduce homophobia into the culture in order to shame prodigal, predominantly straight, men into returning attention, utility and resources to women as per usual -- with lesbians and gay men just collateral damage in this.

Could women have a bigger role in cultural violence and even wars than is usually credited them?

Homophobia probably came about from the monotheistic religions taking root. Once people became obsessed with this idea of divine transcendence and the body being corrupt, it seems to me that things like gay sex were used as examples of sinfulness. The polytheistic religions don't have this preoccupation with the spirit and the invisible kingdom, because their gods manifested on earth and made love with mortals too. Zeus was sleeping with women AND boys.

But why is gay sex more sinful than straight sex?

 

[RandallAdams]

But why is gay sex more sinful than straight sex?

Because straight sex was about the creation of life for those monotheistic religions, and not pleasure.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Because straight sex was about the creation of life for those monotheistic religions, and not pleasure.

And...?

Do you not think there's anything to the theory that women have implemented homophobia throughout history to control men? Not only gay men, but straight men who want to avoid allegations of being gay...

After all, there's no taboo about platonic affection between women. But there is between straight men.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

I read somewhere, so take this with a grain of salt because I don't have the source, that homophobia was initially rooted in what I believe was the first monotheistic religion, Judaism. It was because of procreation and since Jews were oppressed and enslaved there was an emphasis on keep their community growing. Homosexuality was seen as a threat to that.
If this has any basis in truth, it's ironic because the Jewish community generally seems very accepting of gays and lesbians, with the exception of the Hasidic and Orthodox communities. As a matter of fact, I know some who say in their synagogues the emphasis is on the sin of homophobia as opposed to the sin of homosexuality.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I read somewhere, so take this with a grain of salt because I don't have the source, that homophobia was initially rooted in what I believe was the first monotheistic religion, Judaism. It was because of procreation and since Jews were oppressed and enslaved there was an emphasis on keep their community growing. Homosexuality was seen as a threat to that.
If this has any basis in truth, it's ironic because the Jewish community generally seems very accepting of gays and lesbians, with the exception of the Hasidic and Orthodox communities. As a matter of fact, I know some who say in their synagogues the emphasis is on the sin of homophobia as opposed to the sin of homosexuality.

So why is there less condemnation of lesbianism? Yes, there is condemnation of lesbianism, but that has never resulted in the disapproval of platonic affection between women. And it most definitely has for men.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

Interesting question about lesbianism
I read that in some countries that had anti-sodomy laws there were no such laws regarding lesbians. It could be that women's sexuality wasn't taken as seriously as men's. There was a time that it wasn't even accepted that a women had pleasure during intercourse and that she was supposed to do her "wifely duties."
There was an episode of All in the Family:
Mike: It's a wonder any woman in America can enjoy sex with your old-fashioned way of thinking.
Archie: She ain't supposed to enjoy it! She's supposed to sit still for it!

 

[Crimson]

've said before, just as I view the "woke" stuff as a rightwing psy-op to sabotage political the left, to turn it woke and turn it stupid and bring it down, I view the transmania of the last few years a scheme to create a backlash to ultimately roll-back basic gay rights.

I'm starting to think you're not wrong. I have never -- not once -- voted anything other than straight Democrat. I haven't always been enthusiastic about it but, well, "better than the alternative". Except, now it's not. With the election about a year away, it is inconceivable to me that I would vote (D) again. Whether I'll go third party, or skip the whole thing, remains to be seen.

 

[anndra w]

Well, therein lies the conundrum present in today's culture: gay stuff -- or more precisely LGBTQIA+ stuff, has gone into overdrive and, indeed, the culture seems on the precipice of collapse.

But there's a difference in matter-of-fact acceptance (like, say, ancient Rome where there wasn't even a term for homosexuality, and that society -- contrary to rumor, didn't collapse until 200 years after oppression kicked in) and shrill, wildly neurotic political overdrive like we have today where people are asserting their "identities" like crazy and yet fewer people are actually having sex than ever.

So it doesn't seem that homosexuality, or homosexual sex is the destructive thing, but the political identity issues. Because culture-wide gender dysphoria is what tends to precede societal collapse, not so much actual homosexuality.

I've said before, just as I view the "woke" stuff as a rightwing psy-op to sabotage political the left, to turn it woke and turn it stupid and bring it down, I view the transmania of the last few years a scheme to create a backlash to ultimately roll-back basic gay rights.

BTW: why is homophobia considered to be even greater in the black community?

Sports "allows men to compete in a harmless way"??

So male homosexuality is "violent" and harmful?

Do you realize that makes you sound homophobic? And, if anything, like a homophobic woman??

LGBT+ has become cool for the younger generations certainly but that’s not necessarily a problem. There are countries in Europe where the society is progressive, LGBT+ equality is celebrated but the term woke and the idea of woke is not used in the way that we see in societies blighted by right wing led culture wars. Looking on as an outsider, watching what is happening to America just now it is frightening - it looks like your democracy is in real danger of collapsing and if I was an LGBT person living in America I’d be frightened because they have become the target of the far right in this culture war and it looks like a form of Christian Fascism - detached from actual Christian values is posing a threat to democracy and society as a whole. Woke is only a thing in societies where right wing, authoritarianism is on the rise - in other societies it’s not a thing - there’s just an acceptance of the need for equality.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Yes, there's definitely a difference between matter of fact acceptance and the constant "celebrate me and cater to my every demand or you're cancelled" mantra of today.

I heard a term for the first time today called "main character syndrome," which I feel sums up the woke people . These are self-absorbed people who think the world revolves around them. They're all over social media whining about being misgendered and calling people "transphobes" for opposing the grooming of children and trans women being in biological women's spaces. They also call people who aren't sexually attracted to trans people "transphobes" because, again, they think the world revolves around them.

Transmania is certainly a good word for it because the T in LGBT is all anybody is talking about these days. I personally support gay rights, a woman's right to choose, and even an adult's decision to transition. However, now that gay marriage has been settled, the trans movement has been pushed to the forefront. This is great for both parties, as it gives them something to run for and against. Biden exploited this by hosting topless trans activists at the Whie House while displaying the trans flag because the idiotic culture wars is all he can effectively run on. The economy's only good if you're rich and the wars continue on as usual. The idea that this doddering old right wing turd was going to "protect democracy" was always laughable. Our democracy has always been up for grabs to the highest bidders, which are the corporations and the military industrial complex.

I turned my back on the duopoly 7 years ago and never regretted it. If anything, it was liberating to no longer be manipulated into co-signing a "lesser" evil. Plus, I seriously doubt that Democrats support these causes any more than Republicans do. Even "hip" Obama was against gay marriage until it became politically expedient to support it. Same for the Clintons, and I'm sure Biden as well. The difference is the Democrats forego their principles on social issues and go where the political winds take them, while the Republicans remain socially conservative. The funny part about that is quite a few Republicans have turned out to be closeted LGBT folks themselves. Ah, sexual repression.

 

[Luke_Krebbs_Ewing]

It probably stands to reason that repressive societies breed aggression, to some extent. On the other hand, overly permissive societies seem to collapse.

So the only solution appears to be a little gay sex for everyone.

A little!

I want more and lots of it

And I want an ice cream too!