Sissyphobia, homophobia & evolutionary psychology
See more » Ambiguously Gendered See more » Love and Lust
(A manic outburst of sorts. I'm neither a scientist or historian. It was a way to pass the time until Charles came home.)
Way back in prehistoric time excluding, exiling a member of the pack or group who was weak was probably a good survival trait. Charity or notions like fairness would be millennia in coming. Food and survival would've been all that mattered. Well, there was mating. Back then the sexual instinct would've made the nowadays' singles bar wannabe stud look like sweetest guy you could ever hope to meet.
Mere lack of ruthlessness would've been as strong a signal of weakness as being crippled. You'd be shoved aside; anything you had worth owning would be taken. A weakling would've been slammed into whatever residue of the primeval slime that lingered, broken or killed. Murder wouldn't have emerged as an idea.
Sadly (?) we can't envision how the first instance of queer sexuality evinced itself. We can't even imagine when heterosexual fellatio, cunnilingus or anal sex, which would've lacked pheromonal triggers, served no survival purpose, emerged.
Soccer fans and racists testify to how less evolved people respond to difference. If there were ever a Cro-Magnon gay man he'd have been mighty different. Even if he had no idea of how to realize his sexuality his lack of desire to mate might've invited contempt, assault. (I'm ignoring animal instances of homosexuality: I hate reasoning by analogy.)
Without feeling diminished as a happy faggot my own speculation is that gay men emerged in a later more social context. (One last disclaimer: I'm spinning this in complete ignorance. Given how little we often know of men with documented lives from a couple of centuries ago the people who claim to have insights into the ancient past are bluffing mightily.)
There's a whole bunch of social contexts. Some like us homos, many despise us. There's no getting around that much of our shared history as honkies of European descent is rich in homophobia. Socrates' libido may have tingled in the company of a fair lad, Catullus' didn't. The pre-Christian Romans seem pretty divided on queer sex. Plenty of them liked a pretty boy, many thought it shamefully unmanly.
Eventually Jesus-worship took hold and house rules were against faggots. Very possibly Jewish influence, particularly Philo of Alexandria. David and Solomon aside the Hebrew children weren't good with sex. Discounting the Old Testament nonsense about kingdoms (that nobody else in the region noticed) the ancient Jews wandering in the desert may have been closer to their primitive past than the Romans whose culture was built around a City. There's something very tribal and unreflective in defining yourself by slicing off a bit of penis covering.
Homophobia wouldn't have taken root if it didn't harmonize with the minds of majority. Was it the scarifying difference or the fear of identification? Perhaps both, maybe the horror at possibility of not knowing how to distinguish between the two. Without a time machine and a few thousand - clear thinking - anthropologists to man them, we'll never know the origin of it all.
My own favorite is the fear of something that would make the perceiver seem weak if it were ever seen in itself. My reference of authority is my favorite: myself.
No, I've never known a moment of homophobia. I didn't know what queer sexuality was until I knew I was queer. I'm nerdophobic. When I see some four-eyed nerd boy my hackles rise, my stomach knots. Seething deeply in my back brain is the possibility that I could be like that. A few tiny differences here and there and I'd be awkward in my own body, caught between stuttering and sputtering. I've met the enemy and he is who I might've been.
Now what percolates through your heterosexual man's medulla oblongata? Has he looked at a pretty young man and realized that the boy is desirable? Is he - this is one of my own favorites - think about gay sex without worrying about his own ass being penetrated? (It isn't a problem if you'll just relax.) There's lots of cultural detritus: man as provider, man on top (unless he enjoys the reverse cowboy position), man as doer. Maybe straight men like fellatio so much that the very idea makes them unconsciously imagine a penis in their mouths (I'll admit that about eleven, the first time I tasted one, I thought it was nasty, the flavor has improved through the years I guess.) Hmm, that was non sequitur if I ever saw one. No problem I like it anyway.
The idea of gay sex takes them outside of their group identification. Even the men who think of themselves free of groups (their identification is as free spirits). It dissolves their identity and leaves them feeling as hopeless as a Christian the day he realizes he is an atheist.
Most people, lacking the existential confidence to stand in their own lonely space, forever want to be a part of the cohort, pack, nation-state, church, fellowship, feel lost when their membership in any of the preceding is stripped away. Lost and angry. Membership isn't enough; they need the group's approval.
Now about, sissyphobia. You didn't know that this was where I was heading did you? Straight acting gay men don't welcome difference. Straight acting gay men want membership in the heterosexual majority. Many of them would swear that the latter isn't true. If it isn't why do they virtually shake their heads when I praise the beauty of nelly gay boys and transvestites. Why should I share their vision of masculine beauty?
The canny among you might observe that I am a straight acting gay man. A fair observation. Yeah, I'd rather be on top (but don't mind being on bottom a particle, I've never met a cock that I didn't' like - OK, my acquaintanceship has been selective). I love feminine people and enjoy my chances to offer them a strong arm. It is just a fluke of my upbringing.
I'd hate to become femme at my age (aesthetically inappropriate). But when I was eighteen and lissome if I'd had a swish and a limp wrist and wanted a big hairy daddy I hope I'd have been happy.
Richard Evans Lee is a creation of contingencies. A shift in antecedent events would've created a different me. And the product of various stylistic choices. The most annoying thing about getting to live only once is it is so easy to imagine choosing a different mix and having an entertainingly different life.