Homophobia is not just an irrational fear of homosexuals – it is also the irrational fear of ANY form of intimacy between people of like gender. We must take into account that same-sex intimacy betweens females is tolerated only because it reflects the faux-passive nature of female sexuality; females are considered unable to be sexual predators. It’s a hangover from the old “lie back and think of England” days of female sexuality. I think Mrs Robinson would have a thing or two to say about that.

Homophobia betweens heterosexual males is indeed a sad thing and I can see how you can draw a line between the emergence of gay culture and the changes in society around you but I would postulate that those people who would persecute you for appearing “gay” these days would have done it in a more covert manner such as whispering to their friends, giving you a “dirty look” or “outing” you to the larger community – especially the church community.

Maybe what we need to focus on there days is not the rise of gay culture but the damage our sexual (Sex sells etc…) culture does to non-sexual relationships such as yours and your friend.
Those who see you as gay or straight are sexualizing you. They deny your humanity and put you in a mental porn movie of their own design. They see not the man and only the “potential homo”; they create a “boyfriend” for you and imagine you and he as lovers. The rise of gay culture didn’t create this. Sexual competition between males create it. To be able to write off a competitor as “gay” removes him as a threat and sets him apart from the “race”.

The sexualization of people has been around since the beginning of time. We are beginning to see the damage done by the sexualization of children in society – from hip new fashions that push a young girl’s self-image beyond their chronological years to the more outright and overt child porn.

I personally think that you and “John” (the name under which your partner chooses identified himself) have a Brokeback thing going on. It is so obvious to me that you are both hiding in the closet scratching an unmentionable itch. Perhaps that is not so bad provided that the closet and the itch are mutually shared.

No, I subscribe to an ancient religion that was already established centuries before the medieval period and whose civilizing influence on the barbarians who despoiled the ancient world saved Western Civilization.

And, yeah, you seem really worried that someone is really worried about being thought gay. And that’s bad because you subscribe to a medieval religion?

Pete, are you suggesting that I’m not being charitable? I’ve re-read my entry, and I don’t see anything uncharitable about it, unless to question the wholesomeness of homosexuality is itself uncharitable.

But that right there shows how polluted the waters have become. We can scarcely even discuss what I am calling the “phenomenon of homosexuality,” or what you might also call “cultural homosexuality—the significantly larger share of our socio-cultural consciousness that homosexuality has assumed in the last four decades, as well as its much broader acceptance, especially by the cultural elites.

Is it unreasonable to suggest that this social phenomenon might have an impact on many heterosexual men and their relationships? I don’t see how it couldn’t. And it seems to me there is a negative side to that impact (it might even be entirely negative, but I haven’t gone so far as to say that).

This position has yeilded the predictable responses. I’m a homophobe. I’m being uncharitable. I’m secretly gay. And this one:

“The good old days never were.”

Maybe not, but it’s also true that there really has been a dramatic social change over the past several decades (take it back as far as you want—the sixties, the twenties). Can’t we acknowlege that without being accused of a naive nostalgia for the past?

Can’t we say we’ve lost something along the way, something it might be worth trying to retrieve, without being accused of wanting to “turn back the clock”?

I don’t want to go back to 1937, but if “the good old days never were,” it’s also true that the good old days never are. That is to say, 2006 can lay no greater claim to being the golden age than can 1937.

If a film like Captains Courageous can be accused of idealism, so too can Brokeback Mountain. The question is, what ideals are being invoked?

I’ve already commented on the worthy ideals I find in Captains Courageous. But what are the ideals of Brokeback Mountain? Is its account of homosexuality authentic? How about its account of marriage?

The point is, what ideal of masculinity are we striving for? Which brings me around to this comment of yours:

“To an untrained ear, it might sound like you are saying men can’t be men no more on account of them queers.”

If you’re saying I haven’t made my point very well, fair enough. I admit these are difficult matters to write about, and I’m trying to get my head around them even as I type. But it seems to me that’s all part of the whole blogging thing.

I’m not really trying to say that men can’t be men anymore—though to a large extent they aren’t. Nor that the all the blame for men’s failure to be men goes to homosexuals or homosexuality. There are many other factors—John mentions contraception. You’d have to throw abortion and pornography in there too, and of course the impact of radical feminism.

What I am saying is that we have no clear notion of what it means to be a man, and that our culture’s acceptance (if we can call it that) of homosexuality has played a part in that. Seeing Captains Courageous, the product of a different time, when that meaning was clearer to people, brought home to me how unclear it is to us.

Charity is the best guide for undertaking any assessment of society as a whole. Your stance on this matter has me on the verge of invoking Godwin. To an untrained ear, it might sound like you are saying men can’t be men no more on account of them queers.

The good old days never were. There has always been the possibility that public affection between males might raise suspicions of homosexuality. The difference between today and 40 years ago is that such suspicions carry with them much less danger of physical violence.

And, dude, smoking is SO gay.

Yours with manly affection,
Pete

I could easily do this in a society that viewed the purpose of male and female genitals as being for generation, which should be clearly implied by the very name “genital”. Our society has divorced the true meaning of “genital” from those body parts to which they refer. In my opinion this is not really a result of some master homosexual plot, but rather it is the result firstly of heterosexual people deciding that their genitals are for “fun” rather than for generation. This societal decision is embodied first off in the use of “birth control”. The very idea of birth control presupposes that the genitals are solely (or at least primarily) for the gratification of the individual, and that there are no responsibilities associated with there use.

So when I am out with another male, my fear is that many people will have this view of sexual activity, and that seeing me having some sort of intimacy (an innocent intimacy I mean) with another man, that they will easily jump to the conclusion that I am gay. Furthermore, people who are using birth control will actually WANT to “see” us as gay, as it somewhat exonerates or gives tacit approval of their own abuse of even heterosexual sex, because it somehow gives “evidence” that genitals are just for pleasure. Since, cleary, in a same sex relationship procreation cannot happen, and some people actually are “gay” (“hey I saw one once”), therefore genitals MUST primarily be for fun and not for generation. Therefore these heterosexual people are “OK” in their use of birth control.

I will not go into how I think this conclusion is essentially connected with a misunderstanding of “natural”, “unnatural”, and “fallen nature”.

It is enough for now to conclude that because of birth control in our society, I have to be careful not to “appear” gay. And Eric is very right about the great loss that is incurred by the loss of innocent male intimacy.

Heterosexual males now pay a heavy price of isolation because of birth control and a subsequent “approval” of homosexuality to ease their own consciences.

What I hate is that I have to the price in isolation for OTHER men’s desire to abuse sex!

Uh, actually it was my buddy that made that comment, not me. If anything, I wasn’t worried enough about being “thought gay,” if we’re going to take his remark far more seriously than it was really meant.

I think Tom’s right; we’ve been having all these children to hide your secret identity. Now that he’s found you out, what should we do with the kids?

Actually, Tom’s comment perfectly illustrates your comments about how the culture of homosexuality has tainted authentic friendship between men. Thankfully, I don’t think it’s as much of an issue with women, though. Two women out together don’t attract much attention unless they really try.

Of course, the more you try to “prove” you’re not homosexual, the more Tom and those of like mind will use the fact that you even bring it up as proof that you are. It’s a no win situation.