homophobia

[Carl Remick]

Re Liza's:  "there seems to be a lot of consensus among 
historians (D'Emilio, Katz, the fellow who wrote the excellent Gay New
York, 
whose name now escapes me) that the communities, lifestyles, hangouts,
etc. 
that make same-sex desire a viable habit flourished under urbanization,
and 
barely exisited before. Jonathan Katz argues in The Invention of
Heterosexuality 
(also v.good), that no sexual identities or categories exisited much
before the 
last turn of  the century."

I'm not sure how this squares with the apparently sexual hostility
contemporaries showed to certain English kings who had a same-sex
orientation -- notably, Edward II (1307-27) and James I (1603-25).

Carl Remick

-----Original Message-----
From: Liza Featherstone [mailto:lfeather32 at erols.com]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 7:59 AM
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Subject: Re: homophobia

The sex acts themselves have of course been around forever (just check
out those 
medival sculptures of cherubs eating each other.  ancient Greek
proclivites 
well-known, etc) and Angela's right that there has probably always been 
same-sex desire in some fashion.  But there seems to be a lot of
consensus among 
historians (D'Emilio, Katz, the fellow who wrote the excellent Gay New
York, 
whose name now escapes me) that the communities, lifestyles, hangouts,
etc. 
that make same-sex desire a viable habit flourished under urbanization,
and 
barely exisited before. Jonathan Katz argues in The Invention of
Heterosexuality 
(also v.good), that no sexual identities or categories exisited much
before the 
last turn of  the century.

Liza

Jim heartfield wrote:
> 
> In message <36A6CE4D.E2B5B550 at netlink.com.au>, rc&am
> <rcollins at netlink.com.au> writes
> 
> > (this last theory of
> >the existence - rise? -of homosexuality in the article would be funny
> >if it were not so obviously wrong, an echo (mirror) of those who want
> >to 'return to the past' where there were no poofters.)  mode of
> >production explanations i would like to see, but this does not work
in
> >the slightest; and nor does affirming urbanisation for making it
> >possible to do the dirty with those of the same sex work enough for
me
> >as an explanation to now turn to celebrating technology as
liberatory,
> >as 'living marxism' would bid us do.
> 
> I'm surprised that Angela objects to this, fairly routine argument
that
> urbanisation creates a cosmopolitanism in which sexuality can develop
> apart from family ties. See for example John D'Emilio's essay
Capitalism
> and Gay Identity.
> --
> Jim heartfield