homophobia

Carl Remick cremick at rlmnet.com
Thu Jan 21 10:07:50 PST 1999


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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list