>>> kwalker2 at gte.net 06/09/01 02:59AM >>>
B. the historical development of heterosexuality is tied up with the institution of masculinity as aggressive, active
((((((((
CB: Is this assertion accepting of the idea that homosexual men are not aggressive and active , and is that true ?
(((((((
C. While gay men share the privilege of being men, they are subordinated to the institution of heterosexuality and therefore their lives & experiences are not the same. Gay men, for example, share the privilege but do not participate in the interpersonal subordination of women
(((((((((
CB: Does male homosexuality inherently participate in the interpersonal subordination of women in that women are , by definition, undesirable interpersonal partners for homosexual men ? In other words, doesn't sexual preference for men subordinate women interpersonally by definition ?
((((((((
D.Gay men have challenged the association of heterosexuality & masculinity
(((((((((
CB: Since, heterosexuality, by definition , requires at least one heterosexual woman paired with every heterosexual man , how does such a system associate heterosexuality with masculinity ? Heterosexuality is inherently male AND female, masculine AND feminine.
It would seem that gay male relationships are "twice" as masculine as heterosexual relationships, by definition. This only not true upon the assumption that gay men are not masculine.
((((((((((
Kinsmen argues that we must move beyond liberal tolerance espoused by mainstream gay rights strugles to see how heterosexism serves to keep all men in line. "Breaking the silence" requires challenging heterosexism and privilege
He then turns to an analysis to ask how this has happened:
II. The History of Sexuality:
He asks: How did heterosexuality come to be the dominant social relation? How did homosexuality come to be seen as perverse?
((((((((((
CB: This is where absolute social constructionism/ anti-essentialism drifts the analysis of sexuality into never-never land.
It is not true that the role of sex in biology and reproduction has no impact on the history of human sexuality.
((((((((
--cross cultural, historical research shows that there is no normal or natural sexuality --biological capacities are transformed & mediated culturally, producing sexuality as a social need and relation
(((((((((
CB: This is an overstatement of the cultural transformation and mediation of sexuality across cultures. Most non-Western kin systems have heterosexual underlying presumptions. I have not seen one ethnography in which homosexual relationships have the same significance as heterosexual relationships in kinship structure.