I don't get it either. I'm probably a Kinsey 2, and there are guys I might not, in principle, mind having sex with, though I never have. Certainly the thought doesn't revolt me. (Btw Brian says the thought of sex with a woman revolts _him_.) Coprophagia, by contrast, hits my ik response.
However, the gross-out response to male homosexuality is very strong among lots of people. I used to get it when I'd do a unit on gay rights in my intro ethics class back in my philosophy teaching days. This despite the fact that there are (as the Supreme Court has finally recognized) no rational arguments of any kind that can be stated to object to homosexual activity.
If I had to indulge in pop psychology I'd say the animus, the gross-out, the ik, is not due to generalized fear of change, but to the threat that out male homosexuality or even (open) male homosexual activity poses to deeply entrenched social identities of masculinity and femininity, roughly, by making men into women, as it is seen -- subordinate, weaker, submissive beings, open same-sexery, whether gay self-identification or just same-same activity, threatens men's self image and women's image of men, and their whole sense of the order of things.
Note that in situations (prison, the service, etc.) where the choice is opportunistic homosexual behavior or celibacy, the contempt is mainly reserved for the men who take the "submissive" role, the "woman's" role.
Never mind of course that lots of gays are uber-manly man, rationality has nothing do with it. This also explains why lots of homophobes are not grossed out by lesbianism or female same-sex acts, they people involved are already women.
Although I don't care to reignite the kink wars that occasionally flare up here, I note that one objection to this theory is it's not clear to me that queer fear and loathing of male homosexual behavior carries over to submissive men in BDSM relations or to power reversal/exchange sex play, even when the point of those relationships or play is to put the woman in charge. Even some religious conservatives who are very anti-gay don't always disapprove of such play in marriage. I wonder why not.
--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Dennis Claxton wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I can only speak for myself, but the idea of
> having
> > >sex with a man is revolting on an almost physical
> > >level. I would rather eat poo.
> > >
> > >(Mmmm, yummy poo!)
> >
> > But what does that have to do with feeling
> threatened?
>
> It has almost nothing to do with being threatened.
> What is _threatening_
> is a major transformation of human relations.
> Immigration is
> threatening. Integration is threatening. Sex
> education in the schools is
> threatening. Abortion is threatening.* Challenges to
> male supremacy are
> threatening (to women as well as men). Plato argued
> that changes in hair
> style were threatening to the stability of the
> state.
>
> CHANGE is threatening. That is the _legitimate_
> foundation of
> conservatism, because change _is_ for the most part
> destructive rather
> than constructive. This is the reason why
> revolutionaries (or anyone
> working for fundamental reform) must seriously work
> to establish
> themselves as, essentially, a conserving force, nor
> a force for mere
> change for the sake of change. It is also why
> defense of abortion must
> be based on the In a Jar, Daddio, In a Jar strategy:
> i.e., abortion must
> come to be taken for granted, a commonplace, like an
> anppendectomy or
> clipping one's nails.
>
> Jane Austen, a conservative when conservatism could
> still be intelligent
> rather than mindless, analyzed mindless conservatism
> in the chief
> villain of _Emma_, Emma's father. She also, there,
> analyzed how this
> sort of conservatism must be overcome: Mr. Woodhouse
> must be made to
> think Emma's marriage inevitable, and that
> inevitableness would give it
> legitimacy. Actually, a similar process is analyzed
> in _Mansfield Park_
> in reference to that fathead, Sir Thomas.
>
> And finally, note that there is nothing whatever
> hypocrtical in
> conservative homosexuals who stay in the closet and
> support heterosexist
> policies. Private (closeted) homoxexuality does not
> threten the state.
>
> Carrol
>
>
> >
> > > Since I am 1) female and 2) bisexual, I wonder
> if
> > > guys on the list could
> > > explain to me what exactly is so threatening
> about
> > > homosexuality?
> > >
> > > Joanna
> > >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ