On Sep 28, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> On the contrary, Massad's book criticizes not only Orientalism of the
> "Gay International" but also secular Arab nationalist and Islamist
> discourses that seek to make pre-modern sexual discourses obsolete,
An excerpt from Whitaker's review:
> The argument though, insofar as it has any substance, is more about
> terminology than anything else. International LGBT organisations
> (at least, those with even a modicum of expertise) recognise that
> same-sex emotions and activities do not necessarily come with an
> identity attached. Massad himself quotes Robert Bray, an officer of
> the International Lesbian and Gay Association as saying: “Cultural
> differences make the definition and the shading of homosexuality
> different among peoples ... But I see the real question as one of
> sexual freedom; and sexual freedom transcends cultures” (p 162).
>
> While it may be interesting to consider how far modern (western)
> constructs of sexual identity have been adopted (or not) by various
> cultures, in terms of sexual rights the question is largely
> irrelevant: it is the behaviour that is liable to be penalised,
> regardless of how people describe themselves. As far as the Arab
> countries are concerned, few would seriously dispute that same-sex
> activity is widespread, that it is often undefined and that many of
> the participants (probably the majority) are married, expect to
> marry or have sexual encounters which include people of the
> opposite sex.
Just what is Orientalist about that passage?