A New Genderation

So what makes a man? Biologically we could say that a man would be any person that has a Y chromosome, but that is what makes someone male, not masculine, and even still there are aberrations to the rule. If we try and define a man by certain characteristics (both inner and outer), it proves to be problematic. Clearly, with all the surgery that is available to us, a penis and testicles does not a man make. But what then, are those inner attributes that would deem one masculine or feminine? It terms of westernized society, men can be neatly classified as either heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. This narrows the view of society into different groups. But where does that leave the effeminate male? They are isolated from what western society has deemed “men” or “straight”, into a category all their own. Now there has been a label put out on this group of people, as queer or gay, regardless of their sexual preferences or innate gender. It seems then what defines men in western culture are those people who follow the pressures of social manhood (such as exaggerating one's sexual need for women, and suppressing one's sexual need for men).

Anytime when people are put into groups, conflict breaks out, even if the groups are completely arbitrary. Feelings of superiority, fear of being part of the other group and losing identity as a member of the current group, and stereotypes all arise from this social view that groups people like this. This is problematic to the functioning of society as a whole.

Sexual orientation has become a social construct to explain any aberrations from the general male or female structure set up in western culture. This is evident by the fact that within the “queer” group, there have been terms such as lesbian, gay, transgendered, bisexual, questioning, intersex, and many more coming about every time one doesn’t quite fit. Obviously trying to define people through their sexual preferences is a complex matter. Homosexuality as a term did not exist prior the mid 1900’s. It’s been argued that men in the early 1900’s did engage in male-male sexual relations more commonly than today, but with the invention of the word sexual orientation, males decline from doing so because of the social stigma’s and pressures on sexuality now present. Men who do continue to feel sexual attractions towards men will often be isolated. There is a definite stigma that has resulted with the invention of the term.

Is this correct thinking? Is it unnatural for men to have such desires? Cross culturally, in many non-western areas, the concept of male sexuality towards other males is universal, and not the characteristic of a minority of males. In India, same-sex desire may be openly acknowledged in spaces socially defined as male but denied in formal or mixed gender spaces. The non-western way of thinking about gender is in terms of the active vs. the passive. Everyone has an innate gender which would make someone simply a man or a woman. A masculine man to them would be someone who engages actively in sex and the man who likes to receive (orally or anally) pleasure would be deemed the effeminate male, which is also known as the “third gender”, being partly male and female.
Now a “homosexual”, as westerners call it, in non-western culture, is one who exhibits the female characteristics, even if he only has sex with women. A man in an exclusive relationship with another man could be deemed not homosexual if he is always in the active role. Homosexuality denotes not sexual orientation, but the third gender.

It seems then as a consequence to the western approach to sexual orientation and gender roles, any and all male/male affectations are seen as “gay”, where in other cultures it is perfectly normal (holding hands, hugging, kissing on the cheek). It is the fear of being considered “one of them” than keeps the social pressures of masculinity in place. This process has been called heterosexualization. Men can have the desire for relationship with other men, as I will discuss later, but by no means should it be the definition.

In Christian religion, the act of sodomy is deemed wrong, however the word homosexual was nonexistent as we know it today. There is nothing in the Bible which would suggest that close male relationships were wrong, but in fact there are often clear examples of same sex relationships that went beyond the normal scope of friendship. King David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, Jesus and John, Paul and Timothy were amongst those in the Bible with deep love for each other. David was quoted in 2 Samuel 1:26 as saying “Your [Jonathan’s] love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of a woman.” It seems that deep male relationships were a thing to be admired rather than scorned for being “homosexual”. Ruth said to Naomi in Ruth 1:16-17 “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely if anything but death separates you and me.” This is used today in many heterosexual marriage ceremonies, but it describes a deep, nonsexual, bond between to same gendered people. These relationships weren't sexual at all, but their intimacy surpassed that of friendships we know today. There is no evidence that would suggest these types of bonds to be wrong or immoral.

Even among historical figures outside religion, romantic relationships are respectable things. Shakespeare wrote 26 sonnets about a woman, but 126 sonnets about a man called “Fair Lord”, and looking through the lens of western society, many speculate that Shakespeare was bisexual or homosexual, but there isn’t anything describing sexual acts between them. In fact sodomy was a crime in Shakespeare’s time, but it was still socially acceptable to have relationships such as his. Elizabethans tended to write about friendships in more intense languages than today as well.

Western culture has all but stigmatized close same sex relations. People are forced into roles or risk exile. What we see now as the gay pride movement is actually a backlash to this isolation and repression. When you isolate a bunch of people together, they naturally will form a group against their suppressors. There is nothing wrong with the man who desires close contact and deep relationship with another man, regardless of sexual intent. Western culture has in essence created homosexuality, and consequently heterosexuality where previously no such things existed. Homosexuals and heterosexuals as we know it today are not what we define them to be. Certainly the words came into use from a basis, but have been taken to mean something they do not. A homosexual is not a man who desires a deep companion relationship with another man (though it does not preclude this desire) but rather a man who experiences sexual arousal from other men. It is biologically instinctual in some to desire other men, regardless of sexual intent, and what society has constructed homosexuality to be is clearly problematic.

We need to be careful in what we deem homosexual, two men holding hands isn't gay, desiring to be with another man in such a deep fashion is no homosexual either. There is no sexuality associated with those acts, rather it is the explicit intent to want sexual bonds with other men that is homosexual. This repression of one’s innate desire to connect to humanity in their own preferred way only leads to negative consequences: hurt, confusion, and rebellion. In a western society, there are men who experience desires for other men who do not know what to do with themselves. They are caught in a purgatory between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but clearly if this need for companionship is nonsexual, it cannot be homosexual. Desires for the same sex should not be confused with homosexual desires.

In short, this process of heterosexualization in western culture needs to be reversed. Men should not be defined by their basic innate desires for intimacy which all people possess. The homosexual man is no less of a man than the heterosexual one, nor is the man who expresses desire of relationship without sexual intent any less masculine than the man who wants female attention all the time. There is an exclusion of people deemed inferior, where in actuality no such thing as the better person exists. I find it funny the phrase how the phrase "No homo" has worked itself into society as a way of expressing male desire for other men other than that of homosexuality. The two are distinct, but western culture has deemed both platonic and sexual love to be homosexuality. This needs to be reconciled if we are to make advancements in this view of human sexuality.