"My take on this is that being gay means you sleep with somone the same sex-nothing more. There is no gay identity, because who you sleep with is such a minor part of who you are."
Maybe she means by labeling yourself as straight or gay that puts men's sexuality into a neat little container. In our culture the line is blured between gay/straight for women. Women can touch each other and do other things that if a man did so he'd risk being called gay or a fag.
In some cultures I've read that men touched each other more and possibly were more open with being sexual with another man even though they may be very attracted to women.
Maybe "gay liberation", or gay identity, does not liberate men's sexuality because it still legitimizes the containment and compartmentalization of male sexuality? So by having a "gay identity" they are reinforcing what they claim to be liberating themselves from. (I wonder if this is why feminists support them so much???)
Kudos to bukowski. And to BQ.
Other cultures are and were more open about male sexuality, including homoeroticism.
Let's look at modern day non-matriarchal society. A recent survey of Indian truck drivers found that 72% of them admitted to having sex with other men.
What is the point of a "gay" identity in a culture where sexual behavior between men is not stigmatized and because it's not stigmatized it's so widespread as to be rendered invisible? Where men don't have to "announce" their sexual alliegencies through made-up "coming-out" ceremonies?
The only point to a "gay" identity is to facilitate the sexual repression of men. To make men believe which gender they have sex with is a political as well as life altering issue. And thus to force a repressive "choice" that doesn't exist among women or among men in other cultures.
It's interesting to me how the Christians hold a diametrically opposed view to "homosexuality" then the Feminists. Feminists believe that homosexuality is a genetic abberation (I guess labeling them freaks is the only way a woman can reconcile herself to men who aren't completely fixated on her sexually.) Whearas Christians seem to hold the belief that it's a temptation all (or a significant portion) of men face, while still stigmatizing the behavior as a sin.
The Feminist viewpoint appears to be more tolerant, untill you realize what they are actually saying. Men who like men are not normal, they are freaks we must be nice to, because they are oppressed. And the more not-normal and distinct a group Feminists make "homosexual" men out to be, the fewer men engage in the behavior (or any behavior that could be associated with it) to avoid the label.
So we get this strange sort of social history. When men were still being persecuted(jailed, killed, etc.) for putting their penises in places women didn't approve of, there was actually a larger population of men who engaged in such behaviors. (Ask any old queen who's been around since before the seventies. Many of the casuals have disappeared.) But when "gay" identity started to form and "gays" became a protected, publicized class of people, suddenly the population started shrinking.
And if there are "any old queens" reading this... you should choose your friends more carefully. Another couple decades toing the feminist party line and you won't have any butchs left to date.
Or maybe you'll find yourselves stuffed, mounted and placed in a Feminist historical museam as an exhibition to the greatest fall gay of the 20th century.
