Comment

Comment by Jennifer on June 30, 2009 at 9:40am

It seems everyone turns to the romans/greeks when talking about homosexuality. We need to remember this was a major part of society everywhere before the advent of homophobia, which seems to be purely an invention of modern society. I was ready a little about sexuality (fun topic) and ran across this wiki page. If anyone is interested >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China

Comment by Jennifer on June 30, 2009 at 9:34am

Charles, having legalized prostitution is great! People in my opinion should be allowed to have sex with whomever they choose, even if they want something in exchange for it. I believe that Amsterdam (where prostitution is legal) the rates of sexually transmitted diseases in that industry are lower then that in the American porn industry. Its sad when people really think sex, something we all (hopefully ;) engage in from time to time, will cause some sort of moral decay. Its ridiculous. First its legal sex...and you know that will just lead to things like that evil rock n' roll music. lol

Comment by Charles Hollingshead on June 30, 2009 at 7:54am

What about a society with a well regulated and socially acceptable sex-worker element?

Comment by Habman on June 30, 2009 at 7:26am

All the talk about the Romans and Greeks is all well and fine, but one needs to remember that those young boys and inhabitants of the brothels were for the most part, slaves.

Enslavement is not a gray area, it is totally evil, so to use examples of slavery is probably not the best method of furthering your argument.

Comment by Joshua on June 29, 2009 at 3:42pm

I think I am a prude when it comes to sex, but then again physical closeness has always been difficult for me. I personally feel; however, that we all would be much better off if sex were a much more elective and communal past-time. I think that it is a kind of drug, but a generally harmless but enjoyable one, and that it seems to draw out many of the other happy-good chemicals that the brain has in store strengthening bonding, empathy, and cooperation. I also see that it can cause strife, but then again, so does loneliness, and i think that an open society would be less likely to present the same climate as our modern one which forces two people to put so much pressure on one another to "remain faithful" and to "stick around." In an ideal world, come and go as you please, I'll see you again eventually... no jealousy, no envy, no fear, no sadness, no anxiety. I think it would be utopean.

Comment by Richard Goscicki on April 27, 2009 at 11:35am

Dallas, I haven’t read The Invention of Heterosexuality but I agree with the basic premise that dichotomous thinking is faulty and stupid: good and evil, light and dark, straight and gay.

The ancient Romans and Greeks definitely made no distinction about the latter: the Romans even had a term for a young Greek boy imported for sexual delights of Patrician oldsters. I believe it was Claudius that said, “He’s more timid than a newly arrived catamite.”

The Spartan homoioi (the equals) were known to encourage brotherly love in order to maximize the group bond. They were about the best fighters the world ever knew.

Mark Anthony had brothels all over Rome figuring “anything goes.” I can imagine what that was like.

The fact is that it’s not a question of black and white, but a continuum. Freud was the first to bring out the “polymorphous perversity” of the id. If people would realize that it’s all a shade of gray, they would get along a lot better.

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on April 26, 2009 at 9:47pm

Has anyone ever read this book, or known anyone who has? It is on my list to read, but my list is pretty long, and I"m curious what people think of it.

The Invention of Heterosexuality

From Publishers Weekly
Katz (Gay American History) argues that heterosexuality is a social construct rather than a natural, unambiguous given. He notes that the terms heterosexual and homosexual were coined in 1868 by German sex-law reformer Karl Maria Kertbeny and did not gain wide currency until the early 20th century. Katz contends that heterosexuality as a universal, presumed, normative ideal was invented by men, such as Kertbeny, Sigmund Freud and German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing. Prior to the late 19th century, he maintains, the social universe was not polarized into "hetero" and "homo." The examples he cites in support of his thesis-ancient Greece, the new England colonies (1607-1740) and the U.S. between 1820 and 1850-do not substantiate Katz's claims. Nevertheless, this often provocative work challenges rigid notions of gender identity, building on the ideas of French historian Michel Foucault and on feminist critiques of heterosexuality by Betty Friedan, Kate Millett, Adrienne Rich and others.

From Library Journal
Although we take for granted that heterosexuality is and has always been the sexual norm, historian Katz reexamines the constructions of sexual identity and postulates that heterosexuality has a history that has heretofore never been analyzed and that "such privileging of the norm accedes to its domination." Tracing the first appearance of the terms heterosexual and homosexual in 1868 in Germany, the author of Gay American History (LJ 12/15/76) analyzes the changes in usage in dictionaries, medical journals, and a wide variety of other published sources. Carefully building his argument using Richard von Krafft-Ebing's and Sigmund Freud's seminal theories in the creation of heterosexuality, he goes on to challenge such influential figures as Alfred Charles Kinsey, Betty Friedan, and Michel Foucault. This provocatively original research, recalling similar problematizations of race, gender, and other seemingly immutable, ahistorical constructs, is complemented by Gore Vidal's foreword and Lisa Duggan's afterword. For informed readers.
James E. Van Buskirk, San Francisco P.L.

Comment by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on April 22, 2009 at 2:09pm

hey wait a minute I cant spell worht a dame!!

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on April 20, 2009 at 4:20pm

@Ariel: Oh, I see. Yes, I've come across those types before.
@Greg: I think they kick them off pretty quickly.

Comment by Ariel on April 20, 2009 at 3:41pm

A troll is usually a loser who spends his/her time finding forums to disrupt. In places like this it's usually someone who joins a group they disagree with just so they can scream about how evil/stupid/disgusting we are. They usually can't spell worth a damn.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 31
• 32
• 33
• 34
• 35
• Next ›
• Page