brucethoughtsblog

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Gay Sexulaity: Acceptance and Co-optation.

Having settled the question of the meaning of life, I want to reflect on the evolution and social co-optation relating to sexual minority identities; observations drawn from both my personal and professional observations; though I want to state, once again, that I don't believe those two spheres exist totally independently of one another. I'm am using the term "gay" to sometimes refer to men having sex with men; sometimes to refer to any same sex desire. I'll try to use other terms when making reference to other sexual minorities in the LBGTQ alphabet. "Queer" is a term I prefer when it is taken to refer to any sexual minorities; but, alas, it is not always understood in that sense; alas, it has all become a bit complex. We are becoming again a "love that cannot speak its name." Little is known regarding gay relationships as they existed in Western society prior to the gay liberation movement of the late sixties and seventies. It would seem that previous to the industrial revolution social sanctions relating to gay sexuality focused on particular sexual acts, such as sodomy, and did not conceive of a specific identity applying to men having sex with men. While there are some examples, mainly found in literature, of gay sexual relationships, they tend to be described in such a fleeting and discrete manner that it is difficult to draw inferences toward whatever general patterns may have existed.

Toward the beginning of the industrial revolution the identities of homosexual and heterosexual were constructed with social sanction not only focusing on the sexual acts of the former, but on their identity itself. The construction of those identities meant that individuals not only had to fear reprisal for performing certain forbidden acts, but had to fear being identified as a person who might harbour the desire to perform such acts. Accordingly, oppression took its place within the individual and not simply on how he or she behaved. For many of us coming out in the seventies and becoming active in the gay liberation movement, that construction served a clear social and economic objective. The restriction of sexual acts to the contact between the genitals of a man and a woman originated with the People of the Book; perhaps to some extent to distinguish themselves from the religious rituals of their pagan neighbours, which sometimes included sexual acts between people of the same sex; perhaps, intended as well to re-enforce the divine edict to be fruitful and multiply. Those of us who participated in the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies believed that capitalism made use of that social and religious condemnation of same sex sexual acts and identities to re-enforce its own ideology; indeed, we believed that the restriction of sexual pleasure to the genitals and to the possibility of reproduction were essential to the very existence of capitalism.



The utility to capitalism of those restrictions on sexuality was understood by us as contributing to rendering the human body more apt for work and social control; the body being transformed from a potential centre of pleasure to an instrument of production. The construction of a homosexual identity and the concomitant condemnation of acts defining it became increasingly repressive with the progress of capitalism and was imposed on the third-world colonies of Western states as they pursued their quest for raw materials. That repression of sexuality through its restriction to reproductive purposes and the limiting of sexual pleasure to the genitals had a significant fringe benefit for capitalist societies: the imposition of those restrictions served to strengthen state control of the individual and community.  We believed that one of the first and most significant acts through which those in power controlled and manipulated individuals was through the control of the body itself. Those restrictions on pleasure led, in turn, to conscious and unconscious anger that could be mobilized in the form of aggression serving the interests of the state; anger turned against both the internal and external enemies of the state.

The more radical amongst those involved in gay liberation considered even forming couples to be reactionary; couples being seen as an extension of property rights founded in the institution of patriarchy. Nevertheless, when Will and I met in 1973, we clearly formed a couple; however, whether or not we would have an open relationship wasn't even discussed; it was simply assumed. Even during the usual stage of infatuation, when tradition had it that members of a newly formed couple only had eyes for each other, we regularly had three-ways with other guys. Conveniently, one of the major cruising areas in Montreal was only steps from the University residences where we both lived. After dinner we would often take a leisurely stroll in the park and in the process pick up an after-dinner treat were one available that appealed to both of us. It was one of those treats that nearly nipped our relationship in the bud because I failed to end the adventure when our guest neglected to observe one of the basic rules of three-ways: show an interest in both partners even if you're attracted to only one. As time went on we got better at establishing and respecting the rules that are needed in an open relationship in order to reduce the possibilities of someone getting hurt. Nevertheless, our relationship was always rather permeable and later extended to both of us being free to develop relationships outside of our own that were both emotional and sexual. When our relationship ended after some fourteen years, it wasn't because of someone else; more due to the fact that boyfriend/partner/lover love had left us some time before

As I have described in a previous post, as a rather cerebral person of a rather leftist political persuasion, it was the ideology or narrative I've sketched above that led me to identify as a gay person and to come out. That narrative entailed that there was an intrinsic incompatibility between the status quo and gay sexuality; accordingly, amongst the most effective acts of revolution was the pursuit of non-reproductive, non-genital sexual pleasure. It was, I suppose, too much to ask that one be able to fuck one's way to a more progressive society; that pursuing polymorphous perversity would in itself contribute to radical social change. As I've described, the process of changing one's life narrative, of changing how one has come to see one's life, is a complex and gradual one; characteristically, no one consideration leads to abandoning one world view for another. The first reality that took much of the appeal from the idea that sexual pleasure could in itself be revolutionary was the AIDS epidemic. The coupling of sexuality and, more specifically, gay male sexuality with almost certain death was experienced as a major game-changer for many of us who had been active in the gay liberation movement. There were others more radical than myself who suspected the AIDS virus was purposely developed and planted by sinister, right-wing forces in order to regain the control they were losing of our sexuality and our bodies. For those people injunctions to practice safer sex were clear illustrations of the state attempting to regain control of our bodies. Many refused and viewed their deaths as a sort of martyrdom for a revolutionary cause. Narratives that give meaning to one's life and death can always be maintained; whatever forces or experiences might weigh in against them; consider the Stalinists who continue to cling to the Soviet era. Sadly, I associate the true-believers of the ideology that inspired the gay liberation movement to be of the same ilk.

AIDS wasn't the only factor that led to my abandoning that narrative. For a considerable time, the political tactics that had been practiced in the gay movement were utilized in activism related to AIDS; to secure the attention and funding necessary for adequate treatment and research. However that activism was no longer targeted at changing a political and social system; rather, it was targeted toward getting a more adequate response from the existing state power; including later collaboration with some of the most suspect of capitalist industries: the major pharmaceutical companies. Even had AIDS never arisen to crush the movement toward gay liberation as we had known it, it is clear that the progression of that movement would have foundered against another serious impediment: the capacity of neo-capitalism to subsume diverse expressions of sexuality within it. Rather than polymorphous perversity leading to the end of capitalism, it became just another business opportunity. Rather than having to choose as a gay person between making love and making war, it turns out you can do both to cheers from both the state and the gay community.

There are some signs that the gay movement has had an impact on the larger, dominant society. Sex is no longer predominately linked to marriage and procreation; marriage as an institution seems fading in popularity; women, especially young women, seem more open to casual sexual encounters; sexual acts other than intercourse seem more and more practiced; men and women are more open to the fluidity and variety of their sexual desires. However, all those positive changes have been happily accommodated within a society that continues to adhere to pretty much the same basic values as ever; the gulf between rich and poor gets deeper; the military-industrial complex controls the state; wars of aggression continue to be fought. I still hear from straight young men, happy with the girls who are sexting them and giving them blow jobs outside of clubs that those girls aren't the ones they'd marry.

Interestingly, the fight for the right to marry was not one that gay political activists originally choose as a priority. It became a priority through the grass-roots actions of gays and lesbians who wanted to be married. The reality is that gay people, even sexually active gay people, can be just as conservative as the most normal, conforming heterosexuals. I recently read a discussion between two, right-wing commentators related to the possibility of doing political organizing in the gay community; one of them stated: "Why not recruit conservatives in a community whose leading objectives are to be able to get married, raise a family and openly fight for their country?" The focus of the gay movement has shifted from changing the dominant society to being accepted by it. The prevalent slogan, even among the young and gay is "except for who we sleep with, we're just like you." While it has always been the case that many lesbian couples were raising children, usually from previous heterosexual relationships, now with changes in reproductive technology it has become just as common for gay, male couples to envision forming a traditional family as part of their future.

In fact, it seems that drive for acceptance is succeeding. Increasingly, in the heart-land of middle America being gay is accepted; even amongst evangelical Christians there are growing indications of a willingness to accommodate gays and lesbians. In features in The New York Times and postings on YouTube, more and more young people are coming out as gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans; stating their desire to marry, have children and continue to live with the same moral and religious values as other members of their communities. One wonders: will they continue to oppose abortion and sex before marriage; await the Rapture, when they alone will be chosen; go off to fight wars against the Infidels?

Certainly, it is to be celebrated that children, adolescents and adults of whatever sexual minority identities be accepted for who they are; it is a joy to see young people asserting their capacity to live fully who they are within whatever set of values and communities that previously would have persecuted and rejected them. On the other hand, it is sad to see those accommodations may be possible without bringing with them fundamental changes in basic social and political values. Personally, I find my own life and the lives of my friends pretty much lived within that new narrative: just like everyone else, but different. Am I alone in feeling as if something's been lost in the process?

No comments:

Post a Comment