|
February 01, 2010
"can we call them 'gay'?"
(Beats me! I didn't write the narrative!) Over the weekend, M. Simon emailed me a link to a news item Glenn Reynolds had linked about the Pashtuns. Or should I say the "gay Pahstuns"? As if U.S. troops and diplomats didn't have enough to worry about in trying to understand Afghan culture, a new report suggests an entire region in the country is coping with a sexual identity crisis. An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns -- though they seem to be in complete denial about it.According to the report, the behavior of some Afghan men has left Western forces "frequently confused." The story also contains some gems about love, and denial: ....Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man -- but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification."(Emphasis added.) As I remarked to Simon, "Sounds like a line from gay underground theater in SF!" Except that one man's satire can be another man's truth. However, there's a real split among gays between those who go in for longterm relationships, and those who only want sex without any emotional reciprocation (pure lust). The latter constitute one of the stereotypes the anti-gay conservatives like to complain about, yet ironically, that's the Pashtun way. The main difference is that the American gays do admit they are gay, and the Pashtuns would kill one of their own who did admit that. (After raping him, of course...) I'd say that the British had a word for people like that -- "SAVAGES" -- except I'd be inviting trouble from the people who piled on Sarah Hoyt, and then they'd conspire to ensure that I would never get ahead in life. (Like I care at this point.) But parenthetically, I'd like to say that is what I admire so much about Sarah. She is standing up to the insecure and mediocre conformists of this world who enjoy ruin the lives of non-conforming others -- and she dares to do so despite the possibility of damaging career consequences. I was also reminded of her earlier post when I read about figure skater Johnny Weir's capitulation to animal rights activists: Weir will replace the fox on his costume with faux fur after receiving "hate mail and death threats" from animal rights activists, agent Tara Modlin said Thursday.While I understand that his career comes first, it's a shame he didn't stand up to the activists. It's classic illustration in one of my oldest complaints in the blog -- why activists win. Non-activist people don't want the hassle, especially if they are in sensitive positions. Naturally, Ms. Feral (?) and her group had no connection whatsoever to those who threatened him. (As Willie Cicci once said, the Corleone Family "had a lot of buffers." So do the people who would never officially threaten you for calling men-who-kill-men-for-having-sex-with-men-even-though-they-have-sex-with-men savages. That's because civilized people are not allowed to call uncivilized behavior uncivilized.) Whether men who have sex with men are necessarily gay is an old issue in this blog. Suffice it to say that Westerners are incapable of understanding the sexuality of the Pashtuns -- probably more incapable than we are of understanding the sexuality of the ancients. Via Glenn Reynolds, Gay Patriot looks at Pashtun sexuality, and asks a good question: ....can we call them "gay"?Yes we can! And I am sure that "we" will. Anyone can call anyone anything. But if they are gay, then so are Charles Manson, John Dillinger, and countless prison rapists. If being gay means any man who has sex with another man (as gay activists and anti-gay religious conservatives insist), then all of these people and more are gay. Would anyone ask them to their faces? This would also mean that many of ancients were gay -- even though they did not think in modern terms at all. They didn't think in terms of heterosexual or homosexual categories. Zeus and Ganymede were lovers, but not gay, because there was no such homosexual "otherness" concept of sexuality. My opinion is that the category was created by a competing view of same sex sexual practices as "sin". However, it would be a serious mistake IMO, to place the Pashtuns (or many of the men in the Mideast) in the same category as the ancients, for the simple reason that they do have a religiously assigned category for sexual relations with men, and consider it to be a sin. A death penalty sin. Which means that while they screw each other in the butt, they cannot admit it, and would kill anyone who did. (Probably after raping him.) Is that clear now? posted by Eric on 02.01.10 at 12:03 PM
Comments
It's probably worth pointing out that words are being put in my mouth. I didn't refer to the Koran, even implicitly. I was speaking about attitudes towards homosexuality. But let's suppose the Taliban cited the Koran as authority for imposing the death penalty to punish homosexuality, and I pointed that out. How would that mean that I should brush up on "my" Koran? It isn't my Koran to interpret; it's theirs. Nor did I ever call any commenters at this blog "savages." I wasn't referring to any of the comments Sarah got; only what she said in her post. Eric Scheie · February 2, 2010 12:22 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
February 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
It takes guts to demand "body blows"
Added Risk Evidently There Was A Lack of Evidence ITER Gets Clipped About Half "can we call them 'gay'?" (Beats me! I didn't write the narrative!) Now they threaten to withhold sex? How small of them! Tea Party Coordination China Is Bubbling Exploring a minor issue in "religious" detail
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Eric,
You need to brush up on your Koran.
viz your comment about savages "piling on Sarah Hoyt", what are you talking about? Greg and Francis shared with us that they did not much care for her writing style or premise and were roundly and repeatedly condemned by 30 or 40 posters who were outraged that anyone would dare to malign Hoyt's skills as a writer or crafter of a believable storyline/plot. What I find laughable about that whole thread was that it transpired under the guise of those same losers coming together in order to "Let's Talk About Political Correctness!" You guys sure showed a rare appreciation for what constitutes political correctness and how it works in larger society.