The Gay myth – Part I
Whenever someone comes up with a myth, especially an entrenched culturally reinforced one I wonder exactly how many words its going to take for them to reject the myth. So when my younger sister said that a guy in her class turned out to be gay and that was “ironic” since he was the most popular guy in the class I thought it would probably be quite alot of words.
Actually, it wouldn’t be so hard if it wasn’t for the far reaching extent of this one into the global myth.
This is a dangerous one, because various element s of it impinge upon the global myth as well as people’s believed personal experience.
Furthermore, everyone believes it’s in their interest to promote this myth.
The content of the myth, is that there is this exclusive group of people (often quoted to be around ten percent) who differ from the general population in that they are only sexually attracted to people of the same gender.
It is usually insisted that such people are born like that and thus predestined from birth to act in such a way.
Ok, here’s the counter myth for you:
There are these people but it is merely their immorality and love of sin which causes it, and they can stop if they love some guy called Jesus.
Infact ,although the counter myth is couched in the language of some other myth it is correct in the fact of it it not being innate. That’s all its right about.
Now before I go any further, I just want to mention that I’m totally willing to go along with the part of the global myth about people being able to do whatever they want to, so I’m happy for people to be ‘gay’ if such a thing existed – or even if it didn’t , and it was simply some people’s idea of enacting a good time. The thing I’m set against is it being promoted as something it is not.
So what is it?
Here begins the problem – let me quote from Derren Brown, Tricks of the Mind.
“We know magic isn’t real: It just boils down to a diverse set of techniques expertly employed by a skilled and charming entertainer… we use the term ‘magic’ to describe the end result. The ‘magic’ is the final effect when all those methods are combined to form a particular kind of performance.”
Similarly there is no one thing that being ‘gay’ is.
What’s the diagnosis for ‘gay’? Well, it could be a man who displays behaviour that is very feminine or very masculine or who just seems apparently ‘normal’ – and the same for women.
In other words it could constitute any kind of behaviour. (I am talking here about anthropologically observable behaviour not self reports from people.)
So what this boils down to is anyone who doesn’t fit into their socially ordained gender role basically.
Under the current system any male who is too lively and social, and any female who is too independent and assertive is likely to be denounced as gay which is used as an insult that you can label people with.
Once they have been reclassified they can be excluded from the dominant group and forced into a culture that’s based on chasing their supposed core desire.
The process starts when a person says words or performs actions that are outside the range of social acceptability for their gender. It will then be suggested to the person that they might be ‘gay’ and they will be asked to meditate on that possibility, with the hope that they will have an epiphany of sorts that will lead to a confession. This is called ‘coming out’.
The human brain is very flexible in this regard and will presumably help out, as it always does, to let the denounced person see the previously unrecognised possibilities.
The funny thing is that they’ve actually got these scientists trying to work out how there can be this amazing thing that seems to ‘violate evolution’ when it is no more of a mystery than say masturbation.
There is simply the shortcutting of a natural process (same with drug use) . You gain pleasure without the necessity to go though all the usual mechanisms to get that pleasure.
Actually (for a good example) it’s no more of a mystery than alcohol use except with different social ideas surrounding it .
I’ll give you alcohol using the structure of the gay myth:
There are these people – and when they’re born they’re alcoholics.
If you like to drink alcohol it means you’re an alcoholic.
It’s wanton and leaves you open to diseases.
You can tell if you’re an alcoholic if you try alcohol and you like the taste of it – or even if you have the desire to try it.
Alcohol use will effect your sex life and your fertility levels.
Actually they should use that template to apply to alcohol – they’d save some lives!
There was the temperance movement but that was insufficient in it’s myth building around alcohol. The problem was that they wanted to save everyone from the evils of drink, whereas if they had simply said that some people have an alcoholic disposition and it’s an all or nothing thing then that would have been much more effective.
Because some people are going to drink, and if they could have just cordoned those people off into their own little society and said that they’re not allowed to reproduce, they’d actually have some justification because alcohol harms the unborn!
It could be quite a good social control mechanism – If someone did something socially unacceptable you could call them an alcoholic on the basis that drunk people also often do socially unacceptable things.
I’m all for social control mechanisms to wipe out groups of people you don’t like, it just seems that a whole lot of creative and able people are targeted by this one, and although the elimination of such people may help the stability of society I see no ultimate benefit.