Gay men as the new demons?

[quietann]

I was listening to the radio today (NPR) and there was a guest on who maintains that the Evangelical Right needs *someone* to demonize. For a long time, it was the G-dless Communists (who, after all, did have their finger on the button, just like the Americans did... I think there were good reasons to be terrified of them.) There was a parallel strand of Xtian thinking that held up women as the source of evil (e.g. Jezebel) but in response to the feminist movement, bashing women as whores and temptresses has become impossible in the modern-day Evangelical church. Even conservative, non-feminist women won't put up with it these days.

So that leaves us with the "predatory homosexual male" as the source of evil. Quite literally, there are Evangelicals who believe that an ordinary man walking down the street can have "demons" put into him by homosexual men, and these demons will cause him to have homosexual desire. (Apparently one of the pastors who's resigned over gay affairs recently is blaming demons for his failing...) The Evangelical movement knew what happened when expanding womens' civil rights meant that they could no longer demonize women, and so they are loathe to allow homosexuals civil rights, because then they'd have to find someone else to bash. (Illegal immigrants would be a good target, but they are almost all Xtian...)

Note that Evangelicals hardly ever talk about lesbians as cruelly as they talk about gay men. It's all about anal sex and being scared that some "straight" men might find they like it more than they like "mainstream" sex.

Comments

[rubynye.livejournal.com]

That sounds like the religion of my youth, all right.

[n5red.livejournal.com]

I'll stick with women being the evil ones. Just because.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

AFAIK, though, you aren't an Evangelical Christian. I will agree, however, that women are *frustrating*!

[n5red.livejournal.com]

I'm starting to buy into the barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen idea. Nothing else has worked for me...

[3diff.livejournal.com]

Evangelicals are scared of lots of things; some more, some less. In my Wikipedia-ing, I recently discovered a minor one: Masons. If you look at the Wikipedia article on "Jahbulon" (or Google the term) you will discover all about how some fundies think Masons are a bunch of worshippers of false gods.

[marmota.livejournal.com]

Well, I do take some amount of comfort that each time they shift demographics, it's to a more tightly defined (and therefore smaller) one. Yes, I'm aware it doesn't really work this way, but I do like to think they're well on their way to only being able to vilify left-handed brunette single gay dentists from south dakota born on thursdays in months ending with "y". On a more serious note, how on earth do they reconcile "predatory homosexuals" with being against gay marriage?

[deguspice.livejournal.com]

"I will agree, however, that women are *frustrating*!"

They are? I hadn't noticed.

[rubynye.livejournal.com]

I had, but so are men and children and intergendered people. :)

People are frustrating, I'm going back to my room!

[quietann.livejournal.com]

heh! love the idea of the left-handed...etc.

As for the gay marriage issue, most of these folks, AFAIK, don't actually believe that Gay men can be anything but promiscuous sluts. Never mind that there are monogamous gay men in family relationships that parallel their own exactly. It Just Is Not Possible. So the gay cooties are there regardless...

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

My Grandfather is a Mason.

My mother is convinced he's going to Hell as a result.

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?

I've always been fascinated by the belief that a perfectly straight man can be "Seduced" into a gay relationship. I's been my experience that you can't be seduced by someone unless you find them sexually appealing at some level.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who ad-
mitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homo-
phobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups
on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980).
The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosex-
ual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also com-
pleted an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases
in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic
men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in
aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic
individual is either unaware of or denies.

(Emphasis mine)

If these men were really as repulsed by the though of gay sex as they claim, then no gay man could possibly seduce them.

No, these guys are all a titter because they're repressing their own homosexual desires, and are lashing out at gay men who are living out their orientation instead of living in denial. the overt emotion is fear, but from what I've seen, I'd say envy and jealousy are significant factors.

As for lesbians, I've heard a number of folks claim that "Lesbians can't even have sex" and I think the rather absurd belief that there's something fundamentally impossible about Lesbian intercourse, is part of the reason Lesbians aren't demonized the same way Gay men are.

All this demonizing is being done by men who appear to be repressing homosexual desires of their own. I'm sure if there were more sexually repressed female ministers, Lesbians wold be score higher in the "Servants of Satan" board game.

[drwex]

By this logic no one would ever join a cult.

Look, I'm as willing as anyone to agree that homophobic expressions are often born out of denial of one's own homoerotic feelings. But "often" isn't always, and "couldn't possibly" is a remarkably blanket statement.

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

You're right.

In retrospect, the post is rather dogmatic, and I did paint everything in very "black and white" terms, thus becoming guilty of many of the very behaviors I tend to criticize.

Hell, my "couldn't possibly" crack is not just overly broad, but somewhat absurd.

Serves me right for posting based on gut emotional reaction instead of thinking about what I'm writing before I post it.

[davidfcooper.livejournal.com]

I think we're mainly talking about southern evangelicals, and as a region they have been afraid of change; before gays and communists they feared integration and before that abolition of slavery. Like traditionalists world wide they are afraid of modernity and anything that threatens their conformist, hierarchical social structure.