Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Olog-hai

some attitudes about some kinds of behavior are of our own creation - in our owm minds - and not intrinsicly about things that are - by nature - unmasculine or unfeminine

they are often only unmasculine or unfeminine because that’s how we have grown up to think of them

the further back in time you go, when you can find drawings or early photos of teenage boys and of men, simple physical closeness and affection was easy to see - it was not sexual, it was SO NOT sexual it was thereby free of modern taboos that identify it as always sexual

in Lincoln’s day, and earlier, men shared a bed, often a small bed, and thought nothing of it; it was not thought of as unmanly, because no one thought of it as unmanly;

two strains in western culture have gradually changed this; both those trying to lift everything “gay” up - lifting-up and promoting “gay” identity, and deep concerns by those who are NOT “gay” to NOT appear so; both of these trends have been excessive, turning every bit of male mutual physcicality into homoeroticism by both those wanting to promote homoeroticism and those concerned about it

in Korea (and some other Asian societies) close male friends, including adults, can walk hand-n-hand in public and no one assumes “oh they must be gay”

when I was in the military in Korea it was not out of the ordinary to see two or three young Korean soldiers lounging together, arms and legs all-a-jumble, on single twin bed; it was totally NOT sexual; not even “romantic”; just guiltless ease of a physically warm relationship; not about orgasims; about friendships and childlike innocense in them

it was also about innocense - you would have had to tell them they were doing something “effeminate”, something “sexual”, something “unmanly”, something “wrong”, and then they’d probably ask why it was wrong, and none of your explanations would do any good because they had never known your kind of thoughts on the subject; all the “bad” connotations for what they were doing were not part of their thoughts; they were not play-acting in an unmanly and feminine way; they were not becoming aroused; they were not being romantic; they were innocent of all the bad ideas you might have had for their behavior;

yes, in our culture right now it is a badge of shame, or a silly badge of “pride” when two young men hold hands

it should be neither

our culture has lost something when those are the only two options most people think of as true

men holding hands or not holding hands is not a question about to be “manly” or not; it’s a question about perception, and perception is most often like beauty - in the eye of the beholder and not in some quantifiable intrinsic value


19 posted on 12/01/2012 9:16:11 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Wuli

Where in US “culture” has it been acceptable for two straight males to hold hands? This kind of talk sounds like cultural anthropologists’ justifications for anything.


21 posted on 12/02/2012 1:24:24 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Wuli

Where in US “culture” has it been acceptable for two straight (never mind otherwise) males to hold hands? This kind of talk sounds like cultural anthropologists’ justifications for anything.


22 posted on 12/02/2012 1:24:41 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson