Very interesting, but I can’t totally agree with what is said here. Peter Tatchell is mixing 2 different things, homosexual identity and homosexual behaviour. It is a well known fact that in closed male communities like the navy or prisons, heterosexual men indulge in homosexual acts as no women are available. Once out of this all male world, they go back to a heterosexual lifestyle. Of course some may keep liking homosexual contacts, but that is than more to do with an acquired habit than a homosexual nature. You can also have some cultural context where it is common for young male to have homosexual relationship like in the tribes mentioned or the pederasty context in ancient Greece, but this is again similar what was just said about all male communities. When, according to their tribes tradition, the time come for those young men to mary, they switch to a behaviour in line with their true nature.
As we know many homosexual have been married women under pressure from their social group or other reasons like religion. They can stay married for a very long time and raise children , but this doesn’t make them heterosexuals. They do not, at a certain age switch their sexuality, more simply, they end up accepting their true sexuality and act accordingly. I am of the opinion that biologic explanations are a good thing as it would made homosexuality more ‘natural’ and acceptable so that social pressure would not force some gay men to have a straight life. Finally it is not that simple to mix examples of lesbians and gay men as there are differences between the groups.
Just my points,
Peter is spot-on; human sexuality is a complex and fluid thing. It is not black or white, and cannot be explained away in such simplistic, limiting terms as “gay” and “straight”. On a scale of 0 (representing gay) and 100 (representing straight), it stands to reason that well over 90% of people fall somewhere between – your shade of grey depends on whether you are predominantly one way or the other or in the centre (i.e. “bisexual”). “Gay” and “straight” are divisive and political constructs that fuel homophobia and keeps most homosexually-inclined people (i.e. those who fall outside of the 0-10% “gay” bracket) repressed and closetted. It is the 0-10 bracket that embraces “gay” as a label, creates a lifestyle out of it, screams, shouts and alienates the other 90%, further repressing those with homosexual urges who might otherwise, as Peter explains, be encouraged to act upon their feelings. This is exactly what is happening with the Heinz mayo incident; the out and loud 0-10%-ers are in a lather that Heinz has acted on a commercial decision and pulled its ad, getting hysterical and calling for a mass boycott of their products! Many “gay”-identified men like myself are thoroughly pissed off by this militant lobby because they profess to represent all men who have ever kissed men, when really they are just serving to drive most men who have ever kissed another man further underground. Why don;t they wake up and see that human beings generally are becoming more sexually enlightened; the time will arrive soon when most people will just stop limiting themselves to sexual labels and the words “gay” and “straight” will cease to function in sexual terms. We will all be sexual beings who respect each others’ right to have sex with whichever gender they choose at whatever time of our choosing. Perhaps some of today’s militant gays will even discover and act upon feelings of attraction to the opposite sex; feelings they have subconsciously blocked off as they conform to the cookie-cutter gay lifestyle. The only ones to suffer when such enlightened times arrive will be PGMs (professional gay males) like Ben Summerskill and many others who have used the deceit of sexual devisiveness for political ends.
CORRECTION: Regarding my Heinz mayo comment, I should have defined what I preceive as being the “militant lobby” as falling in the 0 to 1% bracket, not 0-10%. Sorry.
Peter raises some very interesting points. How would one then regard a supposedly straight male who allows another male to fellate him while never reciprocating with the other? There are many straight males who engage in it, some of whom are married. What does it say? Are those men considered bi-sexual? What of those who though they claim to be straight, allow other men to “service” them but maintain they are straight. Have they crossed the line or haven’t they, denial aside of course?