Gay Iraq

[revtj]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6771/1563/320/LOGO%20IRAQ%20LGBT.1.jpg

I came across this website (http://iraqilgbtuk.blogspot.com/) on my daily visit to QueerFilter (http://www.queerfilter.com/login.php), which I read for the articles, of course. It's very educational. ;)

The stories on this Iraqi gay site matched what many friends who have been to the Middle East have told me (esp. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq & Kuwait): Male-male sex is very common in their culture and men cruising men for sex in public areas is also fairly normal. However, the homophobia is deeply entrenched, such that hardly any man would declare themselves "gay" when the practice of obtaining a wife is a simple and expected custom.

It represents western decadence to them to be 'gay' not because they don't do it, but because to identify with 'gay' rather than the prescribed norms of Islamic society is an offense to them. I think it is a helpful case study in understanding a point I have made in other posts, that being 'gay' as we know it in the west is a constructed identity which we have had the blessing of liberty to pursue.

It seems to me that it also points to evidence that being 'straight' is also a constructed identity which can be forced by society. Yet not even the Nazis were able to eradicate homosexual behavior with genocide. A certain small percentage of every population will prefer same-sex relationships no matter how repressive or decadent the government.

But most importantly to me, the website also relates a story of male-male rape against a person who is self-identified as homosexual. This is interesting to me because many LGBT theologians interpret the Romans 1 verses (and perhaps others such as Leviticus, and certainly the 'Sodom & Gomorrah" texts...) used as texts of terror against us, as being about straight people who "give up" their natural inclination and force themselves on someone of the same gender in an act of violence, not sexual passion. This form of rape, like in our prisons, is STILL to this day a common phenomena of Middle Eastern culture (where the Bible comes to us from).

What do you think?

[Daniel]

I think you've nailed it fair and square. Sex and aggression is a volatile cocktail when mixed with religion.

I can imagine the Sodom scenario happening.

[Steven E. Webster]

It represents western decadence to them to be 'gay' not because they don't do it, but because to identify with 'gay' rather than the prescribed norms of Islamic society is an offense to them. I think it is a helpful case study in understanding a point I have made in other posts, that being 'gay' as we know it in the west is a constructed identity which we have had the blessing of liberty to pursue.

It seems to me that it also points to evidence that being 'straight' is also a constructed identity which can be forced by society. Yet not even the Nazis were able to eradicate homosexual behavior with genocide. A certain small percentage of every population will prefer same-sex relationships no matter how repressive or decadent the government.
[/SIZE]

TJ,
I think I understand what you are saying and agree with you. However, some people (sometimes our adversaries) go too far with the "constructed identity" theory. They argue that same-sex "sexual orientation" doesn't exist, but is "only" a constructed identity. Of course, they take the view that heterosexuality is not a constructed identity.

Social construction theory can be taken too far. Yes, an incredible amount of what we see as "reality" is socially constructed, but there is also something which is really "out there," that is not "only" a socially constructed reality.

Different cultures have different ways of understanding same-sex orientation, but I believe that deep down gay and lesbian people are much the same everywhere. This is why I believe it is possible for the website you direct us to to exist. LGBTQ Iraqis can now reach out to their brother and sister LGBTQ's internationally via the internet. There are going to be cultural misunderstandings. We must always seek to be sensitive to the cultural differences, but I believe a truly international LGBTQ movement is possible, and is, in fact, emerging.

I've read some intriguing history about the changes that have occured in our western social construction of homosexuality. For example, in Greece male homosexuality was viewed as an age differentiated phenomenon--which is to say that it was understood as older men having sex with younger men with the older man playing the "inserter" role. In Rome it was understood to be about social status, with men of higher social status playing the "inserter" role. More recently, there was a kind of gender distinction with butch-femme roles. Now-a-days we understand same-sex relations to be more egalitarian with two people of equal status, age, gender.

In some cultures still only the "passive" or "insertee" partner in a couple is understood to be "gay" or "queer." The man in the "inserter" or "active" role is still a "real man". I think this is why a man might rape another man and still identify as a heterosexual, a "real man." (This happens sometimes in our own culture.)

I don't believe that western LGBTQ's are superior to LGBTQ's in other cultures. I think as we become a more international movement we will have things to learn from each other. Some have even suggested that the modern LGBTQ identity has emerged, in part, due to contact between European culture and Native American culture.

Steven Webster

[revtj]

Wow, you know of anti-gay conservatives who actually understand socially constructed identity? I have never seen the issue addressed by the anti-gay machine in any of their literature nor on any of their websites.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/Michel-foucault.jpg/200px-Michel-foucault.jpg

What they frequently spout is a biblical interpretation that homosexuality is a choice. That is NOT what socially constructed identity is saying. It is an entirely different assertion. My experience has been that it is gay people who have trouble understanding constructed identity (despite the fact that it came to us via Foucault, a gay man) because they get it confused with the religious right's argument that homosexuality is a choice.

To say that we in the west have had the blessing of liberty to self identify as gay and explore that meaning is not at all the same thing as saying homosexuality is a choice.

I would assume addressing socially constructed identity would be too risky for the anti-gay machine. It would mean also acknowledging the social, cultural and location-specific precursors that explain why a person is christian, a protestant, catholic or other form of christian, etc., and then acknowledging that absent these cultural factors, the individual might have been religious but not specifically christian. This is sociological data that goes against the medieval biblical presuppositions they begin with.

I do not think the religious right confuses Foucault with homosexuality as a choice. I think the rest of us do! :)

[Steven E. Webster]

Wow, you know of anti-gay conservatives who actually understand socially constructed identity? I have never seen the issue addressed by the anti-gay machine in any of their literature nor on any of their websites.


Yes, indeed, there are conservative scholars who work that angle. I believe, given the time and opportunity, I could find some quotes from Professor Robert A. J. Gagnon arguing that since homosexuality is socially constructed, we could reduce the incidence of homosexuality in our culture by increasing the level of oppression imposed on homosexuals. Since he considers homosexuality a very bad thing, he thinks that harsh oppression of out-of-the-closet homosexuals would be a very good thing.

As I've said previously, I think I agree that all of reality (as humans understand it) is socially constructed to some extent. That means that all aspects of human behavior and all aspects of our understanding of the natural world not limited to homo or heterosexuality are socially constructed to some extent--but only to some extent. I also believe there is a reality "out there" independent of social construction. Robert A.J. Gagnon would like to "socially construct" all or most gay people out of existence--but my belief is that reality is not that cooperative.

Just as BOTH nature and nurture play a part in our sexual identities, so does BOTH social construction and nature play a part. The Social Constructionism versus Biological Essentialism debate is just the tired old Nature vs. Nurture debate in a different guise. The answer is both/and, not either/or.

Steven Webster

[revtj]

The answer is both/and, not either/or.


[SIZE="2"]AGREED.

I had never heard of Gagnon, thanks for that! I googled him and went to his home page and it appears he is up to date on a lot of gay theological & biblical interpretation. I do not see that he really deals with the socially constructed identity argument as it was put forth by Foucault and others.

Again, my point is that the theory isn't the same theory once it is co-opted by others and oversimplified to mean we choose to be gay. Once again, the research is being distorted and misrepresented. I know of only a few (one example, Brooten (http://people.brandeis.edu/~brooten/)) in the LGBT community who make use of the theory by way of understanding the actual research intent behind it.

[Pablo Rafael]

Male-male sex is very common in their culture and men cruising men for sex in public areas is also fairly normal.

Some American Hispanic males also do not classify themselves as gay even though they have sex with other men. It seems that the act of sex and sexual orientation are two totally separate ideas. It is good to keep in mind cultural differences as to what "gay" means.

The subject on rape as an instrument of terror is one that has persisted for centuries. Sociologists say that rape has nothing to do with sex. It deals with power. That is why I can't see how anyone interprets the Sodom attempted gang rape as an example of normal homosexual relations.

[Steven E. Webster]

AGREED.

I had never heard of Gagnon, thanks for that! I googled him and went to his home page and it appears he is up to date on a lot of gay theological & biblical interpretation. I do not see that he really deals with the socially constructed identity argument as it was put forth by Foucault and others.


Robert A.J. Gagnon's claim to fame is the book, "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics." (Abingdon, 2001) This is an ugly, anti-LGBT book in many respects, but it is held out by many anti-LGBT Christians as the most scholarly and definititve "proof" that "God hates fags" (to borrow a quote from Fred Phelps). Gagnon references the work of David F. Greemberg who wrote the massive and scholarly book, "The Construction of Homosexuality," which is a trans-historical and cross-cultural study. As one might guess from the title, Greenberg is a thorough-going social constructionist and is also thoroughly supportive of LGBT persons. However, Gagnon uses (or misuses) Greenberg by citing this quotation from Greenberg (Gagnon p.415):

Where social definitions of appropriate and inapropriate behavior are clear and consistent, with positive sanctions for conformity and negative ones for nonconformity, virtually everyone will conform irrespective of genetic inheritance and, to a considerable extent, irrespective of personal psychodynamics.

From this Gagnon concludes (p.415-416):
All of this suggests that cultural norms, not some form of genetic determinism, play the dominant role in manipulating how and whether homosexuality will come to expression.

Repeatedly, Gagnon suggests that the number of homosexuals is increasing because society is "too tolerant" and, conversely, that the number of homosexuals could be greatly reduced by society more oppressively imposing heterosexual conformity on everyone.

Gagnon's work is now being cited by right-wingers in the United Methodist Church as supporting the idea that "unrepentent" homosexuals should be denied membership in the church. (Remember James Holsinger, the Surgeon General nominee? He supports this view in his role as President of the United Methodist Judicial Council.)

I'm enough of a believer in "biological essentialism" to believe that sexual orientation has a biological basis, and that the number of homosexually oriented persons is not greatly affected by culture. To me the issue is whether those who are homosexual will suffer sprititual and social oppression and violence or not. Society would be misguided to increase the oppression of LGBT people in the belief that it can make everyone heterosexual.

I grant you, T.J., that Gagnon and those who follow his thought, are misinterpreting and misusing social constructionism. But I also reject the notion that there is no biological basis to homosexuality--that it all boils down to socialization. Reading the Wikipedia article on Social Contructionsim, I see that there are "strong" and "weak" versions of social constructionsim. I would probably consider embracing the weak version that does not deny all biological essentialism.

You might also know that some Social Constructionists tend to disparage the views of such scholars as John Boswell. I like Boswell. I think he's right about alot of things. I think, like Boswell, that gay people really did exist in ancient and medieval times. Some Social Constructionists would argue that one should not describe anyone as "gay" who was born before the 19th or 20th centuries. I don't know where Brooten would stand on this issue.

By the way, Gagnon is not the first or only conservative scholar to use the same interpretation of social constructionism. I remember reading a review of David Greenberg's book in the Christian Century many years ago when Greenberg's book first came out (1988). The book reviewer jumped to the conclusion that, as you say, "homosexuality is a choice" that it has no biological reality, that it is ONLY a social construction, and not a social construction that society should tolerate.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

I know of only a few (one example, Brooten (http://people.brandeis.edu/~brooten/)) in the LGBT community who make use of the theory by way of understanding the actual research intent behind it.

TJ,

You lost me there. What do you mean by "the actual research intent behind it."

I don't want to misunderstand you.

Steven Webster

[revtj]

You lost me there. What do you mean by "the actual research intent behind it."


poor choice of words on my part...

I meant that those who hold with the social construction theory are looking at anthropology, sociology and other disciplines and finding that (as Pablo points out) homosexual sex exists in every culture known, but the exclusive self-identification as "gay" and the western gay rights movement that came with that is modern (recent). That, I meant to say, is what inter-disciplinary research finds, and the intent is only to describe what is known or seen consistent with scientific inquiry.

So there is the behavior which is a constant, and the identity which is relative to social conditions, most especially individual liberty and leisure time. B + sc = "gay"

To take this data and twist it to say that it proves gays choose to be gay is to distort the data and misrepresent the findings. And if you begin with the presupposition that God hates gays, you get Gagnon, et. al.

Is Gagnon by any chance a friend of the Surgeon General nominee? Perhaps they go to the same church? :)

[Steven E. Webster]

Is Gagnon by any chance a friend of the Surgeon General nominee? Perhaps they go to the same church? :)

Different church but same pew.

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

Frankly, It had been my expectation that anyone caught being gay in Iraq would be shot-end of story: just like they shoot women who are accused of adultery or men who's beards are too short. So, it's surprising to hear that there is any information out there about Iraq's gay population. Hopefully that kind of persecution will stop, though, if Iraq EVER succeeds in obtaining a semi-safe government.