In this entry, I will attempt to uncover and explain some of the social
perceptions and prejudices that exist---real, imagined, legitimate and
illegitimate—against homosexuals, or same gender loving people, within the
fabric of modern day and urban society; starting from the very obvious
perceptions to the very subtle ones that exist naturally. For those that know
me, I will not be taking my usual Christian slant. Instead, I will attempt to
explore these social observations purely from an objective standpoint, perhaps
traversing into the psycho-social realm. My goal is an attempt to brood a
generalized and broader understanding of the dynamics that the homosexual
populations bring, in the attempt to interact peacefully with heterosexuals.
I believe that as a society, we are slowly but surely growing in knowledge,
awareness, tolerance and information when it comes to multiculturalism. (Some
of us more than others). But one demographic that has risen as a burgeoning
population is LGBT's. By my short historical account, this population really
didn't start earning respect as a sub-culture until well after the late 1970's.
Even so, hatred and ostracism continues and persists well into the new
millennium.
Why is that?
For several illegitimate reasons, and others for some very confusing reasons.
Let's take a quick look—from the very shallow to the deep seated reasons—of why
that is.
Not even acknowledging the very hatred some have of others who are generally
different from themselves, I won't go there. (Although I believe that their
hatred stems way beyond simple dislike—but lies in a deep seated issue, more in
a moment) I'll start with the common misconception of disagreement of choices.
It used to be that conservative heterosexuals didn't like gays simply because
they were homosexual; or same gender loving people. I find this concept to
be false. There is a great chance that People Against Gays (I'll call them
PAGs...Ha!) don't even witness them engaging in sexual acts. So why the hate?
For instance, a gay person at work will obviously show no signs of his private
choices. So by assumption (or imagination) of their deeds, public opinion is
formed. This is as silly as a worker who is an admitted cheater on their
spouse. Chances are, we don't see their deeds, but we form opinions and
judgments based on clues or admitted testimony. But we still don't see it. So
why does it still matter?; especially as it relates to them being in public
places. Basically, it shouldn’t matter what they do in the privacy of their own
time. However, there are many who don’t have the gift of
‘compartmentalization.’ (See the public outcry of Bill Clinton’s and Marion
Barry’s scandal) There are some who can mentally separate the person and their
private choices. Then, there are others who cannot separate the two. Even
though with both cases (Clinton and Barry) their choices were made personally,
some suggest that their choices have no bearing on their abilities in the
public forum. Others argue this point. “The others” who cannot separate the
public person from their private actions are usually the ones who feel
uncomfortable with gays. Even though the average gay person does not have a
high profiled position, ”the others” still hold them accountable totheir own
personal moralistic standards, even when their opinion of their personal
choices doesn’t matter.
But if PAGs don’t see them do it, still why the hatred?
Another misconception is that gays will turn PAGs into homosexuals. This is
also not true. Whereas yes there may be some (a minority) who are, as they
say, "curious", an overwhelming large majority of heterosexuals are
confident in their orientation. But unfortunately PAGs affront a strong
aversion to any gay person, not realizing their own self confidence in their
orientation. So the common misconception of PAGs being homophobic because of
conversion is very overrated.
So what is it? Why do PAGs strongly protest LGBT's?
I want to suggest to you that it is primarily a matter of pheromone confusion.
Let me explain.
Every person, both male and female, has testosterone and estrogen hormones
inside of them. The typical male has 10-times more testosterone than the
typical female and vice versa; the typical female has 10-times more estrogen
than the typical male. When a male or female self-esteem and/or self confidence
is in the healthy to high range, they emit their dominant hormone to higher
levels. Females emit their estrogen which socially turns into femininity. (Some
other nicknames for this are: dainty, prissy, elegant, sweet, and sexy)
Likewise, males emit their testosterone which translates into masculinity.
(Nicknames for this trait are: machismo, bravado, manly, and swagger) Both of
these social traits show a display of confidence and comfort with their
personage. In the social laws of human interaction and attraction, being
comfortable and confident with oneself is an instant aphrodisiac.
With this in mind, let’s move on with the “typical” gay male. Whether by nature
or nurture, the quintessential gay male emits more levels of estrogen than a typical
male. (Not all, of course) This estrogen leads to social-femininity. In
traditional society, women were the leaders in this vibration. From the
high-pitched voice, the slinky walk and body movement, to color filled emotions
and sassy personality. The confusion comes in where testosterone driven men, by
nature, are hard-wired to respond to femininity. Consider it the same as
smelling your favorite food coming from your computer keyboard. The smell is
strong, but the source is confusing. By nature, you have a bodily response to
the smell of food, but the fact that it’s coming from your computer keyboard—a
completely different visual clue—is off-putting. To the typical heterosexual,
this can be very confusing. So when they get the vibe of estrogen, or femininity,
from a male source, confusion can lead to frustration. Frustration can lead to
anger or worse, hatred. (This author has not studied the in depth effects of
how typical women feel when a testosterone-driven woman enters the social
circle, but can only imagine that, at the very least, “it gets weird”)
Why is that?
Our typical feminine and masculine qualities were designed to work like magnets
toward the opposite sex. Just like magnets, we radiate a “magnetic field”
around us when our masculine/feminine hormones are heightened in proportion to
our self-confidence/self-esteem. And just like magnets and their polarizations,
typically in humans, ‘like’, or the same magnetsusually do not attract
each other—they repel. So it becomes “weird” at best, when natural signals of
attraction are sounding, but the visual does not correlate. This, I believe,
explains the subtle confusion, and uneasiness that is felt in thriving and
budding social situations.
Alas, there are those who are aware and respectful of differing orientations,
but still may have slight pause in mixed-orientated social interaction. This is
due to gender role typecasting. On the surface, the traditional expectation is
for “a man to be a man” and “a lady to be a lady.” But a deeper issue is
because of the noted affirmation of gender bonding. Traditionally, males and
females hang out together with the same sex, with the purpose and result of
building up each other’s self-identification through gender mirroring. This
interaction is void of erotica, and used primarily for affirming one’s
identification. The proverbial “record gets scratched” when a traditional
social circle encounters a visual cue (gay person) emitting differing
pheromones. (Consider the cheeseburger smelling keyboard example) Placement in
a traditional all male (or female) social circle seems to dawdle for the gay
person a little, as the individual is not affirming their same sex heterosexual
bystanders, because they’re not radiating the same hormone. (And of course the
rules of attraction pertaining to transmitting hormones for social sexual
interplay are closely guarded and enforced by traditionalists). But for this
reason, gays are quicker to “hang out” with an opposite sexed, but same
hormonal social circle. Here is where they find their gender mirroring,
self-worth and affirmation of identification.
For instance, take the fictional TV sitcom Will & Grace. Jack, a
particularly effeminate gay male, is especially “attracted” to, not Grace—a
typical female, but Karen—a noted alpha female who demonstrates a slightly
higher level of self-confidence equaling to higher levels of femininity of her
person. I can only suggest this is the same in the male circle with
testosterone oriented females, however I have no example to provide for this
validation.
Why is all of this important?
I believe that some of the slightest of aversions to the most impassioned of
hatred of same gender loving people from traditional conversatives is stemmed
from natural, chemical, and psycho-social reactions in our bodies and minds.
And though, there are some who try to push past the perceived social stigmas or
even personal preferences, they still will find a certain awkwardness when
trying to interact in a gregarious social setting. And for gays, they still
have the pressure to either neutralize their hormone exudation or be highly
selective of where to socially interact.
Either way, the reasons for perceived homophobia is actually stemmed from
intrinsic chemical receptors, and not so much just from mental pride and
prejudice. I believe as a society, we can get past the mental aspect through
information and other means. As far as broad acceptance in all the social
spheres and interaction, that remains to be seen
No comments:
Post a Comment