Arsenal ([info]markarsenal) wrote in [info]queerchoice,
@ 2006-04-28 17:30:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Androphilia...
Rev Malebranche has a website up: http://www.androblog.com and plans to put out a book about male homosexuality soon. It's going to liken homosexuality to an ecumenical preference, sort of like a taste for olives - something I've always tried to do myself when explaining my own sexuality.

He's stirring up some pretty big shit, but I think it's worthy of mention here...

(Post a new comment)


[info]queerbychoice
2006-04-29 01:45 am UTC (link)
That guy seems to be plenty supportive of sociobiological pseudoscience when it comes to gender, though. Even when linking to an article on brain differences between men and women that specifically noted "Sloan also notes that any difference could be entirely cultural, rather than biological. 'Just because it happens in the brain, it doesn't mean it's innate'" he falsely concluded from the article that the study showed "There is a biological reason why faggots are even more vindictive than the bitches they try to imitate."

He also expresses ridiculously sexist horror that at any moment now, supposedly "Women will be running the world, even though most of them don’t want to" - a claim which he supports only with a vague claim that some unnamed book or other said so. Even assuming (optimistically) that the book he read conducted a survey and used proper scientific methods, there is no reason whatsoever to imagine that women inherently, biologically prefer to be housewives and that men inherently, biologically prefer to have no contact with their children, rather than that they were each societally taught to prefer that.

The guy seems much too creepily pro-oppression and pro-pseudoscience for his merely having gotten one single issue right to be anywhere enough to make me like him at all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]kore_eleusis
2006-11-08 09:10 pm UTC (link)
The guy seems much too creepily pro-oppression and pro-pseudoscience for his merely having gotten one single issue right to be anywhere enough to make me like him at all.

Precisely. Jesus. He's pretty exemplary of the really sexist pockets of queer culture, which I find generally revolting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]kore_eleusis
2006-11-08 03:08 pm UTC (link)
He seems interesting enough for that reason, but I'm detecting a really annoying misogynist streak in his essays...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]markarsenal
2006-11-08 05:37 pm UTC (link)
Of course, you just made the error of assuming that misogyny is, by its nature, wrong. I would argue that it is value-neutral, and merely a personal preference, which most non-political fags tend to subscribe to.

Misogyny merely means disliking or being against that which is female/feminine. Fags who honestly enjoy men because of the fact that they are, physically and aesthetically MEN (as opposed to those few who engage in male homosexuality for political or religious reasons), can usually be described as misogynist, regardless of the feminist veneer gay culture tries to gloss them over with.

I will grant, however, that this does not apply as much to female homosexuals, who not only engage in gynophilia as part of their fetish, but among whom a greater proportion engage in homosexuality for political or moral reasons as opposed to aesthetic or animalistic reasons (far less prevalent among men). But that is not Mr Malebranche's audience, and thus not very applicable to this discussion.

Incidentally, I believe the original link is outdated. The following is his latest site:

http://www.jackmalebranche.com/hub/

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kore_eleusis
2006-11-08 09:04 pm UTC (link)
Of course, you just made the error of assuming that misogyny is, by its nature, wrong.

Error? I was expressing annoyance with a certain facet of the essays which is not in line with the general values and tone of this community. It was hardly meant to be an extensive argument. Nor was it meant to speak for everyone who voices an opinion here.

I would argue that it is value-neutral, and merely a personal preference, which most non-political fags tend to subscribe to.

To say so is to take the word completely out of its context and redefine it. Which you are welcome to do, as long as you're aware that you are doing it. However, I simply don't know why you'd use such a word when it's so very charged with political and moral meaning, and I don't know why you'd want to defend "disliking or being against" that which is feminine. Showing a preference is one thing; setting oneself against the other choice, and even simply disliking to the degree that Mr. Malebranche does, is inherently active, and implies a moral decision.

I'd say the burden of proof lies on you to justify that misogyny as you describe it is right because "being against something" by nature requires a value judgment. Value judgments, btw, inevitably result in politics and morality. (I also don't get where you're letting female homosexuals off the hook in this regard. Men are much less an ingrained part of lesbian culture than women are gay culture, in my experience.)

It's clear to me that Mr. Malebranche warps certain facets of homosexual male culture to suit his particular type of queerness, such as his really laughable and offensive essay on "fag hags." And, as the previous poster mentioned, he has very rigid notions about gender which simply don't carry over to other aspects of gay male culture. Liking strictly masculine men is hardly something anyone who is queer could object to in itself; it's where he carries that which bothers me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]markarsenal
2006-11-09 12:05 am UTC (link)
Well, there's also the argument that porn doesn't lie, and by and large homo male porn is mostly about stereotypical maleness and masculine ideals. Most all-male porn focuses on muscle daddies and blue-collar men and authority figures. That's what men who like men are attracted to, and JM is just expanding this fact into a broader analysis of male homo culture.

You imply above the homo males are by and large not predisposed to prefer traditional ideals of masculinity to femininity. I would argue that, actually, they are. What you identify as "gay male culture" is what JM is trying to refute by indicating that it contradicts the basic things that homo men enjoy about their sexuality, namely having sex and relationships with MEN as they are in everyday traditional context.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kore_eleusis
2006-11-11 03:09 am UTC (link)
Well, there's also the argument that porn doesn't lie, and by and large homo male porn is mostly about stereotypical maleness and masculine ideals. Most all-male porn focuses on muscle daddies and blue-collar men and authority figures. That's what men who like men are attracted to, and JM is just expanding this fact into a broader analysis of male homo culture.

I'll take your word on gay male porn as I have little experience with it (lol), but uh, porn absolutely DOES lie. What people like in porn has little to do with the realities of everyday life and what people enjoy in them. Porn is designed to get you as stimulated as possible in a short period of time. That is not, obviously, something you can find or even particularly want to find in everyday life. The average gay male porn star doesn't seem to have a whole lot in common with your average gay male, or with the many gay males I see happily coupling with pretty, fashionable, effete partners.

You can also easily make the argument, as is often made with straight porn, that people's tastes are cultivated by what porn is available and that porn often gets its viewers that way, not by catering to everyone's tastes necessarily.

You imply above the homo males are by and large not predisposed to prefer traditional ideals of masculinity to femininity. I would argue that, actually, they are. What you identify as "gay male culture" is what JM is trying to refute by indicating that it contradicts the basic things that homo men enjoy about their sexuality, namely having sex and relationships with MEN as they are in everyday traditional context.

Basic things that a lot of homo men enjoy, perhaps, and maybe for some/many it does contradict other facets of gay men - but the fag hag, drag queen, and love for divas is as time-honored a tradition as anything else. Where do such things come from? Where does the heavy emphasis on close friendships with women, the idealization of strong women, come from? Gay males can hardly be said to have needed such things as an outlet of oppression; they could have made their cute little hypermasculine society that would have probably been -less- oppressed without the "feminine" qualities.

Look into the history of homosexuality and you'll see plenty of situations with traditional men in traditional roles, and you'll also see at least as many of situations where homosexuality all about feminine or non-stereotypically-masculine males. I'm not buying this argument. It just smacks of someone being upset at people not conforming to his particular ideal. I really don't understand what his beef is: he can enjoy his homosexuality without the excess baggage of misogyny he seems to have picked up, and he can also let other homosexuals be while enjoying the company of more masculine men. Get over it, i say.

(He reminds me of the people who try to "disprove" bi male existence, such as that recent study about bi men only reacting to one kind of porn. Never mind the shoddy scholarship of the study itself - who cares? Who the hell needs proof when there's bi males everywhere who are enjoying sex with men and women and whose only problem is people trying to put them in an either/or binary structure of sexuality and basing their preferences on something as changeable and disorted as porn?)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]markarsenal
2006-11-11 02:05 pm UTC (link)
I'm not arguing about what is empirically the status quo in gay male culture historically. If anyone in this community (to which I no longer belong, BTW - this is an old post) was really that hung up on status quo queer culture they wouldn't be subjecting themselves to the ridicule of the queer-by-choice position.

I don't intend to speak for Mr Malebranche. All I can say is that his idea that traditional male roles being the thing that attract men to one another is a common theme in the sexual crystalization of many men who choose to be queer. It's what made me queer - I enjoy men because I love masculinity and masculine roles. I love sharing male experiences of this world and the experience of being a man in our society.

My assumption when I originally posted this was that the queer-by-choice people would have an easier time digesting his thesis because it speaks so well to those who chose their sexual preference for reasons they can name, such as I have done above, and such as Mr Malebranche endeavors to do in his book. I'm not trying to say that feminist culture, gay culture, or anti-masculine culture are bad per se, just that they do nothing to get me up, which is what I think sexuality is all about.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]she_evolves
2007-01-15 07:38 pm UTC (link)
Referring to women as "bitches" is definitely not "value-neutral". Disrespecting women is unacceptable. You don't have to want to sleep with them or wear the high heels the patriarchy has promoted as "feminine" chic. Just don't condone bullshit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…