More recent than that, you can point to Lincoln, who engaged in bedsharing with another man and wrote some (by modern standards) quite suggestive comments about the other man's thighs. It's been claimed that Lincoln was bisexual, but I don't think it's a common theory among historians.
The range of acceptable "straight" behavior has greatly narrowed in the modern west. I've read that in India, it's still absolutely unremarkable for two men to walk down the streets holding hands, even though homosexuality is vastly less accepted than in the US.
West-coast USian who visited India about 6 months ago; can confirm: I was very by how physically affectionate guys were with each other.
I feel like we're in a weird place in the US where there's no room in our culture for male physical closeness that isn't sexual. (And it's pretty common to hear people say that the bits that persist, like e.g. wrestling or butt-pats in football, are secretly gay/repressed.)
Optimistically, I'd say it's a side-effect of becoming more aware and accepting of homosexuality. It's still new and a bit of a battleground. As the newness fades away and it becomes simply normal and less polarized, more room will bloom again in the middle for an understanding of non-sexual forms of closeness.
I think US Men have a lot more acceptable codified physical contact than non sexual/familial M/F contact. Greetings can involve hand shakes, fist bumbs, 1/2 hugs, or bumping shoulders etc. Two Male friends walking side by side it's OK for a third friend to be in extended contact with both. Hand holding might seem off, but when a guy is really drunk the steadying hand on a forearm or solder is considered OK. Even the 'extended' hug is considered ok if someone is dealing with significant trauma.
PS: WW_ aka 'Professional' wrestling is often called gay because it's a male version of soap opera mixed with theater. Actual wrestling has long held 'sexual' overtones likely due to what it looks like to observers. where boxing/judo/karate sparing can also have a lot of physical contact, but rarely comes off as gay.
> Actual wrestling has long held 'sexual' overtones likely due to what it looks like to observers
That's a tautology. dilap's point was that our views in society have changed, and acceptable physical contact between males has narrowed in modern history.
I will put it this way, while clothed there is a mild resemblance to sex both physically and the noises involved. Historically, people did this either partially or fully naked.
"USian" is distracting enough that I'm taking the time to write this reply.
The accepted English demonym for inhabitants of the United States of America is American. It has been this way for 200 years. We call ourselves American, and every English speaking country calls us American.
The only measure of correctness for language is use, and when speaking in English, American is only commonly used in one way--in English, American is almost universally unambiguous. No other country name contains the word America, and no one else commonly refers to themselves as American in English.
I completely agree with your post, and your correction of the abnormal/pedantic neologism 'USian' (how would that even be pronounced? /juːʃaɪn/? /ju ɛs aɪn/?). It's not just English speakers who use the term 'American' --- I've frequently heard it in use by Polish and Hungarian people when speaking their own language: "[Polish words] American [more Polish]".
But thinking about it, I guess "American" isn't really the most precise term, since there are a bunch of other countries in the Americas. I might be more aware of this, subconsciously, than your typical citizen of the USA because my wife is Mexican.
Googling around shows I'm certainly not the only person using the term "USian".
It's interesting how it's impossible to choose language without also choosing political sides. :)
American is unambiguous in English because in the English speaking world there is no continent called America and no one uses the term American to mean they are from the western hemisphere (in English that is).
>Googling around shows I'm certainly not the only person using the term "USian".
You're not, but nearly everyone using it is doing so out of some desire to avoid a non existent controversy. It's also used so rarely that you'll often run into people who've never heard the term.
In addition, it's very difficult to pronounce and will therefore likely never be widely adopted. Do you say "you-es-ians" when speaking?
It's a very similar situation to Australia. There is more than one country that is part of the Australian continent, yet people from the Commonwealth of Australia unambiguously refer to themselves as Australian.
Yeah, in my mind it's you-es-ian. Which doesn't seem particularly awkward or hard to say to me (but maybe a strange until you're used to it).
It just seemed a natural term to me. I promise I wasn't using it to avoid a controversy (which I'm not even aware of!). In my experience with spanish speakers, they'll usually just say "gringos" (not as a derogatory term), but they'll also happily use "americanos" -- and don't seem to have any problem w/ it. (Tho Spanish it is literally an ambiguous word; you have to deduce from context whether it means from the USA or from the continent.)
>The only measure of correctness for language is use,
I'd posit the only measure of correctness for language is the ability of being understood, even before the use. So when I read and understand USian, I don't really care that much that it's less used than American to deem it "incorrect".
If you don't like it, say so, but limited usage is a small reason to consider something "wrong".
>I'd posit the only measure of correctness for language is the ability of being understood, even before the use.
The ability to be understood is directly tied to use. If you use nonstandard constructions, fewer people will understand you. Less people understand USian than American precisely because it's not in common use.
>but limited usage is a small reason to consider something "wrong".
No, most linguists consider lack of use pretty much the only reason to consider something "wrong". When something is used enough to be in common use is a bit arbitrary, but USian has definitely not met that standard. You might as well start using USican or USperson.
Beyond being very uncommon, it's also distracting even to people who do understand it. The capitalization is non-standard, and it's difficult to pronounce.
The purpose of writing is to effectively communicate, and unless your goal is to purposely pull people out of the flow of your writing, it's not a good idea to use it.
How do you suggest a word gain common usage without people first using the term while it is both wrong and uncommon? It requires being adopted into peoples vocabulary before it could ever become a common word.
>Beyond being very uncommon, it's also distracting even to people who do understand it. The capitalization is non-standard, and it's difficult to pronounce.
The data points from this thread paint the opposite picture. You seem to be the only person distracted by it or having difficult pronouncing it.
It always irks me that some linguists dislike the "changing" nature of living languages. Words and phrases go in and out of style, new phrases and words are invented, and some of those new words and phrases will make it into the common lexicon. Others will die out.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with them using USian other than it not being an "official" word. The intended meaning seems to be well understood by those reading it and there is no reason to assume motives, that behavior is annoying in and of itself. There is enough context clues in the message that even if the meaning isn't picked up on immediately, one can infer it.
If the crux of your argument rests on people being confused by the word - the same could be said about a plethora of words.
Languages are going to change whether we like it our not. However, until something is in common use, using it makes your speech and writing more difficult to understand.
A word may be in common use in the future, or it may have been in common use in the past, but if it isn't currently in common use, using it decreases your understandability.
>The data points from this thread paint the opposite picture. You seem to be the only person distracted by it or having difficult pronouncing it.
2 out of 5 people in the thread who have expressed an opinion said it was distracting and hard to pronounce. 40% of our small sample size finds it distracting. I also have a fair amount of upvotes for my original comment.
>If the crux of your argument rests on people being confused by the word - the same could be said about a plethora of words.
If the percentage of your intended audience that is distracted by or doesn't understand "plethora" is larger than the percentage that prefers it to "a lot", I'd argue that you shouldn't use "plethora" either.
>The intended meaning seems to be well understood by those reading it and there is no reason to assume motives, that behavior is annoying in and of itself.
It's not common and was created for political purposes. There is a decrease in understandability over using the accepted term, what other purpose is there for using it?
The term was specifically created and promoted by people who dislike the term American.
>A word may be in common use in the future, or it may have been in common use in the past, but if it isn't currently in common use, using it decreases your understandability.
How do you propose a word become common to use without early adopters? If people did as you suggested and never used a word until it was in common use, nobody would use the word and it would never enter common use.
"Common use" first and foremost denotes that people use the word. It's a requirement. A word has to be used and be picked up upon by others to either replace a synonym or take on a new meaning. There has to be early adopters of the word that are using it before it is in common usage.
> There has to be early adopters of the word that are using it before it is in common usage.
You're right, but using a word that may be popular in the future decreases the effectiveness of your writing today. Are you writing to effectively communicate, or are you writing to spread the adoption of new words for future generations?
I'm also not arguing that no one should ever use uncommon words. I'm arguing that there is a cost to using uncommon words, so the benefit should be worth the cost.
Usually a word becomes common because there is a need for it, because it fills a niche better than available words--either because it is easier to say or write, or because it is more descriptive than available terms. If that is the case, the word will spread incredibly fast. There are many examples, the most recent I can think of is "selfie". It became common over the course of a few months.
I wouldn't advise that an individual writer should have started using the word selfie 2 years ago simply because it was going to become common, anymore than I would've advised Charles Dickens to describe writing love letters as sexting.
USian has no benefit over American other than political, and people have been pushing for it's adoption for decades. It hasn't happened, it's not likely to happen, and the only result of using it, is that your writing is less effective.
And things have changed recently. For instance I remember a scene in the first Grandfather where Duvall first meets the producer, who walk him out of his studio holding his hand. One wouldn't even shoot a period movie like that today. In half of the scene in 30s and 40s movie, male actors hold each other arms when they discuss.
I spent a summer in Sumatra a decade ago. Western ex-pats warned me that after a while a native male friend would hold my hand, but that it was merely a sign that we were now friends. (I am male.) It indeed happened and I was happy to have had the prior explanation or it could have been quite confusing!
yes - this is true in India. For most Indians in the west, it is a very harsh learning that the west is a very dont-touch-me culture even between friends.
Interestingly, the anti-gay law in India (Article 377) is an 1860 law that was brought over by the British. Hindu culture is resplendent with gay and transsexual gods. We dont have a deeply religious or cultural basis for an anti-gay law.
It gets worse. The RBI Act, 1934, was proposed by the British as a ‘temporary measure’ [1]. This Act oversees 1 Trillion dollars of foreign exchange in India.
The problem is that these acts cannot just be repealed - drafting a new financial code for the world's second fastest growing and seventh largest economy in the world... at a time when the growth rate is racing to touch 9% is a giant clusterfuck [2].
And whereas in the present disorganization of the monetary systems of the world it is not possible to determine what will be suitable as a permanent basis for the Indian monetary system;
But whereas it is expedient to make temporary provision on the basis of the existing monetary system, and to leave the question of the monetary standard best suited to India to be considered when the international monetary position has become sufficiently clear and stable to make it possible to frame permanent measures
Well that's another thing. My comment was referring to the fact that many documentaries list 19th England as a tipping point about views on sexuality that backfired silently, turning people away from natural relationship into hidden ~perverted~ customs.
I didn't know the British still had a hand in Indian economy but I guess they still need their old 'supervisor' behind the curtain.
> I've read that in India, it's still absolutely unremarkable for two men to walk down the streets holding hands, even though homosexuality is vastly less accepted than in the US.
Not sure about India, but I've heard that in the Arab world, and seen in Ethiopia, that men holding hands doesn't imply homosexuality. Different cultures have different rules.
A man kissing a man on the cheek in France doesn't mean they are gay.
Yes, the meaning of the gesture of holding hands is important. In the U.S., as far as I can tell it almost always indicates a romantic relationship (or adults chaperoning young children, obviously).
For some Dads, alas, yes. It is a thing. Open affection towards ones children, in some settings, can be a surefire way to attract unwanted attention from people who can only be described as hair-trigger SJW's, just waiting to pounce on any male they deem a threat, and 'offensive' behaviour such as holding ones daughters' hand, or giving her a kiss in greeting, has often gotten a Dad in more hassle than its worth. I think its atrocious - as a father, I can't think of anything worse than some social entity claiming that my affection for my children has a nefarious intent. It is really a common tragedy, alas - so much so that I see associate Fathers whose daughters just don't get balanced affinity from their parents. Yes, it is a thing, and it is a sad state of affairs.
My boys get hugs and kisses regardless. Love shouldn't have to be defended from others, but alas PDA for children is a huge social issue in modern America - and England too, I have noticed. In some ways, our societies are terribly pornographic.
A couple of years ago I was in a waiting room at a medical clinic. There was a family of three there, a man, a woman, and (I presume) their daughter. The daughter was approaching teenage; she must have been 12 or 13 -- so, not a young child. I was struck by how casually affectionate she was with her father, even at that age sitting on his lap and being held. It was enough to make me wonder if something untoward was going on between them, but I'd be the first to agree that my having that thought says more about me than about them. Really there wasn't anything in their manner that suggested anything except that they loved each other.
I don't know if I could be as un-self-conscious with a daughter, at that age, in public. And that troubles me.
Downvotes??? ... Oh, I see, it's because I followed the parent in using the abbreviation "SJW". It's not one I normally use; I will avoid it in future.
However. I have read in the news about parents being arrested for allowing their children -- 9- and 10-year-olds, not young children -- to play unsupervised, or (in one case) to hang out at a mall while their parent was at a job interview there, for what some busybody thought was too long. 50 years ago, one could never have imagined the police being called -- or if they had been called, actually arresting the parent -- in such a situation. Whatever label one puts on it, there has been a change in American culture that I think is not entirely salutary. Protecting children is important, but people are jumping to conclusions that are not actually warranted by the facts and nuances of the situation.
In Canada we were warned not to leave our kid (9 years old) unsupervised at the house because it would be considered abandonment. I'm so lucky I didn't grow up in a place like that. By the time we were 6 and 4 my sister and I would take care of ourselves until mom came home from work. This included getting dressed, going to school, going back in the aftenoon. I don't remember a time when I didn't have a key to the house to let myself in when there was nobody home.
You don't recognise the survivor bias? You don't think that leaving a six year old in charge of a four year old is irresponsible and dangerous?
Ideally the "rule" is a guideline, and is only ever used as part of a package of information to protect children (who are by definition vulnerable).
So "left young children alone" gets at most a friendly chat with some advice about home safety, while "left children at home alone" combined with "arrested for drunk and disorderly" and "arrested for solicitation and drug possession" gets a friendly chats combined with targetted drug and alcohol rehab.
It's weird that CPS bother taken action in these cases. They're so busy with other cases where the need is unambiguously there.
> You don't recognise the survivor bias? You don't think that leaving a six year old in charge of a four year old is irresponsible and dangerous?
Yes, it's absolutely terrible. But when you're a single mom and you have to go out and make a living it helps if you raise your kids in a way that teaches them to take responsibility from an early age.
My sister and I never thought this was 'dangerous', we walked hand-in-hand to school, crossed at the lights like were were taught to and never were late or went missing.
For sure the world was safer back then, today it may not be possible to live like this but I'm pretty happy that we had the experience of being trusted with some responsibility from an early age onward.
The survivor bias is non-existent, there were tons of kids like us back then and I don't recall any of them that didn't make it because of being unable to walk home from school or being home for an hour or two un-attended.
> For sure the world was safer back then, today it may not be possible to live like this but I'm pretty happy that we had the experience of being trusted with some responsibility from an early age onward.
The world was more dangerous back then.
There was more crime. Products were less safe (eg cars were more likely to kill pedestrians in accidents) etc.
> The survivor bias is non-existent,
The person most likely to harm your child is your other child. While the numbers are tricky we think sibling sexual abuse is about 5 times more common than paternal sexual abuse in the US. (This is from reported figures. There's a lot of attention on paternal abuse, there's not much attention of sibling sexual abuse, so we think that sibling abuse is less reported than paternal abuse even though they're both under-reported).
Indeed, that's unfeasible. But if you start reasoning like that the best way to prevent children from sexual abuse is to simply not have children at all. After all some of them will surely be victims at some point.
I'm not a big fan of the nanny state, I think life is full of risks and if you arrange society in such a way that all the risks are gone you will squeeze the life out of it as well. It's a hard balance to get right but I feel that going overboard on the protective side is not the answer.
That development is absolutely a cause for concern, but as far as I can tell, SJW's tend to be the people fighting such injustices, not perpetrating them. It is mainstream culture that has developed some sickening tendencies, and those need to be addressed and fought. Though I admit SJW has become a vague term that's also sometimes thrown about as a pejorative, for some reason.
I still hug my son, he's 21. Wonder what people make of that, though he doesn't sit in my lap. (Though I could probably sit in his, he's easily a head taller than I am.)
I feel like the answer is "nothing". My wife and I were talking about the parent's example of a 12 year old girl sitting in her dad's lap. I come from a warm, but relatively reserved, family and found it a bit weird. My wife comes from a very openly affectionate family and didn't.
But from the reserved side of the exchange, I definitely tend hug my dad when I greet him or leave.
I don't doubt this happens, but is it really a "huge social concern" and does it "often gotten a Dad in more hassle than its worth"? Your anecdotal evidence says yes, mine says no.
Extreme logic alert...you say "as a father, I can't think of anything worse than some social entity claiming that my affection for my children has a nefarious intent." You can think of _nothing_ worse? Really? Where do you live I want to move there.
That used to be the case but now it is not entirely so. If reputable people (e.g., high-karma HN users) continue to use either word it will eventually be "redeemed" wherever they are reputable and become acceptable to use.
Frankly, it makes me think the parent poster is not looking at this realistically.
What do feminists have to do with this? A typical feminist position is that our society expects dads to be cold and distant and leave parenting to the women, and that this is a bad and sexist assumption. Feminists explicitly call for men to be more involved in parenting and childcare.
It would make just as much sense if he'd blamed this problem on communists.
He's insinuating that a father that is too close to his daughter would be perceived as a pedophile by women who believe that all men are potential victimizers of women.
That perception does exist, I personally experienced it at a park less than a week ago. It is an open question who is "responsible" for it.
Yes, that attitude (that men being close to daughters is a threat) exists. But does that meme/idea come from feminists? Or from some other part of society that hates paedophiles?
I am not a fan of the term "toxic masculinity" because in the way it is invoked it usually means "all masculinity" (I don't subscribe to that model.) But, I believe that the idea that all men are irredeemable sexual beasts does come from a distorted masculinity that makes naturalistic excuses for sex crimes ("males can't control themselves".) I believe this is a factor in the fear of any man being around any child. Another factor is that pedophile are OK to hate, and where hate is left unchecked it grows and becomes increasingly irrational.
Its more appropriate to consider whether it is sourced from misanthropic ideals than anything else, since the assumption that a loving father is a paedophile is, simply, a form of hatred.
People are downvoting, but I'm just asking: what was the actual behavior? Did people run after you saying pedophile? Did they follow you around the park watching? Did you feel uncomfortable?
I'm confused how someone would not want to ask those questions.
I think the issue is that it's hard to nail down what is "typical". I think you are certainly right, but there is "typical" (i.e. majority of feminists/people think this way) and there is "socially visible" (e.g. SRS/Tumblr, etc). When a person uses the SJW acronym they are definitely talking about the latter, but it's unfortunate if they conflate that with mainstream feminism: that men should be more affectionate and involved in parenting and not emotionally repressed in Western society, as opposed to the tripe that you find on the dumber parts of the web.
I don't think that's true at all. SJW has no more content than "hairy man-hater". It's just an insult that can be thrown around at any feminist without any justification.
It's not like "TERF" or "anti-sex-worker" or other disparaging terms that nonetheless have specific meaning. There's simply no pattern to who gets called a SJW, other than that they pissed off gamergaters or MRAs.
SJW is not usually thrown around at "any feminist" without justification. I think the most broadly you'll ever see it applied is toward all third-wave feminists, but even that is pretty rare. Whenever I see it used, it is directed almost exclusively at SRS/Tumblr types.
The term may be more broadly applied in GamerGate/MRA circles or whatever, but who gives a shit? Those people are assholes, and they don't represent even a significant minority of anything, to say nothing of majority. Why should anyone care what they think, or what loaded and mangled terminology they use to describe their perceived enemies? None of those idiots would last long on HN, or any of the more reasonable communities on Reddit, much less anywhere in real life, unless they kept their outrageous and wrong opinions to themselves. Which is as it should be.
My impression is that some people fighting for real social justice are in the process of owning this. I get that GamerGaters and MRAs mean it as an insult, but it sounds like using "good person" as an insult. It literally means "someone who fights for social justice". In what way is that possibly a negative thing? Using it as an insult sounds like you're unapologetically against justice, and basically admit to being a bad person.
(I'm aware that there are people who claim to be fighting for social justice but are in reality weaponizing other people's struggles as ammo in their own private feuds. This is unfortunately a thing, but the right way to handle that is to recognize that they are not really SJWs, not to accept SJW as a bad thing.)
I agree with the part about how some people may not be bothered by the label.
Still, I think the point of it is like calling someone a "morality crusader". Morality is good (if you don't mean "hating gays" by morality, mind you), but if someone called me a morality crusader, I'd get that they thought I was pompous, self-important and meddling in other people's business.
Its not justice, and thats the point. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't really seem to apply much to those Dads' who openly love their kids and wish to express that love physically - i.e. hugs, kisses, hand-holding, care. Its a tragic circumstance that a man can't express his love for his kids without having to suffer from social stigma at the hands of those who think they are doing society a favor by propagating the dogma that any man who loves a child must be an offender. I've certainly run into it in my life often enough that I think its really insane that Dads can't love their kids without this threat. I guess it is in some ways similar to the prejudices that the other sexes experience, and maybe fundamentally its sourced from the same conscious/subconscious desire to control the way other people live their lives, regardless of differences/similarities between the relevant parties. If someone wants to hug their kids and openly show affection in the face of social stigma, I think its really the only way out for all of us. Love, above all.
SWJ does not refer to most feminists, or social justice advocated. The term originated from, and is most associated with a vocal sub-culture of anti-male feminists largely on tumblr, though somewhat in the larger blog-o-sphere.
It's classical puritan pearl clutching with the sacred cows of the left instead of the right, totally annoying, and totally completely normal and well within the tradition of American moral panics.
But still, using SJW as something negative sounds odd. And as a matter of fact, I know a lot of feminists, including male ones, who care deeply about social justice and tend to identify with the term SJW. The argument shouldn't be whether social justice is good or bad, but about what social justice really entails. Clearly, man-hate has no place in it; no kind of hatred of a general class of people is just.
I find it amusing that defining the term is met by an instant ad hominem attack making a claim that all users of the term are unintelligent woman haters.
No I'm not aware of any example right off the top of my head. I'm sure I could cherry-pick something if I looked hard enough. That's not the point I was aiming to communicate though.
You are quite right that they are involved in an ongoing ideological battle with "the neckbeards" online. Regardless of who tends to use it. The term SJW is pointing to a community that exists on tumblr, that claims to be serving social justice, and holds to a wildly exaggerated definition of basically every term in social science relating to power, oppression, and identity politics. This same community tends to be rather wildly reactive to basically everything that upsets them.
They're a vocal minority, as real as and about as rare as the tea party or rabid Trump supporters.
Interestingly, I know people who simultaneously identify as SJW (because they fight for social justice) and as neckbeard (because they have a beard that covers their neck).
Maybe the people I hang out with are unusually literal in their interpretation of words, and ignore people who try to attach negative meaning to perfectly fine words.
I feel like you are arguing with someone else in your replies to me. When did I ever make a claim that "the SJWs" were winning? Someone asked what the term meant, I took the time to dereference the pointer for them, and provided a bit of the origin of the term.
I also added a bit of snark about how the whole phenomena is a completely normal re-occurring part of American social discourse. The SJWs, prohibitionists, and witch hunts are all a part of the same line of moral panics that eschew logic and argument in favor of emotions and appeals to moral authority. They happen every 3-4 generations in the US, and probably come from the Utopian ideals of the Pilgrims that has evolved into the american progressive movement.
Amusement and surprise are in fact different emotions.
In general the utility of SJW as a label is strongly attached to the fact that the community in which the label originated is not one people wish to be associated with.
In Egypt here, young male couples could be seen strolling together where one is holding one arm to the side crossed with his hand near the tummy and the other one resting his wrist on the former's forearm like what you see when in weddings where the groom walks his bride down the aisle.
We call it أنجاجيه from the French word Engagee meaning engaged but this is only reserved exclusively for teens/high-schoolers who are BFFs or very close and not for every acquaintance but as you grow up you abandon those bromance/frat stuff and get tired of it.
However, holding hands incessantly and crossing fingers and stuff is frowned upon and could raise some eyebrows or suspicion in people around you.
For some reason this comment was in the grey. When you look at the evidence, it seems quite obvious that Buchanan was, in fact, gay, which is interesting and completely detached from his performance.
it's still absolutely unremarkable for two men to walk down the streets holding hands, even though homosexuality is vastly less accepted than in the US.
Totally. When I'm visiting India and taking a walk with cousins, it's almost awkward to not throw your arms around while we are walking. This is very visible during school lunch hours in India: you will see endless sights of straight men and women holding hands or with their arms around their best friend of same sex.
Another instance of this is in Moby Dick, which starts with the (great) scene of Ishmael sharing a bed with Queequeg before they ship out together. There's clearly no sexual relationship involved: it's just a way to save some money on a room, in an old-school version of the sharing economy, I suppose.
Moby Dick has some seriously homoerotic content, though:
"Squeeze! squeeze! squeeze! all the morning long; I squeezed that sperm till I myself almost melted into it; I squeezed that sperm till a strange sort of insanity came over me; and I found myself unwittingly squeezing my co-laborers’ hands in it, mistaking their hands for the gentle globules. Such an abounding, affectionate, friendly, loving feeling did this avocation beget; that at last I was continually squeezing their hands, and looking up into their eyes sentimentally; as much as to say,- Oh! my dear fellow beings, why should we longer cherish any social acerbities, or know the slightest ill-humor or envy! Come; let us squeeze hands all round; nay, let us all squeeze ourselves into each other; let us squeeze ourselves universally into the very milk and sperm of kindness."
True, though in Melville's time the word "sperm" did also mean semen, and the homoeroticism isn't just in the word "sperm" but the whole of the passage.
Moby Dick has a ton of homoerotic scenes like the man donning the whale's penis skin as a robe, or the various bed-sharing scenes with Ishmael and Queequeg including gems like "Queequeg now and then affectionately throwing his brown tattooed legs over mine, and then drawing them back; so entirely sociable and free and easy we were," and "Queequeg's arm thrown over me in the most loving and affectionate manner."
The passage linked-to above doesn't appear sexual to me, but rather a reflection of the affection a person can feel for his fellows, and the (non-sexual) sensual joys that exist in this world.
I think it's easy to read as just plain homoeroticism - the book's laden with it, esp. in subtext, though sometimes explicitly. You'd have to consciously work to not see talking about the delight of men pressing into other men while fondling sperm otherwise. When he's talking about gaining pleasure from a man's thighs while in bed with him (a bed that previously was described as a marriage bed) it's also really hard to read in any other sense. "Queequeg's arm thrown over me in the most loving and affectionate manner... You had almost thought I had been his wife," and "hugging a fellow male in that matrimonial sort of style." Or, "there is no place like a bed for confidential disclosures between friends. Man and wife, they say, there open the very bottom of their souls to each other . ... thus, then, in our hearts' honeymoon, lay I and Queequeg - a cosy, loving pair."
While Moby Dick was slightly more subtle, Billy Budd and Melville's letters to Hawthorne and are even more heavily loaded with homoeroticism than Moby Dick. Homosexuality isn't a new thing.
I think at this point you must apply Occam's Razor. It seems more likely that Melville was having fun and subtly hinting at the homoeroticism of the situation. Otherwise, you are indeed "consciously working to not see", like user nemo said above.
But let's not forget that until recently heating was extremely primitive, houses had almost no insulation, and European winters seem to have been colder and longer-lasting.
Staying warm and dry was a real problem, and it wasn't unusual for families and sometimes friends to share a bed because of it.
There's probably a PhD waiting for someone who can write up a thorough survey of the effects of improved heating and lighting on relationships and sexuality.
My 12th grade lit teacher would likely note that we was rather squeezing seamen, and then leap into another lecture on Melville's literary craftiness. Gotta admit, though, it's a legendary pun.
It seems some cultures are angry at homosexuality being first class lifestyle. Northern African cultures will forget what one does with another same-sex person as long as they play the accepted citizen/family roles, aka get married traditionally with the according gender, make babies, don't talk about what things you may or may have not done.
I'm really curious how pre antique cultures, tribes for instance, dealt with this.
I think the idea that "this can happen, but can't ever be open" is present some places, but I'm also talking about completely non-sexual activities like the "awkward dude hug" in the United States.
Agreed. Americans seems (just telling what I've read) friendly in facade but out of touch with deeper emotions, while Russians cold at first are said to be very very friendly once you get actual friends.
I'm from a North African country and your comment sounds foreign to my ears. Maybe this is more fitting to Morocco or Tunisia but I can't attest to your observation that it's upheld here in Egypt.
It has nothing to do with homosexuality. In India it is normal for a guy to hold the hand of a guy (or girl to hold another girl) while walking or even hug each other as a way of greeting. You can even see friends walking together having their hands on others shoulder.
But you do the same to a person of opposite sex in public, it would raise some eyebrows. Unless, you are in a big metropolitan city.
Lincoln? Let's jump another 75 years ahead and look at the pop culture of the 1930s. One of the most popular comedy duos of the day, Laurel & Hardy, are, film after film, depicted sharing a bed (seriously, do a Google image search for it). It's presented no differently from how two men sharing an apartment would be today.
Just as common in most parts of the A-rab world I have frequented. I would do it with friends who had befriended me, and I was proud since it meant I had integrated much more rapidly than American peers. When other study abroad students would look at me in shock or disgust, I loathed them.
Study abroad should be more than transporting your ass to a different geographic location, it should mean exchanging cultural mores and ideas, but I digress.
About 40 years ago, when I was growing up in Southeastern Europe, in a place greatly influenced by both the Ottoman and the Habsburg empires, I do remember my grandma lying down in bed (covered) with one-two of her girlfriends after having lunch, coffee, and a cigarette. They were fully clothed and they continued chatting while lying on top of a made bed. The men were all gone to work during the day.
Such a behavior would raise an eyebrow in the US, but it was completely normal in that corner of the world at the time.
> they ate every day at the same table ... and at night their beds did not separate them
That doesn't read to me like a statement that they shared a bed, necessarily (though I acknowledge that, even if they did share a bed, it wouldn't be sexually suggestive). I read it as "they sat up all night and didn't go to bed".
Other gay icons from a slightly creative historical reading: King David and Jonathan from the bible.
We live in a time where we constantly extrapolate behaviors and it has some unfortunate consequences. An adult male who is friendly to a child in a park conjures up immediate and specific fears. Men holding hands in the streets of Tanzania is a source of fascination for tourists. Men kissing each other on the mouth in South Western France suggests something specific for visitors.
In the English speaking west we are evolving into a world of behavioral taboos because so many behaviors are seen as heuristics that identify us as something.
As Nigel Havers said to Christian Bale's character in Empire of the Sun: Perhaps we should "try not to think so much".
Physical displays of affection among men is more common in cultures where such displays aren't likely to be misinterpreted as sexual in nature. For example, it's common in Saudi Arabia for men to hold hands and even kiss:
There is such a term: to be bedfellows. But the practise is so uncommon these days that many living English speakers only think of it as metaphorical expression.
Perhaps this is nitpicking, but the Bible does not mention three wise men anywhere. It does state that wise men gave Jesus three gifts.
"And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh." - Matthew Chapter 2
That seems a likely explanation. It seems unlikely that there were actually only 3 magi, considering the bible's obsession with numbers even in places where it's unlikely that the number is accurate. It seems to me the authors would have leapt at the opportunity of putting a 3 in there, had they seen fit.
These are social constructions. In an African country (no name mentioned, But close to South Africa), it was/is not unusual to see men holding hands walking down the road. In this country the same two hypothetical men would be considered homophobic by U.S. standards. Gender roles identities are always modulated by time and place.
This sounds quite likely. After all, how much entertainment was there back then once you'd got drunk in a courtly setting with mistresses and dismissed the lutes? Surely sharing part of the regal harem was de-facto normal! One could assume all out orgies without retiring to bechambers were feasibly frequent since lewd behavior was unlikely to be questioned or reported in a totalitarian / death-for-criticism political environment.
Why is one particular aspect of sexual preference singled out as (1) being ingrained from birth, rather than developing during childhood like every other aspect; and (2) necessarily being a core part of everyone's personal identity?
"developing during childhood like every other aspect"
This just keeps being repeated, as if it's fact, but it's just not true. In fact, it's less true than the opposite conclusion.
It's been shown, repeatedly that toy preference, conflict resolution style, gender identity, and now even the genetic programming of the immune system are very different between the sexes, and exist at birth.
I'm not aware of any reason to believe sexual preference doesn't fall into the same bucket. In fact, wasn't this the entire basis of the gay rights movement?
The literature is extensive, and I don't have time to list all the references at the moment, but here's a couple to start off with:
>n fact, wasn't this the entire basis of the gay rights movement?
No, the basis for the gay rights movement was that being gay is not a justification for denying someone regular human rights. There are some people who only conditionally agree with this, if being gay is a way you are born and have no choice in it. There are other people who think it is repugnant to suggest that it is only ok for someone to be gay if they can't help it.
I m more interested on why (mostly straight) people today are so concerned about how others perceive their sexuality , i.e. the "no homo" appendix, both in the real world and online. In none of the stories presented was the sexuality of the participants stated or written. I presume it's because they actually didn't care, or didnt consider it noteworthy.
As someone with many gay friends, I find your comment totally unhelpful and antagonistic (you are trying to provoke a war but the benefit you seek is unclear. I'm aware of something I call "gay arrogance" that you might be exhibiting).
Most people I know, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual want to make a statement about their sexuality. There are many hang ups in the gay community and as much prejudice as I see in the heterosexual community (breeders anyone??).
To assume that homosexuality gives one some special exemption from hang ups is false. There is no more tolerance (it's just different tolerance).
So, why are almost ALL people hung up about sex? Power, recognition, ego, self-definition.
True story: I've upset gay friends kissing them on the cheek in public because they don't want to look gay - they tell me that I wouldn't understand. I'm very comfortable with my preferences, so it doesn't bother me.
The assumption here is mistaken. HN has never been only for stories about computer science—it's for anything and everything that's intellectually interesting.
The range of acceptable "straight" behavior has greatly narrowed in the modern west. I've read that in India, it's still absolutely unremarkable for two men to walk down the streets holding hands, even though homosexuality is vastly less accepted than in the US.