posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by Phantasmagoria
Yes, it is very much a case of divide and rule.
Promiscuity is an issue that has been linked to colonial racism: the idea that black or native sexuality was an uncontrollable force.
As long as humans lived in isolated, contained pockets the diseases spread by promiscuity were not an issue. As soon as the sailing ships connected
the globe, venereal and other diseases became pandemics. In the Pacific for example European men bemoaned the "moral sexual laxity" of the natives,
but they took full advantage of customs like wife borrowing or sex for trade-goods, and syphillis spread rapidly.
In South Africa HIV was denied by the black government, because it linked black sexuality to colonial notions of African promiscuity.
Yet, strangely promiscuity itself is not the origin of these viruses, like many other diseases (eg. TB, smallpox, Spanish flu) they came from human
contact with livestock and bush-meat.
Before Aids there was little reason for the men in the Western centres of gay liberation not to be promiscuous, and gays were already shut out by
conventional morality. However, now there is a strong movement towards long-term partnerships.
I think that if straight people find gay sex-acts repulsive that is not homophobia, but people are not usually confronted with such acts when dealing
with gay people on a daily basis (unless they seek it out or become obsessed with certain acts - in the latter case that would border on repressed
homosexuality). Recently in Uganda there was an outcry after a homophobic pastor showed gay porn in a church! I mean that is just wierd.
The real issue seems to be that the mannerisms of some gay men challenge the Western gender dichotomy. In parts of India and Indonesia for example
there is a "third gender" and in some societies as many as five! The harmony between these genders is considered crucial, as they are thought to
keep the cosmos in balance.
[edit on 24-2-2010 by halfoldman]