reply to post by MrsBlonde
I agree, disease doesn't have to be a part of homosexuality, and in the Victorian age men were known to turn to male prostitutes because they were
considered safer then the pox-ridden female sex workers.
So before the age of AIDS since 1983 homosexuality was considered safer in some practical ways, also because it avoided pregnancy and bastard children
(who according to the Bible may not enter the congregation). Of course these were unofficial responses that were hardly discussed openly, and they
navigated the other sexual institutions that were open to colonial males, such as the widespread concubinage of native women, which constantly raised
the problem of racially mixed children and whether they should enjoy the rights of the colonizers, or be dumped with the colonized.
The very procreative potency of heterosexuality was thus openly praised as what made it inherently good and "Godly", but it was also problematic in a
In colonialism and any wars with a racial aspect the colonizing males usually regard themselves as superior over all other groups, and just beneath
their white male image of the divine, and that narrative is always inherently homoerotic.
However, if we look at film and the homoerotic then same-sex contact is very much mediated by the body, and the body that is wounded, or otherwise
justifies the extension of normal friendship through some physical distress that requires comforting.
One will rarely find homoerotic love or contact in film that just presents itself as romantic love, and that is also true of even openly gay film.
It always has a context that initiates the physical closeness, and that facilitates a sense of understanding from the audience.
It is open to debate whether that is a good or bad thing in film, or the fact that such relationships eventually end tragically, which then reinforces
edit on 28-8-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)