Originally posted by InfowarriorCarson
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
You do realize Hitler actually promoted and supported gays. Yes he sent some to the death camps. But only the feminine ones. He believed and had
people in his administration that being gay brought you closer to god. Research Hitler and his support of being gay and don't dismiss it just because
he did send some gays to the death camps.
The theory that Hitler and the top Nazis were "masculine" gays was popularized by Lively and Abrahms in The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the
Scott Lively was also known for being involved with a fundamentalist society called "The Family", and their recent
attempts to influence homophobic laws in Uganda.
The Pink Swastika is taken apart in the Annotated Pink Swastika (available online) which reveals its unreliable sources, often based on blatant
anti-German propaganda. It is generally regarded as a revisionist text.
In order to explain the undeniable fact that the Nazis put gays into concentration camps, the authors construct two classes of gays that were
allegedly opposed to each other.
The task of dividing masculine from feminine gays is seemingly undertaken according to the authors' own stereotypes. The basic premise seems to be:
Homosexuality is evil (according to Lively); Nazis are evil, and therefore the Nazis were homosexuals!
There was doubtlessly a degree of homoeroticism and secret hanky-panky going on, as there is in all homophobic systems (particularly in the early
stages of the Nazis, before the purging of Roehm's SA), but certainly no real evidence that Hitler was gay.
There is a similar patriarchy dividing masculine from feminine in the OP's focus.
Sex can only exist when the male organ is inserted into an orifice, be it "wicked" anal sex, or its defining opposite: "virtuous" vaginal sex.
Lesbianism, or sex between women is pretty much ignored.
So good and bad dichotomies around sex are all about what the male does with his member.
edit on 24-12-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-12-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason