Pierre J Tremblay - Copyright, 1992, 2000
|2000 Preface to Internet Edition||
|The Learned Homophobia of Canadian Youth||
|Gay and Lesbian Youth Suicide and Related Problems||
|Physical Violence Against Gay Males||
|The Homosexuality Factor in Prison Violence||
|The Homosexuality Factor in Males Youth Gangs||
|A Violent Social Construction: Homosexual Closets||
|The Sexual Abuse of Boys||
|An Understanding of Male Sexual Violence||
|A Gay 'Wife Batterer'||
|An Understanding of Wife Battery||
|A Serious Problem With Professionals||
|Conclusion: Socially Constructed Blindness and Bias.||
|Epilogue: More Biases and Insights. Repressed Homosexuality Is Not To be Underestimated.||
|'Final' Thoughts For The 2000 Internet Edition||
As a young boy, Pierre knew he was gender nonconformable to a certain degree, but he always appreciated the blend of male and female attributes in his character. Because of this, he did not behave as the more gender conformable boys did. He did not perceive girls to be inferior to boys as it has been the traditional male perception of females in many cultures. He often wondered why so many married males in his community abused their wives in numerous ways, almost as if doing this was acceptable. Both his father and grandfather were abusers of women but they did not rape or batter their wives as many males have done and continue to do.
Upon entering puberty, Pierre was presented with sexual fantasies involving significant abuses of women. His visual mind screen has been well developed for other purposes since early childhood, and these fantasies were another manifestation of the highly visual nature of his brain. They were accepted as being another aspect of himself, but he sometimes wondered about them and eventually investigated their origins. Generally, this aspect of self was considered to be somewhat foreign and at odds with his conscious sense of Self; it was almost like another personality or entity was existing within.
Pierre has followed the Socratic Know Thyself process best rendered in French (and in other languages) by the equivalent expression "Know Thyself, Thyself." The expression suggests that a dual personality-like process is involved in such work, akin to the dual personality situation detected to exist sexually, and to the good/evil human nature attributes scholars have noted and written about for thousands of years. As a rule, men have also manifested a duality in their historical responses to women; they were both loved and hated leading to the often stated belief that love and hate are closely related as rendered in expressions like "All is fair in love and war." The end to this duality occurred as Pierre was accepting his predominant homosexual orientation, an event associated with his vanishing heterosexuality.
Pierre has been sexually active with males since be was five years old. In adolescence, however, he only had romantic love responses for girls, had girlfriends, but continued to have sex with males. A romantic love response for a male first occurred at the age of 22 years and his response to the event was highly positive, but there were troubling implications given that he wanted to marry and be a father. This experience placed him on a self-understanding journey, the focus being on all inner realities. His violence-related heterosexuality led to the study of men's traditional abuses of women; and intimate relationship has existed between male heterosexuality and social violence problems.
Anti-gay violence was also studied; the targets of such violence have
generally been males deemed to be "like women" or "visibly gay:" the ones
often referred to as "queers," "fags," "pansies," etc. An extreme form
of sexism was therefore implicated in both anti-gay violence and violence
against women; the perpetrators of such violence have had an extremely
low opinion of anything "feminine," including men who are deemed to be
"like women." From 1985 to 1987, Pierre focused on Women's Studies and
completed a 500-page manuscript on male heterosexuality by 1990. During
this period, Homosexuality Studies were also endeavored into and focused
on for the past three years.
The presence of gender infection in the sciences was recently highlighted by Theodore Roszak in the 1999 book "The Gendered Atom: Reflections on the sexual psychology of science (Berkeley, CA: Conari Press. Foreword by Jane Goodall), and evidence of this fact was dramatically presented by the anthropologist, Emily Martin, in the 1991 paper, "The Egg and the Sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female sex roles" (Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(3), 485-501). A few years after writing this document, I encountered a study highlighting a fact to be encountered in many forms when reading this document: Mandel Laurie (1996). Heterosexism, sexual harassment, and adolescent gender Identity: a social and sexual curriculum in junior high. ED.D. Thesis, Hofstra University, 180 pages.
From the Abstract: "First, this study suggests that students’ assumptions about heterosexuality perpetuate a norm of heterosexuality and constrain adolescent gender identity. Not only do students believe that a heterosexual identity is central to their gender identity, but stereotypic notions about femininity and masculinity largely inform their beliefs about who they are and who they cannot be... Students’ descriptions of masculinity are also stereotypic and are largely defined by an anti-feminine norm. Unlike the ways in which girls can and do value masculinity, boys do not and cannot value femininity.As a young child, I often experienced the fact that individual beliefs - and often enough the beliefs of most people - were not what was the truth. This state of affairs continues and was rendered, for example, by Miguel De La Torre in "Beyond Machismo: a Cuban Case Study" (The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics, 19, 1999, 213-33) for yet another culture.
Second, this study asserts that there is a social and sexual curriculum in the culture of middle and junior high schools by which girls and boys construct their gender identities. This heterosexist curriculum, it is argued, perpetuates gender role stereotypes, limits gender identities, empowers masculine boys and disempowers girls, less masculine boys, lesbians, and gay males. The most pervasive indicators of this curriculum - due to heterosexism - are illustrated in the amount of gender disrespect, peer sexual harassment, homophobic language, and the highly (hetero)sexualized nature of adolescent gender relations in these middle and junior high schools." (Bold emphasis mine.)
"When machos [white elite Cuban males] gaze upon the Latino's Other, what do we see? How we "see" them, defines our existential selves as machos. To "see" implies a position of authority, a privileged point of view. "Seeing" is not a mere innocent metaphysical phenomenon concerning the transmittance of light waves. It encompasses a mode of thought which radically transforms the object being seen into an object for possession."Welcome to "The Homosexuality Factor In Social Violence." The adventure may be challenging, especially because a possibly significant deconstruction of our individual and collective "halls of mirrors" is at hand. Some individuals, however, may not appreciate the experience, but this is expected. All comments will be appreciated.
"Specifically, when a macho gazes upon one of God's crucified peoples, they perceive a group which is effeminate. When the macho looks at himself in Lacan's mirror, he does not see a maricón hence he projects what he is not into his Other so as to define himself as a white, civilized macho. The power of seeing becomes internalized, naturalized and legitimized in order to mask the dominant culture's position of power. Our task as Hispanic ethicists is to move toward dismantling machismo, to go beyond machismo, by shattering the illusions created in our hall of mirrors."
De la Torre's comments on the "maricón": "'El colmo' (the ultimate sin) is to be called a 'maricón' (a derogatory term meaning queer or fag), the antithesis of machismo... To tell a man not to be a maricón, also means 'don't be a coward.' ...for Cubans only the one that places himself in the "position" of a woman is the maricón. Only the one penetrated is labeled loca (crazy woman, a term for maricones).
It was discovered that, as a rule, nothing was being done to help these youth; the most common reason given was not knowing about these problems or, if they knew about the problems, nothing was being done about the situation (Note 2). The neglect occurred partly because an unwritten law was being implemented in schools. Most teachers will not say anything positive about homosexuality or homosexuals for reasons recognized by Mayor Al Duerr in 1991 when he proclaimed "Gay Rights Week" in Calgary. The ones harboring a learned rabid hatred for gay and lesbian people will cause great problems for anyone threatening to change the anti-gay status quo, and Mayor Duerr did not repeat the mistake in 1992 (Note 3).
The main objective of the document was education. Educators and some politicians learned about the very high level of anti-gay attitudes (hatred) manifested by Canadian youth, the high incidence of attempting suicide for gay and lesbian youth, and about how many of these youth have been socially set up to seek self-destruction. Reasons were also given to explain why gay and lesbian youth would want to drop out of school. A major focus of the document was on male adolescent revolts and male juvenile delinquency which can be partly explained by postulating the existence of a repressed homosexual component in many of them. This was true for male juvenile delinquents studied in the 1950s and 1960s, and the same may still apply. Unfortunately, modern researchers of juvenile delinquency generally ignore homosexuality issues, and the same applies in almost all studies of human problems.
Fifty-eight copies of the document were produced and sent to all professionals interviewed, to education authorities, and to politicians in the Alberta Government and at Calgary's City Hall. On March 4, 1992, I met with Calgary's Mayor Duerr and focused the discourse on youth problems. It was emphasized that, if he was concerned about solving such problems, and if be had asked professionals in education for advice, they would not have informed him about "the homosexuality factor." Yet, for gay youth, he was presented with social scientists noting that their attempted suicide rate ranged from 20 to 35 percent. Surely, if such a high suicide rate existed for youths in any minority group, concern and immediate action would result. As this applied to homosexual youth, nothing was being done.
Mayor Duerr also learned that a Calgary researcher in the public school system had done a major study of school dropouts and that he been silent about :the homosexual factor" by deliberately not soliciting sexual orientation information. He nonetheless acknowledged having seen [suspect] gay youth experiencing great rejection problems in schools; they were having a difficult time coping with the hatred manifested by their peers and society (86: 28-29). Fortunately, such indifference has not been universal, and changes have happened in some school jurisdictions as reported in a recent Advocate article. San Francisco has "a director of gay and lesbian youth support services in the school system." Kevin Gogin, the director, is quoted: "This program began because of the high numbers of suicides of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth... And, of course, they are at high risk for dropping out of school, substance abuse, and HIV infection" (66: 55). A similar program - "PROJECT 10" - was pioneered in Los Angeles. At least one professionals paper - and many news items - have been written about this remarkable endeavor which has become a model for other school systems (Note 4).
A major part of the presentation to Mayor Duerr was focused on the fact that public schools educators in Calgary (in Canada?) have not recognized "homosexuality" to be a significant factor in major youth problems, even when information is available to them. It can therefore be expected that most professionals will not recognize "homosexuality" to be a factor in other major social problems, especially not if they must do original thinking, and if a special information search is required. To date, the role "homosexuality" has played in male youth violence has not been recognized. Its role is usually misinterpreted in the sexual abuse of boys, and few speculations have been made concerning the role "homosexuality" may play in wife battery and many forms of male sexual violence inflicted on women. Examples of this phenomenon were supplied to Mayor Duerr.
As the result of the encounter, Mayor Duerr suggested that I should meet with his Task Force on Violence. About a month later, I received a call from Alderman Bev Longstaff's office and a meeting was scheduled for April 22, 1992. For this meeting, I produced a 25-page document titled The Homosexuality Factor in Social Violence, supplemented by an additional 30 pages of photocopied reference material. The document was submitted the day before the meeting with Ms. Longstaff and Mary Jane Amey who had been hired to plan a conference on violence scheduled for November, 1992. The meeting, followed by a private conversation with Ms. Amey outside City Hall, led to a decision to write this document.
The document was written because "homosexuality," and especially repressed homosexuality, appears to be a major factor in social violence. Yet, in the Task Force report sent to City Council in March, 1992, the factor had not been addressed. Unfortunately, Calgary's "gay community" had not presented related information to the Task Force, for reasons yet to be explained (Note 5). On September 4, 1992, however, about 500 Vancouver gay males and lesbians were marching in protest of the high level of violence inflicted on them (04).
The Calgary task force on violence was dissolved in March, 1992, and
it was replaced by The Action Committee Against Violence. The Committee
consisted of 10 members, but gay males and lesbians are not represented.
Such therapy was generally supplemented by the more common verbal therapy techniques usually focused on making gay males hate themselves more than they ever did. Therefore, instead of fostering mental health, psychiatrists were doing the opposite: inducing mental distress (disorder). Gay males in therapy were also strongly encouraged to have sex with women and to marry. By 1975, Dr. Kurt Freund (Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto) reached an important conclusion concerning the aversion therapy he had pioneered in Europe and inflicted on gay males since the early 1950s:
"Virtually not one cure remained a cure. The patients had become able to enjoy sexual intercourse with females as well, but there was no true, lasting change in sexual preference. Many patients admitted this only much later than they themselves had clearly noted this fact."The marriages recommended by psychiatrist were therefore causing serious problems for the women involved and these abusive endeavors certainly were in the "inflicting violence on women" category. When great unhappiness exists in a marriage, conflicts occur, stress is increased, and the potential for violence also increases. Divorces also result, meaning that repressed homosexuality has been a factor in the divorce rate, as many gay males have recognized. About 20 percent of them report having been married for reasons mostly related to the highly effective "traditional" anti-homosexuality (compulsory heterosexuality) indoctrination still existing in our society.
"I am not happy about my therapeutic experiment which, if it has helped at all, has helped clients to enter into marriages that later became unbearable. Virtually all the marriages of these clients bad become beset with grave problems ensuing from their homosexuality" (25: 238-239).
Homosexuality is very common and, on the basis of the best research available, homosexual desire appears to exists in about 50 percent of the male population (44). About 25 percent of males would be homosexual or significantly bisexual. Therefore, there is a gay, lesbian, or bisexual youth in one out of two families, and such a parent in one out of three families. Unfortunately, little research has been carried out to help us understand the problems experienced by these people. There are, however, major family problems possibly related to a gay or bisexual family member, such as the sexual abuse of boys and wife battery. Other problems may be related to families grieving because an offspring committed suicide; they usually do not know their child was homosexually oriented and that their homohatred was implicated in these deaths. A significant number of gay and lesbian youth are also ejected from their homes and end up on the street after their homosexual nature was discovered to exist (55: 60), thus becoming either runaways or throwaways.
The focus of this document with "vision" is on the different forms of social violence resulting from our society's highly effective methods of teaching homophobia and homohatred to children. By the age of 13 and 14, about 80 percent of Canadian youth have been educated to manifest anti-homosexual attitudes. Therefore, about 80 percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth will experience various degrees of self-hatred yielding anything from suicides and repressed homosexuality, to many self-defined gay males and lesbians having to cope with being survivors of incredible emotional abuse (10: 357-408). Other products of learned homohatred include the verbal and physical abuse of gay and lesbian youth, and some individuals will become "hunters." They seek out gay males to assault, injure, and even murder, not because these males did anything to their assailants, but only because the victims belong to a group WE taught them to hate. These are hate crimes, and women are also the victims of hate crimes.
From extensive studies and personal experiences in adolescence and adulthood, the existence of a behavioral spectrum for gay and bisexual males was recognized. At one end, gay and bisexual males are defining themselves as such, thus resulting in many problems, including high rates of suicidal behavior. As a rule, these (often gender nonconformable) males gravitate to gay communities at an early age, but I only ventured there at the age of 29. A number of reasons are implicated, including a certain type of homophobia, but it was mostly because a very large world of male homosexuality has existed outside of so-called "gay communities."
In Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth Need Our Help, I essentially outed some males from the "other world" and described interesting aspects of their nature. Some of them know they are homosexual or bisexual because they greatly enjoy having sex with males, but they are also very gender conformable, to the point of having no detectable "unmanly" attributes; they are therefore referred to as "ultra-macho" in this document. These males are essentially the opposite of gay (community) -identified males characterized by high levels of gender nonconformity compared to heterosexual-identified males in the greater community (08: 74-81). In the former "macho" homosexual/bisexual group, there exists acquired ideologies permitting them to totally deny the homosexuality implications of their homo-sex desires and experiences, the most important being the belief that only the passive male in homo-sex activities is "homosexual" or what ever is implied when using words such as "queer," "fag," "faggot," etc.. The self-deception may also be maintained by frequently engaging in sex with females. Most of these male apparently marry, may have very unhappy relationships, may continue having sex with males, may be physically assaulting their wives, could be sexually abusing their sons or other boys, and they may be involved in other forms of social violence.
Socially induced homosexual self-hatred has a history of producing various degrees of repression, and compulsive heterosexuality may be an outcome. Some males may also revolt against a society saying: "We hate you!" and delinquency results, with a likelihood of joining a youth gang and also having been incarcerated during adolescence. These boys will later form a significant segment of the adult male prison population where homosexual activity has been almost as common as it was in youth detention centres. Most male rapes in our society occur in prison and about half of the first book on the subject, Male Rape (1982), edited by Anthony M. Stacco, Jr., was devoted to rapes in prisons (Note 6).
I consider all males seeking sex with other males, and experiencing orgasms, to be at least behaviorally and psychologically bisexual. Many males in prisons are in this category, but they are usually very homophobic and suffer from the predictable effects of socially induced homohatred implicated in producing a most interesting form of homosexuality. In Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth Need Our Help, these males and others were evaluated to be a missing part of the homosexual male population we could predict to have been socially created or "constructed" in western societies.
The conclusion is based on the knowledge that, when a society actively teaches self-hatred to a minority group, as we did to Native children, we can anticipate high rates of suicide, substance abuse, abuse and violence, and individuals with difficulties having love relationships. Many gay males and lesbians have these problems, but where are the violent homosexuals and the large numbers of homosexual juvenile delinquents and adult criminals expected to be produced from the social homohatred indoctrination? As a rule, men associated with gay communities are not violent, but the same does not generally apply to male juvenile delinquents. Many of them, in fact, have participated in homo-sex activities often noted to have been the rule in juvenile and adult detention facilities, meaning that these males may form an important part of the homosexual and bisexual male tribe.
Biblical wisdom warns us against condemning people because we will apparently be guilty of the same crime. More clearly, the Buddhists say: Choose your enemies well for they will be the ones you most closely resemble. Psychoanalysts have labeled this human attribute "projection," given that numerous individuals have strongly condemn others for what was eventually discovered to be their own reality, but was denied or repressed. If this is correct, the implications are monumental, especially for highly virulently anti-homosexual individuals. Therefore, the homosexual tribe would be much larger than believed if, for example, the wars waged against gay people have been spearheaded by another type of homosexual (Note 7).
One focus of this document will be on men who have sex with males, greatly enjoy these experiences, but deny being homosexual to even the slightest degree. These males are sexually "dominant" and believe that only the "passive" male in homo-sex is homosexual, thus conveniently avoiding any of the self-hatred they would otherwise experience if the "homosexual" label applied to them. Another defence used by these males involves becoming the opposite of what they believe homosexuals to be: gender nonconformable or "like women," and this acquired highly sexist mentality is rooted in the hatred of women: misogyny. They firmly believe that homosexual males (believed to be like females) and all women (real females) are inferior beings, and they often manifest a (learned?) sexuality reflecting their learned acquired perceptions.
In our society, some men inflict considerable violence on women in the form of assaults, battery, rapes, and rape-murders. For males committing these acts, it would be reasonable to conclude that they hate women. It is also likely that males sexually stimulated by depictions of women being raped are also manifesting a "hatred-of-women" attribute given that rape would be an act of hatred or "an unfinished murder" as a raped woman once labeled the act. Yet, observers have rarely asked the question: If these men hate women, who do they love? Who do they really prefer being with?
The answer to these questions has not been a great mystery, but we have been socially educated to not see "homosexuality," except when a male is "like a female." As a result of this widespread belief, we have therefore failed to recognize that ultra masculine males could also be homosexual. These males, in fact, may be making the statement: "I am very masculine. I am not like a woman. I'm therefore not gay." Yet, some social scientists have recognized that many gay-identified males are or become effeminate and they are essentially saying: "I am gay. Gay males are like women. So I'll act (must act) like a woman" (76: 320).
Considerable violence in our society is directly or indirectly related
to learned homophobia / homohatred and learned misogyny.
A relationship between the two has also been suspected, but professionals
have usually addressed these attributes separately, without recognizing
that understanding one depends upon understanding the other. Although this
document addresses social violence related to "homosexuality," thus including
the violence inflicted on visibly gay people, it is argued that "repressed
homosexuality" is a significant factor in the violence males have inflicted
on females. An important relationship between homophobia / homohatred and
misogyny is explored, along with important facts related to the professionals
on whom we have depended to understand human behavior and, hopefully, to
help us solve major human problems. Unfortunately, these professionals
have been at the root cause of the ongoing ignorance about human sexuality
in general and male homosexuality in particular.
To the statement "Homosexuals should be allowed to be teachers" (43:
73), the results were:
To the statement "I would be comfortable talking with a homosexual
person" (43: 73), the results were:
The implications of these results are best recognized when the word "homosexual" is substituted with the name of any minority group. What would we think if, by grade 7, only 33 percent of Canadian adolescents felt that Native people should be allowed to be teachers? If only 18 percent of them would be comfortable talking with a Native, Black, or Jewish person?
One positive result is the decrease with age in anti-homosexual attitudes: about 10 percentage points during adolescence. The change, however, may not related to formal school education because, as a rule, teachers have been silent about homosexuality or they have avoided saying anything positive about homosexuality or homosexuals. If the topic is raised, most teachers will render the feeling that homosexual people are somewhat inferior to heterosexuals.
Subsequent data offers some insight into the positive attitudinal change.
It can mostly be attributed to females.
To the statement "Homosexuality
is wrong" (43: 74), the results were:
The data indicates that only about three percent of males change their learned anti-homosexual attitudes between the ages of 13 or 14, to the age of 16 and 17. By the age of 19, for males in first year college or university, the percentage agreeing that "homosexuality is wrong" remains at about 50 percent. For females, however, there is a 10 percentage point drop in anti-homosexual attitudes, possibly because more of them find it difficult to condemn gay males for doing the same things girls have been been requested to do by heterosexual males.
[In 1978, when I was working on a graduate study project in part related to learned attitudes, I encountered a major study reporting that attitudes acquired by the end of one's elementary education had not changed to any significant degree by the age of 25. That is, as the above data reveals, and it especially applies to males, if they are taught to be homophobic by the age of 12, they will likely be homophobic when they are 20-years-old. The same may also apply with respect to learned sexist and racist attitudes. The implication of this phenomena, with respect to efforts focused on reducing homophobia or homohatred, is that the needed education must begin in elementary. It must also be highly effective and completed by grade 6. Follow-up education, combined with the integration of gay and lesbian realities in curricula, would then be necessary after grade 6 to produce the understanding required to undo the hatred taught to these adolescents.]The highest level of homo-hatred is manifested by grade 7 students who are entering adolescence, a period when they will be recognizing or discovering their basic heterosexual to homosexual sexual desires or orientations. For heterosexual youth, there will be problems but, as a rule, their attraction and desire for the opposite sex will be positively acknowledged and approved, and the same applies to their dating activities. Bisexual and homosexual youth, however, will have the opposite experience.
The data presented suggest that about 80 percent of adolescents harbor
various degrees of hatred for homosexual people and, if they discovered
a homosexual component existing within themselves, they would have an 80
percent probability of experiencing various degrees of self-hatred and
related problems. This outcome is a social construction recognized
to be a significant factor in youth suicide problems in which gay and lesbian
youth are over-represented.
... well, what was left for me? only to disappear alone into the ocean, and that night I felt like it. (35: 8-9)Before Brian had left for this vacation I knew be was having trouble accepting his homosexual orientation but, at the time, I knew little about the more gay-identified males, and we did not have sex with each other. This asexual situation replicated the first overt love response for a male.
One major negative experience related to the gay suicide problem occurred in Calgary, near the mid-1980's. A gay male had come to my New Year's Eve party involving three couples and, the next day, a telephone call reported the bad news. After he had left the party (which had included partaking of celebrations at a gay club), he had gone home, went into his garage, started his car, put on his favorite music, and died. Soon after this event, we learned about his two previous attempts to kill himself.
When I was working on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth Need Our Help, I met a young Calgary gay male who told me the story of a male friend he had since childhood. He had a homo-sexual sex history and the memory of these enjoyed experiences greatly troubled him. He was therefore acting out the macho male role in heterosexual settings and, one night, after being at a party, he drove his car into a concrete structure and killed himself. A number of suicidologists have long suspected that some auto accidents are suicides (Note 8).
As I was editing this document (November, 1992), I told a married female friend, Suzanne, who has three young children, about my work related to gay and lesbian adolescent problems. As I was listing telltale lesbian indicators in adolescence, the expression on her face changed. Without knowing it, I had described her 19-year-old adolescent friend who had committed suicide, and she told me the story. Her friend had always manifested an aversion to the idea of having sex with males, and she then became highly promiscuous, resulting in pregnancy (Note 9). At the beach, Suzanne saw the gun in her bag and took it from her. Her friend then explained - with lies - why she had the gun. Later, alone, she aimed the gun at the location where the fetus would be and killed herself.
I was recently reading about an adolescent gay male who murdered the adolescent male who was publicly outing him, even to his parents. Obviously, the casualties of homohatred are not only gay males and lesbians, as I learned while I was in my late teens. The male I had the most sex with between the ages of 8 to 18 began responding to society's homohatred as much as I was, but in a different way. He got a job, bought a fast car, had sex with different females as often as possible, drank too much alcohol, and drove his car when intoxicated. In an single car accident caused by him, the adolescent female passenger was killed.
In a February 27, 1992, letter to Mayor Al Duerr, and in other letters written to highly placed education authorities in Calgary who should be concerned about the welfare of gay and lesbian youth, a number of quotations were used to outline the life situation of these youth. The quotations are from the 1989 book, Gay and Lesbian Youth, edited by Gilbert Herdt. The book contains many papers published by social scientists who have studied these youth, and they were also published in the Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 17, No. 1/2/3/4, 1989 (Note 10).
"In spite of their large numbers and the profound difficulties that [gay and lesbian youths] confront, few groups of young people have been so ignored, and few evoke so poignantly the aura of quiet desperation to which our statistics on adolescent suicide are such disturbing testimony." (P. XIV) From: Preface, by Robert W. Deisher, MD, Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Division of Adolescent Medicine, University of Washington School of medicine, Seattle, WA. [Is ignoring such problems an act of violence against gay males and lesbians?]
"What research increasingly suggest is that, as the age of coming out, of the life crisis transition, lowers for gay youth, [which is documented in one of the research papers,] additional developmental age related pressures may overburden the gay or lesbian teenager. This has greater psychosocial costs, and it raises the risk factors, such as suicide ... (34: 24).
"The general point could be extended to encompass gay teenage problems of adjustment grief, depression, drug abuse, school achievement, and so forth. Paradoxically, gays present a social problem to society, but when particular social problems are studied, gays are often ignored. (34: 3l) [This is exactly what the Calgary Board of Education did with respect to both the suicide and school dropout problem.]
"The problem of the gay teenager must be understood in this sense .... Gibson highlighted the issue in understanding gay teenage suicide, which is alarmingly high and must be cause for great concern. Between 20 and 35% of gay youth have made suicide attempts, the best statistics show. Youthful gays often internalize negative stereotypes and images of themselves. And when you have been told that you are 'sick, bad and wrong for being what you are,' you begin to believe it" (34: 31). [From: Introduction by Gilbert Herdt, PhD, Associate Professor, Committee on Human Development at the University of Chicago.]
"This point of view has been theoretically articulated by several writers who attempted to explain why gay persons have low self-esteem. For example, in Hoffman's (1968) revelation of the gay world, low self-esteem among homosexuals is said to result from their internalization of the homophobic values and reflected appraisal of others as they grew up, especially those of parents, siblings, and teachers. Weinberg (1983) noted, 'The way people feel about themselves intimately relates to the kinds of feedback that they perceive they are getting from others.' Heterosexuality is assumed and encouraged; homosexuality is either invisible or condemned. This is the message given to the child, and later accepted by the child as an adolescent and as an adult. As a result, the gay person's self-esteem suffers" (34: 96). From: "Parental influences on the Self-Esteem of Gay and Lesbian Youths: A Reflected Appraisal Model" by Ritch C. Savin - Williams, PhD, Associate Professor of Social/Personality Development in the Department of Human Development at Cornell University. The paper reports on a study of 317 gay and lesbian youth.]
"What is internalized for the young man who has identified himself as a homosexual? Once there is mutual acknowledgment between a young man and the members of his social world that he is homosexual, he faces implicit condemnation and increasing stigmatization. A hostile and rejecting world unfolds for homosexuals in which the objective understanding they have of homosexuality as unnatural, abnormal, and despised becomes a statement of self-definition" (34: 167). "Male Prostitution and Homosexual Identity" by Debra Boyer, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.. She studied 47 male youth prostitutes whose average age was 16.2 years and they had first engaged in prostitution at the average age of 14. Most self-identified as homosexual or bisexual and "held beliefs about themselves that were similar to those presented to them by their society and culture." They spoke in ways which reflected "the ambivalence they had about their homosexual identification and of a developing sense of shame and self-hate." (34: 169) "Male prostitutes practiced being gay. As prostitutes, they enacted the myths and reflected the images of stigma they had learned." (34: 177) The following should be of importance to anyone studying the school dropout rate: "Of the prostitutes, 87.2% were not in school," and they had left school, on average, in grade 9 (34: 157).
Ken Plummer, PhD, from the University of Essex, relegated the following to the "Other Problems" category for gay and lesbian youths in England who share the same fate as their counterparts in Canada and the United States: "I have only highlighted a few of the most general problems that gay youth face. There are many others. For instance, the negative self-image and worry may be so extreme as to lead to thoughts of attempted suicide. Indeed, in the London survey, nearly 1 in 5 had made a suicide attempt; in the Bye's survey of isolates, it was nearly 2 in 5; and in the survey conducted by Parents Enquiry in 1982, some 55% had made a suicide attempt. These are desperate acts and worrying figures that have been indicated in other research studies too (Rofes, 1983). They highlight very concretely just how painful it can be to come to identify oneself as gay in a society that has structured out the possibility and the plausibility of being so." (34: 209)A concept of monumental importance with respect to the mental health of gay and lesbian youth is quoted from Hetrick & Martin's Ego dystonic homosexuality: A developmental view published in Hetrick & Stein (Eds.) Innovations in Psychotherapy with Homosexuals. American Psychiatric Press, Washington, D.C., 1984:
"At a time when heterosexual adolescents are learning how to socialize, young gay people are learning how to hide." (34: 117)The consequences of this reality and other life situations for gay and lesbian youth may be so negative that it will lead to the mental disorder once called "Ego Dystonic Homosexuality." The condition is characterized by the non-acceptance of one's homosexual orientation (desires) and it is related to a number of serious problems, including suicide problems.
This socio-religious set-up is often noted by gay males and lesbians, and it is well recognized by social scientists studying gay youth. In many ways, most gay and lesbian youth are overtly and/or covertly taught to hate homosexuality, thus creating great internal havoc when they are recognizing or discovering their homosexual orientation / desires. At worse, the expected negative results of the psychological set-up are self-destructive activities, suicide being the most dramatic and lethal outcome. Michael W. Ross, PhD, from the South Australian Health Commission, is aware of this and began his research paper, "Gay youth in four cultures: A comparative study," with:
Martin and Hetrick (1988), in reviewing the psychological and social concomitants of being young and homosexual in the United States, noted the major difficulties such individuals face. In the society that is homophobic and in which there are few if any role models for the homosexual adolescent to follow, the process of identifying oneself as a homosexual person may be both difficult and painful. The cognitive task of developing a positive self-image in an atmosphere of prejudice will almost certainly produce cognitive dissonance and ego-dystonic reactions in those individuals who are homosexual: in some 20%, internalized self-hatred will lead to attempts at suicide, and it is impossible to estimate how many successful suicides are related to sexual orientation. The difficulties related to becoming homosexual, Martin and Hetrick noted, include the fact that there are no role models as in the case of other minority groups.... (34: 299-300).One of Ross' conclusions from his cross-cultural study involving 604 gay males was "the finding that young homosexual men have greater and more numerous difficulties in societies that are more antihomosexual" (34: 313).
Ken Plummer, in Gay and Lesbian Youth (1989), describes the closeted gay teacher situation on the basis of a study which had been done:
It was not so much that teachers have their jobs terminated for simply being gay; it is rather that authorities objected to teachers being 'known about' or openly discussing the issue. Yet it is precisely this quality of 'being out' that is required in schools if gay teenagers are to have the heterosexual assumption [-that only heterosexuals exist-] at least punctured, and, more practically, if they are to have access to adults who may help them discuss their gay feelings and develop (34: 203).When we recognize that our society is teaching a high level of hatred for a minority group, and that members of the hated group will therefore experience various levels of self-hatred, we are committing an act of violence against these people given the numerous negative consequences, including possible suicide problems (acts of self-directed violence). Gay males and lesbians also commonly anticipate violence, given their own experiences in this respect and/or the experiences of others at the hand of individuals manifesting a learned and acted-out blatant hatred for homosexuals. A high level of hatred may also result in quests (hunts) for members of the hated minority group, the objectives being to verbally and physically assault such individuals, and related murders do occur.
It is therefore important to now review the cases of physical violence
against gay males brought to our attention in the two Calgary newspapers
during the past year. Other cases, not reported on in the media, are also
given, and the cases represent much less than the total homosexuality-related
violence inflicted on Calgary males during the period.
In November, 1991, Stephen Lock from Gay Lines had informed me of a gay male who was in a near-death state in hospital because he had been gay-bashed. Unfortunately, the gay bashing had not been reported as such by Calgary journalists. Instead, the case was brought to our attention by Sherry Paget in the Calgary Herald Letter to the Editor: Gays keep silence amid fear, insecurity, published on December 12.
Paget noted that three assaults on gay males had also occurred with a 10-day period yielding injuries ranging from broken bones to cuts needing stitches. Not all assaults on gay males, however, come to our attention. A Calgary homicide detective, Colleen Aches, is quoted: "Aches said that muggings of gays are quite common, but are often unreported because victims are hesitant to make complaints," mostly because of the socially imposed closet. Many gay males fear that reporting such crimes would out them publicly, and that the resulting penalties would be far worse than the physical damage caused by the assault.
This "muzzling" situation has been a part of gay history, as I was again reminded of by talking with a gay friend soon after Lock's reporting of the gay bashing. He knew of two cases not reported to the police by the victims. In one case, the male had left a gay club, entered his car, and was then pulled out by two males who assaulted him. This event happened at about the same time Schleppe was murdered: September, 1991.
In December, Calgary newspapers printed many articles related to Leslie Glen Bishop's murder trial. In 1989, he had killed his boss, Gary Leroy Albright, 54, by bludgeoning him to death with a toilet tank lid while he slept, after Albright had apparently attempted to fondle him. Both males were from Edmonton, but the murder had occurred in a Calgary Hotel room shared by the two men. Bishop's testimony revealed that he had been raised to "hate gay people," and had acted accordingly, or as it could be expected. Bishop was 18-years-old at the time of the murder, and he had also robbed the man. Robberies are very common when gay males are murdered, but the robbery is generally not the motive for these murders.
From June to August, 1991, articles were written about another case involving a 14-year-old boy who had shot to death 54-year-old James Clarke, and the "execution style murder" was carried out while Clarke slept. Although Clarke was a "known child molester," the media never once informed the public about the phenomenon well known and written about in gay books and in research papers concerning street boys who sell their sexual services to older gay-identified males in "trade" for money or other benefits (Note 11).
In the 1961 paper, The Social Integration of Peers and Queers, by Albert J. Reiss, the phenomenon was studied on the basis of interviews with many male juvenile delinquents ranging in age from 12 to 18. As a rule, these boys were the ones setting the rules in sexual transactions with older males and, if rules were violated, the older males risked being assaulted and even killed. Reiss also noted that people are ill-informed about this phenomenon and that, if such matters come to our attention, or to the attention of the police and the courts, the boys are deemed to be "victims" while the adult homosexual males become the corrupters of youth and are sent to prison (72: 216, 222-224).
To this date, we do not know what was happening in the mind of the boy
who executed Clarke while he slept, but we do know that a "trade" situation
existed. In this case, an interesting comment was made by Judge William
Anderson in his 33-page decision reported on in the August 8, 1991, Calgary
Herald article Teen suspect evades adult court. Anderson stated
that, if the youth was sent to an adult prison in Canada, there was a high
probability that he would be "gang rape[d] by other inmates." This is another
form of homosexuality-related violence existing in our society (Note
The "turning out" process is "an act of conquest and demasculation, stripping the male victim of his status of 'man.' The act redefines him as 'female'... and he must assume that role as the 'property' of his conqueror or whoever claimed him and arranged his demasculation. He becomes a slave, in the fullest sense of the term" (75: 5).Rape also accomplishes the same objective and its purpose is recognized even by young males in juvenile detention facilities. Statements made by male youth aggressors raping a male are:
We're going to take your manhood. You'll have to give up some face. We're going to make a girl out of you (81: 94).From a 1977 court hearing in Cincinnati:
'The guys that raped me put a straight razor to my throat and held me down,' he testified, adding that he had to become a 'wife' to one prisoner in order to protect himself from the random sexual attacks by others (75: 5). Describing this "wife" reality of prison life formed a part of the "L.A. Law" episode aired on May 7, 1992, and it has been noted in other television programs and movies.In the 1991 book, Gay Roots, edited by Winston Leyland, a gay inmate/writer, Robert N. Boyd, describes six homosexual situations existing in prisons. He notes that there are ways a gay inmate can avoid violence, but doing this requires having great knowledge and understanding of the situation. He ends the section by stating that gay males could turn this "hell" into a "heaven" (12: 272-278), but I think doing this depends on the nature of the gay male. A gay inmate disagrees with Boyd in the 1979 book "Men's Bodies, Men's Selves" edited by Sam Jultry. Ronald Endersby concludes his account with:
During the 'indoor recreation' period of August 21 and 22 Donald was overpowered, beaten, threatened with death, dragged from cell to cell, and forcibly raped some sixty times (89: 38).
Love in prison? Companionship, sex, an escape from never-ending boredom, an escape from reality - all of these, but not love! (41: 114)Donald Tucker describes the situations which some people think are "voluntary" sexual relationships in prisons:
In fact, the power/control element is never absent from the Man-Punk relationship, indeed, it defines that relationship: the Man controls the Punk. Period (89: 71).Jultry (1979) introduces another gay male's contribution with:
John Gibb's essay reveals what happens when two gay men are openly gay and struggle together as friends to obtain equal rights for gays. Since such a relationship violates the homosexual standards of prison life, Ernest, his friend and lover, was murdered (41: 114).
There must be a 'husband' and 'wife'. ...Straight prisoners often play the game - only if they are allowed to play the husband. The hets consider this perfectly normal and not a homosexual experience - for they only do this when nothing else is available, no women around. For a het inmate to have an 'old lady' while in prison is acceptable to the prison staff and the inmates (41: 114).Other descriptions:
So, while homosexual rape in prison is initially a macho/power thing, slaves are created because a need exists for slaves - a need for a woman-substitute.. The identification is always on a continuum of passive and dominant, weak and strong, with the weak and passive viewed and related to as being 'female.' ...The 'stud' in a homosexual relationship 'does not consider himself to be a homosexual, or even to have engaged in homosexual acts (75: 9).In prisons, many males are involved in homosexual sex. Dr. Frank Rundle who served as chief psychiatrist of the 2200-man California Training facility at Soledad, and also as Director of Psychiatry of Prison Health Services for all of the correctional institutions, both juvenile and adult in New York City "believes that it's almost universal," involving "almost everybody at least sometime." Another professional gives a 70 percent estimate (75: 12). These estimates are similar to the one given by a Canadian, Roger Caron, in his 1978 book "Go-BOY" which won the Governor General's Medal. He had been in numerous Canadian prisons and reports on his experiences with homosexual activity:
I was plagued daily with offers of marriage, money and food, until my mind was reeling with the magnitude of it all. Gradually the wolves came to realize that I did not go that route... (18: 140-141). Caron was arrested for armed robbery in the winter of 1992. The reasons why he had returned to a life of crime was not explored by the media.While I was writing this section of the document in April, 1992, I mentioned to a group of three females and one male that I was writing about homosexuality in prison systems. One female reported that she knew a male who had been raped in Calgary's detention center. One U.S. group formed to hopefully put an end to male rape in detention facilities, estimates that 26,000 male rapes a day occur in American prisons (17: 31); this is about one male rape every three seconds, and it is a much higher rape estimate than the ones reported for all females in the United States. This male rape estimate also does not include rapes in juvenile detention facilities where rapes are estimated to occur at even higher rates.
An interesting prison homo-sex reality is related to the men actively seeking sex with other males; they are the ones having the orgasms while the passive males perceived to be "like women" usually don't. The dominant males also rape other males, supposedly because women are not available, and always have orgasms (89: 61). Yet, researchers report that about one-third of men who rape women fail to perform sexually, one third have difficulties, and only about one-third perform as well as do the men who rape men in prisons (31: 234). There are great implication stemming from this observation.
Dominant males in prisons may be involved in self-deception given that
their reason for desiring and having sex with males is generally
women are not available. Apparently, they are only using a males, or
because they would be doing the same to women if they
were available. If this is true, the question is: "Given that our society
has recently become concerned about the violence men inflict on women,
should these men be let out of prison, if we do accept and believe their
seeking and enjoying abusive and violent sex with males?"
In 1961, Albert J. Reiss published his findings based on his study of juvenile delinquents with a focus on males who are organized, form youth gangs, and are career delinquents. The paper's title, The Social Integration of Peers and Queers," renders the socially constructed nature of the phenomenon.
By the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, some social scientists were taking a serious look at human sexuality in many cultures, and books such as The [social] Construction of Homosexuality by David F. Greenberg (1988) were being written. Boyer (1989) titled a section of her paper, The Cultural Construction of Homosexuality, which was used to explain male youth prostitution. It has therefore become more evident that both the expression of heterosexuality and homosexuality varies (often greatly) in human cultures, and that sexual behavior is significantly affected by learned beliefs and taboos.
With respect to homosexuality, numerous cultures consider homosexual activity to be normal and acceptable. In such cases the "anonymous sex" phenomena observed in our homophobic culture would probably not exist. Some cultures have also only approved of older males having sex with boys, and sex between males (men who are equals) was unthinkable and even condemned. Therefore, the dominant forms of homosexual expression are (have been) quite different than what exits in our culture where adult homosexual males don't generally have sex with boys.
With respect to heterosexuality, a similar situation applies. There are cultures where most men somehow acquire a violent heterosexuality and raping women has been normal behavior. As Sanday (1981) outlined in the paper, The Socio-Cultural Context of Rape: A Cross-Cultural Study, human cultures can be divided into rape and non-rape cultures, and the nature of heterosexuality manifested also varies greatly. In one culture described, a man was expected to hurt a woman enough to make her scream and cry when he first had sex with her on their wedding night.
People generally acquire (learn) different heterosexualities, bisexualities, and homosexualities possibly having an initial biological component which may be radically altered by the social indoctrination. In a culture where people don't wear clothes, and one's gender identity is therefore not related to clothing, men sexually stimulated by wearing women's clothes (e.g.. high heel shoes, panties) would not exist. This is one type of sexuality - mostly a male heterosexuality - found in cultures where male and female clothing is distinct and different, and such a sexuality is therefore, in great part (wholly?), socially constructed.
Each member of a culture participates in organizing a society with the norm, thus inevitably producing deviant groups who develop sub-social systems to meet their abnormal needs. When the sale of alcohol was banned in the United States, there was a need for alcohol and some people developed a meet the need. The buyers and the sellers met and both benefited from the arrangement. The same applies for illegal drugs today, or for homosexual males who wanted to perform oral sex on very masculine ultra-macho boys up to about 30 years ago. Boys discovered that this need existed and some of them went into business. Meeting places evolved and were established, and the rules were made by the boys who had the power. They would be supplying the sex homosexual males wanted, but only if they were paid and if the established rules were followed.
This is The Social Integration of Peers and Queers described by Reiss (1961), and it's a system expected to evolve (develop) in a homophobic society. Most interesting, however, was the acquired beliefs of boys supplying sexual services to homosexual males; they would never define themselves to be homosexual, or even bisexual because they perceived themselves to be 100 percent heterosexual. Reiss was suspicious of their claim and suspected a repressed homosexual identity (72: 218, 223) because many of these heterosexual boys would also let a male perform oral sex on them, just for the enjoyment (72: 216-217). Reiss nonetheless finally sided with them, stating that most apparently become adults who only have sex with women, although he did not propose a longitudinal study of these boys into adulthood to verify his conclusion (72: 227).
The dominating learned belief permitting these boys to think they were 100 percent heterosexual was based on the idea that "a queer" is "like a woman," given his desire to sexually please men as women do, or as men would want women to do. Therefore, only males who take on the female sex role are "queer," thus permitting the boys act in accordance to their sexually dominant disposition. They were never sexually passive and therefore did not lose their masculinity/heterosexuality status (72: 218). This arrangement met the sexual needs some homosexual-identified males and the needs of the boys. For the latter, the reason always given to justify their homo-sexual experiences was money-related, but the explanation should be viewed with suspicion. As a rule, the homosexual males in these homo-sex engagements did not have orgasms but the boys always did. Personally, because I am male and if I was engaging in homo-sex for money, it would still be impossible to say that I experienced an orgasm because of the money paid. True, I was paid, but the money was not the cause of my orgasm. Basically, people experience orgasms because they enjoy what is happening, thus suggesting that these boys were at least bisexual.
According to Reiss' data, about 62 percent of males who belonged to gangs (in the career delinquent category) were involved with having sex with gay males on a regular basis (72: 203), and we can assume that these boys enjoyed the orgasms they experienced. For male youth who have homo-sex desires but also have a need to deny they are homosexual to any degree, the "social integration of peers and queers" was a blessing and it could have never come into existence without the full approval of these boys. The system may also have had other positive results. Many males, as some married women have discovered, experience mood swings if they are not getting the sex they want and need. They may even become more violent than they usually are, or more prone to losing their tempers and being violent, and these boys were therefore possibly helped by the homosexual males who supplied them with so many orgasms.
Societies nonetheless change and, sometimes, a system developed to meet the mutual needs of certain (often disenfranchised) people is destroyed. Since the 1960s, gay liberation has been responsible for an increasing understanding of homosexuality, and the old "gay males are like women" stereotype lessened, at least until the "bio" research began reporting that gay males are apparently not only more "like women" behaviorally and in terms of self-perceptions, but also more "like females" with respect to certain brain structures. It has also been recognized, however, that males who enjoy having sex with males, even if they are only playing the "dominant role," may be bisexual or even 100 percent homosexual. This ideological development was not a blessing for the above described adolescent boys in need of having sex with males and in greater need of an ideology required to deny the "homosexual' implications of their enjoyed orgasm-producing same-sex activities.
Concurrent with this ideological change, there was also a change in some gay men's perception of self, mostly though thinking, debates, and education. For gay males who were party to "the social integration of peers and queers," the situation was degrading, dangerous, and also costly. Many of these males, I suspect, possibly wanted more from their sex lives and discovered that, increasingly, sufficiently masculine males had ventured into the more visible gay communities and were available for free. Therefore, the old "trade" system could be dispensed, thus reducing the demand for "trade" male prostitutes. This fact is reflected both in gay writing during this period and even in the research results relating to male youth prostitution.
Debra Boyer, in her research paper, Male Prostitution and Homosexual Identity published in Gay and Lesbian Youth (1989), reports that about 80 percent of male youth prostitutes in the 1950s and 1960s defined themselves to be heterosexual while about 80 percent of male youth prostitutes in the early 1980s defined themselves to be either homosexual or bisexual (13: 158-159). From my observations, most male youth prostitutes today could not make a living by only being sexually dominant (heterosexual), mostly because homosexual male customers are now more like heterosexual male customers in terms of the sexual services sought from prostitutes.
This "male prostitution" development therefore brings up an important question. Male youth with a strong ultra-macho identification still exist and, as it existed before, a certain percentage of them are driven to form male youth gangs. The reason for this has been poorly understood by social scientists, although some writers - since the beginning of this century - have speculated that repressed homosexuality is a significant motivating factor. The 1991 book, Homosexuality and Male Bonding in pre-Nazi Germany, edited by Oosterhuis and Kennedy, addresses this sensitive topic. Although my adolescent environment was somewhat different than the ones described in this book, and also different from the youth gangs Reiss (1961) studied, there are similarities. Male bonding is a form of love which often surpasses the love adolescent males may have for females, but adolescent boys and young men will generally not admit this.
If repressed "homosexuality" is one of the causal factors in the formation of male youth gangs, and if about 60 percent of these males have been (are) in need of having sex with males but now have no way (or very restricted ways) in society of having such experiences, how could some of them be resolving the problem? As I see it, and most juvenile delinquents would know this, the only places left in society where these males can have the sex they want (need), while at the same time denying they are homosexual, is in juvenile detention facilities, or in adult male prisons.
During the winter of 1992, a young male in an Ontario juvenile detention center was interviewed for CBC Radio's Sunday Morning news program. The interview ended with a "voice over" as the boy was beginning to describe how he made condoms - with whatever materials were available - for use when he was having sex with other males. It seems like the CBC didn't want the public to know too much about what is happening homo-sexually in Canadian penal institutions, and the same situation exists in American detention facilities
Troxler (1990) describes the changing American prison situation because of AIDS. He reports on a news story from prison in which "the administration could not figure out why the plastic covering from chickens in the kitchen was disappearing, why the plastic from the stockroom was disappearing, why all the plastic from different things was disappearing. And finally they figured out that the inmates were making homemade condoms!" (88: 227) Troxler supplies this information within the context of describing how "the deal" has changed between men who deny they are homosexual and the men they have sex with. Troxler is certain that "there has to be a homoerotic element to that turn-on."
In prisons, ultra-macho heterosexual males still operate under the myth that only the passive male is homosexual, and another myth also applies: the sex they had with a male only occurred because a woman was not available. Stated in picture form, however, these males are saying: "I experience orgasms when I have sex with males because a woman was not available." Obviously, "because a woman is not available" is not, and cannot be, the reason why they have orgasms when engaging in homo-sex..
To my knowledge, no one has yet postulated that some male youths are more violent and may engage in more criminal activity because they are homo-sexually frustrated. These repressed homosexual youths may also be heading to our prisons in increasing numbers because they know it is in prisons where they can have homo-sex in ways acceptable to them. Many people would ridicule this idea, but only because they have little knowledge of homosexual desire and its history. For example, many people remain unaware of the great dangers homosexual males traditionally faced to get the sex they wanted; it once included the death penalty and, up to the 1960s, a probable prison sentence.
To support the above idea, however, I cannot use a case of a dominant male who arranged it so that he could return to prison to get the sex he wants and needs. These males would never admit this to anyone because they cannot even admit it to themselves. Instead, I will use another case (reported in the book Male Rape) which would be even more difficult to believe: the young male, Donald Tucker, who was raped about 60 times in two days by many inmates. Somehow, his sexual experiences in prison had a great effect on him. He had become a "punk" and he was also in need of having sex with real "Men."
When he was released from prison, he explored the gay community to discover what was available but didn't find gay men to be as "credible" as were the men he had sex with in prison. Dominant gay males into rougher sex - often called "leather sex" or "sadomasochism" - usually respect their sexual partner's limits and, as a rule, their sexuality is a combination of reality and good acting. Donald did not like this and therefore realized he could not get the sex he desired in society. He then committed a crime, surrendered to the police, and was sent to jail where he wanted to be because it offered him the type of security he wanted. This security included having a "real Man" to take care of him in trade for sexual services. (89: 73-74)
Concerning male rape victims in prisons, Tucker offered this insight:
It may be that the most serious cost of prison rape to society is that it takes non-violent offenders and turns them into people with a high potential for violence, full of rage and eager to take vengeance on a society which they hold responsible for their utter humiliation and loss of manhood. If they do not turn their frustrated rage against themselves - I suspect that a majority of jail suicides are rape victims - they may turn it on the world outside, perhaps becoming rapists themselves in a desperate attempt to 'regain their manhood' (89: 75).Sexually dominant males in prisons understand what it means if a sexually passive status was ever imposed on them. Tucker explains that "The Man would rather be killed than fucked" (89: 74). Embodied in this statement is the idea that, for some males, especially if a rape was involved, the consequences could be disastrous. An inmate, James Dunn, describes what he saw in prison. "During my first week there, I saw fourteen guys rape one youngster because he refused to submit. ...When they finished with him, he had to be taken to the hospital where they had to sew him up, then they had to take him to the nuthouse ... because he cracked up" (75: 6).
Homosexual closets are social constructions rooted in hatred and they represent one of the many forms of violence our society inflicts on homosexual people, but closets accomplish much more. When homosexual males are in a closet, they are participating in the social factors developed to destroy gay youth, such as denying them role models. In all minority groups, youths need positive role models, but there are few successful Canadian gay people who are visible. In fact, there's only Svend Robinson who is well known, and other gay or lesbian MPs are in the closet. If they are ever "outed," as it recently happened to Tory MP Denis Pronovost, it is usually because they were accused of criminal activity. Pronovost was charged with sexual assault involving men, for having sex with underage boys, and for paying for sex with a minor. (64)
Similarly, New Brunswick's former Premier, Richard Hatfield was in the closet, meaning that little to nothing is known about his alleged homosexual life and relationships. Few people behave perfectly, however, and November, 1992, news reports were alleging that Hatfield had patted a young male's buttocks, and that a hug given to a male had a sexual connotation. As I encountered these allegations, I wondered about the conclusions people would make about an individual based only on the reported information. Surely, if it wasn't for Svend Robinson being "out of the closet," Pronovost's "outing" and the Hatfield allegations could only confirm the traditional myths about homosexual males. This happens when most gay males are kept in the closet and the only ones reported on are being charged with crimes or convicted.
The socially enforced closet certainly has very negative consequences, and a similar set up exists in education systems. When I quit teaching in 1980, it was because I wanted a loving relationship with a male. I didn't want to have a closeted life where I would be having anonymous or near-anonymous sex to protect my secret, a life of using male prostitutes, or having a love relationship in hiding where fear would rule our lives and we would be living like rats. I didn't want to pretend I was heterosexual which, for some gays, even involves marrying a woman. Two months after I quit teaching, I met a male, the feelings were wonderful, and we lived together for twelve years. Our neighbors knew we are gay simply because we lived together.
In education, the 'law' all Alberta gay and lesbian teachers abide by is the one stating that gay and lesbian youth will not have openly gay teachers as positive role models. I could have been such a model but doing this was impossible. Because I didn't want to be a part of this 'game' and wanted to respect myself, my only option was to quit. This act, however, has implication for gay and lesbian teachers in school systems, especially if we have to-consider what kinds of gay and lesbian teachers would stay in such a situation. The answer to this query may be frightening, even though all gay teachers would not be in a negative role model category. Some are living in great moral pain while others may be enjoying the situation for a number of reasons.
Last fall, a 21-year-old gay male reported on his experience with a closeted Calgary high school teacher who recognized the boy's homo-likelihood, obtained a confirmation, and then gave him an option. If he had sex with his teacher, he would make a very good mark in the course. If he didn't, he would get a low mark. The boy was in a bind. Such things are never discussed in schools and he didn't want to make an issue of it because this could have "outed" him. To solve his problem, he transferred to another high school, leaving this teacher to continue his harassment activities in an environment dominated by silence about homosexual realities. As we have learned with respect to the sexual abuse of children and women, environments dominated by silence always favor the abusers.
In our education systems, students are most likely to discover that a teacher is gay as it happened in the above case, which only reinforces negative stereotypes. The same also applies when students discover that teachers like James Schleppe are gay. This fact was revealed because Schleppe was murdered and information related to the case was reported in the media where it was inferred that he used male prostitutes. In the early 1980's, in another case, a gay teacher was fired because he admitted to having sex with a male in a park. The reason this fact came to light was because, after he had sex, he left the park but the other male died. Where, however, are the gay teachers who could be offsetting the negative opinion of gay males resulting from such outings? Where are the gay and lesbian teachers who could be positive role models for gay and lesbian youth?
In 1991, I discovered that not one gay or lesbian teacher in Calgary schools had ever approached school officials with the concern they should have for gay and lesbian youth, not even with respect to their high risk for suicide. Yet, many know about this, but they are in a situation where, even if colleagues may know they are gay, the spoken / unspoken rule is: they are not to make their sexual orientation an issue and they will be tolerated only if they know "their place." All gays or lesbians who occupy upper position in the school system also follow the same rule, and teachers generally follow the law. To ever describe homosexuality and homosexuals in positive terms could cause serious problems.
The above situation was not created by education authorities who said: Let's plan a system which inflicts maximum damage on gay and lesbian youth. We'll make sure that their self-esteem is kept at the lowest possible level so that their suicide rate is kept at a maximum level. For good measure, if they ever hear about a gay teacher, we'll also set it up so that the teacher fits the negative stereotypes. But we don't have to worry about positive role models surfacing. After all, there's probably not a self-respecting gay teacher in our school system. This highly effective lethal plan, doesn't exist as a conscious effort. It's more like what people often call "the system," almost as if nothing can be done to change "the system." This is incorrect and asking teachers a few special questions soon produces the realization that "the system" is "them" - working collectively with each one doing their part - and they all know what they are doing to gay and lesbian kids.
Many gays and lesbians in our society are closeted because they fear the abuse or even the violence which may be inflicted by their own colleagues. For example, last winter, a CTV "Shirley" program focused on gay and lesbian police officers in Canada. Only one openly gay policeman from Toronto could be found. Another closeted gay officer was behind a screen and his voice was altered. He was terrified of what some of his fellow officers would do to him if they discovered his secret. The openly gay officer mentioned that other policemen would sometimes avoid coming to his assistance if he was in a dangerous situation, and this is expected. Gays and lesbians throughout North America regularly report that they were verbally and even physically abused by homohating police officers. For the program, an openly lesbian Canadian police officer could not be found and a lesbian officer from the Chicago Police Department was invited to appear on the program.
Homophobia also exists in places like fire departments as verified when I met a Calgary fireman who was gay and getting a divorce because he finally told his wife the truth about himself. He was also quitting his "enjoyed" career, and giving up many accrued benefits, because he was terrified that his fellow firemen would discover the truth about his sexual orientation. This fear exists because, in many of the macho professions, gay bashing has been very acceptable. The fact that he quit his career, however, and that I quit mine, essentially reflects some of the many hidden highly abusive situations gay and lesbian people have been experiencing in our "traditionally" abusive and violent society.
Living in the closet always reminds a gay person of our society's hatred for him/her, and what gay people do - participate in - when in the closet often creates more self-hatred and denial, because they have to avoid the pain created when they are abusing gay and lesbian youth as they were once abused. Generally, gay people are closeted because they want to succeed in our society and this is their priority. Success often depends on being a normal person, meaning that they are not to be homosexual. Even getting married may be necessary, especially for upper level promotions. Gay males who marry women, however, are inflicting violence on women, except when their wives know about their homosexual orientation and have agreed to the arrangement. Unfortunately, most women don't know about their husband's socially imposed closeted status and they are now being exposed to the danger of becoming HIV infected. Often enough, these men don't use condoms when having sex with their wives because doing this would "out" them, unless they have exceptional lying abilities and very naive wives.
Our society's traditional anti-homosexual disposition is obviously creating some homosexual "monsters," and monstrous situations come in many forms. The situation existing for gay and lesbian youth in our schools suggests that our school systems are highly abusive "monsters." All closeted gay and lesbian teachers are also "monsters" for denying gay youth positive role models, and the same applies because of their silence with respect to the "homosexuality" factor in the youth suicide and school dropout problems. Unfortunately, we have yet to consider the abuse of gays and lesbians to be "monstrous acts" because we have a history of thinking that all these abuses are highly moral acts.
Monsters often create monsters, as the existence of Jeffrey Dahmer reveals, because such a person could have only been created in a racist and homophobic society. Dahmer is a homosexual who hated homosexuals and non-whites, chose his victims accordingly, and was highly sexist. For example, he tried to destroy part of a victim's brain in the hope that he could make him into a perfect slave, which is exactly what macho males in prisons impose on other males by using other forms of violence. Dahmer, however, is not the only monster we have created who has sought to destroy his own kind. In the early 1950s, the infamous McCarthy Communists / homosexual witch-hunts were happening in the United States, and they were also happening in Canada. Our government continued to hunt down homosexuals in the civil service until the late 1960s. The objective was to ruin their careers and to replace them with heterosexuals: the heterosexual men's traditional version of "affirmative action."
In the last 20 years, the existence of an interesting group of socially created homosexual "monsters" became better known to the average person, although many gay people were always aware of these individuals. Money (1988) labeled them "malignant bisexuals." These males sought great power and status in society and understood that hating and punishing homosexuals was always perceived to be a reflection of the "highest morality." Therefore, one of the best "closet" situation available included their participation in the destruction of their own kind; it is now strongly suspected that Senator Joseph McCarthy who headed the American homosexual witch-hunts in the early 1950s was also homosexual. His prosecuting attorney, Roy Cohn, was definitely gay, and its is strongly suspected that J. Edgar Hoover was gay because he lived with the FBI's number-two man, Clyde Olsen, for more than 40 years. When Hoover died, he "left the bulk of his $551,500 estate to Olsen" (79: 47). The movie, CITIZEN COHN, which was aired on HBO in September, 1992, made it clear that Hoover and Olsen were lovers. In the 1987 book, THE GAY BOOK OF LISTS by Leigh W. Rutledge, McCarthy, Hoover, and Francis Cardinal Spellman, (who was anti-gay and supported McCarthy's abuses), were described and listed under the title: 3 MEN THE GAY MOVEMENT DOESN'T WANT TO CLAIM.
At the time few people knew that the hunters of "dangerous", "evil," and "morally weak" homosexuals were themselves homosexual. If, however, anyone fitted negative homosexual stereotypes, it was these self-hating homo-hunters considered to be "morally righteous" because they were reflecting our society's traditional morality; this was the type of morality also used to make the desired destruction of all Native cultures appear to be righteous. We hated homosexuals and behaved accordingly, and Roy Cohn continued his abuses of homosexual people up to his death from AIDS in 1986. He had become very powerful, was very promiscuous, needed to have sex with a male at least once a day, and he could afford to have four or five young male prostitutes on his payroll so that his sexual needs would be met (36: 364-365). He was strongly opposed to equal rights for gays (36: 415), and was totally against the idea of having openly gay teachers in public schools (94: 239). Cohn had been good friends with Cardinal Spellman who was often entertained on Cohn's yacht.
Spellman's hidden life may be summed up with: "There were stories about his seducing altar boys and choir boys. He had his favorites among handsome priests and he was known to have lovers outside the clergy" (36: 280). Publicly, however, "Spellman's moral concerns were almost always of sexual nature ... He was a rabid public moralist..." He was quoted as saying that Broadway "would drag the name of New York down to be synonymous with Sodom and Gomorrah." "At times Spellman insisted that others be punished for innocuous sexual fare" (20: 151-152). On the cover of his biography, THE AMERICAN POPE, Spellman is described: "No Catholic in America had more power, held it longer, or used it more ruthlessly." He died in 1967 at the age of 78 and Gore Vidal, who knew Spellman was gay, summed up his life: "The serious crimes of Spellman were not sexual" (20: 153), leaving it implied that his greatest sin was a lethal form of hypocrisy.
When we learn about individuals like Spellman, Cohn, Hoover, McCarthy, and others, it's usually after the fact, and we may conclude that they were horrible people. Yet, they were only playing by the established social rules if they wanted to be successful. They were living in a society which stated: If we discover your homosexual orientation, there's no hope. You're dead! Still today, this is the policy of one of Canada's largest employers, trainer of skills, and creator of the stepping stone which leads to many very highly placed civil service jobs for high ranking retired officers: The Canadian Military.
Our traditionally morbid "affirmative action only for heterosexual males" society has been a monstrous and highly abusive system, at least from a gay perspective given that limited opportunities were purposefully inflicted on gay and lesbian people. To avoid the plethora of punishments, the "closet" was mandatory and it was to be a good "closet" because, up to 1989, the Canadian Military (like its American counterpart) was actively witch-hunting closeted gay males and lesbians within its ranks. The hunting has now stopped but numerous punishments apply if the homosexual orientation of a military person is known. For example, they may not be given a promotion, no matter how well they excel in their work. [At editing time - Nov. 1992 - the Canadian situation had changed as the result of a supreme court ruling, but it's expected that discrimination against gays and lesbians will continue in less overt forms.]
Our homohatred also causes other problems such as creating countless males - "monsters" - who are in a psychological closet, have sex with males, and always deny they are in any way homosexual or bisexual. This is done to avoid the total destruction of their self-esteem intimately related to socially learned perceptions. Ultra macho males in prisons accomplish this by having a belief system causing them to degrade other males to a subhuman level. In accordance to men's traditional view of women, the inferior sex slave status of the males they rape, use, and abuse is deemed to be "the female status." Once males have been magically turned into women, dominant males then consider their homo-sexual activities with these women (also equates to gay-identified males) to then be "normal" and "heterosexual."
There are, however, other ways that similar types of defenses against the homosexual self-label can be articulated. Money (1988) describes these males to be "homophobic, gay-bashing hoodlums who ... pick up or are picked up by a gay male, have sex with him, and they exorcise their own homosexual guilt by assaulting and maybe killing him" (65: 110). This phenomena is a well known part of North American gay history sometimes written about as an experienced part of life. For example, Tennessee Williams and a gay friend were the victims of two sailors in this category. "Brutal sex" was inflicted and enjoyed by the assailants who then viciously assaulted the gay males (91: 97).
Money labeled this behavior the "exorcist syndrome" which is a version of the "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" nature manifested by people like Cardinal Spellman and Roy Cohn. The phenomena is also similar to a "split personality" situation. Money explains that one of the personalities is "the grand inquisitor," as McCarthy and Cohn had become in a spectacular way, and it needs to punish the homosexual part of their 'personality' (65: 108-109). This internal war is also projected outward causing these (pathological?) socially created monsters to harm other gay males by ruining their careers or, as other males will do, punishing them may include physical assaults and even murder.
In my community there existed a less significant "malignant bisexual" who, in his early teens, was demonstrating his evolving personality. He had an informal club and young boys could only join if they performed oral sex on him and his friend. At the time I was only eight or nine years old and a new friend of mine was a member of the club. By then, however, I had acquired the wisdom to know that sex - with rewards attached - is usually abusive sex; for me sex was something shared between friends. By the age of 18, this male had joined the Canadian Military and, on a trip back home, he was reporting on what he and his friends had done to "a queer" in Montreal. This male had performed oral sex on them and they ended the encounter by assaulting and robbing him. [The club did not last long given that only one younger boy had been conned into being a member, but it did produce important information needed to understand the male who would later seek out gay-identified males to do what he had once enjoyed with a younger boy.]
From James Baldwin's life files: "On every street corner I was called a faggot. This meant that I was despised, and, however horrible this is, it is clear. What was not so clear at that time of my life was what motivated the men and boys who mocked and chased me; for, if they found me when they were alone, they spoke to me very differently - frightening me, I must say, into a stunned and speechless paralysis. For when they were alone, they spoke very gently and wanted to take me home and make love ... The bafflement and the pain this caused in me remain beyond description" (11). Unfortunately, North American gay-identified boys are rarely, if ever, educated about the world where they will usually be abused and confused, and the ones to most benefit from this are all the older males seeking to use/abuse them in many ways, often enough sexually.
From the life files of an African-American gay male who only sought out married males to have sex with: He appeared on an Oprah Winfrey program aired in September, 1992, and stated that, as a rule, he recognizes a potential sex partner when the male is visibly and loudly homophobic. He did not explain why this is so but it can be assumed that such men have "homosexuality" on their minds and that they are also troubled by this inner reality; over the years I have met many similar males. On the same program, Oprah noted that, from the information given to her by the many gay males acquaintances who reported on their commonly occurring sexual experiences with married men, it's obvious that many married men are having sex with men.
In 1980, when I met Richard, the person I love and lived with, he told me about the most horrible part of his life in a Winnipeg high school in the late 1970s. One male did his best to make his life as miserable as possible. The high probability that he was homosexual was later confirmed when Richard saw him in a gay bar. He came over to talk but Richard was disgusted by his presence, and even more disgusted by his desire to have sex. The world Richard had believed in when he was in high school was not what it appeared to be, and other gay males have reported similar experiences. On May 1, 1992, I was at Lesbian and Gay Youth Calgary where I met a 21-year-old gay male who went to school in Calgary. He reported that he was having sex with males in different secluded parts of his high school and that he once walked into a situation where 8 or 9 males were involved in oral and anal sex. He also noted that the very homophobic male who gave him the most problems in high school was later encountered in a Calgary gay bar.
A fascinating aspect of the war waged against gays in our society is the observation that it is often (always?) being waged by repressed homosexuals who may not be homosexually active, or repressed closeted homosexuals who are having sex with males and hate themselves. The targets may be other closeted homosexuals, but the victims are more often visible "out of the closet" gay males. These wars, however, would not exist if our society would stop its highly effective teaching of anti-homosexual attitudes and homohatred which produces many "closets" and all the horrors being described. When we teach hatred, we can expect to reap hatred, and its dividend: SOCIAL VIOLENCE.
To understand ourselves better, it is very educational to take a cold look at our history of abusing people. Hitler always used established perceptions of morality to sell the proposed abuses of people, and a similar situation existed with respect to black slavery. White supremacists had rationalized the idea that they were doing Black people a favor by having them as slaves! Our abuses of Native people was also based on immorality. The objective was to make them into people just like us because we believed they were seriously lacking. At least Hitler was sane and knew that trying to make Jewish people into Nazis was impossible. We were nonetheless claiming to be moral just like all people today who hate gay people and teach such hatred also believe , often in association with the claim to being the most moral in society. Given the evidence, it should therefore not be difficult to agree with the well known maxim noted by Money (1988) in reference to "malignant bisexuals" and other frauds such as Jimmy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and others: "Scratch the surface of the self-righteous and find the devil" (65: 110).
The study of homo-history leads to the repeated realization that the most morbid people in society usually belong to the group considered to be the most moral and righteous. The wisdom acquired from my history has also permitted me to quickly detect what many people don't see. For example, when we hear highly moral ones say: "If we ever accept homosexuality, or stop teaching hatred for homosexuality, this will cause a return to Sodom and Gomorrah and everyone will be homosexual!" we usually don't hear the statement being made about themselves. They would have become homosexual if they had grown up in a world not rabidly anti-homosexual. They then would have accepted their homosexual orientation instead of becoming the near-pathological malignant "projection" cases they are presenting themselves to be.
Given that "being homosexual" is nothing more than the discovery and acceptance of one's homosexual nature - as all the experts on the subject (gays and lesbians) report to be the case - all the people who fear and oppose the idea of having openly gay teachers are revealing something about themselves. They believe that homosexuality is "contagious," and that somebody can become homosexual if they have a gay teacher (Should nuns therefore be forbidden to teach boys?) A reason why someone would believe this is based on personal experiences, such as having homosexual desires but denying their homosexual orientation simply because their desires are not acted upon. Yet these males know they would enjoy having sex with a male and that, if this occurred, they would then say: "I've become a homosexual."
It may also be possible, and common, that such repressed homosexuals
had homosexual experiences in their youth and are mistakenly attributing
the existence of their homosexual desires to these experiences. The same
could apply in cases of childhood and early adolescent sexual abuse perpetrated
by a man, and the boy then has homosexual fantasies. Sexual identity problems
are very common for these boys and related observations had led to belief
that the sexual abuse of boys by men causes homosexuality. Most researchers
have not yet suspected that these common causal misattribution problems
are probably related to an interesting selection process used by men who
seek boys, their tactics being quite different than the ones used at the
Mount Cashel Orphanage which was more like a prison. These men usually
select certain types of boys, the choice often being made after observing
the boy's interaction pattern with others and his body language. As one
man explained on a Calgary television news program, he had always picked
boys well, except for the one mistake turning him into a convicted sex
offender. From his statements, it was obvious that the selection process
was related to detecting features often deemed to be pre-homosexual attributes.
Therefore, it was the homosexual orientation of these boys implicated in
the often reported sexual identity problems, not the sexual experience
they had with a man.
Unfortunately, most people don't even know the basic of sexual identity formation, mostly because we are exposed to so little quality education on human sexuality. People are therefore left with their myths, such as blaming their homosexual desires on an early homosexual experience, or on gay males thought to be responsible for this, and they may also use the infamous "devil" metaphor to explain the homosexual desires they are fighting against. In their minds, a homosexual fantasy or dream is synonymous with the work of "Satan," against whom they must fight. The equation between "homosexuality" and "the devil," however, is as dangerous as was the equation between women and the devil existing during the Inquisition. When a war is declared against any group, there will always be a very high level of social violence and numerous casualties.
In our society, children are grossly deprived of sexual knowledge but they are often told about some dangerous men who sexually abuse children. These warnings are also given within the context of a socially constructed situation where children see an endless number of heterosexual couples who are in visible loving relationships. Therefore, when girls are told that male sex abusers exist, they simply conclude that some heterosexual men abuse little girls but that most do not do this. When boys are told that some men will sexually abuse them, however, a different conclusion results.
We live in a society where gay males in loving relationships have been forced into the closet. We never see them in visible loving relationships and, as a rule, such relationships will not be depicted in movies or on television programs. Not long ago, it was only acceptable to depict gay people as stereotypes, or as psychopaths or murderers, and most depictions of gay people in major 1991 movies were in this category. Historically, they were depicted as bad people who either killed themselves or were killed, and they were not to be depicted in loving relationships (78).
[At this point the reader can make the following inquiry. In the past 10 years, how often have you seen two men in a movie or on a television program who were being affectionate as heterosexuals are often depicted? How about two gay males kissing each other outside the context of the "AIDS" equals "Gays" equals "Death" issue, or outside the context of a "coming out" story? These situations are exceptionally rare and children see fewer cases than we do.]In our society, children and adolescents are purposefully deprived of seeing gay love relationships and it has been within this context that boys are told that some men sexually abuse boys. As a rule, this is all they are told about male-male (homosexual) situations and one conclusion then becomes possible from the information given. All men who are having sex with males must be having sex with boys; they must therefore be feared because they are all child sex abusers. Given this socially constructed situation, it's very difficult to then blame sexually abused boys who grow up believing that it was a gay male who abused them, or that gay males sexually abuse all boys. Nor can we blame them for being angry with gay males because this is the product of an important part society's anti-homosexuality education.
This highly effective "educational" set up has been quite deadly for gay males because the resulting myth motivates some victims of sexual abuse to hunt, physically assault, or even murder gay males. In the May 5, 1992, issue of The Advocate, it was reported that a 27-year-old Minnesota man was convicted of killing a 22-year-old gay male, but be wasn't experiencing any guilt or remorse. Instead, he stated: "my whole life is dedicated to killing faggots and child molesters." Such socially created "monsters" are very common in gay history but, if such men had the same feelings with respect to heterosexual males, they would certainly be classified as psychopaths. Once our society has created these males, however, it takes special work to undo the damage.
I once decided to challenge a male who hated gay males because he firmly believed that all gays sexually abuse boys. I presented evidence to the contrary but his belief was entrenched as his response indicates. "But even if they don't do this, it's what they would want to do. I'm sure there's some gays who sexually abuse boys." I then tackled the problem in another way because I suspected there was more involved in his hatred than what was apparent. By subjecting him to a new experience he finally accessed a forgotten memory. At the age of 5, a 17-year-old male baby-sitter had taken out his penis and put the boy's favorite candy next to it. He wanted the boy to perform oral sex but he refused, ran away, never told anyone about this, and repressed the memory of the event. His great surprise, however, was related to how vivid this memory had returned to mind, stating: "It's almost as if it had happened yesterday." I then asked him about the male who had done this, and about the other male - his friend - who was also there. Both were now married, were more masculine that average males, and both were hockey players. As I was being told this, he was realizing that I had told the truth and I could feel that his hatred of gay males was maybe coming to an end.
According to Groth and Gary (1982), there are two categories of men who have sex with young boys. They are pedophiles with a history of only having sex with pre-puberty children, or they have a history of predominantly having sex with sexually mature females. In one major 1978 study of such sex offenders, not one of these men had a history of having had sex only/predominantly with sexually mature males. Not one could be classified as being gay (32: 146-147). Unfortunately, Groth and Gary did not explain this result.
As a rule, gay males have gone through "hell" to accept their homosexual orientation and to then live a life somewhat in harmony with their sexual desires not related to having sex with children. It would therefore be quite absurd, given this often censored knowledge, to think that gay people would go through this "hell," and also accept the related risks and penalties, because their attraction to sexually mature males is not their sexual orientation. Males who define themselves to be "gay" know who they are, at least to a decent degree, but the same status may not apply for men believed to be heterosexual because they are married, have girlfriends, and are having sex with women.
Many gay males were once in the heterosexual category, and many still are. The macho males in prisons who are having sex with men also firmly believe they are 'heterosexual', and so do a certain number of men who are having sex with boys as the following example illustrates:
"All of my victims [boys] have been no older than 12. I'm attracted to their young youthful appearance, smooth bodies, no hair, things like that. I've also had sex with women, but guys turn me off - it's not natural." (32: 147)This man could be a repressed pedophile but another interpretation is possible given his acquired world view. He could be a repressed homosexual: a man who would prefer to have sex with a sexually mature male, but can't do this. For these males, having sex with a man would destroy their self-esteem because it would yield the dreaded "I am homosexual, unnatural, and abnormal" self-labels. When I am observing such an aversion, I am thinking: "This is a big issue in his mind. It's therefore possible that his aversion is related to what he wants the most."
The previously described male from my community who, as an adolescent, enjoyed having pre-puberty boys perform oral sex on him, would be a repressed homosexual because he was much like the "dominant" males in prisons. He enjoyed having sex with adult gay males, but only with sexually passive males so that he could then perceive his homosexual activities to be natural. In our culture, this belief has been common. Most psychiatrists and psychologists once believed this (62). So did the police and professionals dealing with males in gangs who sold their "dominant" sexual services to gay males (72). Prison officials have generally believed that "dominant" inmates are heterosexual (75), and the same applied to military authorities when homosexual activity came to their attention. It was usually only the passive male considered to be unfit and discharged (06). Not everyone, however, has believed that only the sexually passive male is homosexual.
The above quoted male, who had sex with boys younger than 12 years old, had somehow acquired the notion that all men who have sex with men are homosexual and unnatural, and many males in our society have acquired the same belief. For example, when Roger Caron (1978) went to prison, he considered the "wolves" - the sexually dominant males in homosexual relationships - to also be "queer" (18: 140-141). So what could we expect from repressed homosexuals with this belief if they were having strong desires to have sex with a male? Would they not choose male-male sexual situations which permit them to deny they are homosexual, just like macho males in prisons also do in a different way because their beliefs are different? To my knowledge, research work has not been done to explore this idea; the work would also involve examining the possibility that our society was somehow teaching some males the idea that having sex with pre-puberty boys was more natural - more acceptable - than men having sex with men. There would, however, be great resistance to blaming society for this but, as we have been learning about our society, the fact that a behavior is illegal does not necessarily mean it's unacceptable.
Men had made the battery of wives illegal but there was a whole system in place which was telling men that assaulting their wives was acceptable. In fact, many men joked about this and were not concerned about penalties because even the police and religious leaders blamed battered wives for being assaulted. Men had also given themselves the licence to rape women which was a criminal act. Again, the male ruled social system had been structured so that only about 10 percent of female rape victims reported the crime, and the ones who reported such crimes were treated in 'special' ways. Men had created police departments and court systems which did everything possible to blame a woman for being raped. Given that rape conviction rates were low and that rapists had about a 98 percent chance of avoiding penalties for their crime, it therefore could be said that men had the equivalent of a licence to rape women. What kind of messages, however, were men giving to men who had sex with boys, which was also illegal?
In the past 5 years, we have been learning the truth about situations like Mount Cashel, and it became evident that "the system" - the police, social workers, religious leaders, and other social authorities - worked collectively to protect men who were sexually abusing boys. It can also be assumed that these men knew they had been given a licence to sexually abuse boys, just like fathers and stepfathers who were sexually abusing their children also knew that the risks were minimal. The social message with respect to men having sex with men, however, was totally different given that a part of gay history is related to the war police departments have waged against homosexual males.
The police, usually motivated by politicians who wanted to score points with the homohating righteous people in society, attacked gays in many ways. For example, they would use their best looking officers to pose - out of uniform - in inviting ways where they knew males were meeting with homo-sex intentions. When approached by a gay male, an arrest was made and the courts were also very effective at getting convictions. In many cases, however, such police activity was "entrapment."
The police also knew that some homosexual and bisexual males met in public washrooms and another technique was used to apprehend and convict these men. They would set up hidden cameras to record what every citizen did in a washroom. Arrests were then made and the results sometimes caused closeted - often married homosexual or bisexual males - to commit suicide. These arrests were also well publicized to let people know that an effective war was being waged against men who have sex with men.
The gay baths were also targeted by the police for special raids because laws existed to be used for this purpose. Baths are places where gay males meet with a sexual objective in mind. What happens there, however, is behind locked doors between consenting adults. Raids on the baths stopped in the early 1980s, but not because the laws making these raids possible were changed. AIDS had hit the gay community, was associated with the baths, and it would have been difficult to get police officers entering the baths again to do the preliminary undercover work. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, gay baths were being raided in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, and even in Edmonton [where I lived at the time]. These raids were well publicized, as were the numbers of gay males arrested and charged.
One Toronto raid of four gay baths was carried out on April 23, 1981, and it resulted in 289 gay and bisexual males being charged. (45: 206-207) These simultaneous raids had been carried out by a small army of 150 officers because the police wanted the public to know that a major war was being waged against men who had sex with men. At the same time, all men who were having sex with boys, instead of the men they may have preferred, could certainly conclude that their sexual activities were more acceptable and infinitely safer than having sex with men. Therefore this was the socially constructed loud message being given to all men sexually abusing boys, including the ones at Mount Cashel.
Given this fact, we could say that our homophobic society which has traditionally believed that gay males sexually abuse boys, and hated them for this reason and many others, was essentially structured so that the maximum number of men would continue sexually abusing boys. Doing this, however, was necessary because it would not have been possible to teach the lie that gay males sexually abuse boys if the evidence that boys were being sexually abused was not being produced. One factor which must have elated all men having sex with boys was the fact that society and its police forces generally blamed gay males for this. Therefore, because only gay males were being eyed suspiciously, the real sex abusers of boys were left quite free to continue their activities.
Another factor probably significant in the social production of men who sexually abuse boys was the fact that some members of a hated group will behave in accordance to the learned stereotypes. For example, Boyer (1989) detected that some gay youth became prostitutes because they were acting out the social stereotype that gay males are only sexual beings. Ross (1989) reported that some gay males were acting like women because they were living up to another socially taught stereotype: gay males must be women because they desire to relate sexually with males. It is therefore expected that some gay males also lived up to the stereotype that "all gay males sexually abuse boys." Doing this, however, would place them in the category of not acting in accordance to their true sexual orientation, but they could not be called "repressed homosexuals." They would be classified with a term like "counterfeit pedophiles," or even "pseudopedophiles." These gay males would therefore be, like repressed homosexuals, simply predictable products and victims of our traditional homohating society and its myths.
The production of men who sexually abused boys yielded many benefits in a society which especially hated visible gay males. The sexual abuse of boys created a small army of males who had a fierce hatred for gays who would be assaulted or killed by these males. This army, however, was needed to do important social work. Verbal and physical gay bashers have been an important social tool in the war to keep gays in the closet. At all cost, our homohating society has not wanted children to be exposed to gay people who could be positive role models because it would then be impossible to instill a hatred for gay people in their minds.
People who teach children to hate homosexuals fully recognize this fact and, in their righteous fight against equal rights for gays and lesbians, they admit to the important reason why all good gay and lesbian people must remain closeted and invisible. This fact was revealed by Jay Grimstead, a minister who is director of The Coalition on Revival in Sunnyvale, California. In an interview, he explained that "the good works [gays and lesbians] are doing are contributing to an evil by making people think that homosexuality is acceptable" (16).
The human brain has a wonderful potential but our history reveals that its understanding abilities can be seriously impaired by socio-religious indoctrination. As a gay person, it is frightening to know that many people would be happy if I did everything negative they accuse me of doing. It is even more frightening to see the same people manifest incredible rage if I did good works and made this fact public.
Our history reveals that, when we teach children to hate others, they will generally become adults who hate targeted groups, and the negative consequences will abound such as producing high levels of social violence. A Vancouver study, for example, reported that "63 per cent of [the 300 randomly selected] gay men... had been physically assaulted. More than 75 per cent of the physical assaults involved two or more attackers" (30). Without doubt, if members of any hated minority group in Canada were experiencing such a high level of violence, a national crisis would be declared.
The teaching of homohatred has been highly effective and results in very high levels of social violence. Gay bashers are produced in sufficient numbers so that the average gay person will report having been assaulted, or at least verbally abused, but only if they survived what happened to them in adolescence because of society's teaching of homohatred. Many attempt (commit) suicide because they can't make it through the stage a learned social worker/author called "I don't want to be gay" in a 1988 book produced by Central Toronto Youth Services (83: 79).
It would certainly be ridiculous to blame gay youth for committing suicide, given what our society does to them, and the same applies for individuals who assault and murder gay males. Although it is difficult for a gay person to say this, it is not as difficult as it would be for society to accept full responsibility for these assaults (and murders), and also for setting up in gay youth the 'force' causing so many of them to attempt suicide. Society is also responsible for the creation of all repressed homosexuals and, ultimately, for all they do. This includes the sexual abuse of boys and the sexual violence inflicted on males in prisons.
The highly abusive sex, including rape, which "dominant" ultra macho
males inflict on other males in prison supposedly occurs because these
repressed homosexuals need substitutes for women. Obviously, these men
will not be kind to women, if women are ever available to them, mostly
because their highly sadistic heterosexual nature must apparently
be satisfied. Therefore, repressed homosexuality may be a very significant
factor in the high levels of sexual violence inflicted on women in our
"Sexual acts" for some males may not even look like sexual acts to most people. Money (1988) reports an interesting case:
When I see a drowning or stabbing [of a woman on television]..., I go crazy. I can go up to a maximum of six orgasms in one day over a period of several days. ...I am obsessed with and addicted to stranglings and drownings in my fantasies. ...I don't know exactly what the cause is, but I have had this problem of girls getting murdered by drownings and stranglings since I was very little, say age ten. (65: 164)This man's honesty would be troubling for some people because his favorite "sexual act" is not what most professionals or feminists have been saying, such as: Rape is not a sexual act. It is an act of power and control. It is aggression and violence motivated by anger, rage, and even hatred. A "sexual act" must therefore fit one's beliefs, but this is not a scientific way of investigating a phenomenon. The perspective is, in fact, as self-defeating as the one most professionals had manifested before 1974 when "heterosexuality" was defined to be a valid form of sexuality while "homosexuality" was not. Homosexuality was apparently not what sex should be, and it was therefore deemed to reflect a mental disorder. Believing a LIE then caused mental health professionals to attempt proving (thus validating) their beliefs, but doing this was only possible by violating important scientific rules - and by also remaining blind to this fact.
In adolescence, my favorite "sexual act" was visualizing the torture-murder of women, but I would have never made this fantasy - this sexual desire - into reality, even if it would be greatly rewarded by the orgasm-producing system. If, in fact, someone had asked me if I would ever use force to get sex from a woman, or rape a woman, I would have answered "NO!" Yet, in one study of 356 heterosexual male university students, 60 percent of the males reported a likelihood of raping a woman, if it was guaranteed that they would not be caught or punished (14: 318). Two other studies with smaller samples of males (n =145, n = 172) reported [admission] rates of 40.6% and 37.2%, respectively (52: 299,303; 85: 154). Without doubt, these heterosexual males were inadvertently(?) also admitting to having a sexuality making it possible for them to recognize a "rape-of-women" likelihood, but I would have also answered "NO!" to the question. A group of males in the sample may have also done this while fully recognizing their sadistic sexual attributes.
A 1987 study reports the percentages of males who had used varied
sexual fantasies for masturbation purposes (29: 05):
||Dominating a woman.|
||Tying up a woman.|
||Using force to subdue a woman.|
||Forcing a woman to have sex.|
||Being violent Toward women.|
||Raping a woman.|
In 1980, Canadian researchers reported their findings from a study of
men in a relationship with a woman for at least a year. The sample consisted
of nearly 100 males ranging in age from 20 to 45 (Average = 32), with an
average of 14.9 years of education, and 60.6 percent of them were married.
The average length of their relationship with their current female partner
was 6.5 years. The study reports the percentages of males engaging in
various sexual fantasies while having sex with their female partners (21:
||Sexually initiating a young girl.|
||Raping a woman.|
||Being anally penetrated.|
||Having sex with a man.|
||Humiliating a woman.|
||Beating a woman up.|
||Sexually initiating a young boy.|
Amazingly, I have yet to encounter a study of heterosexual males who were asked: "Have you ever fantasized about killing women?" As an adolescent or adult, I would have answered "YES" to the question. In the above cited study, however, one-third of the males reported rape fantasies, and 10.7 percent of the men studied did fantasize about "beating a woman up" because this sexual act sexually stimulated them.
As a rule in sex research, the percentages of people who acknowledge (admit to) engaging in negatively perceived (taboo) sexual realities are always minimums as Kinsey (1948) repeatedly discovered. People may consciously lie, or they may not yet know they would be sexually stimulated by taboo sexual activities such as rape, rape-murder, torture, just killing women, etc.. In adolescence, my morbid hetero-sexual realities were always evident to me, but there were other discoveries to be made. In my early 20s, I was in a movie theater watching The Sandpebbles. Steve McQueen was on a boat in the middle of a river. His friend was on shore, captured by the enemy. They strung him up and began slicing his chest with a sword. The sexual stimulation experienced during this scene was somewhat embarrassing and shocking, but I responded to the discovery much like I had to the torture-murder fantasies involving women. "How interesting!" By this time I was actively seeking to understand my inner sexual realities and essentially appreciated the discovery.
Later, I read about the identical sexual nature in the form of Yukio Mishima's adolescent hero in the novel Confessions of a Mask. The boy first discovers that he is highly sexually stimulated by a painting of Saint Sebastian's torture-death (63: 36-39, 74-78). He then discovers he is most sexually stimulated by visualizing a male who is tied and his muscular chest is being cut. A fantasy focus is on the rivulets of blood flowing and following the muscular structure of the man's chest. To accent this aspect of the hero's sexuality, such a male is depicted on the cover of the novel. Three swords are present, thus indicating the presence of three sadists. One sword has already made a cut into his chest. (63)
There is considerable sexual violence acted out in both heterosexual and homosexual segments of society. In the gay world, there is sexual violence but it commonly occurs between consenting sexual partners. While the rape of women is epidemic in the heterosexual world, prisons are places where males are most likely to be raped and/or sexually used and/or abused, thus explaining why the book, Male Rape, focused almost exclusively on rapes in prison. It was also reported that men believing themselves to be 100 percent heterosexual were the rapists or weaker males in prisons, and that pre-puberty boys are sexually abused either by pedophiles - males who did not have a history of having sex with adults - or males who had a history of only or predominantly having sex with women.
The rape of men in prison has been extremely common and, if we asked macho male rapists why weaker males are raped and/or sexually used/abused, they would answer: "It's because women are not available." If we suggested they were homosexual, they would deny this by stating something like: "The men we rape and fuck are women, meaning that everything we do with them is 100 percent heterosexual." If we asked them "What MAKES a man into a woman?" they would answer: "If we ever hear he has been fucked by a man, including being raped. He has lost his masculinity forever. He is now a woman. He has lost the superior status of men and he's then treated like a woman. If he doesn't want to supply us with the sex demanded, we'll rape the bitch! Soon enough, he learns to obey or he's beaten up again, maybe even killed!"
Norman Mailer (1971) describes the North American Prison situation:
"...prison life is a world where everything is homosexual" (51: 123). Although not every male in prison is involved with homosexual anal sex, "buggery is [still] as fundamental to prison as money [is] to social life... there is no humiliation more profound in prison than to be at the bottom of the order, to be helpless without a protector, and usable as a female by nearly every other convict. One's ass is one's honor in prison. Men commit murder to defend that ass or to revenge it if it has been raped. one's ass becomes one's woman; one's honor is that she is virginal (51: 119). "...the queers are enforced queers, ...they have been made female." (51: 122). Furthermore, "nowhere is the condition of being a feminine male more despised" (51: 123).Mailer's description of the "prison" situation corresponds to the descriptions I have encountered, and he makes it clear that these men hate (stronger term: "despise") "feminine males." Yet, these men are creating - MAKING - women out of men! Why? "Because we can't live without women!" they say. "We need women to rape. We need women to sexually use and abuse. We need sex slaves. This is how we get our rocks off." If we accept what they tell us, we must conclude that all men who rape and sexually abuse men in prison have possibly been rapists and sexual abusers of women, and they despise women.
What, therefore, are these rapists of men? Homosexuals, bisexuals, or the 100 percent heterosexuals they claim to be? Given that the rapists of women studied by professionals are usually convicted rapists, it would be interesting to know about their sexual performance was when they raped women; and, for the ones who have raped men in prison, to compare their sexual performance when raping men. If, for example, they had impotence problems when raping women but experienced no such problems when raping men, a preference for raping and sexually abusing males would be strongly indicated, thus reflecting a predominating sadistic homosexual orientation.
Testing this idea, however, would be illegal because the experiment would involve taking a group of men convicted of raping women, asking them - and their victims - about these men's sexual performance when they raped women, and then placing them in an environment where males are available for them to rape so that their sexual performances can be compared. All is not lost, however, because the experiment has been happening for centuries in prisons and the sexual performance of these men, when raping men, has been reported by the best evaluators available: the men they raped who biologically coded the magnitude of their erection and the intensity of their orgasms.
I have yet to encounter a case where males raped in prison report that their rapists were impotent in any way. As a rule, "dominant" males sexually perform in an exceptional manner. One male raped numerous times, including being gang-raped, and he has been in different American prisons, reports on what he saw and felt penetrating him orally and anally against his will:
There is little or no sexual dysfunction - impotence, 'Premature ejaculation, inability to ejaculate, etc. - in prison rape, by my observation (89: 61).When we compare this fact with the results of a 1977 study of 133 convicted rapists of women, a major difference in sexual performance is evident. After having interviewed both the rapists and their victims, it was concluded that for "only 33 (25%) of the offenders was there clear evidence of no sexual dysfunction occurred during rape." (31: 234).
All men who rape women probably claim to be 100 percent heterosexual and, whenever they have been challenged with the "homosexual" implications, they have strongly denied this with statements like: "I'm no fuckin' fag! At least what I do is normal!" The same obsession also applies for the macho violent males who rape other males in prisons. There is something very suspicious, however, when we learn that most self-defined "100% heterosexual males" who rape women have impotence problems, and that all self-defined "100% heterosexual males" who rape men in prison - supposedly because women are not available - are super-potent.
From my own experience, I first discovered my very morbid heterosexual nature - on the basis of sadistic fantasies - but I never sought to make these fantasies into reality as all men who rape women do, or attempt to do. By the age of 28, I had successfully eliminated my socially taught homophobia and, as this was happening, my sadistic heterosexual attribute - which had permitted me to believe that I was 100% heterosexual - simply vanished. It was almost like something in my mind had created this heterosexual nature to prevent me from recognizing my 100% homosexual status and, therefore, from possibly attempting to kill myself as 20 to 35 percent of gay youth do. These sadistic heterosexual fantasies were nonetheless saying: "You hate women!" The implications were that I loved males but I avoided this unacceptable conclusion by thinking: "It's only fantasies. It doesn't mean anything."
The discovery of my repressed sadistic homosexuality, and the disappearance of my sadistic heterosexuality, suggests that my heterosexuality was possibly unreal; it may have been a translation (or displacement) of my much less morbid repressed homosexuality. My experience also suggests that such morbid heterosexualities may be associated with a high level of socially induced homophobia and homohatred in males, especially when believing they are 100 percent heterosexual is important - as it appears to be for most males. Therefore, this conceptualization could explain why many (most) rapists of women have impotence problems. Although they are acting on the basis of their morbid I-hate-women heterosexuality, MAKING their fantasies into reality may not be what their repressed sadistic homosexuality wants. In such cases, impotence would be likely (as reported for most rapists of women), as it is also often the outcome when males repressing (denying) their homosexuality also report - after they come out - concerning their former (often failed) sexual endeavors with women.
For "dominant" males in prison, however, given that they are blessed with an ideological environment making the raping and/or sexual use/abuse of males possible without receiving the "homosexual" label, their sadistic homosexual performance is always exceptional. This apparently occurs because targeted males are MADE into females so that they can satisfy their morbid highly sadistic heterosexuality. Doing this is possible because "feminine males," "feminized males," or males perceived to be females, can apparently replace the "women" seen in their sexual fantasies.
Typically, psychologists and psychiatrists who have worked with "dominant" macho violent males have accepted their explanation for their frequent sexual activities with males; they were only using males as substitutes for women. As a rule, professionals have also responded with joy to the idea that most of these men apparently returned to only having sex with females when they left prison, but the joy is homophobia-based. "Oh! Thank God! Prison life did not turn these men into fags!" This joy is also rooted in extreme sexism because it is believed these men were only raping and sexually abusing/using other males because women were not available, and they would therefore return to society to inflict their sexuality only on women.
Mental health professionals have a history of dictating that "being homosexual" was a mental disorder, while believing that heterosexual male sadism - including rape - was "normal," or even an expected fact of life. Freud, as a great student of human history, concluded:
The history of human civilization shows beyond any doubt that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the [male] sexual instinct... (24: 49).When growing up, including when I was at university, the learned male value system was always evident. Males who took what they wanted from a woman were highly valued, and one objective was setting up situations so that related activities would not be classified as rape, although it was rape and males knew it. Brownmiller's 1975 book, AGAINST OUR WILL: MEN, WOMEN AND RAPE, reports many war-related facts revealing that many men, but not all of them, would participate in raping women, including gang-rapes. In one case, for example, the only male in a group who was reluctant to participate in a gang-rape murder was called "a queer." The expectation when using such labels is that the dissenting male will join in the fun because raping a woman (or women, and even young girls) is perceived to be infinitely more acceptable than being homosexual, or suspected of being one.
The fact that "dominant" males in prison can replace the "women" in their sadistic heterosexual fantasies with "feminine males," and that they perform so well sexually with the male "substitutes," leads to an important question. Could the "women" in their sexual fantasies be substitutes for the males they may really want to rape. Although these men fervently believe that only "passive" males are women or "queers," they are also aware the "homosexual" label may apply if they manifested a preference for raping sexually abusing/using men instead of women.
Given this suspicion, "dominant" males could certainly be given a confrontation type of reality therapy intended to explore why they emphatically believe that the highly enjoyed homo-sex experienced is 100% heterosexuality. One problem related to their belief is their conclusion that only "heterosexual" sex can exist, even between males. Furthermore, they must also be concluding that two self-accepting 100% homosexual males - or women by their definition - must be lesbians! Or worse: one of them could be sexually dominant and also accept the homosexual self-label. Such a threat to their self-deception (not being homosexual) could therefore warrant the extermination of such males, as it has been reported to occur.
"Dominant" males would also be confronted with the fact that, if they raped me, I would then apparently be MADE into a woman, meaning that I would be treated accordingly. Rape and sexual abuse, however, are not acts of love. They are acts of hatred or even "an unfinished murder," as one raped woman defined rape. This perception of "being raped" is, in fact, the same as the one "dominant" macho males have somehow acquired given their perceptions of raped males. Rape is one of the methods used to murder a male, thus MAKING him into a female who will then be regularly re-murdered, for this is how these men perceive the sex act. Their sexuality will be inflicted on males decreed to be women who are hated and despised, apparently because real women are not available so that the same thing could be done to them. Who, therefore, do these men love?
Subjecting these men to such a "third degree" would be "Invasive Socratic Therapy," with even greater challenges. Using the assumption that they raped and gang-raped me, they could be challenged with the idea that, just before they raped me, I was not yet a woman. Therefore, what do we call sex between MEN? After they raped me, however, they then believed I was magically transformed into a woman, and the sex they were subsequently having with me was 100% heterosexuality! Yet, I would not be "a woman." I would simply be a male who has been raped by males who are not the 100% heterosexuals they claim to be. Furthermore, given my post-rape sexual experiences with them, another fact would have become apparent. When they are having sex with me or other males, they are not fantasizing about women!
Invasive Socratic Therapy is effective but the follow-up 'therapy' would be illegal in our society, just like Socrates' existence became illegal in his society. Given these men's belief that a man penetrated by a penis will be magically turned into a woman, they could be subjected to the experience - just to check their beliefs are real or self-deceptions. In such a situation, two outcomes are possible. If they don't become EVERYTHING they have demanded raped males to be, their fraud will be exposed. Some of them would certainly admit their deceitful use of the prison's belief system, and maybe also report always having known about their sexual preference for other males. Some males would also report having denied this fact, especially to others, and maybe even to themselves, possibly for self-esteem maintenance. For other males, however, the results could be dramatic. Their belief would be confirmed, but only for themselves, and only because they would somehow have been magically transformed into "a woman," thus revealing the existence of a psychological construct possibly similar to Multiple Personality Disorder. [MPD, now DID - Dissociative Identity Disorder.]
In my highly Socratic "Know Thyself" endeavor, after having accepted the sadistic component of my homosexuality, and also accepted my 100% homosexuality by ridding myself of some homophobic attributes, I then recognized a more repressed passive masochistic homosexual attribute existing within. This is the one "dominant" males would call "a woman!" and, since early childhood, this aspect of personality had made itself known, but I did not acknowledge its existence for "self-esteem" maintenance reasons. I am not, however, the only gay individual to have made this self-discovery.
A part of the gay community consists of a highly organized group of males into "leather sex," sadomasochism (SM), or bondage and discipline (BD). At their Calgary 1992 MR. Alberta Drummer contest, an international winner of the contest said: "It takes a good Bottom [a "passive" masochistic gay male] to make a good Top [a "dominant" sadistic gay male]." In their books and articles, including professional papers written about these males, one general reality has been noted. "The top" uses a combination of his own sadistic sexual reality and credible acting so that "the bottom" experiences super sexual stimulation and super orgasm(s), as also experienced by "the top."
The objective for "a top" to find "a bottom" closely approximating the "vision" present in his mind. To simplify this quest, a system of codes was therefore developed in the 1970s. Handkerchiefs of various colors - known as the hanky code (Note) - could be seen hanging from the back pockets of gay males and were used to indicate one's desires or preferences. These include being a top or bottom, if spanking would be enjoyed, and many other activities others would decree to be degrading and/or abusive. These men are honest, however, given that their acceptance (and revelation) that various acts of degradation, including verbal abuse, can be highly stimulating "sexual acts," and activities may include being spanked or whipped until one cries. "How horrible!" some people may think, and the list of condemners includes many gay males, lesbian and bisexual females, and most heterosexual people.
These males are exploring and enjoying their sexuality, and almost always in consenting situations. In prison, on the other hand, what heterosexual males do to other males - because women are not available - and what many heterosexual males do to women in society - including rape-murder, rape, sexual abuse and degradation, and even torture and battery for males who are sexually stimulated by this - is not done with the consent of the "passive" person who is therefore a victim. Why is this happening? To date, the best most professionals (including many feminist theorists) have been able to assert is: "Wanting to spank someone until they cry, and even causing someone to have blue marks on their ass, is not a sexual act! Neither is the use of degrading language, nor the treatment of others as slaves, or as one's sexualized son who wishes to be sexual with his father!" The are numerous gay males, however, who would tell these professionals: "Wanna watch? As the proof that you are wrong? Wanna see males with homosexualities rooted in being responded to in such ways?"
Gay males with "power" sexualities manifest an important reality. The "tops" are seeking a "bottom" who best fits their own inner selves; this is the "image" created (or made available) when they are masturbating to the most sexually stimulating scenarios, thus producing their best orgasms. Given this fact, it is therefore possible that having sex with someone is essentially a "projection" activity with a dual purpose. It is an incredible "Know Thyself" activity, also rewarded by great orgasms, but the "Know Thyself" component (as a conscious endeavor) would only exists if one is not homophobic. An individual must therefore be comfortable enough to accept one's inner realities and especially - in the final analysis - their sexual passivity, or what "dominant" males in prison decree to be "a woman!" However, many gay-identified males usually don't equate being sexually passive with "being a woman" because, for them, being sexually passive is a 100% male activity.
Unfortunately, "projection" is not always such a positive fear-unrelated experience. As previously noted about "malignant bisexuals," or "malignant homosexuals," projection can be used in extremely negative ways. Homosexual males may be hunted down, assaulted, and even killed by males seeking out the ones best representing their own hated and repressed inner Selves, and these acts therefore replicate their own internal war. The same also applies to the "dominant" males' rape / abuse / use of other males in prison. What these heterosexual males demand raped males to be (or become) is based on expectations and is therefore a projection of an "image" existing in their minds. This is "image" with whom they are having sex when masturbating, and having even better orgasms when sexually relating with a male behaving as demanded, which is in accordance to this "image."
In our patriarchal societies characterized by the traditionally obsessive male belief that "being a woman" is inferior to "being a man," as manifested by men even creating gods, religious beliefs and laws dictating that this LIE is the truth, and laws also granting men the right to inflict their supremacy status on women, I was therefore responding to the "men-are-superior-to-women" messages by the age of 2. I was being educated to believe that, for example, crying was a weak "feminine" attribute. Basically, everything defined to be "feminine" - or for girls - reflected weakness and inferiority. Furthermore, everything women did - or more precisely what they were dictated to do - was also decreed to be inferior to what men did! Therefore, everything "feminine" - or what would be equated to being "like a baby" - was to be purged from one's entity.
By the age of 4 and 5, I had special abilities permitting me to feel that something was wrong with the observed ruling males. I knew, for example, that males who just slapped women now and then didn't love women. Parents who physically assaulted their children also did not love their children, given that their love was conditional. You were loved only if you were what they 'fantasize' you to be. They also loved you only if you accept what they believe, which has often been LIES. As our history reveals, our forefathers were quite willing to destroy individuals who didn't accept the LIE that the sun revolves around the earth. At a young age, I was therefore working to retrieve and/or keep many of the feminine attributes boys were to purge, but there were related dangers. At all cost, boys had to avoid the deadly "sissy" label, which was easy to do given that I also enjoyed doing all the "masculine" things boys were to do.
I was therefore actively involved in a conscious form of "personality integration," as opposed to what most boys did: "personality disintegration" or "personality splitting," accomplished by purging everything socially defined - by the ruling males (and their owned generally obedient females) to be "feminine" and "inferior." As a young boy, I enjoyed cooking, being affectionate, taking care of babies, and I even learned to knit - which had been a male activity in my French Canadian culture. I also considered girls to be my equals and played with them in a world where boys would commonly say: "Yuk! Girlsl I'm not playing with them!" Tragically, such boys were deemed "normal" by a society not wanting to see "the obvious.".
Given our current improved understanding of white supremacy, we would correctly predict the "adolescent" and "adult" outcome for young white boys if we heard them say: "Yuk! Niggers! I'm not playing with them!" There was a time, however, when white slave owners really believed they were doing black people a favor by having them as slaves! Many also believed they loved black people, but only if they accepted their slavery status and, therefore, their inferiority status relative to white people! This is not love! It is hatred, always made evident whenever a black individual dared to behave as an equal to a white person.
I was therefore refusing to hate females, or hate what was "feminine" within me, meaning that - because I am a homosexual male, and if I had been studied by Bell et al. (1981), I would have contributed to their major finding. Homosexual males, for reasons unexplained, were best distinguished from males defined to be heterosexual by the higher levels of "femininity" - or gender nonconformity - manifested during childhood (08: 74-81) Unfortunately, the damage to me had already been done, as it became apparent in early adolescence when I discovered my morbid "hatred-of-women" torture-murder heterosexual fantasies. In a symbolic manner, which was somehow linked to my sexuality, I was reproducing the social message I had internalized in early childhood. The female in me was to be eliminated, destroyed, or murdered! Killing her was also a highly sexually stimulating experience producing super orgasms.
The female within, or "the anima" as Carl Jung called her has been recently renamed or transformed into "the inner child": the passive [female] child boys were to purge but only managed to repress and deny. For me, however, gender nonconformity was something I was able (chose) to retain, while I was not responsible for the torture-murder fantasies discovered to exist within my mind. The same applies for gay youth who are also not responsible for their discovered homosexual fantasies, nor would they be responsible for attempting suicide because of the implicated socially induced homohatred. How could we then ever blame men for raping women, or even for rape-murdering women, if this is the only heterosexuality they know? Wouldn't the blame be much less (or even nil) if we studied these individuals and discovered that the only alternative was accepting their homosexuality, but that doing this had made impossible by society's teaching of homohatred. For such highly homophobic males, such a reality banquet would have been death-producing, meaning that "condemning" such an individual would therefore be somewhat illogical.
As a gender nonconformable gay male, as most gay males are, we may have an ability not existing in ultra macho heterosexual males. As often observed, gay males often have females as friends, or even as best friends, but this experience would be IMPOSSIBLE for the ultra macho males in prison as made evident by answering this question. Could these men be friends with a woman given what they do to males believed to be "like women"? Given that all men who are "like women" are to be their slaves, and especially their sex slaves? Given that they believe women to be inferior beings? Given that they despise "feminine males," thus reflecting their real feeling for women?"
There is a myth in our society regularly encountered when average people asked me questions apparently because they wanted to better understanding what causes a male to be gay. They often believe that gay males hate women and, in the affirmative because they are expecting a confirmation, they ask: "Do you hate women?" They have assumed that, because I love men and I am not having love/sex relationships with women, that I must therefore hate women; this is the same logic often producing the conclusion that lesbians must hate men.
Unfortunately, the thinking faculties of these individuals have been subverted by their cultural indoctrination and I ask: "Who hates women? The more gender nonconformable males who often have women as best friends, or the men seeking seek women to rape or rape-murder? Do men who rape women love women? How about the men who beat up women because it sexually stimulates them? How about the men who seek to have love/sex relationships with women when the ultimate objective is to sexually abuse and degrade these women?"
Just because white people had black slaves in their homes did not mean black people were loved by white people, and a similar situation may apply to heterosexual males. For example, the evidence suggests that some men married a special woman: a woman they hated the most, because this was the woman they regularly assaulted, raped, sexually abused in many ways, and maybe even killed. Simone de Beauvoir, after having described the self-given powers men had over women in the male created marriage institution, concluded that the institution was "obscene." Men had the legal right to rape their wives, and to also batter them.
Furthermore, on the basis of the penalties Canadian men were receiving when they murdered their wives, articles could still be written in 1986 with titles like: "Killing wife just not murder" (03). No one, however, would ever concluded that the majority of white Americans loved Afro-Americans during the 100 years after they were granted equality, mostly because "Killing Black people [was also] just not murder." Yet, we remain blind to the reality that many men have hated women and that we live in a sexist society in which men's traditional hatred of women was generally called "love!"
The myth that gay males hate women, however, is not totally wrong. It's only wrong about most males defining themselves to be "gay" or "homosexual": the males we have traditionally hated and sought to destroy, possibly because they valued women and were therefore "women lovers!" It's certainly not correct to say: "Men who are gay- or homosexual-identified hate women." It may, however, be correct to say that "Men who hate women are homosexual." "Dominant" macho males in prison are certainly in the hatred-of-women category, but they are the opposite of the traditional homosexual male stereotype: gay males who are more "like women" or "gender nonconformable." This was the most significant difference between homosexual and heterosexual males studied by Bell & Weinberg (1978). but their sampling was biased.
The obsession to prove that gay males must somehow be "like women" is a bias also present in the recent research supposedly suggesting - proving - that even some parts of the brains of gay males are more like the ones found in female. The results, however, are the product of bias sampling because, given my experiences, samples from "the gay community" are of predominantly socially constructed (and therefore more feminine) self-defined homosexual males; this phenomenon is a product of the process well rendered in the title of Greenberg's 1988 book, The Social Construction of Homosexuality (28). Almost all males who are also 100% homosexual - but are very macho with a hatred-of-women heterosexuality as the one I had - would generally not define themselves to be gay, nor would they become part of modern gay communities. I would therefore estimate that five of these males - who never become part of "homosexual male" study samples, nor are they recognized to be homosexual because they are not sissies - exist for every gender nonconformable gay-identified male.
In our culture, the "sissy" gay male stereotype, or bias, is strong and it's best expressed with the firm belief manifested by "dominant" males in prison. For them, only males who are "like women" - as defined by their "penetrated" status in the sexual act - are "queers." Males who are "penetrating" anyone are deemed to be 100% heterosexual. There is more to this belief, however, than just assuming it was invented or developed for self-deception purposes, as a few gay-identified males report to have applied for them. In fact, numerous people in our society can be expected to acquire the same belief given bow we still educate (program, indoctrinate) boys.
Generally, boys are encouraged (with many threats) to purge their "femininity" and boys (and adults) commonly use the word "sissy" to insult and degrade all boys not purging their feminine attributes. Males using the "sissy" insult, however, have become replications of their sexists fathers and grandfathers. They have somehow learned (and firmly believe) that "being feminine" is apparently very inferior to "being masculine" and, therefore, that men are superior to women.
During early childhood, most children are not aware of the role "sex" plays in the only relationships - heterosexual relationships - our society permits them to see, almost as if children are to be taught that only heterosexuality exist, or should/could exist. As a result of this traditional penalty-enforced setup - often referred to as "the closet" which has been an important part of society's "compulsory heterosexuality" attribute - most children conclude that men and women are the only ones attracted to each other and have love relationships. By late childhood, after having been exposed to millions of messages emphasizing that women are attracted to men, and they are also fully realizing that sex plays a major role in these relationships, only one conclusion is possible in most cases. It is at about this age that boys begin to perceive "the sissy" in sexual terms because they begin using words like "fag," "faggot," "queer," "homo," etc.. to insult sissy males, and these words were socially created for this purpose. On the basis of their education, the conclusion will therefore be that only females are sexually attracted to males and, if a male is "like a female," he must therefore be "sexually passive" - like women - and also sexually attracted to males, thus being a "faggot," "homosexual," or "queer."
The objective in a sexist and homohating society, however, is to (insidiously) teach the hatred of women and the hatred for all males deemed to be "like women" (or homosexuals), and researchers have reported a relationship between the two hatreds. Yet, the author of Longtime Companion, Craig Lucas, in his 1990 keynote address at the first National Gay and Lesbian Conference, outlined the experiences of gay males as children and concluded: "Homophobia and misogyny are not related; they are the same" (49: 46).
Lucas also noted that "the effeminate man has been, and remains, the laughing stock of our movies, our most successful comedians" (49: 46). To laugh at the sight of a man acting like a woman, especially when he alters himself in ways society decrees to be "female" - the artificial aspects of the image being the use of make-up and nail polish, the hair styles and the type of jewelry worn, wearing clothing such as high heel shoes, dresses, skirts, etc., and acting as a female (a learned attribute) - is to reveal what we really think of women. Such a man has lost status and he is the "inferior-to-male" human men have traditionally believed women to be. Our greatest contempt, however, is reserved for all males who are sexually "like women," as evidenced by the "insult" words our society has developed and uses for this purpose. As Dr. Ziegler, a gay clinical child psychologists explains:
Children call each other "faggot" when they want to be the most cruel, and this is before they really know what the word means. Messages like this are everywhere. (93)Dr. Ziegler's article was aimed at gay males as illustrated by the title: Why do we hate ourselves? Self-hatred, or internalized homohatred, is at the root of major problems for gay males, just like self-hatred has been implicated in major problems for African-Americans and Native peoples. In the latter case, dominant culture was certainly teaching self-hatred to Native children in residential schools, but the same outcome also resulted if they attended public schools. Such indoctrination was, in fact, a highly effective way to harm the ones we were taught to hate. The self-hatred would also make them more likely to engage in a wide spectrum of self-destructive behaviors
The concept has been presented that homosexual males are still being taught self-hatred and that a socially created army of repressed homosexual males has been on the front-line of society's traditional war waged against identifiable gay males. These are the males who, via "projection" of their own self-hatred and the associated denial that they are everything they hate the most, partake in "homo-hunting" activities, the objective being verbal abuse, assault and possibly even murder. Johnson, in the full page article What makes bashers hate? printed in Vancouver's gay magazine, Angles, still doesn't understand what is "the emotional satisfaction" bashers get from their assaults, and deems the problem to be "a chilling mystery." Yet, she fully understands the role of the socially CREATED bashers in a society traditionally obsessive in its desire that gay males be (and remain) "in the closet," thus saying:
We really do not want you to exist. We would also prefer your death, as certain Christians also emphasize, but we'll settle for the status quo as maintained by the frequent assaults and occasional murders of your kind by individuals created for this purpose. "Perhaps no other single factor keeps us in the closet as a community and as individuals as the threat and existence of violence." (40)The idea that socially induced/instilled self-hatred in hated groups creates an army of individuals actively working to harm their own kind, is fascinating, and the concept may also apply to the army of males created to keep women "in their place." Men who murder, mass-murder, and rape-murder women, including men who batter and rape their wives, have been the ones on the front-line in the traditional "war between the sexes," the 'war' men have traditionally waged against women "to keep them in their place" as inferiors to men. If, however, these men were created by socially induced self-hatred, the hatred would be for a female existing within them. This hatred would also be in the murderous range given that she would be equated with "the homosexual" against whom heterosexual males had given themselves the right to act out their murderous hatred.
In our society, a significant training ground for males who may eventually be very violent with women - because they hate women the most - occurs in childhood and adolescence. During this period, boys with socially approved masculine aspirations are insulting, abusing, and assaulting boys called "sissies," "queers, fags," etc., because they are thought to be "like females." Society has also traditionally given its tacit to overt approval to these abusive and violent young males, but what could be expected from feminine-despising boys as they enter adulthood? What self-reality are "dominant" males in prison revealing when they report only having raped, sexually used and/or abused males, and physically assaulted other disobedient owned males apparently because women were not available?
Men in the above category have certainly been on the front-line of men's traditional war against women and, once released from prison, they should be returning to their mission. These ultra macho males, however, may not be the 100% heterosexual males they claim; they may be 100% homosexual with an inner feminine personality duplicating their "feminine" demands on raped males. For these "dominant" males, "gender" is defined solely on the basis of the sex act, thus replicating the beliefs of boys who conclude that "the sissy" is "the fag" who is "like a female" and is therefore (or will be) "sexually passive." Dominant males in prisons, however, also reverse the logic: the male who is penetrated by a penis is automatically MADE into "a woman" or its believed equivalent: "the queer." Their hatred for homosexual males (homophobia / homohatred) and their hatred for women is therefore the same, but their homohatred is rooted in their misogyny. From a "projection" perspective, these men would also be women CREATED to inflict the greatest violence possible on women. As women, they would also be - according to their view of the world - the homosexual males who really hate women.
In Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth Need Our Help (86), the idea was presented that many male juvenile delinquents - and especially the males in violent youth gangs - are repressed homosexuals who know they are homosexual and therefore know that society hates them, thus explaining why they are revolting against society, sometimes in violent ways. Their "repressed homosexual" status was argued on the basis that, at least for the group Reiss studied and called "organized career delinquents," about 62 percent of them had repeatedly participated in "dominant sex" with "queers" in society (72: 202). Even though Reiss concluded they were heterosexual, he nonetheless documented important facts related to their sexual activities which, especially after 1973 when homosexuality was deemed to not be a mental disorder, were not being documented by professionals studying deviance and delinquency. They had graduated from believing the LIE that all homosexuals are mentally disordered to the grand delusion that sexual orientation - or homosexual activity - is irrelevant or insignificant in a world still actively teaching the homohatred implicated in gay youth suicide problems.
Reiss reported that the male juvenile delinquents who were most likely to have "dominant sex" with "queers" frequently reported that "they participate in group heterosexual activity" called "gang-bangs" (72: 204): "Most have at least participated in one gang-bang" (73: 49). Few people have recognized, however, that the ultra macho sport of gang-banging is a repressed homosexuals dream ... as I realized when a male friend at university reported on the gang-bang he had participated in, the night before. The female involved was described to be "a real pig" - given what was done to her - because this is what they most enjoyed doing to a woman. I was troubled by his contempt for the female, but I was experiencing a desire making the concern secondary. I would have wanted to be there, not to have sex with the female involved, but to see this male naked, with an erection, and having an orgasm ... because I was sexually attracted to him.
Over the years, I have only encountered one written rendition of the idea that the sharing of a woman by men is a form of 'heterosexual' sex motivated by repressed (or not so repressed) homosexual desires, and the explanation was written in a gay magazine, The Advocate. Generally, the female involved in a gang-bang is always perceived to be a whore, pig, slut, etc. by the males involved. To them, this female has no value except for the role of being a receptacle for male penises and their sperm. The major attraction for a repressed homosexual, however, would be to have his penis where the penises of the other males have been and to have his penis bathed with the sperm of males he values, respects, and loves; this concept is a commonly rendered in gay pornography via the ejaculation of sperm on a willing sex partner . Repressed homosexual males are also seeing the only ones they love - or can love - naked, with erections, and having orgasms! What more could a repressed homosexual who hates women want than to participate in a gang-bang? Even their hatred for women - their heterosexuality or pseudoheterosexuality - is being satisfied because of the types of females chosen for a gang-bang. They are called "pigs" and the only heterosexual activity with the potential of satisfying repressed homosexuals more, if their hatred for women was more intense, would be gang-rapes, and even gang-rape-murders.
Such males exist in the form of "dominant" adult males in prisons but, as Reiss believed about their adolescent counterparts, other professionals have also assumed they were heterosexuals, except when the public was being informed about homo-sex in prisons. In the 1970s, politically aware gay males were upset by the fact that expressions like "homosexual rape" and "homosexual assault" were being used to describe prison homo-sex events (46: 267) because the public would then conclude that it was gay males doing these things. This became an issue of "If you are to hate us, hate us for what we do! Not for what heterosexual males are doing!" Therefore, "in 1978, under pressure from gay organizations, [U.S.] federal prison authorities were ordered to stop using the term 'homosexual rape,' since more often than not homosexual prisoners (or prisoners who happened to be younger, smaller, effeminate, or sexually desirable) are the victims of rape perpetrated by heterosexual males who see their victims as surrogate females" (39: 717).
During the past two decades, gay males have unfortunately been "defining themselves," and the definition includes only males giving themselves the "gay" or "homosexual" labels. As I have often argued, however, the world of male homosexuality is infinitely larger than the so-called "gay community." In fact, many gay males recognize that, for every male who defines himself to be "gay," there is probably five males who will remain - for life - at the stages of denial most gay males have experienced. Some gay-identified report that their denial once involved only being "homo-sexually dominant," and many repressed homosexuals remain at this stage. Others may only act out their homosexual desires when they can totally avoid the dreaded homosexual self-label, meaning that they will be having "dominant" homo-sex only in prison. Another group of repressed homosexuals drink alcohol, then engage in desired homo-sex, and (conveniently) say: "I was so drunk that I don't remember anything I did!"
Unfortunately, for political reasons, gay males would not want to include the ultra macho most violent males in society into "their family." This was well expressed by a gay male with whom I was discussing these issues. "Well, we don't fuckin' want them! We have enough problems as it is, without having society also blame us for the violence being inflicted on women. Even if it's ugly to say this, women can have men like that." I understood his feelings. Gay resources - both personal and financial - have been strained by the AIDS crisis. Yet, professionals like Dr. Ziegler have been telling gay males: "The gay community must somehow find the strength, time, and resources in this beleaguered time to wage this battle," which is the battle against the hatred of males who are "like females," because "something as basic as the mental health of a significant portion of the gay population depends on it" (93).
This is, in part, why this document is addressed to women's groups apparently concerned with men's high level of violence inflicted on women. If the "problem" outline presented contains a grain of truth, or maybe a grain bin, women's fight to end the violence inflicted on them by men is therefore the same battle gay males must wage to effectively address major problems created by socially induced self-hatred: the predictable result of society's teaching of misogyny to males. "Being feminine" - gender nonconformable - is equivalent to being "a queer" for numerous gay males, for all "dominant" males in prison, and for many other males. Women must now recognize that the learned hatred for females acquired by boys at a young age - well before knowing what a homosexual is - is the basis for the homohatred manifested later. Homophobia/homohatred and misogyny are essentially the same - and transferable - given that sexual violence in prisons is inflicted on males because women are not available. These ultra macho heterosexual males will continue to be sexually violent with women - and men - until they are given the therapy needed to recognize and accept their homo-sexual desires / orientation.
Some gay males have been wise, especially with their suspicions that ultra-macho males are really, at the inner-self level, the polar opposites of the image projected: the highly credible masculine facade they have MADE themselves into. This concept is often rendered in gay cartoons and even in gay pornography rarely reaching people in the heterosexual world. As a rule of thumb, whenever I see ultra macho males, I use the "doth protest to much!" Shakespearean wisdom rendered in Macbeth. I also remember the observation which placed Freud on the road to psychoanalysis:
Freud was struck by the fact that emotions vented during the [hypnotic] trance very often concerned sexual desires and fears which the patient, at all other times, were either unaware of or even vehemently denied (37: 345).Freud was discovering the unconscious which has amazed psychologists and psychiatrists ever since. Wilhelm Reich, who brought us the radical idea that most of the hetero-sex engaged in by men has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction, expressed the nature of the unconscious in a challenging way:
You think you can determine your actions with free will? Far from it! Your conscious action is only a drop on the surface of the sea of unconscious process, of which you can know nothing about which, indeed, you are afraid to know (71: 33).What would therefore be discovered if "dominant" males in prison were hypnotized or subjected to a Socratic type of therapy? What would happen if they were subjected to the anal penetration they firmly believe to be the "ACT OF CREATION" apparently responsible for automatically and magically MAKING men into women or "the queer" who, like women, are to be hated? Is it possible that these ultra-macho males have been telling us that being anally penetrated is "the royal road to their unconscious?" Maybe even to their inner woman? What does their sexual use and abuse of males reveal about their heterosexuality when they report only having raped males because women are not available? What is their true sexual nature given their exceptional sexual performance when they rape males? Above all, what does the CREATION of these males reveal about our society? Was Kleinberg correct when, after studying what happens in American prisons, he quoted Dostoevsky:
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons," and then added, If that is true, then we all live in THE HOUSE OF THE DEAD (46: 265).Have WE been listening to the females men have murdered, rape-murdered, torture-murdered, raped, and sexually abused? To all the wives who have been killed, battered, raped, injured, slapped, sexually abused, and psychologically abused by their husbands or boyfriends? Maybe not! Not at least until some feminists came along and began documenting some related factors. Were WE listening when Gornick & Moran devoted one quarter of their 1971 book, WOMEN IN SEXIST SOCIETY, to the concept that:
Norman Mailer possibly hated Kate Millet! He also called her a Communist many times, to discredit her. He had to. She was revealing his semi-private conversation with his male readers [one of whom happened to be my father]. Maybe, to some degree, he was attempting to understand (rationalize?) why he stabbed his second wife, Adele. Mailer's mother, however, had educated him well. After bearing about the stabbing, she said: "if only Norman stopped marrying these women who make him do these terrible things ..." (53: 334).
Women have been greatly deprived of important information by the male
ruled media which, for example, will not present what really happens in
prison. Many men spend their "time" there raping or sexually using and
abusing weaker males because women are not available, only to then
be released in a world where women are available. Without doubt, these
men would be women's greatest nightmare, but so are REAL
WOMEN who also seethe with the HOMOHATRED men
taught them, which is nothing more than (often unrecognized) self-hatred.
A MAN IS MADE, NOT BORN.
REAL WOMEN is a Canadian
group of women wishing to retain women's traditional role in our society,
and they have been against equal rights for gay and lesbian people. These
women are much like the ones responsible for the often noted 75,000,000
females on this planet who had their clitoris cut off and/or their vaginal
walls scraped to the bleeding stage - at about the age of 5 or 6, without
anesthetic, by women of the community because these women know the desires
of ruling men in their society and therefore behave accordingly. As I see
it, REAL WOMEN are the psychological equivalent of
women who had their clitoris severed - which greatly reduces one's ability
to respond sexually. REAL WOMEN manifest all the symptoms
of having received a lobotomy given that they are living up to men's traditional
perception of women.
The mainstream media rarely supplies information about the nature of these relationships, except for reporting on how abused and betrayed wives feel when they discover their husbands' homosexual orientation. Recently, the Calgary Herald published an article written by a woman who learned, very early in her marriage, about her husbands sexual orientation. Her distress was a significant aspect of the article titled "How many men feel the same way as David?"
David told Joanna Richards (a pen-name) that he "had spent his stag night trying to get his best man into bed," and this was the same male with whom he had been sexually active before he decided to marry Joanna. She now had a gay husband suffering from "guilt and self-loathing," this often being a common attribute of gay males before they fully accept their sexual orientation, come out of the closet, deal with their socially induced self-hatred, and other related problems.
David's "homosexual" problem now involves another person to whom he has said the equivalent of: "Welcome to my nightmare, but it's not my fault! I thought the sex I had with him was just a phase, and I'm desperately trying to be normal. Heterosexual! I also need your help!" Joanna listened and, in some ways, she is lucky. Most repressed homosexual males who marry women never reveal their homosexual history, much less their ongoing sexual desires (preference?) for males. As a rule, however, women - or professionals - are not schooled to detect repressed homosexuality in males, but one indicator sign would be impotence problems with women. Joanna attempted to help David in this respect.
Sometimes he would tell me about his fantasies and, at my own request, we even tried to incorporate them into our sex life. It was hot stuff at times but dangerous. Fantasies are fine but not if they are substitutes for what you really want. We did untold damage to our love-making. We avoid sex almost completely now. It makes things easier (74).Sadly, nothing graphic - real - sexually will be published in newspapers, but read between the lines is possible. Whatever they did sexually - to do "untold damage to [their] lovemaking" is obviously not what Joanna considered to be "lovemaking," but it was "hot stuff and dangerous." Therefore, the demands may have been for the kind of sex often occurring in gay "leather sex" where such non-love sexual activity is engaged in with consent and because it reflects the participants' sexual reality. Unfortunately, Joanna had been living a delusion given that she believed David was "making love" to her at some time in their relationship. Yet, the informed would assert that he had always used her as a substitute for a desired male or males. He was only CREATING the illusion of "making love" to her.
Joanna nonetheless has been a willing wife in a situation where many women would not be "willing," and most would certainly fail to understand why their husbands are making anti-"making-love" demands on them, or why these men may also be imposing this type of sex without consent. Fortunately, David had been honest, and was the exception. Most married men who know they prefer men would never tell their wives why "kinky" dangerous sex is being requested. Some women, however, have little choice but to accept the "kinky sex" their husbands inflict on them, nor would they come close to knowing what is their husbands' motivation. Some men do these things to their wives also without knowing why the "kinky sex" is needed to perform sexually with a woman.
What therefore is the difference between a "David" who does "untold damage" to what his wife considers to be "love-making" and repressed homosexual husbands who essentially do the same thing when they rape or sexually abuse their wives? Or when they must beat up their wives to make sexual stimulation possible? Does David love his wife? Does Joanna really believe she is loved when knowing she is just a substitute for the male(s) David wants? Most women with a "David" husband do not know who their husbands really are, thus explaining the silence of many husbands when asked: "What's wrong dear!" Husbands with a "homosexual" problem will generally be silent. The same applies to males secretly having sex with other males, and for males who are beginning to hate their marriage because they know they want (need?) a relationship with another male. It is very difficult for them to tell their wives the truth about their lives having been a delusion: A LIE! Many men in such situations would also have great difficulty accepting this self-reality because they may be living in denial of their homosexual desires, often enough not knowing why they are so unhappy or even angry with their marital situation.
Men who hate themselves have little to offer anyone in a love relationship with them. In fact, when we offer what we hate - ourselves - to someone we claim to love, our love must be unreal, or just as fraudulent as David's "love" had been for Joanna. At best, his marriage was a form of psychological abuse, and the same applies to his honesty likely needed to reduce a high level of guilt.
Joanna is nonetheless fortunate given the knowledge acquired and the recognition that her husband is responsible for the problems. She is therefore not blaming herself for a failed marriage, even though she remains in the four-year marriage and blames herself only for not having left him. Without cause, however, except for her female status, she was MADE into a player in David's socially created nightmare, just like many women have become a part of the nightmares being imposed on them - and acted out - by other males with homosexual desires. Joanna has refused to participate in the "kinky sex" required by David to sexually perform with her because she knows why it's needed. She also recognizes herself to not be the one David wants given her substitute status for a male he desires. Not all women in such a situations, however, have been empowered with the knowledge needed to understand their husbands.
David is a wife batterer in some ways given the abuses inflicted on his wife. He is, in fact, what I was even in my very equality-based relationships with women, except that "kinky sex" was not needed to perform sexually with a woman. At the age of 22, when I had experienced my first romantic love response for a male, I was inches away from marrying my girlfriend, but wisdom prevailed. She eventually married a psychologist, not knowing he was gay. At the wedding reception a male who knew him well commented: "Well, you won't be able to sleep with men anymore!" As I learned about two years later, he has no intentions of giving up the males he preferred, and his weekend were reserved for such endeavors.
At the age of 28, when I was about to fully accept my 100 percent homosexual
status (defined differently that most contemporary professionals do), the
woman I was living with became pregnant. Fortunately, she agreed to having
an abortion, meaning that "homosexuality" is a factor in the abortion rate.
Yet, all of this, including David's self-hatred and Joanna's ruined marriage,
could have been avoided if we had been told, as adolescents: "It's okay
to be gay. We won't hate and punish you if you prefer to be in a same-sex
relationship and if you are honest. It is important to be proud of your
love because the alternative may be catastrophic - not only for you but
for others...," as it will now be explored.
Wife batterers, wife rapists, and other rapists and abusers of women generally refuse to acknowledge their hatred for women, and many are obsessed with telling themselves and others that their acts of hatred are acts of love! Typically "faulty learning" is blamed for this and professionals often fail to recognize the related factors operating in the minds of these abusive males. They are defending themselves - at the expense of sane thinking - from the conclusion that they hate women, and they often believe that only homosexual males hate women: a common stereotype in western cultures.
After years of study, it became increasingly apparent that many wife batterers are repressed homosexuals who have a heterosexuality similar to the one manifested by "dominant" males in prison, and to the type of heterosexuality once existing in myself. It would therefore be very enlightening to study wife batterers from a homosexual perspective but most psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, and social workers (including the ones with a homosexual orientation) have not received the homo-education needed to effectively do this.
Murphy (1992) evaluated the sex education professionals in psychiatry, psychology, counselling, and social work were receiving, the conclusion being that it was poor and that their "gay and lesbian" education was almost non-existent (68). The situation is so bad, in fact, as I discovered in my 1991 investigation of professionals reported on in "GAY, LESBIAN, AND BISEXUAL YOUTH NEED OUT HELP," that Alberta professionals who are tackling the youth suicide problem had not even recognized "the homosexuality factor" in this ever-worsening social problem (86: 27-32). This monumentally important factor had also generally not been recognized in other serious problems such as alcoholism, substance abuse, the school dropout rate, juvenile delinquency, and even adult criminal activity.
Professionals in our society have a history of not seeing "homosexuality" unless it "slapped them in the face." In such cases, they also typically defined "homosexuals" to be only males who matched learned social stereotypes: they are to be effeminate and sexually passive. Homo-sexually dominant males were generally told: "You're not a homosexual. You only had homo-sex because women were not available. It was a faute de mieux situation." To homo-sexually active male youth, the response was: "It's just a phase you're going through." Similar statements, however, were not made to boys who had sex with females. They were never told it's just a phase! Many professionals also claimed they could cure people from the "homosexual affliction" wrongly defined to be a mental disorder.
Professionals were therefore educated and trained to believe that homosexuality should not exist, and they are much like parents who are told by one of their children: "I'm gay!" As a rule, parents come up with many reasons not to accept what they may have even suspected about their offspring, and they may also begin to bluntly deny the admitted reality. Such people therefore cannot be expected to see or suspect "repressed homosexuality," especially if the symptoms are manifested in the form of males becoming ultra masculine and violent, and/or if they are having sex with as many females as possible.
Homo-history reveals that, if homosexual desires exist in a male, there is a force operating to make these males act sexually in accordance to their desires. Our society, however, effectively teaches homophobia and homohatred, thus causing major problems. Typically, homosexual males have a history of seeking the homo-sex desired, at least to some degree, and often did so in ways to avoid the highly dreaded homosexual label which would have negatively affected - maybe devastated - their self-esteem. The ultimate in self-esteem maintenance - or mental health - would therefore involve having sex with males as much as one would want while defining the homo-sexual activity to be 100 percent heterosexuality as "dominant" males in prisons and "trade" males in society have done.
I have met gay males reporting that, as adolescents, they had sex with males, but only after a discussion had occurred. One of them was to play the "female role" so that the sexual activity endeavored into would appear to be "normal." In my case, however, the homosexual label was avoided because the homo-sexual activity did not resemble what we believed hetero-sexual relationships to be. We were having sex between equals - with male friends and best friends - and our respect for each other precluded even the thought of making a friend into "a female." Unfortunately, this ideal interaction pattern was also associated with learned sexism and its related gender-based or sexism-based homophobia.
"Dominant" males in prison maintain their self-esteem by defining "heterosexuality" to be any sexual activity with an individual deemed "inferior" to them - because they have acquired the belief that "normal sex" occurs between superior and inferior beings. For these "dominant" males, all physically weaker males are potential heterosexual partners, or women. These males, however, including all the males I had sex with during adolescence, knew they were having HOMO-SEXUAL SEX! They also knew - as I remember always knowing - that society would certainly disapprove if our homo-sex activities became known. Therefore, we talked freely about our homo-sexual activities only with males sharing our delusions, thus replicating what "dominant" males in prison also do. We were not revealing anything about our homo-sexual activities to anyone not sharing the belief system required for self-esteem maintenance.
As a rule, society generally tells us that any adult male having sex with other adult male is homosexual, and this may be why I have yet to see "dominant" males in prison - or males who had the type of sex I experienced in adolescence - ever write (or tell a writer-investigator) about their great enjoyment of the supposedly non-homosexual sex they experienced with males. The same applies for "trade" males in society who either sold their "dominant" sexual services to gay males or did this for free! Only a few "trade" males who eventually accepted their homosexual desires (orientation) have written about the "dominant" phase effectively used to deny they were homosexual.
Some repressed homosexual males, however, are unable to have sex with other sexually mature males because they have accepted the social belief that such homo-sex is only engaged into by homosexuals, even if one of them is only "dominant." Desires to have sex with a male may be very intense, however, and their minds go to work. For them, the only "way out" - in term of possibilities - is to have sex with pre-puberty boys. "A young boy is much like a girl," they may think, and they then conclude that having sex with a young boy is as close to "normal" as possible, meaning that they are not homosexual. As with all the previously noted rationalizations, these men nonetheless know that society would certainly disapprove of their homo-sexual activities with pre-puberty boys.
Professionals have a history of looking at men engaging in sex with men or boys and often saying: "It was a faute-de mieux situation. These men are normal and this only happened because women were not available." Yet, given the homophobia / homohating nature of our society, we could expect the real reason explaining these sexual activities to be the opposite of what was noted. They are having sex with males, not in ways that they may have want to, but in ways corresponding to their rationalizations of what is normal and NOT HOMOSEXUAL, thus minimizing the loss of self-esteem.
"Being normal" varies in different societies and it is a powerful force acting on individuals. For example, about 60% of self-identified gay men report having engaged in sexual intercourse with a female (09: 159) and many report these experiences to have been either a conscious or unconscious faute de mieux situation. They would have preferred having sex with a male, as it applies for my sexual experience females even though the experiences were enjoyed, and about 20 percent of gay males report having married a woman, or more than one (07: 374). Most of these marriages were also "faute de mieux" situation, and wife batterers would be in a similar situation given their marriage to a woman they apparently hate.
The hidden realities of wife batterers would therefore be fascinating and presenting them could be done in many ways, but my great "eye-opening" experience occurred when I began acquiring information from their wives. Two of the cases of wife battery/rape best known to me - because the two female victims are friends - involved a male who had sex with his own 5-year-old son, and the other male was convicted of "fondling" two young Calgary boys after his wife divorced him. In response to this knowledge, I contacted his wife to explain the role "repressed homosexuality" played in wife battery and wife rape, and to also solicit information about her husband's homophobic nature. The other husband reported having always hated homosexuals.
In the first case, the husband was visibly and loudly homophobic, but in a gender-related way as it exists for "dominant" males in prison. For example, he would get very angry - even enraged - with his wife if anything "pink" was given to his two sons, including what he called "girlie toys." He would often assert that such things would turn his two sons into "fags" because they would become "like girls," meaning homosexual. His wife was fascinated by suddenly realizing that she had ignored so much information about her husband because it seemed insignificant, but this was the most important information needed to understanding why her husband battered and raped her so often. She described her experiences to be much like the one depicted in the movie THE BURNING-BED.
In response to this insight into her battery, information she had about another case of wife battery and rape also became significant, and she reported on her best friend's experiences. She had a son and an abusive husband who was visibly and loudly homophobic. He would even forbid his wife to comfort her son crying in the crib because, as he dictated, boys are not supposed to cry. Comforting him would encourage him to cry more and he would then surely become "a fag!" This wife battery and rape case eventually led to the Calgary Police coming to their home because be was threatening his wife with a gun. She then divorced him and received custody of her son, "R". When "R" was 14, his mother was killed in a car accident and he was sent to live with his father who had married a woman with a son of her own.
Soon after, "R" was taken on a camping trip alone with his father who gave him alcohol and sodomized him. "R" was very troubled by this event and told his stepmother. Her response was something like: "So what! He's doing the same thing to my son." "R" then told my friend because she bad been his mother's best friend and she had often taken care of him when he was young. She advised him to tell social authorities. He did, was placed in a special home, and an investigation followed. Both his father and his stepmother denied everything and he was sent back to live with his parents. Soon after, he left for the streets.
The above information about three wife batterers / rapists is not a scientific study but it does suggest that "repressed homosexuality" - a desire to have sex with males - exists in the minds of some (many?) of these men. According to the best study available, men in this category form about 10 percent of the married male population (77: 90). [Another 14 percent of married males - as based on the percentages of women reporting such abuses - have just raped orjust battered their wives.] There is little doubt that most of these men firmly believe that women are inferior to men, that women should therefore be perfect slaves for their husbands, and that they should be treated like the most abusive white slave owners treated their black slaves. The abuses these men inflict on their wives range from severe beatings to death, especially when these women escape from their slavery situation, thus replicating how the meanest slave owners responded to runaway slaves. The love wife batterers have for their wives is therefore much like the love slave owners had for their slaves. It didn't exist! it was a love to have slaves and to abuse them as needed to keep them in their place..
Wife batterers / rapists treat their wives in much the same way "dominant" males in prison treat "turned out" weaker males, apparently because women are not available, and because these men are considered to be women. A punk (a male in the feminine sexual role) describes the situation which has existed in North American prisons:
The most important social function of rape [in prisons] is the 'turning' of men into Punks in order to meet the incessant demand for punks to be paired off with individual men. This practical function of rape, feeding the rest of the sexual system, has been overlooked by the psychologists... (89: 67).When "dominant" males in prison report that they only assaulted, sexually abused and degraded, and even raped other males because women are not available, they are therefore acknowledging the existence of an incredibly sadistic heterosexuality similar to the one I had. They also have a desperate need to deny they are homosexual, a feat accomplished with their belief (delusion?) that only sexually passive males are queers, punks, etc.. These males, however, could never admit a preference for sadistic sex with men, meaning that they must keep their heterosexuality alive as a defense against their highly threatening sexual desires (preference?) for males.
Theoretically, the punk is totally powerless, having no more independence than a slave. In fact, there are ways for a Punk to influence his destiny: there a punk wiles just as there are female wiles (89: 69).
COMMENT: Just like there were black slave wiles! The use of wiles, however, reflects one's inferior (or slave) status. In such situations, favors will only be obtained from one's master with behaviors deemed appropriate by the master which, in turn, is the acknowledgment and confirmation of the master's supremacy status.
...no Man will tolerate a rebellious Punk (89: 69).
An ironclad rule is that, once fallen from the grace of manhood, no male can ever become a man again (89: 70).
The relationship between a Man and his Punk tends to reflect the Man's customary way of treating his women on the Outside. A Man who beats his wife will more than likely beat his Punk. [Although some of the men are nicer than others, just like some owners of black slaves were also 'nice'.] The Man, however, makes the rules (89: 71).
Prison rape is, undoubtedly, as the academics state, a vehicle for the expression of a power relationship, dominance, control. So, too, are what the writers are pleased to call 'voluntary' sexual relationships in jail! In fact, the power/control element is never absent from the Man/Punk relationship, indeed, it defines that relationship. The Man controls the Punk. Period. Another heresy: the academics are misleading us in linking the exercise of power and control with prison rape. it is not power and control which distinguishes prison rape, it is the violent means by which these are expressed. Nor is aggression confined to rape: the difference is one of degree (89: 71).
Most of these males in prisons are said to eventually venture into relationships with women, possibly involving marriage. Unfortunately, the targeted woman (women) will probably not foresee the "nightmare" she is entering. Given her female status, demands that she be a perfect slave are soon made, and it will include the sexual slavery status he had always enforced and obtained from the males he raped and used in prison. She may be troubled by the demands, and revolt by asserting herself to be his equal. She is severely beaten and raped, to put her in her place, because this was how he has MADE men into women in prison. She doesn't understand the rage caused by her behavior because she doesn't know how her "equality" demands were processed in his mind. In prison, the only way he could ever perceive himself to be equal to a "queer" - or to a real woman - would be for him to be a queer or a woman!
Professionals studying wife battery have not yet realized that the assault of wives asserting their "equality" could be the consequence of the homosexual implications resulting in "homosexual panic." Most "dominant" males in prison would likely process "equality" demands by women in this manner, but the violence then inflicted on women would have other benefits. Walker (1979) reports, in two separate paragraphs, that wife batterers commonly experience impotence problems. In both cases, in the same paragraph, she also notes that some batterers were also having sex with men and they were labeled "bisexual" (90: 117,125). However, Walker did not link the two observations to suspect that, maybe, their heterosexual impotence problems were associated with a sexual preference for men. This is the same problem many gay males report to have existed when they were desperately trying to be heterosexual and therefore seeking to have sex with females, or when they were labeling themselves "bisexual" when, in fact, they were homosexual.
Walker also reports that, in cases where information was known about wife batterers' homosexual relationships, they were also battering their male lovers (90: 125). Therefore, a group of wife batterers are much like "trade" males in society and apparently do not need a prison environment to justify having sex with males in relationships similar (identical?) to the ones existing in prisons. Some (most?) wife batterers certainly have the mind-set manifested by "dominant" males in prison, and the spousal battery some gay males have experienced is likely being inflicted by self-hating males. They would hate women, may also be battering a woman or they have a history of doing this, and they would hate all [gay-identified] males who are perceived to be "like women" and would be treated accordingly.
On a number of occasions, I have observed professionals imparting very significant information about wife batterers. Repeatedly, they have listened to battered wives reporting that, immediately after being battered, their husbands wanted to have sex. In response to this information, a few professionals have voiced the suspicion that these men may be using battery as sexual foreplay, the implication being that brutally assaulting a woman was sexually stimulating. To my knowledge, however, not one professional has ever seriously investigated this possibility, probably because it would challenge their beliefs about "sexual acts." Yet, some men in relationships with women - about 10% according to one study - do have sexual fantasies about "beating a woman up" when they are having sex with their female partners (21). The use of such sexual fantasies would be related to experiencing and/or maintaining maximum levels of sexual stimulation, thus having monumental implications with respect to the non-love nature of their heterosexuality.
Hopefully having no "bias" in this respect, we can now investigate this possibility, even if the idea may be revolting. But then, everything wife batterers inflict on their wives is disgusting, ranging from raping their them to inflicting near death injuries, and even death. For this investigation, "our" icon wife batterer will be a man with a prison history because we know he's a repressed homosexual. His expected impotence is troubling him as he remembers how sexually potent he had been when inflicting "dominant sex" on males in prison. The unspoken conclusion is that he sexually prefers males and he is therefore experiencing "homosexual panic," not consciously acknowledged because of the homosexual implications. Instead, as most wife batterers do, he blames his wife for his impotence problems because these men are not to blame for anything. A battering situation then develops, after which he felt like having sex. His sexual performance was exceptional and, at some level in his mind, he tells himself: "That was great sex. I'm heterosexual! I'm not a fag!"
By this time, his wife had accepted the demand that she perform oral sex on him, and she had also accepted his desire to anally penetrate her, without recognizing or understanding its great importance. She did not know that these sexual acts satisfy his repressed homosexual desires given that these sexual activities had been so much enjoyed with men. When be inflicted oral and anal sex on her, he always remembered the sex enjoyed with males in prison and he would then become more sexually stimulated. After the battery, because be desired sex, he had told his wife: "I'm sorry! I love you! I really love you and I'll prove it. Let's make love." He was lying, however, because he wanted to have "dominant" sex with her and, given this man's prison homo-history, we know how he processes sexual information. For him, the basic sex act has monumental meaning. If a male is sexually passive, he is decreed to be "like a women," inferior, and subhuman, and they are to be treated accordingly - as he was doing to his wife when battering her. In his abusive relationships with men, the battery - when inflicted - was not the ultimate expression of inferiority. Only the sexual penetration of the male had this status. Therefore, the love "our" batterer claims to have is a deceitful ploy used to then inflict the most powerful statement spoken sexually: "You are inferior to me. What I'm now doing to you - Fucking You! - is the ultimate proof of this fact."
Professionals often also report another important wife batterer attribute. Once the battery begins, it generally becomes more severe, and its frequency increases. No one, to my knowledge, has ever given a decent explanation for this, and "our" wife batterer can again be used to explore the phenomenon. He is, as could be expected, in denial of the fact that he is sexually stimulated by beating up his wife because acknowledging this would lead to the "hatred-of-women" conclusion which has homosexual implication. In prison, however, he was known to despise "feminine males," meaning that he despises real women. He therefore firmly believes women to be inferior to men and he has had a history of treating women or men deemed to be "like women" (gay-identified males, or all male with a history of having been sexually penetrated by another male) - accordingly.
His first act of wife battery had cured the "homosexual panic" resulting from his impotence. A little later, the problem returned and it was again cured in the same way. Slowly, a "connection" was made between the two, possibly not even at the conscious level. If he wants to be sexually potent - heterosexual - he must assault his wife, although he would emphatically deny this, much like he would also deny his sexual preference for males. Being a repressed homosexual, however, his impotence will not only return but it will be experienced more frequently, thus increasing the battering frequency because this is the only cure available to him. Battery has therefore become mandatory given that his impotence is creating the feeling that he may be homosexual, the result being "homosexual panic." At all cost he must eliminate the anxiety - the inner terror - this possibility is creating.
Professionals have often stated that, at the beginning, wives could avoid being battered by predicting their husbands' demand. However, the batterer's response was to become more irrational so that, in the end, their wives could not avoid the battery. For example, their husbands may want one thing in a particular situation but, the next day, hour, or minute, they will want something completely different. Upon learning of this behavior, some professionals have speculated that these men batter because they are irrational; they have yet to see that the opposite applies. They become irrational because they must batter! Battery is their prime directive and they will do ANYTHING to make this possible - at any time: whenever it's needed to cure the "homosexual panic" created by their impotence and/or other homo-implicating factors.
These wife batterers have a sadistic (hatred-of-women) heterosexuality being satisfied whenever they batter, but "our" wife batterer prefers sexually dominating males. At least with men, when he was in prison, he didn't have to physically assault them to always enjoy having sex. He is nonetheless out to save his life: to save himself from the potentially lethal consequence of ever recognizing and accepting his sexual preference for males.
Few professionals understand how great a force the "fear of being homosexual" has been (and still is) for males in our society, and the same applies with respect to identifying the behavioral results of this fear. For example, the fear does cause males to kill themselves, and some males also believe that assaulting (even murdering) gay males is acceptable. Therefore, this fear could be at the root of other lesser abuses of others, such as wife battery. Unfortunately, as the evidence reveals, mental health professionals receive a very poor "human sexuality" education, and almost no education about blatant homosexuality (68: 242). Therefore, repressed homosexuality, or anything related to this phenomenon, would generally be unknown and unrecognizable to them.
Wife battery is, in (great?) part, a negative consequence of repressed homosexuality, but one must suspect this before seeking out and accessing the related information. In 1989, for example, I learned that a male in his early 20s was battering his girlfriend to the point of fearing that he may kill her. The information was given to me by a mutual friend and, soon after, I was alone with the batterer. I accidently raised the topic of battery and told him: "All men who assault women are fuckin' wimps! AREN'T THEY? All they can do is assault women who are smaller than they are! Now that's what I call a wimp!" This batterer was a devoted bodybuilder, was much stronger than most males, much larger than his girlfriend, and many times stronger than she was.
In response to my statements, there were changes of facial expressions and I therefore knew his mind had been placed in a spin. Fortunately, he was not in a position to get visibly angry, mostly because this would inherently involve admitting not only his battering activities, but to also being a wimp. Nonetheless, a defense was needed, at least in some indirect way. He stated that, in some cases of men assaulting women, it's not always the man's fault: there are some women who deserve it! I countered this in an acted lighthearted manner, stating: "Ya, sure! I keep hearing about wife batterers who tell women: 'I love you so much that I'll beat the shit out of you! I love you so much that, if you leave me, I'll kill you! And the kids!'" I then related this type of defective thinking to men who rape women and say: "I love you so much that I'll rape you! I love you so much that, because I know you want to be raped, I must rape you!" I was being deadly with this batterer, but it was necessary. The objective was to place him in a double bind so that he would stop battering one Calgary female.
A little later, I accidently asked him to read a chapter from a manuscript I was working on. It was a summary of the incredible violence so many men have traditionally inflicted on women. After he did and we discussed the issue, and I told him I knew about his battering activities when I had spoken to him about wife batterers being wimps. He admitted that my words had not only been effective but that he remembered the event well because it had made him so angry. In response, I reported what my objective had been: to make him stop the assaults, even if it meant activating a hatred for me and also putting myself at risk..
He was fascinated that someone - especially a gay male - would do something like this. I was also not a stereotype of what he believed gay males to be. Good communication was established, mostly because I told him about my former highly morbid heterosexuality, and he then began to talk about his problems. One fact concerning himself had especially troubled him. When he was angry with his girlfriend - which always reached the rage level and for which he would always blame her - he would have vivid visualizations of his hand reaching at her throat - inside her throat - and ripping it out. His great fear was that he would someday actually kill her.
In addition to being violent with women, he reporting often having violent impulses when be encountered a certain type of male. This feeling usually occurred when drinking in a bar and he saw a male thought to be stronger than himself. His impulse was to go over to him and start a fight so that the [threatening] male could be defeated. He always carried a baseball bat in the trunk of his car to take care of problems he might not be able to handle.
In a discussion about bodybuilding, he admitted doing this to be admired [loved] by men. He also believed that all bodybuilders were in love with the male body, but only with the ultra macho male body - which is a definite "gay" attribute well rendered in their pornography. In our culture, given the widespread belief that being homosexual is to somehow be "like a woman," and therefore "a wimp," bodybuilding may well be an extreme defense for males threatened by the dreaded suspicion - or denied knowledge - that they are homosexual. Through bodybuilding, they are telling themselves and others: "I can't be a fag! Fags are like women! I'm more masculine than most males! I therefore can't be a fuckin' fag!"
Having this information, I then questioned him in very direct ways given the strong suspicion that he must have somehow been receiving information from within concerning his homosexual desires. Without hesitation, he told me about a recurring dream in which a male stronger than him always forced him to perform oral sex. After admitting this, because he felt threatened, he quickly added: "But that doesn't mean anything, does it? I read books which said that straight guys can have homosexual dreams and that they don't mean anything."
I had also read such books, strongly disapproved of these conclusions, and decided to impart the good news. "Look at it this way," I said, "the most interesting fact about your dream is that it's your mind creating the situation where you are performing oral sex on a male. Although you never remember most of your dreams, your mind always makes sure you remember this one, on a repeated basis. Maybe this is the kind of sex you want, more than anything else." I then ventured into explaining his strong impulses to assault stronger males, especially in bars when he was drinking.
This was based on his fear of being homosexual - likely a fact that only a stronger male could force him to experience and accept. He was therefore a variant of the repressed homosexual macho males who only have sex with males when they drink alcohol. When drinking and on the road to being drunk, his homosexual desires would be activated but his repression was strong. Instead of acting on his desires, he wanted to destroy the individual making him suspect the dreaded truth about himself. For such males, wanting to be sexually dominant with a male is threatening, but wanting to be sexually "passive" - like a woman - as in accepting that he would enjoy performing oral sex on a male - results in nothing less than terror and/or great panic.
Finally, he talked about a snuff pornography film circulating among some of Calgary's male bodybuilders, but he reported not having liked it and gave the reason. The women in the film were "too drugged" and were therefore not feeling the pain they should have felt from what was being done to them. He had not liked it because it wasn't real enough! He was also sexually stimulated by rape pornography and usually watched pornography with a male friend before going to bars where they would "find women to fuck." He never used prostitutes because they cost money, and he didn't believe in paying women for sex. In other words, all the women he "fucked" - as it also applies for a significant number of heterosexual males - were to be given a "cheaper-than-a-prostitute" status.
Additional work was done with him but it takes more than four hours of invasive laser therapy to produce positive results with these men. In fact, without professional help of the kind probably not yet developed - because professionals still don't recognize what really motivates these men to be abusive - it will take him years of serious self-study before ever accepting his homosexual desires and acting accordingly. After all, it took me until I was 28 years old to finally accept my 100% homosexuality, and I had sex with males, as much and as often as I wanted, from the age of 8 to 18. Most males with a similar sexual history, however, do get married, have children (to prove they are not fags), and some of them may well be inflicting a life of misery on their families.
Many of these males would hate themselves because they know they are homosexual. They also hate women and must nurture this hatred to keep their heterosexuality alive given that doing this is their only defense against highly threatening homosexual desires. If these men are not sexually turned on by women, their psychological world of homosexual denial would crumble, and they make themselves believe they are "normal" even when having fantastic orgasms while visualizing the rape, rape-murder, and even the torture-killing of women. For some males, defending themselves against their homosexuality also involves inflicting as much violence as possible on women, or as much hatred as it's possible for them to label as "love."
The bodybuilding batterer with whom I was interacting had experienced his greatest socially induced terror - being a "passive" homosexual - which is also postulated to exist for "dominant" ultra macho violent males in prison. These men also have "traditional" family values such as hating homosexuals deemed to be "passive" (gender-based homohatred), and they have acquired the "traditional" male conviction that women are inferior to men. Women MUST BE inferior to men, and this perception was certainly a major factor in Marc Lepine's mind when he executed 14 women in Montreal in 1989. For these men, the evidence challenging their belief must either be destroyed or, as wife batterers do to "their woman" daring to assert her equality, she must be re-CREATED into what batterers think SHE IS and MUST BE!
Walker (1979) reported that batterers are in the "traditional" category but she was surprised that the sex occurring in battering relationships was far from being what she considered to be "traditional." Traditional men, however, are not what we were generally taught to believe as the result of the whitewashed education received while I growing up. Our forefathers were not saintly prudish individuals, nor did they have an "I-love-women" heterosexuality. Kinsey (1948) reported that about 70 percent of them had used female prostitutes (44: 597). These women were paid, as men do today, to do what was most sexually stimulating, but this type of sex, as prostitutes often report, has nothing to do with love.
Kinsey also reported that "for perhaps three-quarters of all males," and most of them were married, "orgasm is reached within two minutes after the initiation of sexual relations (44: 580). Other authorities on sex in marriage during this period had also made similar time estimates (38: 204). Furthermore, about 40 percent of married males - the most traditional and supposedly the more prudish - did not even remove their clothes to have sex with their wives (44: 366-367). If we now activate our visual mind to see these two-minute wonders having sex, it approximates two well known situations: men raping women and the "quickie" keep-your-clothes-on oral sex work now forming about 75 percent of the work done by female prostitutes.
Unfortunately, what we often believed about our "righteous" older male generations is a LIE. What most men were doing to women, including their wives, was not a reflection of love. It's more like hatred, also reflecting what these men were doing to women - denying women - socially and legally. They also hated homosexual males (deemed to be like women) and homosexual acts could be punished with the death penalty, life in prison, down to a few years in prison. Most mental health professionals also retained the LIES learned as children and they had translated their homohatred into the "mental disorder" label for homosexuals. Walker's delusion concerning "traditional" males and her ignorance of male heterosexualities can only hinder her ability to understand wife batterers, but her documentation of wife batterers is nonetheless very educational. She reports that battering relationships generally begin with normal sex but changes occur. "Good sex often turns into assaultive behavior." Generally, the sex is "kinky," which surprised her. "[Battered wives] reported some of the most unusual kinky sex that I heard about in my ten years of clinical psychology practice" (90: 118).
The demands for "kinky sex" were always made by the wife batterers, almost as if they "needed more variety or stimulation" for their sexual relationship "to become exiting" (90: 118). They would then become sexually stimulated and able to perform with a woman, as "David" also needed to do with his wife (74). Unfortunately, Walker did not relate this fact to her observation that these men often have "difficulty achieving and maintaining an erection," nor to the fact that many of these men are bisexual (90: 125). More of these men, however, would be classified "bisexuals" or "homosexuals" if professionals investigated this aspect of the batterer's psyche. Researchers generally do not seek sexual orientation data and they only report such information if it was a revealed attribute of the batterer. The assumption has been that wife batterers are heterosexual.
Walker summarized the "kinky sex" existing in battering relationships: "There is a significant frequent mention of animals, objects, third persons (usually other men), other couples, oral and anal sex, and unusual positions in sexual intercourse..." (90: 119). She does not explain this, however, probably due to her lack of education about male sexual realities. Some batterers, for example, will make a dog perform sex on their wives because doing this results in great sexual stimulation. Walker reports a woman's description of such an event repeatedly inflicted on her:
He would tie me up and force me to have intercourse with our family dog. The dog was a big German Shepherd ... After the dog would finish fucking me, then Jeff would get on top of me and mount me just like the dog did... It just seemed so disgusting to me, but somehow that used to just turn him on and excite him. In fact, I think he used to get his hardest hard-ons then (90: 120).Typically, it is said that wife batters treat their wives like dogs, sometimes corrected to: "Less than dogs!" Jeff was certainly living up to this "image" of his wife in a way few professionals would understand unless they had received a "prison sex" education. Given how "dominant" males process sexual information, we can easily recognize that the ones being penetrated are MADE inferior to the ones doing the penetration, and that Jeff was therefore reducing his wife to the "less than a dog" status by having the dog-penetrate her. Given that Jeff was in a battering / sexual abuse progression with his wife, and that his ultimate turn-on could be to kill his wife, such potential acts - if needed - would be made easier if less value is attributed to the victim. "We kill dogs, don't we? Killing dog just not murder."
"Dominant" males in prison are "repressed homosexuals" and the same element is manifested by wife batterers, but the attribute is only apparent if we know the history of male homosexual activity in our society. Wife batterers would have repressed sexual desires for males, thus explaining Walker's report that batterers wanted "mostly other men" to have sex with their wives. For repressed homosexuals, having a naked man so close to them would be sexually stimulating, and such situations essentially replicate the gang-bang situations previously explained in terms of its highly sexually stimulating "degradation of women" attribute and its great appeal for juvenile homo-active career delinquents who have believed themselves to be 100% heterosexual.
From my studies of people, myself, and from many reported case studies in the psychiatric literature, I have learned to be careful with conclusions related to peoples' motivations to do certain things. For example, Walker reports that "sexual jealousy is almost universally present in the battering relationship" (90: 114). Yet, "sexual jealousy" implies that the batterer is constantly imagining other men (certainly naked) having sex with his wife. When I was a repressed homosexual watching heterosexual pornography - often shown in many places at university - the focus was on the naked males in the film. Therefore, batterers who are repressed homosexual may not be "sexually jealous" because they love their wives. Instead, the "jealousy" response may be occurring because it permits them to satisfy repressed homosexual desires when they are visualizing naked men. Walker describes the situation.
Their wives are "often told that they are being sexually provocative to other men... because they secretly want to have an affair with someone else" (90: 115). This is, however, the batterer's fantasy. "In all cases ["of reported stories of sexual jealousy"], the batterer harassed the woman with detailed fantasies of what form the infidelities took." "The man would even adapt his irrational thinking to account for time problems by accusing the woman of short-term sexual behavior, such as oral sex that would take two or three minutes, rather than longer encounters" (90: 117, emphasis mine).The obsessive "sexual jealousy" of a wife batterer is part of the objective to MAKE his wife into the mental image he has of her. The objective is to MAKE her into "fuckin' whore, slut, pig, etc.," he has already accused her of being, or that he will surely accuse her of being given his fantasies of her sexual activities with other men. In fact, because he is escalating the sexual abuse, the jealousy permits him to fantasize anything he would want from her, accuse her of having enjoyed doing these things with other men, and then - as all good husband must do - he must now please her in the same way she sought to be pleased by other men!
Given her unfaithfulness, he righteously batters her, the underlying reason being the sexual stimulation resulting from this. The situation is also improving for him because using the "I'll make up for the battery by making love to you" LIE is becoming unnecessary. Now, given her activities with other men, "making love to her" must not be what she [he] wanted. He nonetheless has to win his wife back by competing with the man [men] she had sex with. As he begins doing this, he enters into fantasy. He is talking to his wife, in a mean way, and he emphasizes what "the whore, slut, pig, etc." has enjoyed doing with other men. She certainly does not now deserve having him ever make love to her again! He also must give her what she really wants and enjoys! This orchestrated situation now permits him to express the hatred be always felt for her, and the RAGE intimately associated with the sex he always wanted to inflict on her. There's also a bonus! As he is abusing her, his fantasies of the naked men she had sex with become more vivid. He's seeing their penises where his penis now is, and the situation has become a gang-bang type of sublimated homosexual activity.
"Sexual jealousy" also produces other benefits, especially for batterers who fantasize (desire) having their wives gang-banged, meaning that a repressed homosexual can now bring a man - who will be naked and close to him - into the sexual situation with his wife. Furthermore, the men will be of his choosing, the con being: he must now do this because his wife has been enjoying other men. The "other men," however, will be there for the batterer's pleasure and they will likely be the first to perform sexually on his wife, followed by himself who has orchestrated the situation so that his (blatant?) homosexual desires may be satisfied. When batterers do this, and they had been manifested sexual jealousy in the past, the sexual jealousy must have been unreal. It was fabricated with the above outcome in mind.
Other benefits of "sexual jealousy" will include batterers using the basic same con to bring an animal into the situation. When I was growing up, I often beard older males talking about women having sex with dogs. They explained that dogs could please a woman better than a man, and they would also accuse certain women in the community of doing this. Such a reality therefore validated thinking - fantasizing - about such form of sex not all that rare in the male heterosexual world. By the late 1960's, I had been exposed to heterosexual pornography viewed by men in groups and films featuring dogs having sex with women were common enough, even at university. Anita Hill had also reported that Clarence Thomas (now a U.S. Supreme Cout judge) had described such pornography to her.
A section of Nancy Friday's 1980 book is devoted to males reporting sexual fantasies involving animals. Dale's fantasy involved his wife who has become so demanding sexually that she has sex with "our German Shepherd... in every position possible," meaning that she will perform oral sex on the dog and also be both vaginally and anally penetrated by the dog. Dale is also not responsible for his fantasy because, in the fantasy, he has arranged the scenario so that it is his wife wanting this. His fantasy, however, only reveals his wife-related desires also manifested with a certain desperation. "In real life, I would give almost anything if this fantasy could be acted out" (26: 255). A wife batterer, on the other hand, could easily solve Dale's problem. He would jealously accuses his wife of having sex with the family dog and then demand that she be honest - after which she would be made to do everything he fantasized her doing with the dog. Is the use of animals an indication of "repressed homosexuality?"
When a sample is taken from the gay community, it is usually a sample of males who finally accepted their homosexual desires and are acting accordingly. In the Bell et al. (1981) study, about 20-percent of the males had been married and about 60 percent of them reported having had sex with women. Furthermore, 22 percent of the male studied reported having had sex with an animal while only 6 percent of heterosexual males reported such activities (09: 161). In Reiss' study of "organized career delinquents," there were 62 percent of the males who had "dominant sex" with "queers," indicating high levels of repressed homosexuality, and most of these males had also participated in gang-bangs. Reiss also reports that about 48 percent of career delinquents had also had sex with animals, while the rates for other delinquents were at least eight times lower (72: 202), or about 6 percent. Therefore, it could be said that, if a male has sex with an animal, there is a good chance that be is a repressed homosexual, or that he will eventually accept his homosexuality. Do wife batterers also have sex with the animal? To my knowledge, no one has studied this but, in the above cited case of the batterer who made the dog have sex with his wife, "he would... hump the dog" as the dog was having sex with his wife (90: 120).
For wife batterers, society's "traditional" belief that it was "the demon alcohol" causing men to batter their wives was a God send. and the belief in the "jealousy" reason has been an even greater blessing. It has permitted batterers to believe that "jealousy" is a valid and expected common human emotion, that it is therefore not their fault, and that outcomes resulting from the jealousy are natural and are not to be questioned. They are also not to blame for their fantasies of men being sexually serviced by their wives, thus making possible their innocent visualizations of naked men, always with a focus on their genitals. These "fantasy" men, however, are of the batterer' choosing, and the same applies whenever they get another male to have sex with their wives.
Batterers have been viciously MAKING their wives into the mental images they have of these women, this being the woman existing only in their minds. Therefore, their fantasies of their wives sexual activities with other men are nothing more than fantasies of what their inner woman would want. For example, if it was the previously described bodybuilding batterer who was "sexually jealous" - and he was, but I did not explore this aspect of the relationship - his fantasy of his girlfriend performing oral sex on males would be easy to understand after having learned about the recurring dream in which he is performing oral sex on a male. He would therefore be the one wanting what he is imposing (inflicting) on his wife.
Obtaining such information from wife batterers is not easy and the work needed to understand these men is not being done by professionals because they are generally clueless about how batterers' minds work, especially because their sexuality involved. This is predictable, however, given the summary statement made by William Masters at the Sixth World Sexology Congress held in Washington, D. C. in 1983: "We don't know anything" about "human sexuality" (69: 108). Nonetheless, considerable information has been acquired over the years and, even though we may not understand what causes various sexual orientations, we have information about gay males and lesbians, and we also have considerable information about thinking patterns and behaviors manifested by repressed homosexuals.
When dealing with wife batterers in the "repressed homosexual" category it is important to recognize that they generally produce a self-image, both in society and even in their personal lives, which is the opposite of reality. They also produce reasons to explain their behavior which are outright lies, or the "because" in their explanation must be reversed to see the truth. For example, many professionals are now wiser and recognize that batterers do not batter because they drink alcohol. They drink alcohol to batter and to also create an explanation for the battery so that they will not have to address the real motives. This use of the alcohol reason replicates the situation where men did not have sex with a male because they were drunk. They got drunk to have the kind of sex they really wanted.
In addition to the "alcohol" reason for battery, batterers may also report battering their wives "because I love her." When the nature of the benefits derived from the battering is recognized - such as curing his impotence and the resulting "homosexual panic" - it becomes apparent that the batterer loves his wife because he can batter her. In fact, he has a desperate need (love) to batter her which must increase as he is progressively MAKING his wife into the inner woman he has failed to destroy in himself. The ritual-like killing of this woman is now being carried out via projection, and a murder may actually result from the situation.
Wife batterers would say - maybe even believe - that they are jealous because they love their wives, but they love their wives because she permits them to be jealous, to then fantasize about naked men, and also avoid seeing what really motivates these fantasies. Jealousy also permits them to increasingly MAKE their wives into whatever they are desperately needed to be, and this may include bringing other men into the situation. All of this will also not (never) be their fault! Batterers must also lie, such as telling their wives, after the battery, "I want to show you that I love you by making love to you."
Wife batterers (or other men) who are sexually abusing their young sons are also lying when they are saying: "Having sex with a boy is normal because a young boy is much like a girl." In such cases their homophobia is blatant given that they have ventured into having sex with males. Their reasoning, however, produces an important insight related to batterers (and other men) who sexually abuse their young daughters, although they would never give anyone - including themselves - this explanation. They may be sexually abusing their daughters because this is as close to having sex with a male as they will permit themselves to experience. They are having sex with a young girl because little girls are much like little boys. This would apply for all repressed homosexual males who are sexually abusing young girls.
Wife batterers are experts at CREATING situation permitting them inflict whatever they want on their wives and their children. For example, when batterers explain having sexually abused their children only because their wives were not sexually available, this is basically the same con used by men in prison to explain why they are having sex with men: "because women are not available." Men do not enjoy having sex with men or children - which produces great orgasms and repeat performances - because women are not available! Furthermore, an investigation of what these men inflicted on their wives produced the recognition that they CREATED the situation which made sex with their children possible. The batterer is always on the road to somewhere and whatever he is doing at the time is sort of what he wants to do. Therefore, when they are sexually abusing children, this is what they desire at the time, but they also must make sure their children will remain silent, so that their sexual availability will be retained. To accomplish this, the children are often told to not tell anyone because it could ruin the family, and they may also be threaten with murder, the murder of their mother, or even with the murder of a pet.
It is therefore suspected that, in many cases where men kill their wives and children, or just their wives - an event often happening if she is threatening to take the children and leave him, or if she has done this - the motive for such murders may be rooted in a great fear (terror) that the sexual abuse of a child (or children) will be discovered and made public. Most batterers could accept others discovering their battering activities, but they would panic at the thought of their "big secret" becoming known. As a result of this terror, probably exacerbated by the likelihood of a trial and a prison sentence, they may then implement their murder threats.
Batterers may also kill their wives as the end result of the battery, thus essentially implementing their ultimate sexual fantasy. In this case, the "projection" process produces what they could not do to their inner woman. Other batterers kill their wives, especially if these women threaten to leave, or have left, because - so they say - they cannot live without her. This is true, but it is not for the reasons generally assumed. These men have invested an incredible amount of time and effort to CREATE these women into what they must be, if these men are to continue sexually performing with a woman and therefore ward off their ever-threatening repressed homosexual desires.
These men would also know they cannot go out and do whatever they must - what they were doing to their wives, or worse - to another woman. Men who meet women, beat them up, and then sexually abuse them - rape them - as batterers often do to their wives, know they would then be hunted down and sent to prison for years. Traditionally, however, little has happened to men if they did the same thing to their wives. Batterers would know their sexual needs and, because the threatened loss of their wives would be creating incredible [homosexual] panic, a sense of total desperation could easily result at the thought of not anymore being able to ward off their highly threatening homosexuality. This fear would consume them and they may end up killing their wives and even themselves.
Fortunately, even if many wife batterers threaten their wives with murder, few have lived up to their desperation motivated threats. For reasons still unexplained by professionals, however, many batterers have attributed such an incredible value to their wives that their murder - and possibly their own suicide - is contemplated at the thought of losing their ownership of, and access to, this particular woman. This is not love! It is desperation and panic rooted in the factor being proposed and outlined in this section.
Batterers in the "repressed homosexual" category are destroying themselves and others in a desperate attempt to deny or ward off their homosexual desires. They hate women because they hate their own inner woman: the one they failed to destroy. She is giving these men no rest and they generally remain clueless concerning their inner selves and therefore why they are compelled to abuse and even destroy their wives. Somehow, whatever they feel like doing must be done, at all costs, and they must also develop the logic system needed to avoid recognizing the [homosexual] implications embodied in their desires and acts. Although this may appear to be incredible, the validity of this explanation is increased when the effects of homosexual desires on male adolescents have been studied. For male youth who cannot deny their homosexual desires, about 20 to 35 percent of them would be attempting suicide most often during the stage Schneider (1989) called: "I don't want to be gay" (83: 9-84).
As a society, we have constructed a formidable anti-homosexual (homohating) force in the minds of youth that many males recognizing their homosexual desires will opt for death. What else, therefore, could this force be causing males to do? What would (could) their minds orchestrate to also avoid seeing their homosexuality, given that a survival instinct apparently exists? "Dominant" males in prison are doing whatever is necessary to survive and, in the prison situation, they have been revealing great secrets about the male mind. In fact, they are telling us that, as much as they hate women, they must also hate men to experience sexual gratification. In the final analysis, however, they hate themselves because - like wife batterers - they have been rendered incapable of either loving themselves, or anyone else. Hatred is all they appear to know, or have come to know, and they are an expected product of our "traditional" teaching of sexism and the associated homohatred.
As much as homosexuality is a social construction, the same also applies to wife battery which has a long history given that, about 1600 years ago, St. Augustine was addressing the issue. He had seen many wives "disfigured" by their husbands, but be believed husbands assaulted their wives in such ways because they "used to gossip and complain of the behavior of their menfolk." St Augustine - a repressed homosexual who appears on all list of famous homosexuals in history - also believed and taught a concept propagated by his mother (the Norman Mailer type of mother): she was advising battered women to "remember their condition and not defy their masters" (22: 58-59). His mother was also made into a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, possibly because a patron saint of wife batterers was needed. She therefore permitted men to continue battering their wives, and to blame the battering on women also mandated to keep the secret, or their "woman's tongue" would surely give their husbands yet another reason to batter them!
Scratch a wife batterer or the young career criminal - and we will likely find RAGE: a hatred for almost everyone, and especially a deep hatred for themselves. Scratch a little more and we may discover incredible pain: the pain of never having been loved. This is, however, the same pain causing some homosexual males to become openly gay - to be real - and to also be saying: "Better to be hated for what I am than to be loved for what I'm not." A heavy price is also paid for making this statement. They will often be insulted and ridiculed, may be shunned by their families and their church, and they may even be physically assaulted, severely injured, and even murdered. It was only about 25 years ago - 1969 in Canada - that our society stopped punishing gay males with imprisonment made possible with the "criminal" label, and psychiatrists had implemented other forms of abuse with their "mental disorder" label dropped only in 1973-74.
Gay individuals are survivors of the socially taught homohatred they have often internalized, and they are survivors of society's acted out homohatred. An incredible amount of courage and integrity is also needed in our society for males to ever be "like a woman," or to be homosexual; this is everything society decrees to be "the worst thing a male could become," as so well stated by Dr. Ziegler (93). This is everything we were taught to hate if, as males, we dared to keep our "child" (feminine) attributes. Unfortunately, the courage, strength, and integrity needed to not have betrayed oneself is still poorly (not?) understood by most mental health professionals who have traditionally believed that only heterosexual males had such attributes.
As a rule, mental health professionals looked at homosexuals and said things like: "Given all the penalties existing in our society for males who are homosexual, it's obvious that all male who live as a homosexual must be mentally disordered." Even today, we are generally incapable of recognizing that the "sissy" boy and "faggot" adolescent has great courage, strength, and integrity. We also fail to recognize that the real wimps in any society are the males who BECOME whatever their society demands them to be by saying, in numerous ways: "OR WE'LL HARM AND EVEN DESTROY YOU!"
These ultra wimps are in prisons assaulting an raping physically weaker
males. They are on our streets (often in groups) seeking out visibly gay
males - usually the physically weaker ones - to assault and even kill.
They are also everywhere acting out what our movies - our society - has
deemed to be "macho" and therefore "not homosexual." These men may
also be observed in their homes assaulting and sexually abusing physically
weaker individuals. These are the wife batterers who were CREATED
by our "traditional" male ruled societies to do what most other men did
to women in many ways - including through the enactment of laws. Female
humans were believed to be inferior to the males who did everything imaginable
to MAKE their fantasy into reality.