Excerpts from The Homosexuality Factor in Social Violence by Pierre Tremblay: Document presented to The Action Committee Against Violence, City of Calgary, December, 1992. The excerpts are: The Homosexuality Factor In Prison Violence. - - The Homosexuality Factor in Males Who Form Youth Gangs. - - A Violent Social Construction: The Homosexual Closets. - - The Sexual Abuse of Boys. - - Quoted sections. - - Bibliography. - - See Table of Contents for the context of these excerpts. Syntax and formatting editing has been done for the Internet version.
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 because women are not available. Apparently, they are only using a males, or raping them, 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 reason for 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. Greenburg (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 (eg. 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 benefitted 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 Tolsen, for more than 40 years. When Hoover died, he "left the bulk of his $551,500 estate to Tolsen" (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 exorcize 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 Afican-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.
If his offender is in fact engaged in adult sexual relations, he is heterosexual; if he is not engaged in adult relations, he is a pedophile; in neither case is he a member of the group [gays] which is the target of the victim's misdirected fear and anger." (32: 149)As a rule, when people believe a lie about any hated group, it's because they were somehow taught the belief, but how have so many people been taught the belief that gay males sexually abuse boys? Martin (1988) noted the similarity of this belief to the one used by the Nazis to instill even more hatred for Jewish people. Hate is fear's dividend and people were made to fear Jews by teaching the myth that Jews were a threat to innocent German children and that they are "corrupters of children." They "even went so far as to accuse them of ritual murder of Christian babies." The Nazis also "parroted the metaphor of the Jew as a virus or germ...," (55: 61-62) and we have had a similar perception of gay males in our culture. Teaching the lie that gay males sexually abuse children, however, involves much more than stating that the lie is true.
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 babysitter 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 hahaving 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 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 licenceto 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: 42-43). Typically, when these righteous people teach children about homosexuality and homosexuals, only negative attributes are noted because imparting any positive attributes is deemed to be "evil." These children are therefore being taught to hate which is not only "contributing to an evil," but it is an evil.
[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 society.
There is considerable sexual violence being acted out in society at both the heterosexual and homosexual level. In the gay ‘world', there is sexual violence but it usually happens 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 abused, which explains why the book, MALE RAPE, focused almost exclusively on rapes in prison. It was revealed that men who considered themselves to be 100 percent heterosexual were the rapists. In the same book it was also noted that boys are sexually abused either by pedophiles - males who didn't 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 the ultra macho males rapist why they raped weaker males, or sexually used or abused them, they would answer: "It's because women are not available." If we suggested that they were homosexual, they would deny this by stating something like: "The men we rape and fuck are 'women', which means that everything we do is 100 percent heterosexual." If we asked them "What MAKES a man into a woman?" they would answer: "If we ever hear that he has been fucked by a man, which includes being raped. He loses his masculinity forever. He is a woman. He is not superior like we are. So, we treat him like a woman. For example, if he doesn't want to supply us with the sex we demand, we'll rape the bitch! Soon enough, he learns to obey or he's beaten up, or maybe even killed!"
Norman Mailer (1971) describes the situation which has existed in North American Prisons:
"...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 corresponds to the descriptions of "the prisons" 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 these men tell us, we must conclude that all men who-rape and sexually abuse men in prison are men who have been rapists and sexual abusers of women, and they despise women. So what 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 if we could determine their sexual performance when they raped women and, for the ones who have raped men in prison, to compare it to their sexual performance when they raped men. If, for example, they had impotence problems when raping women but experienced no such problems when raping men, this information would strongly suggest that these men have a preference for raping and sexually abusing males. That they have a predominating sadistic homosexual nature.
Testing this idea, however, would be against our laws 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. But all is not lost mostly because, for centuries, this experiment has been happening in bur prisons and the sexual performance of these men, when they raped men, has been reported by the best evaluators available: the men they raped.
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 fascinating 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 "100% heterosexual males" who rape women have impotence problems, and that all "100% heterosexual males" who rape men in prison - supposedly because women are not available - are super potent.
For the "dominant" males in prison, however, given that they are blessed with an ideological environment where they can rape and sexually abuse males without ending up with the homosexual self-label, their sadistic homosexual performance is always exceptional. This is made possible by MAKING males into women so that, as they reveal, they can satisfy their morbid highly sadistic heterosexuality. That doing this is possible because "feminine males" or "feminized males" can apparently replace the "women" they see in their heterosexual fantasies.
Typically, psychologists and psychiatrists who have worked with these "dominant" macho violent males have accepted what they said to explain their frequent sexual activities with males; they were only using males as substitutes for women. As a rule, these professionals also responded with joy at the idea that most of the men returned to only having sex with females when they left prison, but this is a joy rooted in their learned homophobia. "Oh! Thank God! Prison life did not turn these men into homosexuals!" This joy, however, is also rooted in extreme sexism because it was also believed that these men were only raping and sexually abusing/using men because women were not available. They would therefore apparently be returning 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).
11. Boyd, Malcolm (1986). Price of The Ticket: Baldwin's Prophetic Prose Exposes American Myths. Book Review in OUTWEEK, May 27, 1986, 53.
12. Boyd, Robert N (1991). Sex Behind Bars. In Leyland, Winston, Ed.. GAY ROOTS: AN ANTHOLOGY OF GAY HISTORY, SEX, POLITICS & CULTURE. Gay Sunshine Press, San Francisco, California, 1991.
13. Boyer, Debra (1989). Male Prostitution and Homosexual Identity. In Herdt, Gilbert. GAY AND LESBIAN YOUTH, 1989, 151-184.
14. Briere, John, and Malamuth, Neil M (1983). Self-Reported Likelihood of Sexually Aggressive Behavior: Attitudinal versus Sexual Explanations. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 315 - 323.
15. Brownmiller, Susan (1975). AGAINST OUR WILL: MEN, WOMEN AND RAPE,.Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York, N. Y..
16. Bull, Chri (1992). Homosexuality makes God Vomit. The Advocate, October 20, 42-43.
17. Cahill, Tom (1990). Prison Rape: Torture in the American Gulag. In Abbott, Franklin, Ed., MEN & INTIMACY, The Crossing Press, Freedom, California, 31-36.
18. Caron, Roger (1978). GO-BOY! Thomas Nelson & Sons (Canada) Ltd., Don Mills, Ontario, 1979. First published by McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., 1978.
20. Cooney, John (1984). THE AMERICAN POPE: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF FRANCIS CARDINAL SPELLMAN. Dell Publishing Company inc., New York, New York..
24. Freud, Sigmund (1962). THREE ESSAYS ON THE THEORY OF SEXUALITY. (Trans. and edited by James Strachey.) Basic Books, New York, N.Y., 1962. Edition used: Discus Edition, 1972.
28. Greenburg, David F (1988).THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1988.
30. Griffin, Kevin (1992). Police urged to hire open gays, lesbians. Calgary Herald, May 14, p. A-8. Reprinted from Vancouver Sun.
31. Groth, A. Nicholas, and Burgess, Ann Wolbert (1982).Rape: A Sexual Deviation. In Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed.. MALE RAPE: A CASEBOOK OF SEXUAL AGGRESSIONS. AMS Press Inc., New York, New York.
32. Groth, A. Nicholas, and Gary, Thomas S (1982). Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia: Sexual offences Against Children and Adult Sexual orientation. In Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed.. MALE RAPE, 1982, pp. 143-152.
34. Herdt, Gilbert, Ed (1989). GAY AND LESBIAN YOUTH. Harrington Park Press Inc., London, England.
36. Hoffman, Nicholas Von (1988). CITIZEN COHN: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF ROY COHN. Doubleday, New York, New York, 1988.
41. Jultry, Sam (1979). MEN'S BODIES, MEN'S SELVES. Dell Publishing Co., Inc., New York, New York.
45. Kinsman, Gary (1987). THE REGULATION OF DESIRE: SEXUALITY IN CANADA. Black Rose Books, Montreal, Canada.
46. Kleinberg, Seymour (1980). ALIENATED AFFECTIONS; BEING GAY IN AMERICA. St. Martin's Press, New York, N. Y. Edition used: Warner Books, 1982.
51. Mailer Norman (1971). PRISONER OF SEX. Little, Brown & Company, Boston, Mass., 1971.
55. Martin, Damien A (1988). The Stigmatization of the Gay or Lesbian Adolescent. - Chapter 7. In Schenider, Margaret S. OFTEN INVISIBLE: COUNSELLING GAY & LESBIAN YOUTH, Central Toronto Youth Services, Toronto, Ontario.
62. Minton, Henry L (1986). Femininity in Men and Masculinity in Women: American Psychiatry and Psychology Portray Homosexuality in the 1930's. Journal of homosexuality, Vol. 13(l), 1-21.
64. MP in court on sex charges. Shawinigan, Quebec. (CP) Calgary Herald, May 6, 1992, p. A-12.
65. Money, John (1988). GAY, STRAIGHT, AND IN-BETWEEN: THE SEXOLOGY OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
66, Moore, Cynthia (1992). Conservatives keep information on sex and AIDS out of reach of teenagers. The Advocate, April 22, 54-55.
67. Morningstar, Lasha. Revealing homosexuality often traumatic for kids. Calgary Herald, May 7, 1992, p. C-10. Reprinted from Edmonton Journal.
70. Oosterhuis, Harry, and Kennedy, Hubert (1991).HOMOSEXUALITY AND MALE BONDING IN PRE-NAZI GERMANY. Harrington Park Press, New York, N.Y..
72. Reiss, Jr., Albert J (1961). The Social Integration of Peers and Queers. In Gagnon, John H. and Simon, William, eds.. SEXUAL DEVIANCE, Harper & Row, New York, New York, 1967, pp. 197 - 228. First published in Social Problems Vol. 9(2), 102-120 (Fall 1961).
73. Reiss, Jr., Albert J. Sex offences: The Marginal Status of the Adolescent. In Gagnon, John H. and Simon, William, eds.. SEXUAL DEVIANCE, Harper & Row, New York, New York, 1967, pp. 43 - 77. First published in Law and Contemporary Problems 25(2), 1960.
75. Rideau, W. and Sinclair, J (1982). Prison: The Sexual Jungle. in Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed.. MALE RAPE, 3-29.
76. Ross, Michael W (1989). Gay Youth In Four Cultures: A Comparative Study. In Herdt, Gilbert. GAY AND LESBIAN YOUTH, 1989, pp. 299-314.
78. Russo, Vito (1987). THE CELLULOID CLOSET: HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE MOVIES. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York, N.Y.
79. Rutledge, Leigh W (1987). THE GAY BOOK OF LISTS. Alyson Publications, Boston, Mass.
80. Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed. (1982). MALE RAPE: A CASEBOOK OF SEXUAL AGGRESSIONS. 'AMS Press Inc., New York, New York.
81. Scacco, Jr., Anthony M (1982). The Scapegoat Is Almost Always White. In Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed.. MALE RAPE, 1982, pp. 91-103.
83. Schneider, Margaret S (1988). OFTEN INVISIBLE: COUNSELLING GAY & LESBIAN YOUTH, Central Toronto Youth Services, Toronto, Ontario.
88. Troxler, Allan. I. In Abbott, Franklin, Ed., MEN & INTIMACY, The Crossing Press, Freedom, California, 1990, 217-230.
89. Tucker Donald (1982). A Punk's,Song:.View From The Inside. In Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed.. MALE RAPE, 58-79.
91. Williams, Tennessee (1976). MEMOIRS. W. H. Allen & Company, Great Britain.
94. Zion, Sidney (1988). THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ROY COHN. Lyle Stuart, Inc., Secaucua, New Jersey.
95. Sandy, Peggy R (1981). The sociocultural Context of Rape: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 37(4), 5-27.
|1998 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||