[NSFW]Why the idea of gay women is more spread and considered more acceptable than the idea of gay men?

It is less threatening to the social order.

Men fear their own sexuality and any homosexual tendencies they may have or be perceived to have.

Women fear their lack of attractiveness in men’s eyes (which they do not have in a gay man’s eyes).

@marinelife So why do these fears exist?

Because men rule the world and they are turned on by lesbians.

I really do not know.
But I would be willing to bet that if people were permitted to be real honest about it, it would wind up having something to do with the image of anal intercourse. I know that it occurs among heterosexual couples as well, but I have known an awful lot of women who told me that they would “do anything” but that. And although I know it is all over the porn scene, most of my heterosexual male friends do not engage in it with their women regularly if they do at all. So, I have to assume that for many people, males and females alike, anal intercourse either seems at best unappealing (example; me. I did it with a girlfriend many years ago and that was the first and last time), or at worst disgusting. And even if all male homosexuals do not engage in it (my gay friends tell me that they all do not) it is still in people’s iimaginations. And since girls do not have a penetrating organ like a penis, homosexual women are not associated with the practice. That makes their behaviour seem a little more gentle and, well, “feminine”. And most Westerners think feminine is a nice thing. BTW, the thing that is fun about such questions is the inevitable Freudian analysis about male and female sexuality and who is treatened by what. Keep those answers coming (no pun intended).

I’m with @marinelife but for the aspect of women, as stated. Women’s fear about lack of attractiveness in men’s eyes plays less of a part…it’s not a cause so much as an effect.

Sex between women is acceptable if it is for men’s enjoyment. Because men have sexual agency, sexual agency for women upsets the patriarchal order. Therefore, the concept of them having sex for their own pleasure is unacceptable, as it suggests strength. Being gay, therefore, is upsetting regardless (although for men may be more ridiculed, but that doesn’t mean more acceptable). You would see much the same reaction when two “manly” or butch, or not stereotypically attractive women, were together, as you would with men.

Literally, you can trace the reason why these fears exist to the most basic method of control: property. Property can be retained only by exercising power over it. Without a government, this will most likely be done through the family. The larger the family, the more likely it is to be able to defend a larger amount of property, and the more able it is to accumulate resources. With a government, the people have either tacitly or expressly agreed to cede the means of control (violence) to a group outside themselves. The communicable expression of this agreement is law. Control of property (or power) is dictated by ownership rights. If men are the ones with ownership, they have power. Considering that humans, compared to every other species on earth (as far as I know), have to expend more resources and more time to bear and raise children given their development and size, women are at a disadvantage in being able to provide for children because they must physically take over these duties to some necessary extent. Therefore, men are the ones who naturally accumulate the resources to provide for the family. This is the reason why they may generally be provided with ownership under the law. In order to consolidate power in the family, property has to be transferable from one generation of the family to the next. This is where primogeniture (the passage of property held by the father to the first born son) comes into play…property is power, and if the family splits that between heirs (children) after the death of the owner (father) there is no consolidation, and each heir is weaker than the whole unit was previously. Therefore, men with only women children are more likely to cede power to another family through marriage because the power is consolidated and they can be cared for in their old age. And the only way that men can ensure that it is their family that can keep hold of the power is to control sexual access to women. Paternity has only recently become something that can be readily determined, but it is very, very clear what the maternal line of a child is (no doubt who your mother is). If women are allowed sexual agency prior to marriage, and are potentially not virgins at marriage, then it is uncertain that the man will be the father of the first son. If a woman has a child prior to marriage, it will be a burden on the resources of the future husband, and she will be less desirable, and therefore the father of that daughter will be unable to marry her off and will not be able to protect or keep property with age. This need for control continues through marriage because the husband needs to keep certain that he is the only one with sexual access to his wife to ensure that his family, and property, line can continue. Therefore, men are the ones who have the historical need to control sexual agency, and women are passive recipients (objects) of that agency.

Anything that is male, then, that is usurped by a woman, is threatening to that order. This has been steadily translated into a seemingly natural societal separation of the sexes. Women who act like men (with jobs, pants, and agency) threaten the consolidation of power in men. This is threatening, but if viewed as done to turn men on, plays into the roles above. Additionally, there is no chance that sexual contact between women will result in progeny that will be a future burden to the family of the woman. Men who act like women is disdainful because they are both giving up their power (rejecting their DUTY) to continue the consolidation of power and therefore will lead to the redistribution of wealth. It also demonstrates to society as a whole that such a man can be sexually objectified as well as be the sexual subject (the one possessing agency). If men can be sexually objectified, then it naturally follows in the heterosexual context that women could be the ones objectifying them, which requires that society recognize their sexual agency. The fact that men would both reject their duty to family (power) AND that they would threaten the power of all men around them CANNOT be absorbed into the normal power dynamic, and therefore is ONLY a threat to the patriarchy (as opposed to sexual contact (but not true lesbianism) among women). This also shows why those who do not conform to the heterosexual order are demonized, particularly with regards to the sexual danger to children (children are objects as well, which makes it oddly understandable that a man with agency could use a child, and also plays into the idea that male homosexuality is a threat to property as an exploited male child represents a theft of that family’s ability to consolidate power).

This is where these fears come from.

All throughout history men have been percieved as the provider, a macho man, someone who everyone is supposed to follow. Men seeing other men act anything less than the percieved persona a-makes them uncomfortable, b-may anger them because they consider them an “embarressment”, “disgrace”. Woman look for this ideal macho man, it’s almost like a drop dead sexy girl laughing at a scrawny, unathletic guy asking her to prom. “Gay” men to some women are viewed that way because they act like females in some ways and that makes some women uncomfortable.

Personally I don’t really care, I have both lesbian and “gay” friends and honestly that stuff doesn’t faze me. Yes it bothers me when another female comes on to me, since I’m straight but I try to be polite when I say I’m not interested. Otherwise I have no problem. I just think the rest of the world needs to get with the program.

I think @josie got to the heart of the matter with the general point about penetration. The majority of males (and females?) do not really feel like it is SEX (I did not have sex with that woman!) unless there is penetration involved. Two women together is cute, two men together is disgusting—there should only be one potential penetrator.

@josie

But I would be willing to bet that if people were permitted to be real honest about it, it would wind up having something to do with the image of anal intercourse

Anal intercourse and oral sex (on a man or woman) have been sexually demonized as “sodomy” because they are both non-reproductive ways of achieving sexual pleasure. This is also why masturbation is considered socially deviant (historically) because it provides sexual agency without sexual objectification (i.e., it can be located anywhere including with women…allowing a social proof that women can be sexual (agents) without men). Therefore, anal (and to a less extent oral) sex is disdainful to think about for both sexes – men because it represents penetration, objectification, and therefore a loss of agency and women because they are not allowed to have sexual agency and so to talk about it is upsetting.

In fact, anal sex is most accepted when it is discussed in the context of men wanting to “get it” from women…in an upsetting hyper-objectifying way because then the woman is ONLY being used for the sexual pleasure of men (the only time non-reproductive sex is okay AND a way for a man to not trespass on the property of another man because no progeny results). Oral sex performed by a man on a woman is always open for discussion for much the same reason. Oral sex performed by a man on a man is upsetting, but if you notice (as in a recent “South Park” episode), humor can diffuse the situation somewhat by stating this makes the one performing (penatrated) the oral sex the one who’s “gay.” This is also true with anal sex with a man – the “tops” are always considered to historically be masculine, domineering, and are often given the illusion of “str8 acting” or in porn “gay for pay” (more acceptable). Oral sex on a woman is considered gross a lot of time (consider there is an upsetting joke that plays to racial stereotyping here as well) and there’s the whole “fish” illusion, because men do not get (theoretically) sexual pleasure out of it. Oral sex between women is not discussed openly often because it allows a woman to penetrate another, and therefore upsets the agency question. The same sorts of issues are associated with the practice of women.

Good point, josie.

@iamthemob very good answer
Do you think that these fears will vanish in time as these historical reason will have less and less effect in our mentality and as the structure of society changes? or do you think they’ll remain
@josie Your answer combined with @iamthemob‘s make a very complete answer.
Thank you both

It has to do—at least in part—with the sexism built into society. The notion that men are stronger and better is still prevalent.

When a woman has sex with other women, this has a masculinizing influence on how she is perceived because it is a masculine thing to do. This actually can raise her status (were it not for the fact that people are still homophobic, regardless of sexism).

By contrast having sex with a man has a feminizing influence on how a man is perceived, because it is a womanly thing to do. He is—in essence—lowering his place on the sexual/gender totem pole. People frown on that.

DAM @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard took my answer.

The OP asked me for some material – I found some sites showing the line of thought from the religious and historical perspective here and from the biblical perspective here. A modern legal perspective on a lot of the issues can be found here, and a general historical (from prehistory on) without a direct religious flavoring can be found here.

What is almost sad is that much of this can be gleaned by common sense just by looking at how our laws of marriage and property have almost always existed, and knowing a little bit about ourselves as a species – but only if we remove the social lens we’ve been generally programmed to see through, and what we’re taught to allow as acceptable.

PS – I’ll throw out a caveat that this is mostly from the perspective of “civilized” or “western” (I hate to say that civilized is better but it’s more inclusive – I mean it to include cultures that have developed stable, land-based productive capabilities that allow for the transfer of land as property) as opposed to nomadic or “tribal” societies or communities. Of course, the question comes in regards to the western acceptance (or lack of) gayness, but looking at these communities provides an even more astounding picture. Men and women will still have their roles, women mothering and men hunting as is somewhat dictated by simply physical requirements, but many tribal cultures will incorporate gayness into their structure more readily. The anthropological study of the alternative-gender ‘berdache’ and the bisexual ‘two-spirited’ third gender may help to show even more clearly the role of property in the apparent “moral” discrimination brought up here.

Homosexuality is often justified by comparing natural observations of the animal kingdom. I suppose that is one way of looking at male on male encounters amongst animals. Another way of looking at it is to note that male on male sex in the animal kingdom is not really sex at all, but rather a show of dominance of alpha males over more submissive males.

If this second perspective is considered, then please also consider that our modern society has not promoted the idea that being a submissive male is anything worthy of pursuing. Ironic, for all males must submit in some manner to superiors and responsibilities. But the idea that one must be forced to submit through an act of sexual physical dominance is horrifying to most men. Ultimately, it means that if you can dominate me enough to penetrate me against my will, then you could also have killed me dead in my tracks.

No man wants to promote such a weakness. So we bear our fangs and growl at the thought of it, perceiving that anything less is deemed unattractive to prospective female mating partners. Heh, if I can’t protect myself from other dominant Alpha males, then how could I possibly protect my mate and our children?

If this second perspective is considered, then please also consider that our modern society has not promoted the idea that being a submissive male is anything worthy of pursuing. Ironic, for all males must submit in some manner to superiors and responsibilities. But the idea that one must be forced to submit through an act of sexual physical dominance is horrifying to most men.

I think that’s an interesting point. But it’s more about rape – the idea of forced sexual submission of a woman is horrifying as well, and culturally unacceptable but for most of history has been viewed as an offense against property or an offense against men (when done to their women). The aversion to gay sex has to do with submission, but it’s willing submission, which isn’t forcible, which is horrifying and shameful for the forced man, but can be understood in a criminal context. Willing submission cannot be comprehended in this system, and is therefore dangerous and aberrant. It’s also supported by the idea that, until recently, marital rape was impossible, and also how rape generally deals with forced penetration and therefore the very concept (not to mention the legal ability) of a woman to rape in general, but PARTICULARLY the idea of a woman or man.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Alpha?
“An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.”

@ibstubro I appreciate that very interesting information. Yet I’m confused as how it demonstrates homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Do these swans actually have sex with one another? I used to have male room mates too, but that didn’t make me gay by default.

@iamthemob ”...that’s an interesting point. But it’s more about rape…”

Well yes, that’s how it’s perceived in the human world, but not in the animal kingdom. You’ve confirmed the point I was attempting to relate. It’s considered unacceptable to many human males because it is viewed as a form of rape in the visualizations in their minds.

Though it’s not rape between two consenting gay men, the hetero man who attempts to visualize himself in the same scenario may be subconsciously battling notions of rape/submission upon himself.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Another way of looking at it is to note that male on male sex in the animal kingdom is not really sex at all, but rather a show of dominance of alpha males over more submissive males.

and later

Well yes, that’s how it’s perceived in the human world, but not in the animal kingdom. You’ve confirmed the point I was attempting to relate. It’s considered unacceptable to many human males because it is viewed as a form of rape in the visualizations in their minds.Though it’s not rape between two consenting gay men, the hetero man who attempts to visualize himself in the same scenario may be subconsciously battling notions of rape/submission upon himself.

The problem here is that you’re conflating the concept when it’s in the animal context and then separating it in the human one. You’ve said that when male on male sex occurs in the animal kingdom it’s not sex at all, but only dominance. However, animals are just really sexual and rub on themselves and other things all the time, so to say one thing is sex and the other is not is kind of confusing, for one. Second, you’re stating that male on male sex is an act of dominance without stating how dominance is also an issue in play, which may be aggressive but isn’t about survival. Anyone who’s seen dogs sort of running around humping each other knows it can get aggressive, but usually it’s just kind of hilarious, and the dogs involved remain super best friends. Also, I don’t really know that I’ve heard of a successful male on male rape in the animal kingdom being observed – as far as I know, rape of females by males in the animal kingdom is mostly observed in ducks. Finally, I don’t think that rape so much as physical domination generally is a standard among males in the animal kingdom because there’s no evolutionary benefit to the behavior. Among animals who develop complex social relations and even those who don’t, sexual activity between those of the same sex can really only exist where the animals don’t have a set mating season or don’t mate often at all (they have one chance or so to spread their seed). Wasting reproductive material on a male is counter-evolutionary. Among animals who don’t mate on a schedule, sexual dominance is a trait that only benefits animals if they are trying to reproduce…so an inclination to rape another male doesn’t serve either a pleasure or a reproductive/evolutionary purpose. So observation of the animal kingdom doesn’t necessarily lead us to believe that there’s an intuitive fear from males of a species (men, here) of being raped by another man.

I think that we’re in agreement that it can be about dominance, though…but that really has nothing to do with sex, and concerns with being dominant are not at all subconscious but out in the open. Since male on male sexuality in nature is often of the playful kind, there’s nothing also to suggest that there’s a reason men should not think of it in anything but a playful way (even if it’s not their bag). Gay sexual desires are the ones that are more often considered suppressed or subconscious (the feelings that relate more to our nature), and so it seems that a subconscious rape fear is a stretch. On the conscious level, if hetero men are asked to think of gay men sexually and they’re reacting negatively, it’s a social enhancement of just a lack of interest because they don’t understand the how that can be. If they place themselves in the situation, thereby being sexually with another man, they’re probably not going to say that they’re picturing themselves being raped but rather would just say it’s really gross or wrong, and again I think that’s about dominance. Finally, a fear of rape in the subconscious necessitates that they only think about receiving instead of being the penatrator…I doubt that men would automatically put themselves in the position of being receptive if there’s a dominance concern. They would likely think about being a top, and react “gross.”

So I think that your analogy isn’t about where the reaction comes from, but more is part of the reaction as a whole. Because visualization doesn’t by nature, either consciously or unconsciously, necessitate rape, and doesn’t necessitate a particular position in the rape, and because there is an articulation available for male on male rape as a crime, but not for women generally, the rape fear is part of the social association of sexual agency with power, and not where the concern over male homosexuality originates from. However, I’m certain that more than one or two men, especially when they might go to prison, has not specifically feared rape and therefore had an increased reaction from their original reaction against homosexuality – but that’s all case by case.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I relied on the scholarly definition supplied by the author of the subject on wiki:

“Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior in animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied”

I would counter with the argument that you’re defining homosexuality as confined to the sex act. If you and your roommate had adopted a baby together and reared it as parents, then I would define you as homosexual, whether you engaged in sex or not. And I’m not talking about single fathers cohabitating, but two males joining together to acquire a baby and raise it together in a single home as it’s parents.

It’s because guys, men even other girls, think that 2 girls making out is much hotter than 2 men making out. So I guess that’s why…

I don’t think it is. I think that straight men (the homophobic ones) are more likely to publicly denounce men, and homophobic women are less open about it.

@Thesexier – I think that’s totally true, but I think that you’re also reforming the question of “why is gay sex less acceptable when it’s between men” as “why is gay sex between women considered sexier”. ;-) One is not the answer why to the other – both beg the same question of “why is this the case?”

@isuppose – I think it totally is the case, if we’re again talking about sexual activity as opposed to “lesbian” and “gay men” as identities. I also think that your statement about the likelihood of speaking out is unfortunately true, and that is more evidence of the fact that men are expected to have agency (the power, and therefore the ability to speak and be heard), whereas women are expected to have none (and therefore should not be speaking out at all – legally in so many ways evidenced by the fact that in the U.S. they haven’t even had the right to vote for a hundred years yet).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me @ibstubro and @iamthemob.

@jamthemob, I think you just confused me :/

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Thanks for sharing yours! I hadn’t thought about that issue, and it was an interesting point.

@Thesexier

I’m just saying that your answer doesn’t seem to address why we as a society find sexual activity between women more acceptable than we do when it’s between men. You stated that it’s because people generally think women making out is sexier than men making out…That does not, however, answer why people think that it’s okay. You still have to ask, “okay, but why do they think it’s sexier.”

There is an implied threat with homosexuality that is not present with lesbianism. Try watching “Deliverance” if you need more clarity.

@GeorgeGee

But I don’t think it’s rape…I think it’s that men can be objectified (to further clarifiy “Deliverance”)

(banjo playing – do do dooo dooo dooo dooo deee dumm dooooooooo).

@GeorgeGee

Deliverance defines Homosexuality almost as well as Basic Instinct defines Heterosexuality.

I guess lesbianism is the only sex that’s non threatening, and then only if you’ve never seen a real-life gathering of them!

@jamthemob, ahh you mean.
Well hope no one get’s offended im just saying
I guess they think men making out is gross or something.

@Thesexier For that matter, anyone making out in public is gross or something.

I really think that most of it has to do with the fact that gay men are associated with anal sex and lesbians are not. Many people have an aversion to anal sex and this can then lead to an aversion to gay men. (And believe me, I can understand the aversion, as someone who is not that turned on by the idea of it). Additionally, what straight men think is often seen as the “mainstream” thought and straight men are more inclined to be turned on by the idea of two [attractive] women together than two men together.

@DominicX

Again, that assumes that it is straight men who decide that – and we have to ask why that is.

Also, again, anal sex between a man and a woman is eroticized frequently (especially in low-brow movies directed precisely at young, straight men).

@ibstubro , for me it is kinda not nice- it always makes me feel so uncomfortable :/ Though I don’t think it’s gross.

@Thesexier I think you are assuming attractive people and even then, if it’s not gross, then it is at least ‘or something not appealing’. Next time you’re in Walmart or on public transport imagine those people making out. It’s gross. ;-)

Society and role playing most likely effects how we all feel about homosexuality to some degree. But I think that our built in sexual instincts play a far greater role. I’m a guy and I think that men look ugly and women look beautiful. The thought of 2 men getting it on somehow takes me to a place beyond repulsive. But because of the natural beauty that I see in women, I can understand how two women could have such feelings toward each other.

@gondwanalon

But you’re a guy…so…that’s only half the story. There should be an equal acceptance (if we’re only or primarily basing the effects on built in sexual instincts) because most women should feel the opposite.

I think perhaps women are more accepting of 2 women being together because somehow it represents the softer, gentler, emotionally fulfilling side of sex.

I think perhaps men are more accepting of 2 women being together because as long as there is no penetration, there is a male perception of a degree of ‘unfullfillment’ that he might perhaps be able to fill.

I think 2 men together is largely unattractive to both sexes because it is perceived as a base and complete sex act. Women don’t see an emotional invitation and men don’t perceive a physical one.