READ ALL readings I have provided. I will post all required readings. Do not quote or refer to outside resources. Use ONLY the readings I have provided as reference or quotes. The reply to each post w
Post 1
One of the points offered in this weeks reading that really stuck out to me was the idea of lower classes/races being inherently deviant. This is expressed in chapter two; “Also contributing to the rising tide of race prejudice and nativist sentiment throughout America was the white middle-class American belief that the working classes and poor generally, and the ‘lower races’ more specifically, were by nature lustful and sexually degenerate.” (58)
To deviate just slightly, the first thing that came to mind when I read this piece was a reflection of the Proles in the novel 1984. In such, they are viewed as 'beyond saving', being so deviant and degenerate that there is little hope in attempting to quell them - so long as their activities were kept out of sign of the 'normal' populace. I originally found it curious that this was a common link between the two pieces, being that they cover such different subject matter. However, after some introspection, I realize that this is still a common practice with minority groups today. For instance, have you ever heard the idea from someone that they are ok with two gay men being intimate - as long as they don't have to see it? Or the concept of having a 'gay district' in the city? In some ways this district is beneficial to queer people, as they know where to convene with accepting members of society. But, in a way, isn't it just another way of saying 'out of sight, out of mind'? Let's look at another example within out military; until very recently, 'don't ask, don't tell' was a very real concept, and one that got many men in serious trouble.
Looking at all these, I think we can safely say that sexual minorities are allowed their pleasures, but at the cost of keeping it out of sight of the hetero normative public. In such a way, we are condemning them as lustful and sexually degenerate in the same way as we did so many years ago.
Post 2
During this weeks reading we examined Peter Boag's selected chapters on same-sex sexualities in Portland during the late 19th and early 20th century. Boag centralizes on two different groups of men that participated in same-sex sex acts, the transient/working class men and youths and the American born middle-class white men.
Personally, I found Boag's 3rd chapter very interesting. Boag uses the changer to elaborate on the white middle-class gay community began to rise in Portland. Boag asserts "big business- the corporation- had arrived" (Boag 93). The shift from "entrepreneurial capitalism" to "big business" created a middle-class of men that have free time and money for entertainment purposes. Many spaces for leisure such as movies, amusement parks, saloons, pool houses, etc; "these leisure activities also helped heighten or perhaps even constructed homosexual desire" (Boag 99). These spaces served as a meet up spot for men with similar sexual desires to find each other. Not to mention, transient men and youths would also conglomerate around these areas allowing for classes to mix. The relationship between middle-class men and youths was complex. Many of the older men stay away from transient youths in fear of dangers, such a thievery or blackmail or being outed because the youth would testify against them in hope of saving themselves. Through, Boag's chapter it is clear to see how "broad economic change, whose direct material consequences were felt in individual lives, permitted middle-class men to form the first homosexual subculture" (Boag 124).
In all, America's first sexual revolution was complex and intertwined between classes, races, and ages. I was intrigue by section on sexual labels which separated the men who received and gave fellation. This distinction of important to the men at the time due to the feminine attributes to being the one penetrated. It was crazy that this distinction in sodomy cases actually contributed to men getting charges off because they weren't in the feminine role. Men's convictions of sex roles, not only played in the social views on homosexual men but also how women's sexual role was seen by men.
Post 3
In chapter 2 of Boag's book, he describes the "jocker-punk' relationship (Boag, chp 2 pg 83) and how the sexual behaviors of transient men shaped the sexual activities typical of young, male sex-workers in Portland. Boag describes how, in other areas, male youth in sex-work would tend adhere to their masculinity and heterosexuality by only allowing men to perform oral sex on them, and to not allow themselves to be either orally or anally penetrated, lest they turn to violence against their client or refuse future sexual encounters. However, the cultural norms of sexual behavior in transient culture "dictated a different sexual dynamic" (Boag, chp 2 pg 83) between young male sex-workers and their older clients. This "transient culture" which didn't allow for such sexual independence on the part of the youthful male sex-worker seemed to establish the "jocker-punk relationship [that] almost always mandated that the adult act as the penetrator and the youth act as the receptor, regardless of the latter's 'sexuality,' " (Boag, chp 2 pg 83). I am curious why and how this 'transient culture' had such a different influence on the sexual acts of youthful male sex-workers on the road or in the Northwest versus those in other areas who were better able to dictate their roles in sexual acts. I am also fascinated by the fact that the distinctions between certain sub-cultures of the gay community were established this early on by the underground homosexual community, such as those based on one's presentation of masculinity or femininity (punks versus fairies). I had no idea these distinctions existed as early as the late nineteenth century, as it seems society was only then becoming aware of homosexuality in general, let alone the various sub-cultures that exist within the homosexual community.
