Can you hug your opposite sex friend?
- Thread starter nilprenia
- Start date
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
something that's interesting is how tolerance of others can be divorced from self-image
speaking from personal experience, I never had any issues with gay, trans, etc folk - liberal parents, grew up in diy punk etc
but it was still a monumentally huge deal the first time I had a sexual encounter with someone other than a cisgendered woman
or not really the encounter - try everything once or twice, why not, see if you like it, it's just body parts, whatever
but the realization that I wasn't totally straight - I didn't realize until then that I'd always unconsciously assumed I'd ultimately end in a long-term heterosexual relationship - and then you think, maybe I won't. it's not yunno bad but it takes some getting used to. and that's what most panic, or more benignly, the kind of discourse you mention is about - it's OK for there to be gay people, but what if I'm gay (or whatever), what does that mean? i.e. our dicks touching when we bro hug isn't weird of itself, what's "weird" is the potential that one or both of us might enjoy our dicks touching. which I guess is obvious? the smothering constrictions of masculinity.
tho it's not like queer scenes are free of patriarchy, they're sometimes even worse in that regard
How homophobic though? Is there much going on on the DL? And is it a more recent thing? I'd always thought Ottoman Empire, hotbed of opium and illicit desires....turkey is so homophobic but a hug and a kiss on the cheeks is standard between men at any guests house. In fact, it can be rude not to - though don't do this danny, you will probably be seen as weird anglo desperately trying to fit in.
Leo
Well-known member
holding hands is in someways a stronger show of affection. most hugs are brief, five seconds or so at most, whereas you can walk hand-in-hand for hours and it's by nature a prolonged outward display, broadcasting to the world all day long.
the wife and I have often observed handholding tends to be done by couples in their late-30s and older, much more rare among 20somethings.
and there's nothing sweeter than seeing teenager or elderly couples holding hands: one signifying exciting young (perhaps first) love, the other symbolizing growing old together.
Read Trainspotting but I don't remember that bit, not that I would've been aware of Rogers at the time. It's good stuff, not the be all and end all - was important at the moment in psychotherapeutic history as he articulated the swing away from Freud and the stereotypical coldness of Freudian analysts. There's definitely holes in it as practiced but it came to mind as it chimed with your statement above re. the obvious.
oh there's a lot on the dl. but it is really, really on the dl if ya get me.
Opium is different. It was being legally manufactured until 1974 before US-pressured sanctions for restricted license poppy production. So much for american secularism.
You could say Rogers systematised niceness/not being a cunt (for therapists). Also, just as importantly, he put highlighted client power and autonomy and blew up the whole edifice of the analytical mastermind on his throne, dispensing wisdom. He felt it was the client who heals, calls the shots, ultimately directs the process. That's debatable but like I said, it's a welcome antidote to crude takes on the Freudian model.
And was there ever a time when that was different? Or has the homophobia always been there?
what do you mean exactly by that? I don't know any class societies who have been truly anti-homophobic. It fluctuates. these days it is on the increase, though paradoxically there are probably more queer spaces for people to get together/obtain support than there were in relatively more milder times.
perverted anti-art.
I guess I meant was there ever a time when queerness was a little more tolerated? I know absolutely fuck all about Turkish/ME history so forgive me.
I guess in the background lurks the idea that reactionary sentiment is historically determined not eternal as we sometimes see it as.
I guess in the background lurks the idea that reactionary sentiment is historically determined not eternal as we sometimes see it as.
oh I'm not defending the bloodline, I'm merely saying, if the family is legitimised as the go to support/sustinence solution under our current conditions, then hyper-investing the family you choose with those attributes of family is problematic if the smallest things lead to being ostracised. It's just better to stick to friends in that regard, because you at least know your limitations and don't have to deal with total rejection if you fall out. But the self-selected family has the great potential to reproduce the abusive dynamics of the genetic family.
I mean our notions of queerness are highly determined by our anglo/american contexts. some aspects, yes, others not so much. the flamboyant high camp semi-femme trad dressed ottoman aristocrat with gleeming rings and make up, for instance was always respected during secular times..
The old marxist gay intellectual, however, really not at all.
This is what I mean. these questions are always so vague.
for instance the marxist gay isn't just disrespected because of his politics, if anything because he is just like me and you and is seen as a kind of disobedient wrecker. 'why aren't you upholding religion, friend?' On the other hand, the high camp ottoman aristo taps into a sense of nostalgia, you see. So is maybe able to appeal to people who would otherwise be homophobic because of the exagerrated days of tradition. It appeals to a nostalgic factor. so many variables.
but you shouldn't ask me about the queer scenes in depth i have nothing to do with them really and find them (in London at least) alienating and a bit posh. or more rather, any sort of social events i went to were not based on sexuality as a primary factor, be that gay or straight. I'm too urban mate, finchley gabba mafia.