Tuesday, April 28, 2015

The Beatrix Potter Fallacy

I'm thrashing around here trying to think of a word for a concept. The Shaw quote in the quibcag sort of captures it. It's the notion that other people and other groups are exactly like you and your groups. I've been hearing people ask 'Where are their parents' in the middle of this Baltimore mess. The implication is that the ghetto rioters have families much like one's own. Well, mostly, they don't. They don't have fathers, and their mothers are usually outrageously young and ignorant, and very often hooked on some damn thing or another. So asking where their parents are calls Ward and June Cleaver to mind and that doesn't apply at all. Taking this concept to ridiculous extremes, I'm reminded of children's books, like Peter Rabbit, wherein animals have human characteristics. They wear pants, have brothers and sisters and parents who give them advice and take care of them. They talk, of course, and have motivations and relationships just like people. So maybe we can call it the "Beatrix Potter Fallacy." This manifests in many ways, even without going outside the human race. We gladly invite Muslim immigrants into the West, assuming they're already like us, in that they'll consider principles and laws more important than religion and blood, and will assimilate just fine. They won't and don't.  And we assume that other ethnic groups are Just Like Us In The Important Ways, and just need a little talking to and understanding to fit right in. That's not the case.

And a favorite manifestation of this fallacy is that homosexuals are Just Like Us, and want to have nice nuclear families and chastity and loyalty within marriage and mow their lawns and go to PTA meetings, etc. Wrong. Homosexuals are quite different. And that leads me to a reprint here from The Libertarian Alliance. It reinforces my theory that British libertarians are just like American libertarians, except that they have common sense instead of political correctness.

What does it mean to be “gay”?


D.J. Webb
Is being “gay” a version of the family? How should people be gay? Should they get married, adopt children and try to live out a fantasy family lifestyle? Is this in fact what a society that chooses not to discriminate against homosexuality should seek to encourage?
We are meant to admire Elton John, who has “married” his “partner”, David Furnish. The couple now have two children, brought into the world with the assistance of a surrogate mother. Other similar “married” gay men have adopted children. This fully recreates the heterosexual life experience in a gay form. This is at least one version of how to be gay.
Another version is the George Michael approach. George Michael has stated in the newspapers that he cruises for sex with strangers on Hampstead Heath in London. He claims that he can have anyone he wants on the Heath.
Interestingly, the two versions of the gay lifestyle have clashed. Elton John has encouraged George Michael to seek help for his “sex addiction”, as well as for his taking of drugs. In 2009 George Michael countered,
Elton just needs to shut his mouth and get on with his own life. Look, if people choose to believe that I’m sitting here in my ivory tower, Howard Hughesing myself with long fingernails and loads of drugs, then I can’t do anything about that, can I? People want to see me as tragic with all the cottaging and drug-taking… those things are not what most people aspire to, and I think it removes people’s envy to see your weaknesses. I don’t even see them as weaknesses any more. It’s just who I am.
It seems undeniable that George Michael’s approach of seeking to have sex with as many good-looking strangers as possible is what has hitherto been the “gay” lifestyle. George Michael hasn’t “married” his partner and hasn’t procured children. I lost the thread of what the singer was up to around 2012, and don’t know if he still haunts Hampstead Heath. As an extremely unattractive man, he may well find that his status as a singer will not always, as he gets older, secure him the physical activity with the most attractive young men that he may still crave.
I think it undeniable, however, that most gay men in their 40s and 50s would rather be having frequent sex with as many 18-21-year-old men (“twinks”) as possible, rather than posing as “married men” with “children” in tow.
The Elton John style fake family seems to me to be a freak show—one that even more freakily is what the British Establishment is recommending as the ideal life for gay men.
More recently, there have been a number of news stories showing that an older generation of gay men are “turned off” by the new politically correct developments in gay culture. The fashion designers, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, caused uproar when they criticised the attempt to create “same-sex families” along the Elton John model. The Dolce and Gabbana statements—“no chemical offsprings [sic] and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed” and “the only family is the traditional one”—illustrates perfectly the fact that there is no consensus among homosexual men on creating an artificial family-like gay life.
The fashion designer Giorgio Armani has joined the fray, criticising effeminate or overly obviously gay dress styles, saying “a homosexual man is a man 100%. He does not need to dress homosexual” and “when homosexuality is exhibited to the extreme—to say, ‘Ah, you know I’m homosexual,’—that has nothing to do with me. A man has to be a man”.
It seems there is a culture that is an acceptable part of the multicultural political project that is identifiably gay. A way of dressing. A hairstyle. A musical preference. A less manly mode of behaviour. This culture can be incorporated into the general attack on family values by means of gay marriage, gay adoption of children, by the mainstreaming of the gay identity.
But most of this amounts to taking the homosexuality out of being gay. It is becoming a culture—largely a young person’s culture—and an identity. But at its most fundamental, being “gay” should be about having sex with men. It is possible to enjoy sex with men, even exclusively, and not share the cultural aspects of “gay identity”. Who cares about the hairstyles and the music? If it isn’t about sex, then this culture is a synthetic creation of the political and media class.
Real homosexuality is incompatible with the family, because homosexuality is about sex, not love. I don’t deny that gay men do fall in love with each other—but shorter relationships are statistically more common in the absence of any real family relationship. And, yes, gay men do love attractive young men—but they love all of them, and want to have sex with all of them. Large numbers of sexual partners is what being homosexual has really always been about. A monogamous family-style gay life is really for unattractive gay men.
The family is an entirely different concept to homosexuality: it creates a cocoon within which sex, but also reproduction and the upbringing of children, can be conducted. A 50-year-old man knows the 18-year-old females no longer find him attractive. He has a wife—who will have lost her looks—and he has children and probably grandchildren. He would be losing a lot by foolishly chasing after young women. The family provides a way for him to reconcile himself to his ageing self and his declining sexual activity.
Being gay can be tolerated by society at the margins. There can be a small number of people who don’t have real families, and hanker after sex until they can no longer gyrate, without disturbing social order. Whether such people can find a way to be happy as septuagenarian homosexuals with no children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren, is largely their business, and in most cases likely to be an unhappy affair. In reality, heterosexuality is a greater and more palatable concept, simply because of the way it provides a network of relationships as a compensation for sexual activity for older straight men. Real homosexuality has nothing similar to offer—other than the plastic families of Elton John and his ilk.
Be that as it may, it seems clear that the family-like gays do not speak for the entire homosexual community, and are even seen as freakish in some parts of the homosexual population. The danger is that the political adoption of homosexuality as a cultural cause will spoil the real content of gay life. By going mainstream, the sex is taken out of the sexuality—and then it becomes the plaything of the political elite. Libertarians should therefore oppose the political gay cultural project and lend their support rather to men who like to have sex with strangers in saunas, in dark rooms in gay clubs, in specialist sex clubs, and other similar venues.
-----

The original is here: http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/04/23/what-does-it-mean-to-be-gay/
-----
Quibcag: Illustration by Miisu

2 comments:

  1. "There can be a small number of people who don’t have real families, and hanker after sex until they can no longer gyrate, without disturbing social order. Whether such people can find a way to be happy as septuagenarian homosexuals with no children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren, is largely their business, and in most cases likely to be an unhappy affair."

    Not always "unhappy." In extended families and small towns, the "confirmed bachelor" members at the margin - obviously homosexual, with certain readily identifiable affectations of speech and dress and behavior - can not only be tolerated but also valued as assets with capabilities which can be put to the benefit of the people around them.

    To the extent that they themselves recognize their own value (which is not defined by their pursuit of sexual pleasure but rather the skills and knowledge they make available to their neighbors, and those are seldom inconsiderable), these epicene types can get to about as much contentment as ever might be achieved by living more conventional lives of quiet desperation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "We gladly invite Muslim immigrants into the West, assuming they're already like us,"

    Actually, it's precisely because they're not "like us" that they're being brought in. Saying that the forces who bring them in assume they're like us implies that those forces actually want to strengthen or at least not hurt the West or traditional America - they don't, they want to destroy them. They are racists, and their alliance with backward Islam shows the depth of their destructive white-hating racism. They'll embrace anyone who is anti-white. The recent embrace of Muslim terrorists by Gary Trudeau is a good example of how far they're will go.

    ReplyDelete