CHAPTER 5

THE MYTH OF QUEER LABELLING

The purpose of this chapter is to create a model of sexuality, using the designation "homosexuality" as an instrument in its understanding. Labelling objectifies and reifies behavior so that the behavior becomes viewed as a "condition." I contend that homosexuality can be made into a condition by some people labelled as homosexuals, but frequently represents activities, emotional relationships, and fantasies that exist on different, but permeable dimensions, independent of any given "condition."

Gore Vidal once said that that there are homosexual acts but not homosexuals (White 1995:79.) Foucault even maintains that, "The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species (White 1995:79.) He contends that there were no homosexuals before they were actually labelled as such in the nineteenth century.

This contention, clearly true, suggests an analysis of the primal urge of sexuality that may frequently be seen to be independent, though not at all times exclusive, of labelling. Sexuality may be seen to be conceptualized on four dimensions that are not necessarily exclusive of each other; these dimensions may be seen as permeable, where one may well "bleed" or "drift" into one or more of the others.

These dimensions are "Condition" (which may have prenatal origins, and which may well be statistically uncommon), "Activity," "Romance or Affectional Attraction," and "Fantasy." Covert (closetted) and overt (out of the closet) sexual self-identification is no more accurate in its depiction of homosexuality as necessarily a "condition" than is the

imputation of the label "homosexual" on a given person.

In many cases "homosexual" is made to be a noun for purposes of convenience regarding self or other identification. However, for the most part, it is a verb. The thesis of this chapter is that the various dimensions of sexuality are permeable and do not necessitate the imputation of immutable identity or "condition" on any given individual.

BACKGROUND

Early studies of homosexuality, such as those by Krafft-Ebing, made a distinction between the "invert" who is congenitally homosexual and others who, although they exhibit the same behavior, are not inverts. (Krafft-Ebing 1965) Indeed, the term "homosexuality" was popularized in 1869 by K.M.Benkert. (Money 1988:9) As Goode and Troiden note, Anna Freud "wrote that the ultimate criterion of sexual orientation was the sex of one's masturbatory fantasies." (Goode and Troiden 1974:149) They see that homosexuality is much more complex and suggest that "no single dimension of homosexuality alone determines a man's sexual orientation" and that the many dimensions of homosexuality are "not necessarily found in the same person." (Goode and Troiden 1974:154)

However, they feel that how one defines his gender preference "has an enormous impact on his behavior, his sense of ease with his life, his social relations with others, what he thinks, how he feels, his experiences both internal and external " (Goode and Troiden 1974:150)

They do not recognize that it is the artificially constructed label of "homosexual" or "gay" or "lesbian" that gives this definition such an impact. Support for such an artificially constructed label comes from the study of men visiting tea rooms, which are public bathrooms where men engage in anonymous, impersonal sex, many of whom are heterosexually married men. (Humphreys 1975)

When lesbians fall in love with men, it is a strong indication that labels are artificial and blurry. As Lillian Faderman observes, "Observation tells us that the neat categories of sexual identity are often an illusion. People in real life can move in and out of those categories, spending one portion of their lives as straight and another as gay and then perhaps straight again, or vice versa, or all of it at once, or none of it at all. So why should it be shocking or upsetting to many in the lesbian community when a sometime leader admits to having fallen in love with a man? The narrow categories of identity politics are obviously deceptive. They hide the complex, multifaceted nature of human beings. But the undeniable successes of identity politics have made life easier for many of us--if, for instance, we have any ancestors who were not white or if we fall in love with someone of the same sex. That being so, how can we not feel discomfort or loss or annoyance when anything or anyone reminds us how simplistic and unstable the notion of identity truly is?" (Faderman 1997)

Evelyn Hooker proposed that homosexuality is consistent with psychological health, as is heterosexuality, which flew in the face of psychoanalytic and psychiatric theories stating the contrary. (Hooker 1967) As a rule, the homosexual community, just like the heterosexual community, is not very tolerant of the notion of "drift," where one may explore the many facets of sexuality, without being negatively defined.

Indeed, there seems to be an unwitting conspiracy between homophobes and much of "straight" society on the one hand and gay pride activists on the other to paint homosexuality as a condition that exists independently of choice. Kinsey saw sexual orientation as a continuum, and developed a "heterosexual-homosexual rating scale, which classified men from 0 to 6 which were based on sexual contacts that resulted in arousal or orgasm, and "psychic response." (Kinsey 1948) The middle part of the scale legitimized bisexuality as a category, which Freud felt was our basic sexual constitution.

More recent literature also sees homosexuality as a category, but recognizes many variables of which it is constituted, such as sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preference, social preference, self-identification, and life style. (Klein, etal 1990) Another sound work on this issue indicates that sexual preference appears to be largely determined before adolescence; homosexual feelings precede homosexual behavior by an average of three years; homosexuals have a history of heterosexual experiences during childhood and adolescence; identification with a given parent plays no role in one's becoming a homosexual; no particular type of mother determines the sexual preference of the child. These "findings are not inconsistent with what one would expect to find if, indeed, there were a biological basis for sexual preference." (Bell etal 1981:216)

However, we may see that none of these findings vitiate preference independently of one's biology. Moreover, "Predisposition is not predetermination. The social and cultural environment will always play a major role, as will chance and serendipity, choice and free will." (Hamer 1997)

Some studies dealing with biology, genetics, and brain morphology suggest that a portion of the hypothalamus was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men studied than in the homosexual men studied. (La Vay 1991) Another study reports that homosexuals have an enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus compared to heterosexuals. (Swaab and Hofman 1990) Moreover, some scientists at the National Cancer Institute

reported that they had isolated a particular region on the X chromosome where they believe a gene favoring homosexuality resides. (Wheeler 1993; Henry 1993)

Such findings resonate well with the notion that homosexuality is definitely a "condition," albeit involving many variables; are reinforced by notions of "gay pride" and "coming out." However, in another study of homosexuals who are twins, it was found that "Discordance for sexual orientation in the monozygotic pairs confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation of the development of sexual orientation. " (King and McDonald 1992:407)

In reviewing Marjorie Garber's book, Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life, Edmund White reflects on her thesis that erotic life is of one piece, and that there is only one sexuality. He speaks about the Stonewall uprising and how at that time he "decided I was completely gay and was only making the women in my life miserable. I denied the authenticity of my earlier heterosexual feelings in the light of my later homosexual identity. After reading Vice Versa, I find myself willing to reinterpret the narrative of my own personal history." (White 1995:81)

In a 1965 interview, James Baldwin stated that "those terms, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, are 20th century terms which, for me, really have very little meaning. I've never, myself, in watching other people, watching life, been able to discern exactly where the barriers were." (Mossman 1989:54)

Pat Califia writes, "…in an egalitarian society, people would need markers for whom they found attractive. Masculinity and femininity might become disengaged from gender. They might become erotic vocations instead of being linked to chromosomes." (Cusac 1996:37) Unfortunately, the myth persists that many "homosexuals" "are not free to invent new objects of desire any more than heterosexual men are--their choice is structured by the existing gender order." (Connell 1992:747) It is believed that people do not appear to choose homosexuality any more than people choose heterosexuality.

For some, as some biologists' and geneticists' work suggest, it is possible that this belief may well be valid. However, it is my contention that for most all people identified as "gay," biological determinism is not valid.

Evidence for this contention is seen in prisons and boarding schools where homosexuality, in its behavioral and emotional manifestations, is common; after leaving the institution, many "drift" back into "heterosexuality." Moreover, heterosexual behavior is also seen among many male prostitutes who commit homosexual acts for money. (Luckenbill 1986)

Even sociological views that sexual preference or orientation is learned or that the alternative has not been learned (Plummer 1981) appear to miss the mark, in that behavioral causation, even if it can be sufficiently established, which has hitherto not been the case, is largely irrelevant. In this connection, it is noteworthy that in the gay community there has been a change from use of the word "preference," which implies that homosexuality is an adopted lifestyle, to the term "orientation," in order to help obtain the civil rights legally offered to other minority groups. (Worsnop 1993:197) "Orientation" denotes biological underpinnings to behavior which has yet to be established; "preference" denotes learning of behaviors which also misses the mark of the fluidity of sexual behavior and identity.

Gay bars contribute to the maintenance of a homosexual self-concept by reinforcing the concept of "gayness" and solidifying contacts with other self-identified gay people, thereby helping to create an "us" versus "them" mentality. (Reitzes and Diver 1982) This institution not only serves as a place for people to meet but helps provide social support as well. (Berger 1990) There are also "gay communities" that foster homosexuality as a condition. There are such communities in cities, rural areas and, indeed, they are world- wide. (Miller 1989)

Various gay organizations have helped solidify the label of "homosexuality" for political purposes (Humphreys 1972) that is introjected by the individual who may not have the "condition" of homosexuality but has one or more of the other dimensions, that are a consequence of some element of "choice." Indeed, there is perceived to be a market for lesbian and gay teen oriented literature that may further solidify the label of "gay" as a condition on young people. According to an assistant editor at Chelsea House Publishers, "there is a crying need for young adult books that honestly and thoroughly address gay studies issues. It's my experience that most gay people at first look to the written word for information on homosexuality. I know I did. After all, there's no risk! It's much safer than talking to anyone, even your best friend. I think our timing is really perfect on this now." (Garden 1994:10)

He goes on to say that, "Lesbian/gay issues are very much in the news today and the adolescent years are justifiably famous for being years in which adolescents are not quite sure of their sexual orientation. There is a tremendous curiosity on the part of most people about homosexuality."

This state of affairs may well be compounded by gay youth sites on the internet, labelling children as young as fourteen years of age as "gay"; even having group homes for "gay" teenagers. (Kronenberg 1996:23) Martin Duberman, the general series editor, is quoted as saying "...the adolescent years are justifiably famous for being years in which adolescents are not quite sure of their sexual orientation." (Garden 1994:12)

The insistence upon homosexuality as a definite condition may also account for the tremendous impact of labelling and its consequent guilt and stigma. An assistant editor of Chelsea House Publishers notes that "Gay youth are killing themselves at two or three times the rate of nongay youth... .The number of gay youth who kill themselves is small compared to those who are driven away by their families, who turn to lives of prostitution, drug use, and crime to try to survive on their own. And this last group is in turn dwarfed by the tremendous number of teenagers who experience the gamut of negative feelings, from mild anxiety to terrible psychological trauma, over their sexual orientation." (Garden 1994:12)

DISCUSSION

It will always be premature to rule out homosexuality as a condition! It may well be that as molecular biology and genetics progress, we will find biological determinants of our sexual preferences, be they heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or omnisexual, manifested in such behaviors as pedophilia and beastiality. However, even if such "determinants" are found, they won't necessarily argue for immutable causation, as choice and cultural pressures can frequently override one's biological predispositions as seen in the case of alcoholism

My research in talking with gay men and women, as well as some of the literature in the area of homosexuality, argue in seeing sexuality as of one piece. That piece can be manifested in many ways, depending on one's mood, culture, subculture, and culturally-imposed, media-imposed, and self-imposed identity.

One can manifest the "activity" of homosexuality (or heterosexuality) and not have romantic attachments; one can have "romantic attachments" and not engage in sexual activity; one can have sexual "fantasies" and not carry them out, or carry them out without romantic attachments. Self-proclaimed homosexuals may "fall in love" with others of the opposite gender, and self-proclaimed heterosexuals may "fall in love" with others of the same gender; may or may not manifest those romantic attachments in sexual behavior.

Since our culture demands heterosexual attraction and behavior, it is the relatively rare person who can be expected to transcend the stigma and threatening punishments of the culture and allow himself or herself to behave and feel homosexually. Indeed, one does not merely give oneself permission to explore more than one piece of the sexual choice-puzzle, but may not even be exposed to images that even hint of cultural approval that give him or her permission to do such exploration.

The relatively small number of "homosexuals" in our midst may well be more an indication of cultural imperatives coercing people to be "heterosexuals" than to any biological predisposition's, genetic mutations or differences in brain morphology. We have no reason to not assume that seen in a cultural vacuum all adults would sexually and romantically partake of both males and females.

This thesis is not viewed as foolish when the issue of food preference is dealt with. Some people prefer meat, others prefer vegetables, most partake of both. There are some people who are vegetarians who for health, safety, religious, or political reasons will only eat vegetables. However, these people are rare, and no one thinks to examine their brain morphology or physiology or genetics to determine why they will only eat vegetables. Why do we view romantic and sexual preference any differently?

Just as one can eat vegetables and not be "in love" with vegetables, as one can eat food and not he "in love" with food, one can have sexual relations with someone of the same or different gender and not be "in love" with that person.

Furthermore, a good example where "romance" may be seen to come and go is our divorce rate which is at least fifty percent.. In addition, there are many loveless marriages where sex may occur without romantic attachment; romance may exist without sexual behavior, as witnessed in some older couples due to illness, diminished libido, or the taking of certain medications.

As the culture became more permissive regarding divorce, the divorce rates climbed. The same may be seen to be true regarding sexual behavior. Within the confines of the gay scene, attitudes and behaviors are learned and reinforced, even to the point where one comes to adopt his or her sexual preference at the time as his or her identity, that he or she is made to feel and comes to feel must be immutable. Indeed, gay subcultures coerce one into accepting the behavior of the moment, be it a day or a decade, as denoting one's identity that comes to be viewed as a core part of oneself.

The gay subculture, manifested in bars, clubs, periodicals, and web sites may be seen to create the identity of the condition of "homosexual" every bit as much as the most rabidly homophobic portion of our population. The foisting of this identity upon people, especially adolescents, may be seen to exacerbate suicides and self-loathing whether the source is under the rubric of "Gay Rights" or the "Moral Majority."

CONCLUSION

Our knowledge at the moment gives us no warrant to view homosexuality as a condition or as an immutable identity! People behave, and their behaviors have assorted meanings to them. These meanings are many and varied and need not be immutable; are filtered through the cultures and subcultures to which people belong. However, they are amenable to change as one wishes. Change of meaning occurs when the perceived evidence in a given situation or stage of one’s life seems to warrant such change.

If the dominant culture and the gay subcultures reinforce the stereotype of the "homosexual" as a condition, homosexuals and non-homosexuals will not think to question it. Just as the effeminate male and masculine female stereotypes are bogus, the view that homosexuality need be an immutable condition and a core part of one's identity is similarly bogus. It might be more profitable to view us as sexual chameleons who can change our "orientations" depending upon some level of choice, environmental stimuli, subcultural and cultural norms, and individual and social expectations of behavior.

If sociologists can deconstruct the labels that are placed upon people for purposes of convenience, personal freedom and acceptance will more likely replace fear and self- loathing; permission to redirect one's sexuality without censure will replace the feeling of an immutable sexual identity which I hope I have shown to be bogus.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, A., etal. 1981. Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Berger, Raymond M. 1990. "Men Together: Understanding the Gay Couple," Journal of Homosexuality, 19: 31-49.

Connell, R.W. 1992. "A Very Straight Gay: Masculinity, Homosexual Experience, and the Dynamics of Gender," American Sociological Review. 57: 735-751.

Cusac, Anne-Marie. "Profile of a Sex Radical," The Progressive. Volume 60, Number 10:34-37.

Faderman, Lillian. 1997. "Why Is It Shocking When A Lesbian Leader Falls In Love With A Man?" The Advocate, April 29, 1997:80

Garden, Nancy. 1994. "Gay Youth Book Boom," Lambda Book Report. January 1, 1994, Volume 4, Number 2:10-12.

Goode, Erich and Richard T. Troiden, eds. 1974. Sexual Deviance and Sexual Deviants. New York: Morrow.

Hamer, Dean. 1997. "Searching For That Perfect Pair of Genes." The Advocate, October 14: 65.

Henry, William A. 1993. "Born Gay?" Time, 142: July 26: 36-39.

Hooker, E. 1967. "The Homosexual Community." In Gagnon, etal, eds. Sexual Deviance

New York: Harper and Row.

Humphreys, Laud. 1972. Out of the Closets: The Sociology of Homosexual Liberation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Humphreys, Laud. 1975. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Chicago: Aldine.

King, Michael and Elizabeth McDonald. 1992. "Homosexuals who are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands," British Journal of Psychiatry, 160: 407-409.

Kinsey, Alfred C., etal. 1948. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: Saunders.

Klein, F. 1990. "The Need to View Sexual Orientation as a Multivariable Dynamic Process: A Theoretical Perspective," In McWhirter, etal., eds. Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press, 277-282.

Kraffi-Ebing, R. Von. 1965. Psychopathic Sexualis, New York: Bell (Original Edition 1886.)

Kronenberg, Gail 1996. "Singled Out," The Advocate. April 30: 23-24.

LaVay, Simon 1991. "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science, 253:1034-1037.

Luckenbill, David F. 1986. "Deviant Career Mobility: The Case of Male Prostitutes," Social Problems, 33: 283-293.

Miller, Neil. 1989.11 In Search of Gay America, New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Money, John. 1988. Gay, Straight and In-Between: The Sociology of Erotic Orientation, New York: Oxford University Press.

Mossman, James. 1989. "Race, Hate, Sex, and Color: A Conversation with James

Baldwin and Cohn MacInnes," In Stanley, Fred L. and Louis H. Pratt, editors, Conversations With James Baldwin. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 46-58.

Plurnmer, Kenneth., edl 1981. The Making of the Modern Homosexual. London: Hutchinson.

Reitzes, Konald C. and Juliette K. Diver. 1982. "Gay Bars as Deviant Community Organizations: The Management of Interactions with Outsiders," Deviant Behavior 4:1-18.

Swaab, D.F. and M.A. Hofman. 1990. "An Enlarged Suprachiasmatic Nucleus in Homosexual Men," Brain Research 537:141-148.

Wheeler, David L. 1993. "Study Suggests X Chromosome Is Linked to

Homosexuality," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 42: July 21: A6.

White, Edmund. 1995. "Gender Uncertainties: Maijorie Garber Looks at Bisexuality, The New Yorker, July 17: 79-81.

Worsnop, Richardd L. 1993. "Gay Rights: The Issues," C Q Researcher March 5.