by Colm O’Hehir
Traditionalist Christians often decry the homsosexual sexual revolution, rightly so in my view.
But in recent times I’ve become intrigued by the role of homosexual men in shaping the HETEROSEXUAL sexual revolution, i.e., the culture of casual sexual promiscuity now the norm in many western nations.
Has the predominance of homosexual men in the media and fashion industry subtly altered the outlook of heterosexuals of both sexes? I think it’s quite plausible to suggest that it has.
Recently, I read a column by a young British female journalist in the Daily Telegraph, in which she recalled that the “stunners” of the 1980s (such as the Benny Hill girls and the glamour model Samantha Fox) had “soft bodies”, unlike the female celebrity beauties of today.
It was a fairly throwaway remark, but it got me wondering if the rise of the hard bodied ideal feminine body type owes a lot to the prevalence of homosexual men in the fashion industry, television, and magazine publishing.
After all, gays go for the lean, hard, muscular look in men; so it’s only logical to assume that they’ll like it in women as well. Even the hard, football-like fake boobs of so many modern female celebs have an unyielding, oddly masculine quality to them.
Could it be that homosexual ideals of female beauty are now paradoxically the norm? And could it also be that the whole glorification of the dominant, competitive, unapologetic-ally promiscuous female is also in some sense a gay ideal?
MEN NOW SEEK MASCULINE WOMEN
I discovered many years ago that a close friend of mine was secretly bisexual. This guy was an obsessive skirt chaser and also conformed to common notions of the alpha male in that he loved sports cars, and was an intensely driven business-man.
Yet in spite of all of this I wasn’t surprised when I found out he had homosexual tendencies. Why?
One reason was that the women he really fancied tended to be extremely strong-willed, dominant, and competitive, and he always made it clear that he fancied them because of these qualities, not in spite of them.
He ended up marrying a woman very much of this type, a female athlete, from whom he is now separated. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he admired rampant promiscuity in women, but it never bothered him much either.
Here I think he differed from most straight men. Dr. Johnson once observed that men care more about woman’s virtue than about their own, which I think is a great truth.
In their heart of hearts most straight guys idealise/idealize women too much to ever be happy to see them behaving badly. In the modern era, however, men and women are brainwashed into believing that the “real man” is a compulsive womaniser/womanizer, or “player/playa” who gets his as much as possible.
In purely physiological terms this has to be nonsense, since nothing diminishes a man’s potency as quickly as obsessive sexual activity of any sort — as any boxing or athletics coach will tell you. Yet since at least the 1950s it has been the received wisdom that men are by their very nature incorrigibly promiscuous.
Is it really a coincidence that the great modern apostle of this doctrine of intrinsic promiscuity is a man who freely admits to being bisexual — Hugh Hefner?
Or a coincidence that most of the sitcoms and soaps that glorify female promiscuity, such as Sex and the City, are written by male homosexuals? Or that mannish female fashions were pioneered by the likes of Yves Saint Laurent?
It’s also worth pointing out that male homosexual can never understand the huge dangerous power of the female form for normal men and so will be much less likely to see anything wrong with immodest fashion, nudity, pornography, etc.
I once heard a radio programme/program about women in the construction industry, in which a male builder said he didn’t like women on sites during hot weather, as their bare flesh was a distraction.
A male homosexual is not really in a position to comprehend objections to female immodesty in dress and deportment. Male homosexuals seem to be naturally attracted to the fashion and media profession, but their ubiquity — as well as androgyny or gender/sexually ambiguity — in these fields has led to the transformation in heterosexual ideals and behavior.