Please delete this post or disregard it, my apologies. Forgot it'd be better if I edited my post.
help me with my project: what if gay were the norm and heterosexuality were taboo?
- Thread starter CrustyOatmeal
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's hard to say. There aren't many records of it, but there aren't a lot of records about women, average folk, poor folk, and other disadvantaged groups in general throughout most of history.Vault101 said:
I would probably focus on that. Throughout most of the history when it was a taboo, gay people make nary a peep on the historical radar.
Did you ever notice it before you realized you were gay? I know I didn't, and it was sort of a major reason for my related identity crisis upon finding that out.evilthecat said:
I find your premise confusing. If homosexuality was the norm, then wouldn't those historic figures you mentioned BE gay? Instead of being a lady's man, he'd be a man's man.CrustyOatmeal said:
Oh, and Ben Franklin is a more notable man-whore in early American history. Just FYI.
Anyway, I think the cultural alterations would be more interesting.
Heterosexual sex would be a "chore" that people had to do to reproduce (everyone saying the population would die out - you are idiots - gay people are perfectly capable of hetero sex, they just like it less, and CAVEMEN understood where babies came from, so it wouldn't be an issue). The people who actually LIKED it would be considered sexual deviants or a sub culture, depending on the current level of tolerance (basically, the gay culture of your world).
Others have mentioned that you might want to look at certain Greek societies where most casual/pleasurable sex was homosexual, whereas heterosexual sex was mostly reproductive (although everyone still enjoyed both, so that's more of a bisexual society with gender segregation).
Anyway... interesting idea. I approve of your project, even if I disagree with a few of your assumptions.
Humans would adapt and women would have children with women (which births the child ill never know) and men have children with men (butt buddy baby) and the two halves of the human species will slowly evolve into further segregation then we currently have causing not only the NAACP and other organisations but also a new "race" for each side to hate on
Ever heard of the Isle of Lesbos?Vault101 said:
It was a island in ancient Greece - populated by women poets. Young women went there to learn and... experiment. The most famous was Sappho.
The word Lesbian comes from the name of the island. Yeah. It wasn't exactly a secret - Sappho wrote poetry about it.
I think I have....though that sounds more like a myth...rather than what really went onPrincess Rose said:
yeah, that makes sense, I dont think its too far fetched to say it must have happend at one, point...as too how common? thats impossible to say (probably not too common), but yeah obviously if somthings going on in secret you wouldnt have many records of itDags90 said:
Not a myth - the island really exists, as do the ruins on it.Vault101 said:
As for the Sappho - well, she really existed, because we have her poetry. Which is all about beautiful women that she is in love with.
So Sappho herself was a lesbian. And since she went through a string of "muses" at least some of the girls there were too.
Which, honestly, really isn't a shocker. If all the men thought that boys were for pleasure and women were for children, the women had to do something to entertain themselves. And, historically, no one has ever cared what women got up to with one another.
I mean, lesbian sex wasn't even recognized AS sex until about 150 years ago.
The Gargareans were the male tribe of "amazons" so the ones the amazons mated with to continue the society its ok that you didn't know they didn't get much pressOldRat said:
Yes I know that they are a legend, however there is a decent amount of evidence that the gargareans did actually exist, which makes you wonder how much about the amazons was true. Granted there is likely to be a lot of b.s. because it is a greek tale but sure some of it is likely to be true. As I mentioned we do have a society in Africa that all the men live in one hut and all of the women in another, and they do not allow the genders to raise the opposite gender. It is possible that something similar might have really existed with the Amazons/Gargareans. Heck one could argue that if the greeks came upon that society (the one currently existing in Africa) if would be so foreign to their culture that it could inspire amazon type tales.
It's impossible to the answer the OP's question without generalising, or refering to stereotypes in terms of your thinking. Homosexuals and heterosexuals don't have clear, separting identifiers in terms of personality and behaviour - besides the obvious.
One of the misconceptions about homosexuality is that it grants you this super-human fashion sense. This is perpetuated by the modern media, and is an accepted norm. But, it is a stereotype. Many of the homosexuals I know have terrible fashion sense, and confuse loud colours for fashion statements. I, myself, wear a three button black suit and pressed shirt and tie five days a week for work, and while adhereing to strict fashion styles, I generally look fashionable - if a little cliche at times.
In general, the world would change dramatically in two very clear ways:
1. Children would be considered 'strange'.
Despite our technological advancements, the population would drop like a rock. To the point of basically ending human kind; we'd reach unsustainable levels of reproducing humans in 75 years (average life expectancy) as the first generation of minority heterosexuals dies out.
After that, Children would be a rare sight. If you saw a child, it's something you'd talk about.
2. The world would burn.
With homosexuality considered the norm, Religious groups from around the world would basically implode, than explode in rebellion. With homosexual law makers in power, it wouldn't be long before Religions no longer have the right to oppose homosexuality in any context. Cue mass demonstrations, followed by riots, and the unavoidable and eventual war that would occur.
One of the misconceptions about homosexuality is that it grants you this super-human fashion sense. This is perpetuated by the modern media, and is an accepted norm. But, it is a stereotype. Many of the homosexuals I know have terrible fashion sense, and confuse loud colours for fashion statements. I, myself, wear a three button black suit and pressed shirt and tie five days a week for work, and while adhereing to strict fashion styles, I generally look fashionable - if a little cliche at times.
In general, the world would change dramatically in two very clear ways:
1. Children would be considered 'strange'.
Despite our technological advancements, the population would drop like a rock. To the point of basically ending human kind; we'd reach unsustainable levels of reproducing humans in 75 years (average life expectancy) as the first generation of minority heterosexuals dies out.
After that, Children would be a rare sight. If you saw a child, it's something you'd talk about.
2. The world would burn.
With homosexuality considered the norm, Religious groups from around the world would basically implode, than explode in rebellion. With homosexual law makers in power, it wouldn't be long before Religions no longer have the right to oppose homosexuality in any context. Cue mass demonstrations, followed by riots, and the unavoidable and eventual war that would occur.
i didn't mean anything like that, i personally have nothing against homosexuality, but taken biologically, it IS harmful to the society, because more homosexuals mean less kids (yes, there are homosexuals that have families, but still, there's a difference between having sex and getting children more or less "as a side effect" of something you enjoy doing, and having to decide "okay, i want to have a child so i have to endure a (hetero)sexual act that is unnatural, strange and maybe even unpleasant to me"). and less kids means smaller=weaker society. this is what i meant by "dangerous to the society".Sporky111 said:
if you were leader of a tribe that has somewhere between 40 and 100 members, you'd be concerned for every single homosexual exactly before this, and you'd probably "ban" homosexuality.
as for the arts and sciences, they WERE dangerous/harmful to (the leaders of!) society in that age ( = church), because they both incite people to think, therefore weaken religion, therefore weaken the power the church had.
renassaince was (in my opinion) more or less just a consequence of the book press invention. it's not that church thought "oh, well, we'll let you think", but with the book press, it became literally impossible to control what knowledge got to whom. (if you remeber, until then the main means of copying books was rewriting them by hand - in monasteries, by monks.)
sorry, i did miss this part. in that case, i'm not really sure... in regards to tabooed heterosexuals, it would be the same as homosexuals now, but i think that sexism would've been different - with (homosexual) men being able to have children as well as homosexual women, there would be no really strong reason to discriminate women (because it imho started with something like "women are made to have babies and take care of them = stay at home = they're too weak to do anything else, blah blah blah").CrustyOatmeal said:
either there would be more equality between genders, or there would be some different, more riddiculous "reason" to discriminate one.
I suspect the answer is somewhat more complicated than the obvious of "exactly the same except for the fact we'd be facing extinction within a few generations". For example, the relationship between men and women, a power struggle that is so intrinsic to social structures the world over, would be completely different.