Dadaisms

The problem with society is “normal”. People bandy the word about as if it’s the simplest thing in the world; as if it’s an uncomplicated and unproblematic concept. They apply it to class, to race, to gender, to sexuality – “just act normally”, or “be a normal white man”, or “be a normal woman”. My personal favourite is “I don’t understand what all the fuss in life is for, everyone in society is normal and equal, and sexual rights just aren’t a big issue any more. Why can’t everyone just behave normally?” These sorts of phrases pop up everywhere around the time of Pride – online, in books, in magazines, in newspapers.

What a load of manky tripe.

Before I even begin to unpack my thoughts, think about these:

Who defines what “normal” is?

What makes someone “normal” in relation to class, gender, race, sexuality etc?

What happens if you’re not “normal”?

Normality shifts from society to society, period to period. It was normal for women to be housewives and never aspire to anything more at one point – it was normal for them to be at home all day, cooking and cleaning. Deviate away from that and who knows what you may be called. It was normal for Jews to be regarded as second class citizens, sub-human even. It was normal for “non-white” (vile term) people to be completely disregarded and horrifically abused for decades in South Africa. Here’re a couple of pictures of normal:

 When it comes to an event like Pride staying indoors and complaining about the abnormality of the activities or the people, and questioning why they don’t just behave “normally” seems a tad bit removed from the situation. People don’t seem to realise that the problem is normality itself, coupled with that unquestioning attitude that assumes normality “works”.  A common response is “yes, but why do gay people [ignoring the spectrum of sexualities, of course] have to draw attention to themselves like this?”

There are two very simple hand-in-hand responses: 1) Why shouldn’t they draw attention and celebrate? 2) They need to.

Because the fact remains that despite legal and social advances, despite shifts in attitudes, and despite changes in opinions the world is still deeply homophobic. Let me explain what Pride means to me:

Pride, through my experience of it here in Brighton, is about celebrating the diversity of humanity. 160 000 people – what an incredible number – flocked to the city to celebrate. Sure, they may not all be activists. But the fact is they were there enjoying the day, knowing what it was and what it was for. There were people from all walks of life: straight families with young kids walking around with Drag Queens; old lesbian couples; people dressed in leather; gay muscle boys; emo kids…anything you can think of. And they were all there on the day dedicated to “Pride and No Prejudice”.  Sure, you can criticise Pride for being very commercial – but hey, everything is commercial these days. You can subscribe to God on your TV for a small monthly fee.  But overlook the commercial aspect and you’ll see a celebration of diversity.

And surely, if we have to have a bar of “normality”, that is a healthier one? One where people can walk around being whoever they want, celebrating that fact, and everyone smiles and waves and joins in. Ideal, yes.

Pride is also about visibility. I’m against these “Mr Gay” pageants in general, as they tend to foster the same images of visibility. Those awful assimilationist images that conform to “normality”. In South Africa that’s the image of the white, “straight-acting”, muscular, middle class, successful, white, urban gay man. The point of it is to say “hello everyone, I’m gay but I’m just like you! I’m NORMAL!”

Sorry dear, but you’re actually not. You’re not straight – so immediately you’re not normal. Because that’s the problem with “normal”. It’s an unachievable ideology: it’s an intangible concept. The more you break it down the more you realise how silly you are for thinking it’s an achievable goal. Sure, you can think of yourself as normal – I’m sure many people do. But in relation to the rest of society hardly anyone is actually “normal”.

If society at large, buying into the ideology of “normal”, had its way there would be no diversity in sexuality. Period. There would be a tolerated (only tolerated? how sad) image of homosexuality – dictated by those in power – and those who didn’t “fit” would be social outcasts. Nonsense? No, actually. Just look at history. In fact, just look at today. People who don’t “fit” are misunderstood and turned into social pariahs of various degrees. So the question of visibility is a poignant one: people need to be seen, people need to be made to feel uncomfortable. Because then they question – and questioning is necessary for growth. Downplaying sexuality and being “normal” doesn’t foster visibility.

There’s a difference between something being in your face and something being hostile and aggressive. Of course not everyone wants to dress up in drag, or walk on all fours whilst wearing a leather dog suit.  But no-one can call themselves progressive, diverse, accepting or tolerant without appreciating the multitude of identities that exist. And I do believe that no one can call themselves truly comfortable with their own identities, own values, own perspectives if they feel the need to complain or push for a level of normality when it comes gender and sexuality performances. Now of course I feel more comfortable in certain spaces than I do in others – but the difference is I’m quite content for those people who do feel comfortable in the “other” spaces to celebrate it, shout it from the rooftops, march in a parade, and make a point of people knowing it. If things are in your face then you can choose to ignore them or to embrace them. My personal attitude is “if people don’t like it then they’re welcome to positively engage with me with the intention of changing their perspectives, or they’re welcome to sod off”. Years (23 thus far) of growing up in a society that is fundamentally against you – fundamentally trying to change what you feel like and make you “normal” – and you eventually get to a point of being comfortable with yourself. Secure in your identity. And the world be damned if it’s going to take that away again!

The point here is diversity. And how is diversity supposed to flourish and be celebrated under that awful banner of assimilation and “normality”?

Critics say “Pride only perpetuates stereotypes about gay people”. I say that it’s better to increase visibility so that images enter the mainstream, are spoken about, and educational material becomes freely available rather than try and make every person a clone of a ridiculous notion of “normal homosexuality”.

Critics say “But being flamboyant and drawing attention to yourselves is asking for trouble”. Asking for trouble? Such ignorance. I – and all of my friends – have experienced homophobic abuse in the most “normal” of places, doing the most “normal” of things. If homophobia exists then homophobia exists. It’s very easy for heterosexual critics to use this argument, as they’ve never been at the receiving end of such abuse. They can only empathise. Abuse feels the same regardless of whether  a man is wearing pants or a dress.

The problem is, again, education. And Pride, as I’ve already said, is a remarkable venture in encouraging support, visibility and education. The float that gained the biggest amount of support was the “remembering homophobic victims” float. So despite the festivities Pride contains a deeper underlying social message that is/was pushed throughout.  Sure we can educate people by downplaying diversity, taking things slow, allowing time for adjustment. That’s how “normality” works – it does everything at the convenience of the (heterosexual) majority.

But there will always – always – be a need for those brave enough to push society harder. There will always be a need for those people who realise that existing in this state of forced normality is horrific for so many millions. Generations will fly by and we’ll still be going at the same pace. That sounds like a great standard of life, doesn’t it?

Such underlying intolerance really infuriates me. How dare anyone criticise someone who is brave enough to be themselves? What double standards from anyone living in the West! We claim to support human rights and the right to be an individual – and yet place restrictions on this based on a long-existing  definition of normality.

And how sad that an event like Brighton Pride – an event  that made so many thousands feel affirmed, feel positive, feel accepted – may be marked by those haters who are bound by antiquated gender and sexuality ideologies.

People need to realise that all things Queer – which, for those of you reading this who may not know it, is a positive and politically active term to refer to all those sexualities that go against the norm – are like all other things in life: they’re messy. They’re not perfect. The message of Pride is never “hey, we’re perfect”. Instead, it’s always “hey, we’re human”. So if someone calls themselves progressive, calls themselves a gay rights supporter, then they need to realise that Queerness comes with the good and the bad. A wonderful quote from the book Pride: Protest and Celebration springs to mind. It’s from an open letter to the “normal” “gay community” by Steven Cohen regarding his controversial banner for the 1996 SA Pride. In it he says:

“[I]’ve got nothing but scorn for you bitches on a cleansing sweep, shrieking “You don’t represent us!”. No, sweetie, I represent myself. You find that intolerable. And so you tell me not to represent myself but to represent you in a way you approve of…The queer voice is a chorus which must include activists, drags, drugged dead-heads, freaks, perverts […and] sluts”

You may not like it, but it’s true. You have to accept the good and the bad. And let’s try not to pin all the negatives on “gay culture” or queerness – straight people have unsafe sex, straight people use drugs. Those are educational issues, not sexual rights issues.

Many may feel we’re existing in a happy society, where everyone is equal in terms of gender or sexuality. What utter nonsense. The epitome of ignorance.

I think a great deal of opposition and a great deal of intolerance comes from a discomfort with gender performance. Men performing femininity; women performing masculinity; men performing both; women performing more. Pride is about breaking those down, and showing that “man” is a shallow concept. There’s nothing that is essentially “male”. Or female.  It makes people uneasy to have something so seemingly fundamental taken away.

But there are three strategies to deal with this: 1) Ignore it. Carry on living in your bubble, in your socially irresponsible fantasy. 2) Oppose it, and contribute to the vile hatred that is in the world. 3) Embrace it: educate yourself, and reconcile your mind with the idea that the world isn’t made up of absolutes.

I do believe that only the third option is viable if you’re someone who claims to be socially conscious and socially responsible. 

And Pride is one of the best ways to help you realise that. You don’t have to love drag, you don’t have to have a desire to be left in an S&M dungeon for 3 months. But a lack of desire shouldn’t equate with dislike and negativity.

The world is messy, the world is complicated. The world isn’t “normal”. So stop trying to think about life in relation to this vague concept called “normality”.

Because those people who do think about the world in such absolute terms, those people who try and put things into static boxes, are the people who land up lonely and standing on the sidelines of life.

Embrace diversity. Reaffirm people. Love.

And thank you to my amazing friends for sharing this last weekend with me. I love you all.

Peace x

Share on Facebook

I’m busy writing a paper on effeminate gay men in films. Maybe you can help me out:

Do “fem” gay guys irritate you? Or intimidate you? Or turn you off? If they do, why?

Leave a comment with your response!

Share on Facebook

First off let me start off by saying that I subscribe to the core Christian doctrines - I find that it is a peaceful, loving way of life that (when interpreted in the ways suggested) helps one become a better person and find meaning in life. I, however, find myself having to clarify my beliefs and specify my religious attitudes: the label of “Christian” in today’s society has unfortunately become associated with prejudice, radical “saving” and being “reborn” (it worked fine the first time for me, thanks), and isolation from the world. Christianity has become a term associated with cultism and extremities - which is a far cry from what the set of principles truly (in my interpretations) stands for.

Although there are many contradictions in contemporary beliefs, trends and ideas, I shall not delve into them all. That would take pages and pages. What I wish to address is the much-debated issue of “gayness” and “homosexuality”. Having a number of openly gay friends, I find the hostility and prejudice against Christianity disturbing - isn’t it sad that a religion that preaches love and universal acceptance isolates such a large portion of humanity? I do not wish to condemn those so-called Christian’s who believe that “homosexuality” is wrong - I just wish to open their minds to other possibilities.

The premise for my analysis lies on the idea that there are so many versions of the Bible, so many denominations, so many interpretations that ALL believe that they are “right”. We need to understand that the Bible IS man-made - although writings may be by holy men and women or inspired by God (which is not what I am arguing here), the Bible was compiled by man. Certain texts were left out completely - refer to E Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985) for the Gospels that are not included in the popular Bible.

Combine this with hundreds of translations through many languages over many generations and you’re bound to have a few misinterpretations and incorrect assumptions. Yes, we can trust that the Bible contains the will of God. But we need to remember that MAN is not trustworthy - interpretations and translations contain the prejudices of those doing the translations.

Similarly, many ministers and preachers are NOT trained in interpretation and translation. Those who are our religious anchors are often no more educated in reading texts than the average congregation member.

So all of these elements form the basis of my interpretations. I am not trying to convince anyone in this note - merely open your minds. Bare in mind that I am not an expert - I do not speak Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. I am not skilled in translation. I have merely exposed myself to those who DO, and have formed my own opinions. I do not blindly accept that which is taught to me: people have their own motives, and so to argue “But the Bible says…” is reflecting ignorance.

I shall now briefly look at some Bible verses used to condemn “homosexuality”. In this note I consider “homosexuality” from today’s context. This context includes a liberal constitution, whereby “gay” people have emotional feelings for members of the same sex, and their sexual “preferences” are perspectives of normality. I am not simply referring to sexual acts. We also need to remember that what defines ‘homosexuality’ is also a highly contentious issue. Several scholars argue that the term and concept of ‘homosexuality’ only arose in the 19^th century. In his article “How to do the history of male homosexuality”, Halperin illustrates how our contemporary understanding of “gayness” is drastically different to historically documented forms of sexual behaviour. Baring in mind that we cannot infer any contemporary concepts onto completely different contexts, allow me to explore some ‘alternative’ interpretations to the Bible.

Genesis 19:1-11
This verse has caused much debate and argument. Lot, living in the city of Sodom, offers two strangers hospitality for the night. The enraged men of Sodom demand that Lot “Bring them out to us so that we may know them.” The problem lies in the word know. Modern interpretations have translated this word to have sexual meaning - the Good News Bible translates it to “The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them.” Immediately we see a huge difference in meaning. The city immediately becomes immoral because of the men’s desire to “have sex” with other men.

However, Jesus himself says that Sodom was not destroyed because of “homosexual” tendencies:

• Matthew 10:14-15: “And if some home or town will not welcome you or listen to you, then leave that place and shake dust off your feet. I assure you that on the Judgement Day God will show mercy to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah than to the people of that Town!”

• Luke 10:10-12: “But whenever you go into a town and are not welcomed, go out in the streets and say, ‘Even the dust from your town sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. But remember that the Kingdom of God has come near you!’ I assure you that on Judgement Day God will show more mercy to Sodom that to that town!”

Now place this into the context of Genesis: custom of the time dictated that strangers in cities could not be hosted or entertained after nightfall without the permission of the elders. Lot thus entertains the men without permission, and subsequently violates custom. Surely then “know” simply can mean KNOW, and have no sexual connotations in the traditional text? Similarly, no further reference is made to Sodom as a place of “homosexuality” in the Bible.

Leviticus

Let us place this book in context. Male priests of the time were clearly defining Jewish cultural practices and customs in order to distinguish them from surrounding “pagan” practices in the new region. We thus need to constantly refer to each verse in this book in relation to previous verses and overall context. Please note: all Greek and Latin translations are courtesy of the University of KZN, Classics Department.

• Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”.

This word “abomination” is problematic - look at other versions of the bible to see what it has been translated to. In Hebrew this word is TOEVAH, the version of the original Greek word BDELUCMA. These words translate to English as “Ritually unclean”.

In context of 18:21 (”You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.”), one can see that the verse relates to idolatry practices of surrounding groups.

Thus, verse 22 is a highly probable reference to temple prostitution and male prostitution as part of idolatry worship of the time. The verse does not refer to “gay” behaviour in a modern sense - it does not refer to today’s notions of “homosexuality”. The verse basically says, “We are Jews - we do not behave like pagans and follow their ritual practices”.

• Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination…” Again the context of this verse is idolatry: refer to 20:1-5. The verse is referring to the popular Molech (also known as Baal) cult. Referring to other commands, all aspects of the book refer to “ritually unclean” practices - such as eating pork, or sleeping with a woman during her period. It has been strongly suggested that “homosexual” references refer to curbing male temple prostitution as seen by Molech followers.

Thus, Leviticus does not refer to “homosexuality” as being inherently evil as many people have tried to suggest. Again, we simply cannot impose Biblical understandings of same-sex-sexual encounters onto a contemporary context.

Let us now turn our attention to the New Testament. Referring to letters of the St Paul, which were written in Greek, we need to understand that they were being written from the perspective of a Hellenised Jew - Paul was combining elements of the Greek and Jewish tradition.

1 Corinthians 9-11
This letter is addressed to the people of Corinth, a city well-known for its mixture of cultures, races, and competing religious systems. These verses refer to those who will not “inherit the kingdom of God”. The first on the list is the “immoral” (Greek pornoi). This is followed by:

• Idolaters
• Adulterers
• Homosexuals
• Thieves
• Drunkards
• Revilers
• Robbers

Referring to “homosexuals”, let us look at the Greek that Paul uses. Paul uses two Greek words here - MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI. These two words have caused much confusion in terms of translation: there are no agreed upon meanings as to what the words mean.

• Malakoi: In Greek this word means “soft” or “gentle”. In relation to pornoi, Paul probably means someone with “loose morals” or a “lack of self control”. Before modern interpretations, the word was used for both men and woman, completely independent of sexuality. Thus, Paul is using it as a general term for those with loose morals.

• Arsenokoitai: This word is highly problematic. Paul created this word as a direct translation of the Hebrew words found in Leviticus. As we know even from Afrikaans or French to English, direct translations do not accurately reflect the meaning behind the original words. The direct meaning of the word can be broken into “arseno” (male) and “koitai” (lying with; going to bed with). However, we need to consider the context behind the Hebrew word. Is Paul referring to male prostitution in general? He cannot be referring to today’s conception of “homosexuality”, as that word was - in fact - only coined in 1892.

We thus need to be careful of using Corinthians to condemn “homosexuality”. Understanding that the word “homosexual” is a very modern construct, the ideologies and discourses surrounding Paul’s context simply cannot be placed alongside contemporary ideas and attitudes.

1 Timothy 8-10
Here the law is being laid down for the lawless and disobedient, the “ungodly and sinners”. Another list is given, including: murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, immoral persons sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers. Again, immoral persons refers to the Greek word “pornoi”, and Paul uses “arsenokoitai” again for “sodomites”. We need to reflect on the contexts discussed above, and whether the modern term “sodomites” is an accurate translation for the Greek word and Hebrew context.

Romans 1:26-27

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Paul here is speaking about how the ancients knew about God, but did not honour Him - they created images and idols. As a result, they surrendered to idolatry passions:

• Women: Exchanged natural relations for unnatural
• Men: Gave up natural relations with women for each other - they committed “shameless acts”

It is clear that Paul is condemning “homosexual” acts committed by previous “heterosexuals” - this passage refers not to “gay” people as we understand it today and “homosexuals” in general, but to the behaviours of deviant heterosexuals.

Conclusions?

As can be seen, there are huge problems in translation: it is essential to go back to the original text and context. Sadly, many modern Christians are not aware of this, and many spiritual leaders are uneducated and narrow-minded. The Bible is not a text that can simply be translated for modern reading - images and context constantly change.

Similarly, there was not concept of modern “homosexuality” in the ancient world. Paul’s words he created contain ambiguous meanings, and it is wrong to just assume that “the bible says being gay is wrong”. Although the bible condemns male-same-sex-sexual-relations in Leviticus and Romans, this needs to be understood in a context of idolatry, male prostitution, and temple prostitution.

And what about “lesbianism” we must ask?

Let us turn to Jesus Christ’s teachings: surely if “homosexuality” in modern terms was an issue Jesus would have said something? And if “homosexuality” was such a sin and big issue, the bible would deal with the subject in depth and clearly?

We need to understand that sexuality is culturally constructed: we cannot transfer modern beliefs and understanding to an ancient context. We are too dependent on literal, direct translations of the bible. As Christians we need to remember that our beliefs command love, acceptance, tolerance and understanding. God loves all and is not narrow-minded: you believe He created the world, and so everything and everyone exists for a reason.

Remember that nothing is cast in stone, and that as a “Christian” people should follow your example and admire you. Judgement and condemnation of the way some people are in their very being does not, in my opinion, seem like a very Christian attitude.

Perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on the ability to speak in tongues, or be “slain” by the spirit. It seems to me that we’ve lost sight of what it means to be a Christian. Certainly we can preach against promiscuity, but I have a feeling that Paul would be condemning such hypocrisy and superficiality as opposed to condemning “homosexuals”.

I believe that in a world with so much blatant evil, the Christian “community” should be focusing on love, acceptance and peace. Far too much energy is being spent on the condemnation of homosexuals - the condemnation of people who often are gay and simply cannot ‘do’ anything about it. If religious leaders like Desmond Tutu believe that homosexuality is not a sin (he has written the introductions to many books on homosexuality and it’s acceptability in terms of religion), and that we should be focusing our energy on more relevant and tangible issues, then perhaps fundamentalists and followers of TV-Evangelism should take a step back and realise what harm that are doing in the name of ‘Christianity’.

[All information from University of KwaZulu Natal]

Share on Facebook