FH's Opinion on Homosexuality

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 03 Mar 2009 04:25

This is the one thread that really crashed and burned on me quickly... not long after I'd joined too.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 03 Mar 2009 04:53

Omphalos wrote:Apparently it helps to have hair too.

BASTARD! BASTARD! YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD!!!

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 03 Mar 2009 05:03

Schu wrote:(I find the trick to avoiding this is to be nice but not a complete pussy. Works well for me!)

Well, that's one option, of course.

I decided to give the bitches what they really want.

SwordMaster · Post by **SwordMaster** » 03 Mar 2009 10:49

I do not think Frank had any moral issue with homosexuality, he did find it to be an interesting topic to bring up in novels, but never wrote or said anything that was or could be considered anti gay. The fact he looked at the race as a whole, if he did have an opinion, it would have to do with lack of procreation. He might have thought of it as a defense to over population, caused by the intuitive nature of the human species organism.

Im just guessing though, he never mentioned it and I have to point out something else.

The issue with his son Bruce. Most fathers can agree that it would be difficult to discover your son is gay, that does not mean you are anti-gay. Its just a difficult thing to fully understand and accept. But no matter how liberal you are in your beliefs if you discover someone you know well and care for is not what you previously thought of there is the shock of it and the betrayal factor of the fact you had no idea for so long. The shock alone would make it difficult to accept and support.

Post by **Omphalos** » 03 Mar 2009 10:49

SandChigger wrote:
Omphalos wrote:Apparently it helps to have hair too.
BASTARD! BASTARD! YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD!!!

As I typed that, I knew in the back of my mind who the first response would be from.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 03 Mar 2009 11:32

Omphalos wrote:As I typed that, I knew in the back of my mind who the first response would be from.

Hey, I got an image to uphold!

(It's always especially amusing when someone brings it up to attack me.

)

SwordMaster wrote:But no matter how liberal you are in your beliefs if you discover someone you know well and care for is not what you previously thought of there is the shock of it and the betrayal factor of the fact you had no idea for so long. The shock alone would make it difficult to accept and support.

"Betrayal factor" again makes it sound like the gay person is in some way culpable. Speaking from personal experience, it can be more like disappointment in yourself: How did I fail to make you realize it would have been OK for you to tell me, that it doesn't matter to me that you're gay.

cmsahe · Post by **cmsahe** » 07 Mar 2009 21:26

SwordMaster wrote:I do not think Frank had any moral issue with homosexuality, he did find it to be an interesting topic to bring up in novels, but never wrote or said anything that was or could be considered anti gay.

And he wrote in God Emperor of Dune, on the one hand Moneo defending it as something natural that the youth explores (the lesbian Fish Speakers) and on the other hand the disgust it caused on Dunca Idaho.

I think that you are missing the fact that we are talking about homosexuality from our 21st century, western culture point of view. Remember that in ancient Rome, the Classic World, it was natural and accepted and it didn't interfere with evolution because people married and had offsprings, like Alexander the Great (I've read books on him I'm not citing that bad movie).

I remember reading that the Emperor Claudius was the only straight Emperor, i.e.

trang · Post by **trang** » 08 Mar 2009 21:17

read thru the thread I think the higher level topic FH was hitting on was the power SEX has as a force in the universe. The homosexuality question I would say he was indifferent, some examples of good and some examples of bad thru the six books.

As for the overall discussion of Homesexuality, I think the emotion of the thing has been left out, and more focus on the act. Attraction, love, lust, passion, pleasure etc. These factors way in on the grouping of individuals.

As mentioned above... the classic civilization story is that of homosexuality coming into play near the decline of things. Great houses and Empires, the pleasures of pursing the the non traditional... enticing and exciting. I know there is more to it, but thats what seems to be portrayed more often than not.

I believe that babies are blank sheets of paper with the basic genetic
makeup. Once kids reach puberty hormones start flying the power of attraction comes into play and then were off to the races. Influences being social, family, visual, physical, emotional, or whatever play a factor. After puberty all those and more lead one to believe they have it for the same sex, not just the physical act.

When it comes to survival, that continuation of the species would override preference of partner. Men have the seed and Woman are the bearers of the children. Unless some weird science experienment changes that, when faced with some epic crisis the natural way of continuning the species would rise to the top. It doesnt mean they copulate, it can be done thru other means, just that it is the only way to do it.

I dont think the majority, if any, of the population, weigh the evolutionary impact to our civilization, when making their pairing or multiple partner decisions. (withstanding health issues of course) I believe we are selfish and selfserving, and dont go much beyond the feelings and emotion, or as basic as, the raw pleasure of it.

There is a percentage issue here also, what is a safe number when asking the question? how much of the population on the planet is homosexual? 10 percent? I dont think its that high, but I could be wrong. So the numbers of people who are, would have a negligible impact.

Even in FH's Duniverse, with a million planets... plus the scattering.. the evil or good or basic impact of homsexuality would be washed away by shear numbers.

I tried to be as clear as possible, just a strong topic and felt like throwing in two cents.

Trang

NotAbout · Post by **NotAbout** » 16 Mar 2009 02:39

This thread just pushed me to register (Hi btw)

SwordMaster wrote:I do not think Frank had any moral issue with homosexuality, he did find it to be an interesting topic to bring up in novels, but never wrote or said anything that was or could be considered anti gay.

I don't think he wrote anything explicitly "Anti-Gay" but that was definitely the impression I got, not only from the Baron's decadence, but from several instances of Duncan's disgust at the Fish-speakers. It never impaired my enjoyment of the books though. I just accepted it as one of Frank's opinions and never thought much more about it. I don't have to completely agree with him on all matters to think he's a brilliant writer. I didn't know about his son, and that goes a long way to an explanation.

On the matter of homosexuality itself. I would never argue on the causes for homosexuality, I simply don't know enough to say anything on the matter. But I can say with complete honesty that my own sexuality was never a choice and I am prepared to say that I don't think it is for anybody (despite what they say). Some of the examples people have posted (about women who occasionally have sex with women, but are primarily interested in men etc.) suggest that its something the person has control over, and experiment with (a choice!).

The simple fact is that if you feel the need to experiment, you are homosexual to some degree. The confusion comes from what people define as gay/straight. Is a man who has sexual thoughts about other men but does not act on them straight or gay? By my definition I'd say gay. If you feel the attraction, that is what makes you gay. You may choose not to act on this but that doesn't remove the fact. Many people do not think this way though.

Bisexuality adds more confusion to the matter. I won't go on about this but I think many people who identify themselves as straight (or gay) could go either way but due to a variety of factors never act on this.

In summary: Sexuality is very complex, I don't think anybody knows to what extent or has all the answers regarding how its defined.

Getting back to a Dune related topic, I thought a chapter in "paul of dune" involving Duncan fighting some other sword masters was bizarrely homo-erotic. Not something I was expecting (or wanting) to read from BHKJA.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 16 Mar 2009 04:44

Seriously? That's the first time you've noticed the homo-erotic subtext in these books? Erasmus analyzing Gilbertus' fine physique in the shower? And taking him out "camping" when he was a boy. To harden him up.

Hearing the teenager breathing hard, though not protesting, Erasmus slowed his mechanical pace.

"Please don't get weird on me again, Mr. Erasmus."

NotAbout · Post by **NotAbout** » 16 Mar 2009 04:46

SandChigger wrote:Seriously? That's the first time you've noticed the homo-erotic subtext in these books? Erasmus analyzing Gilbertus' fine physique in the shower? And taking him out "camping" when he was a boy. To harden him up.

Hearing the teenager breathing hard, though not protesting, Erasmus slowed his mechanical pace.

"Please don't get weird on me again, Mr. Erasmus."

Well I didn't really pay too close attention to those books...

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 16 Mar 2009 04:49

Ah, well, there then, you see what you missed!

inhuien · Post by **inhuien** » 16 Mar 2009 05:36

NotAbout wrote:Is a man who has sexual thoughts about other men but does not act on them straight or gay? By my definition I'd say gay. If you feel the attraction, that is what makes you gay. You may choose not to act on this but that doesn't remove the fact

So you’re saying that the contemplation or imagiming of some thing is the same as carring out the action? That’s Bullshit Sir.

Oh, Hi

NotAbout · Post by **NotAbout** » 16 Mar 2009 06:51

inhuien wrote: So you’re saying that the contemplation or imagiming of some thing is the same as carring out the action? That’s Bullshit Sir.

Oh, Hi

I think you misunderstood. If someone becomes sexually aroused from thinking homosexual thoughts then they are homosexual. Thats all I was saying. Contemplating homosexuality without any sexual interest in it does not mean you are homosexual.

As far as carrying out the action is concerned, if for example, the action is forced (and the person only has heterosexual thoughts) they are not gay.

The action doesn't make you gay or straight, its the compulsion to.

Schu · Post by **Schu** » 16 Mar 2009 08:44

I think, as you said yourself, that sexuality is very complex. Too complex to just say "if you feel the need to experiment, you are homosexual to some degree". People feel the need to experiment for many different reasons. Likewise, some of the people that have strong homosexual desires may completely repress it and be completely consciously unaware of it.

NotAbout · Post by **NotAbout** » 16 Mar 2009 09:33

Schu wrote:I think, as you said yourself, that sexuality is very complex. Too complex to just say "if you feel the need to experiment, you are homosexual to some degree". People feel the need to experiment for many different reasons. Likewise, some of the people that have strong homosexual desires may completely repress it and be completely consciously unaware of it.

But what other reason would you have to experiment unless the idea turned you on? Its like what a few people have said in this thread "I don't need to have sex with a man to know I'm straight". It seems ridiculous to think that there are people out there who would experiment with homosexual sex without feeling any attraction to it.

All I was saying with my first post was that we choose how we behave, we don't choose our sexuality. That is, we can choose who we have sex with, but can't change our desires.

Also, its just in my opinion that it is impossible to repress something like that so completely as to be unaware of it. To be unaware is to not realise when you are aroused. But I guess I can't know this for sure so I won't argue the point.

Schu · Post by **Schu** » 16 Mar 2009 10:01

Oh, I think you severely underestimate the power of the human mind for denial and repression. People can forget they were sexually abused, for example.

I do get what you mean about choosing actions and not choosing sexuality, that's perfectly sensible. But absolutely people will try something without feeling genuine attraction to it. People will experiment with homosexuality for a huge variety of reasons: ego-boost, "because it's so wrong" (I mean, objectively, what's sexy about poo in anyway whatsoever? But some people have a poo fetish...), to fit in with other people, for pure experiment's sake, to actually see whether they genuinely have any attraction to guys by testing it out to the greatest extent, when someone doesn't know whether they are attracted to men or not (maybe confused by platonic friendship love, ability to see beauty in a man, admiration etc.), and the list goes on.

NotAbout · Post by **NotAbout** » 16 Mar 2009 10:42

I do understand that the mind can repress and deny things like this. Though denial is one thing and unconsciously repressing an urge is another.

My experience tells me that if anybody were to try gay sex for the reasons you've stated they'd find it wasn't for them or if they did, they would be deluding themselves. I've heard "I'm not gay, I just like having sex with men" too many times (not in so many words, but the implication was there) and to me its too ridiculous a concept to accept. I think that the terms "gay"/"straight"/"bi" have had their meaning loosened a lot, and I don't agree with it. A lot of struggles with sexuality arise from these labels being used too broadly, e.g. "I get erections over naked men and not women, but I don't like fashion, or speak with a lisp, I like playing footy, therefore I'm not gay!". As I've stated earlier, to me, to be "gay" is to be attracted to members of the same sex. Attraction can mean sex, or a whole bunch of other stuff.

As for the poo fetish, you've got me there. In fact internet fetishes in general are bizarre. Too much of a mind fuck to bother trying to understand.

But I'm me, so I've only got my own experiences to go on. Just my two cents on the matter.

NotAbout · Post by **NotAbout** » 16 Mar 2009 10:45

Baraka Bryan wrote:
NotAbout wrote:[ If someone becomes sexually aroused from thinking homosexual thoughts then they are homosexual.
what if I get aroused by girl-on-girl action... does that make me a lesbian?

Only if you're a woman.

<---male

damn...

Anyway, I wouldn't imagine the thoughts you have would be homosexual ones.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 16 Mar 2009 12:49

Better arrest me now for murder, because I've often thought of killing KJA.

Sorry, but homophobia is much more complex than "If you've ever thought of another man, you're gay". That sort of crap only breeds intolerance through fear.

But since we're on the subject NotAbout, have you ever thought about another man? Here's a hint; it's a trick question.

NotAbout · Post by **NotAbout** » 16 Mar 2009 22:22

I think that question is more tricky than you realise.

Though your question should be "Have you thought of another man in a sexual way and become aroused from it?". Thats the difference that a few of you guys have missed. Its not thinking about naked men, its getting an erection from thinking about a naked man.

to me, to be "gay" is to be attracted to members of the same sex.

=!

"If you've ever thought of another man, you're gay"

If your thoughts for murdering KJA manifested themselves and you began to obsess on the idea, made plans to do it etc. then I think we could argue that you could be arrested (without actually murdering anyone!). But in the specific case of KJA I don't think any court would convict you. Thats not really a good analogy anyway seeing as how I'm not saying homosexuality is a crime or even bad (or good) and to use it implies that I have.

I've never said that the thought of a naked man will turn you in to a homo, I've only said that if you are aroused by such thoughts then that is homosexuality, not how you act, not who you have sex with, not what label you prefer.

So anyway, to answer your question, Yup, I think about men (a lot!)

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 16 Mar 2009 22:48

Okay then, I get an erection at the thought of killing KJA. "How do you like me now?"

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 16 Mar 2009 23:01

I (can still) get an erection thinking about getting an erection!

Where does that put me?

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 16 Mar 2009 23:14

Oh, I think you know, ya big flirt in da pink shirt!

*on a nearby television, a snuff film starring KJA plays on repeat*

NotAbout · Post by **NotAbout** » 16 Mar 2009 23:16

GamePlayer wrote:Okay then, I get an erection at the thought of killing KJA. "How do you like me now?"

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me! I like you plenty.

I (can still) get an erection thinking about getting an erection!

Where does that put me?

Now thats a toughy, only you can know for sure! I guess it depends on if you're thinking of getting your own erection or thinking about someone else getting one.