Ignoring for now, the growing acceptance that society is taking towards the gay issue (particularly in the marketing field) stands in our society a rejection of homosexuals is still in force, and this rejection, comprising a series of negative powers in reference to homosexuality, homophobia is what we call, no matter whether the issue is handled as a lack or defect, such as sin, deformity, perversion or crime, homophobia is an act of discrimination that disqualifies the person who becomes an object and refuse to interact with her (or him), regardless of his nature, his ideas, sympathy or any other personal characteristic.
When we discriminate what matters most is our idea of \u200b\u200bgood and evil, based on generalizations to a class of persons, class or arbitrary label that we got from the manga, because we have prejudices and let us see the world through them. And never mind too that in recent years there have been scientific, philosophical and physicians on issues such as homophobia, which show that there is nothing on homosexuality that is abnormal or unnatural, what matters is the precarious and inargumentable idea in my head that moves me to discriminate and discredit. Speaking
to discriminate, which is directed toward gay men and lesbians is one, but what would you say to those experienced by transgender men and women? I invite you to lend a ear to this podcast of Fernanda Tapia about the rights of transgender people have prejudicesis the easiest thing in the world, in fact, I dare say that prejudices are among the first things we learn when we were children: "Do not talk to strangers", "dirty people nobody wants," "good girls do not wear pants." Are so attached to our education that is difficult to challenge them, at first, it is difficult to identify that there are usually many the prejudices we hold, elegantly call them "values" in the second, we have so many it would take a life to get rid of all. One life. But the point is not to stop being prejudiced, but what we do with them: bias is "preconceptions" that attempt so we explain the world, but they are tentative, suggest that something can be good or bad for our interests but not decisive, so that in us is the decision to find out if you pre - mean something to ratify or rectify, if our assumptions are correct or ceased to have effect.
Our prejudices are personal opinions (inherited from our parents and they have inherited from our grandparents) do not define us as a person, so we can be ready when they stop releasing them be useful to us. But until we are liberated from them we will continue, for example, exercising to homophobia, which remains in the collective discourse but no rational arguments, it is a social prejudice that came from nothing, we learned, so we stayed and we reply to show to our children, and as with all the prejudices, do not stop to wonder why we keep it or where or when it emerged, but we obey and act guided by him.
Where did the homophobia? When you run a bias, we do from our belief in certain premises, such as "the goal of sexuality is reproduction." Thus, homosexuality exists in the context of a hegemonic sexual model: heterosexuality, which is clearly a character player. Heterosexuality is "good" because it conforms to the premise which are equivalent reproduction and sexuality, homosexuality is "bad" because it is a version of sexuality in which reproduction is not the goal. In the historic moment when the man said that sexuality and reproduction are the same thing, sexuality became the exclusive preserve of heterosexual couples middle age (reproductive age) and under the protection of marriage (an institution guaranteed to have children). From that premise breaks down a number of interesting biases: sex between same sex is bad, sex between two old is bad, sex outside marriage is wrong, seek pleasure during sex is bad, use birth control during sex ...
First premise:
About homosexuality between men, the erotic contact does not trigger any reproductive process (obviously), so that sexual activity is none other than "wasting the seed", that in biblical terms. From this religious context, the homoeroticism between men known as "the natural development of every human being is born, grows, reproduces and dies" and questioning the plan of life of those who actually seek to transcend the death to preserve their existence in a child. This is the central argument of the leaders in churches and one other person of faith, based on the premise that every woman or man should to devote his life to procreation and the construction of a suitable context for development of a new humanitarian. Where are those who do not include children in your life plan?, Well, this premise religions are responsible for giving approval to a project of life, and not giving them to others.
reproductive desire, by which indeed can be made and transcend some people, takes on the human being is rational and self-conscious, an optional basis, eligible under the project life of every man or woman; ability to choose which is denied to individual when it is established a hegemony centered on heterosexuality.
Specifically, if I say "I saw two homosexuals on the street" you'll probably imagine two guys walking and holding hands, maybe even giving her a kiss. Exactly the same happens when you make social campaigns to raise awareness against the rejection of homosexuality, you see posters with photographs of men, and homosexual is in marketing products for men. Did you know that women can still be gay? What happens is that we have certain ideas to the sexuality of women, including in the area of \u200b\u200bhomosexuality, are also present: women are delicate and innocent beings. So when we refer to the sexuality of a girl, usually playful add adjectives like "dirty" or "evil", what does not happen when you talk about the sexuality of a male. "Machismo?, If ... completely.
sexual desire between men is normal for the conceptions of our culture (men think about sex, then sex and end in sex, vox populi says ), but in parallel, our Judeo-Christian West has denied women the recognition of sexual desire: historically there is the belief that women do not feel, nor seek, nor seek sexual desire. So we think women's sexuality more as an innocent game as an erotic act. If you see two women walking down the street, holding hands, probably thinking that these are two great friends.
Second premise:
The second premise that fuels prejudice against homophobia is installed, the prohibition of pleasure: "the pursuit of pleasure is bad." We find it hard to talk about what gives us pleasure and it is difficult to accept that sometimes we do is only motivated by the pleasure of it, because we feel compelled to be productive and generate a benefit for the community, while we underestimate the value of pleasure as a way to nurture as valid as job satisfaction well done. This belief system finds its niche in the moral discourse of religions, which emphasize the "malignancy" of pleasure as a form of sin for many moral teachings, this world is a vale of tears and pain that we have crossing to enter the promised land, we'll get to paradise after we die.
The issue of religion is an interesting, because while the universe total of human beings is composed of different sets of believers and unbelievers, both as each other grow and develop in communities where churches are institutions with power, whose speeches reach his parishioners and neighbors, children, friends of those parishioners. This is when the man is surprised agnostic by simple inertia obeying the canons Catholics, for example, or accepting the premises of a religion, without necessarily sharing their doctrine.
The gay men and women, then not only have to practice their sexuality away from the reproductive intention, but even that sexuality exercised primarily motivated by pleasure, contrary to the premise of an educated society under the axioms of abstinence, and continence self-punishment to atone for sins or prevent. Then, as the pleasure is evil, sexuality, pleasure-seeking is so, and although it's a waste of the seed is an issue that relates more directly to the male homosexual, the pursuit of pleasure is anathema to women who figures being delicate, virginal and innocent lesbianism expressed in his right (and need) to the enjoyment and joy, keeping motu proprio by sex with other women.
Third premise:
The sex of each person corresponds to their physiological, hormonal, anatomical, and so on, men and women. Gender, however, is the set of functions that do to a person based on their sex: men must wear blue, be tough, manly, strong, formal and even ugly, good providers for the house and get yourself a good woman, and women should wear pink, be delicate, feminine, fragile, beautiful, good for the kitchen and main entrance, always good for a man to the point. Sex has a strong biological component, but the genre, however, is cultural. This means that just because you're born above you a lot of requirements that will restrict the freedom you have to make choices in life: are you sure you want to be a dancer, how it occurred to her to be a pilot? In this cultural factor is installed on the premise that being a man is better than being a woman, it speaks of levels in a hierarchy above them, below them. It works from the Imperial Rome.
Rome was a society with great appreciation for the virility and its associated values, however, was not a world that pigeonhole loving behavior by sex, yes, however, as the active or passive role as adopting the citizen to be active is to act as a male sexual partner against, and what was the passivity of the condemned man, it matters little whether it was passive in front of a woman or another man.
This concept, which was very typical of patriarchal societies and / or warrior, which are attributed to male dominant roles in the sexual, economic and political, is not unique to Roman society, but its spread through the culture and Roman law has left a strong impression that prevails in our societies to the present day and explains some of the attitudes we hold toward unorthodox sexualities and to the affection, not even ranked homosexual sex between men.
Soon after came the good Saint Paul, a man progressive zero, which supported many of the arguments Romans like word of the Lord and declare that the mollities or male passivity was a serious lack in the increasingly larger scale of sins of the flesh, and is committed by any man who allows his body to be used by another person, whether man or woman for pleasure. This taboo into passivity in the man, to "degrade" the place of gender preference to "lower level than it is for women", has remained steadfast to this day, nothing but the words changed: in some parts of Mexico and Latin America, the homosexual the man who is penetrated by another, not penetrating, who receives the penetration is called "passive" and you will see on a smaller scale than the "active" running penetration.
Facing the premises against the pursuit of pleasure or equivalence between sexuality and reproduction, the prohibition against the passivity of man is the major factor in the maintenance of homophobia that is why that most criticism of homosexuality allude to the figure of the feminized man, and also why male homosexuality causes more commotion than women. Other evidence of the taboo to the male passivity is in social discourse, where jokes and humorous anecdotes make fun of men "dominated". The feminization of man awakes the rejection of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike: when gay men opens its homoerotic sexuality to their parents, their main fear is that their child will egregious behavior "effeminacy," when two groups of gay men confront each other, spontaneously a hierarchy where more women are at the base and are installed more masculine top of the hierarchy.
homophobia in gay men assume that giving up his place in the gender hierarchy, being "at the level of women" (We assume that it therefore would reverse the social order) and deserving of public scorn such "degradation". This myth is associated of male superiority, with homophobia, in fact, homophobia is a control mechanism that prevents many men move in this power structure, knowing that giving up their privileged position in the hierarchy gender make them recipients of disparagement and ridicule.
The big question after this reflection is: when you obey your prejudices, you identify what is the premise that motivates them? Most of us keep homophobic traits, regardless of sexual orientation, because we keep assumptions about how sexuality should be lived, assuming there is a way that is right for everyone to live. Do you identify what are the assumptions behind each of your prejudices? It's probably a subject more relevant in what you do with your prejudices, that the very fact that you, and you may know your own premises, you better choices to act or not obeying your prejudices or decide, even discontinue it. The day job is yours.
This is a blog post http://xiu-cuautli.blogspot.com/ 
