Levitical imperatives in the age of ‘grace’ instead of ‘law’ & the new covenant

I am certainly not any theologian but am sufficiently intimate with the materials concerning the teachings and tenets of Christ, careful listening and reading of others, books, blogs and including dissenting points of view from religious voices indeed fanatics. The Trump president elect win has curiously emboldened some persons claiming to be Christian despite the presumptive leader of the free world is on his third wife, thrives in the realms of uncertainty, racism, misogyny and seems lost in his gloating self glorification of the reality ‘The Apprentice’ but has forgotten his favourite line from the show “You’re fired!” Trump’s own appearing patronizing optics by way of rainbow flags during the campaign seems to fly in the face of decency and plays to a kind demagogic populism.

Such religious fanatics in the form of some evangelicals here in Jamaica outside of the US based Pat Roberts capitalist types who make the rest of the honest church body look stupid have been rejoicing with full open support by their congregants and blind followership’s loyalty. The recent news that Trump may appoint a leading LGBTQers has thrown a wrench in the mix; now some pastors are squirming in discomfort given the news as they thought it would be a simple route to theocracy.

In a previous post I spoke to the business of the convenient and deliberate misuse of Leviticus to enforce fear and hate sometimes from philosophers and theologians for convenient reductionist anti LGBTQ arguments, without any proper tangible or provable basis. In fact it amounts to intellectual dishonesty frankly. Populism by way of the Jamaica Labour Party, JLP for example and said crazed evangelicals who ignore for the most part societal ills but are dead focused on referendum for maintaining buggery laws while touting justification due to abominations listed in Leviticus; they ignore some of those same abominations that do not fit their agenda but emphasise same gender related matters but do not see others such as:

Eating shrimp, wearing clothes made from one or more fabrics, beard wearing men, adultery and the consumption of some cloven footed animals. At a discussion session at a Baptist church I was asked to offer some pointers on Leviticus coming from previous blog posts of mine and the business of male homosexuality in particular. I sought to bring the conversation not from condemnation which for the most part came from the panellists and audience members in an attempt to right size the thinking debunking some of the myths, misunderstandings and misguided othering of non Christians especially homosexuals. 

Despite the growing understanding of the holiness codes for the Hebrew people during the temporary time under Moses after, bear in mind in the KJV the preamble to the text itself is quite clear as it reads in part:

“The book of Leviticus accordingly is a manual for priests detailing the religious rules and procedures which the priests had to observe and enforce for the covenant nation of Israel. Its historical setting is the two years Israel spent encamped at Mount Sinai; it contains no further account of Israel’s journeys from Egypt to Canaan.”

It continues:

“The fact that Moses, the author of Leviticus devoted an entire book to priestly matters shows the importance that the religious observances were to have ever afterwards for the Israelites. Christians, under the terms of Christ’s new covenant do not regard these Levitical regulations as binding, but they do obey the same God, not in the letter of the law but in the spirit of Christ.”

Yet religious voices who make the rest of the body of Christ appear out of touch and paranoid continue to use the justification in their eyes that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of exclusively homosexuality when we know that is not so. Bearing in mind King James hundreds of years later in whose name the most popular English translation of the Bible in 1610 is in was actually bisexual even in the face of a buggery law; pity the goody King would not have foreseen the work put in would be used as a destructive weapon hundreds of years later against LGBT people. The book of course was published to keep its true historical authenticity to the source Hebrew scroll text and for purposes of continuity so I would not expect King James’ sexuality to have interfered as a reason to purge the finished work of any homosexual abomination reference.

We cannot also ignore the fact that Leviticus written by Moses as far as we know does not record the Egypt to Canaan phase of the journey of the Israelites; given the kinds of archaeological finds in the last hundreds of years to now despite present days Turkey and Syrian civil wars and conflicts that may delay more findings homosexual themed materials dating to those times have been unearthed which leaves the question as to what might have occurred then in as far as the movement of the nomadic Hebrew people then?

“Some of you think that homosexuality is a greater sin than malicekeeping.No way in the sight of God.” (Bishop Herro Blair, sermon on Television Jamaica (TVJ), 3 March 2003) - The declaration by Bishop Blair – who is a figure of some political and religious influence – that there is no substantive theological basis for the selective highlighting of homosexuality as the ‘sin of sins,’ and which is our epigraph here, is not one that is often publicly made in Jamaica. The overtly virulent expressive homophobia arguably encourages the documented tendency towards and the practice of physical brutality and violence against homosexuals. It is reinforced, even operationalized, by three other specific features of the Jamaican situation.

According to Cecil Gutzmore’s whose ‘Casting the First Stone’ writings some time ago, There is a crying need for effective political-theoretical engagement by those who consider themselves politically and culturally progressive with and against the apparently intractable homophobia of Jamaican society. Amongst those who have recently made such intellectual interventions is Tara Atluri (2001) who proposes that sexism, heterosexism and homophobia combine to make Jamaica, and other societies of the Caribbean region, into what she images as a ‘closet’ for our lesbian and gay fellow citizens.

The somewhat thin body of academic, intellectual and artistic work designed to break the silence about homosexuality in the Caribbean, to still the ‘noise’ of local anti homosexual ideologies and intellectually and politically to deconstruct homophobic practice (carried out largely in the geographically distant and socially remote pages of academic journals, in far-off published newspapers, and in radio programmes and films usually unheard and unseen by the majority in Jamaica) appears to have all but failed to impact in any major positive way on the situation. This is separate and apart from the academic and sometimes political ends that are quite definitely achieved.

The Christian Church with its fundamentalist doctrines, and the reggae-dancehall genre have pushed key influential feature in the exceptionality of Jamaican homophobia derives from Christian fundamentalist doctrine which finds constant outlets not just in churches, but in popular culture (in Christian radio and TV programmes), as well as in the rituals of many secular institutions. Primary imperatives are

(i) the religious fundamentalist anti-homosexuality imperative, and

(ii) the imperative of the ‘unnaturalness’ of homosexuality. The secondary imperatives, in some way derived from the primary imperatives, are

(iii) the imperative of the purity and authenticity of a primordially homosexuality-free global African culture,

(iv) the imperative to protect vulnerable youth from homosexuality, as conflated with paedophilia, and

(v) the imperative of the misplaced illegality of homosexuality. When it is buggery that is illegal.

In this discourse, homosexuality is constituted straightforwardly as a sin in the eyes of God and therefore also in the view of self-perceived good and/or godly persons. It is agreed that omniscient Jehovah repeatedly declares homosexuality to be a sin in both the Old and New Testaments and that the Almighty would neither misrecognize nor misname a physical and/or emotional illness as a condition of sin. The idea that homosexuality is an illness (whether congenital or otherwise) represents the negative reading of the claim that lesbian and gay persons generally had their sexuality determined at birth, and did not therefore usually exercise unfettered choice. Its positive version holds that a certain proportion, a minority, of God’s human creatures are indeed born lesbian/gay and that their sexuality is to be seen as being as much God-ordained/created as that of the heterosexual majority. However, it also holds that homosexuality must still be repressed or at least treated.

Reggae artistes are different from the deejays to the extent that fewer singers have composed songs directed against homosexuals/homosexuality and it is perhaps more difficult for the singer to address this issue by improvising in performance. Even so, the earliest directly homophobic reggae song is the 1978 in a kind of secular religiosity or Rastafarian non judo Christian subscription is King Sounds and the Israelites’ ‘Spend One Night Inna Babylon’. This song makes explicit mention of Sodom and Gomorrah and of the fact that these two ancient cities, along with Babylon and Rome, are anathematized in the Bible. King Sounds, then, is simply transferring onto modern ‘Babylon’ – as constituted in what Pollard (1994) has termed Rastafari ‘dread-talk’– the characteristic sin of Sodom. In the song King Sounds embellishes his catalogue of Babylonian abominations by adding to it bestiality. For those advancing the Christian fundamentalist imperative, the essential sin of homosexual behaviour (sodomy) is said to be forbidden by God, and is recognized as a sin so serious as to be punishable by death.

Blind ignorance has effectively led to the belief that homosexuality only came about in Sodom and that even homosexuality signs in numerous animal species existing well before homosaepian developmental trajectories are an anathema. Those fundamentalist Christians constantly forget the important biblical injunction that ‘judgement belongs unto God’.

It must be understood that the imperative under discussion is specifically derived from the fundamentalist reading of the Holy Bible: passages in Leviticus assert respectively: ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination’ (emphasis added); and: ‘If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them’ (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13). Earlier in the Bible the seriousness of the punishment Jehovah deals out in connection with homosexuality is made very clear in the often mentioned story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the narrative, these ancient locations were sites of this great perceived evil: ‘their sin [homosexuality] is very grievous’ (Genesis 18: 20). Jehovah accordingly decided to destroy these cities and their inhabitants, excluding the single godly family – that of Jehovah’s servant Lot.

The fundamentalists point to the fact that God, throughout His book, variously declares homosexuality to be an ‘abomination’ (Ezekiel 16: 50), a ‘vile affection’ (Romans 1: 26, 27), ‘unseemly’ (Romans 1: 27), ‘not natural’ (Romans 1: 26, 27), a form of ungodliness (Titus 2: 12). Of its practitioners, Paul it is said firmly that ‘God gave them up unto a reprobate mind’ (Romans 1:28). Some seem to forget Paul was offering an opinion to the early saints of the church spread across Greece in the most sexualised of all places, Corinth in response to the letters sent to him. Those who commit this great sin are thus unequivocally construed within the fundamentalist anti-homosexual ideological imperative as legitimate subjects to be punished by terminal violence, a fate not only dealt out directly by God Himself but, presumably, also by those regarding themselves as His faithful servants and the possible agents of His will. These persons feel a kind of righteous justification for, as it were, acting violently on God’s behalf against perceived homosexuals and homosexuality. This is what informs the output of artists such as King Sounds or The Wickerman, working almost twenty-five years apart within the Jamaican musical popular.

The selectivity of the fundamentalist imperative is evident in the response to the sin of adultery. For, on the evidence of the Holy Bible itself, the commandment against the sin of adultery can be seen to be of at least equivalent seriousness to the injunction against the sin of homosexuality. Why then, it might be asked, is it that Jehovah found no space amongst the remaining nine commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai for one that explicitly forbids homosexuality, if this is correctly to be regarded as so fundamental and execrable a sin? The other sexually-related sin there mentioned forbids the coveting of one’s neighbour’s wife. But, depending of course on the sexuality involved, the also forbidden coveting of a neighbour’s man- and maid-servants not to mention that neighbour’s ox and ass may also be to sexual purposes.

Let us put to rest the silliness about “homosexual lifestyle” once and for all; as a phrase it is pure propaganda, a gossipy generalization and completely unworthy of a Christian who, following the counsel in Proverbs seeks understanding and insight into life and people. As Christians some will have to decide if we are going to partake of divisive “party spirit” that racked the church at Corinth or follow Christ as discerning attentive principles – to that still small voice and sharpen concerns for the ostracized instead of creating more strife.

Oh these modern day Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes who think their correctness is the be all and end all. Frankly envy of the apparent freedom of LGBT people could be called ‘freedom envy’ in my view. The role of freedom envy in the anti LGBT crusade is confirmed by the repeated and emphatic reference to “the homosexual lifestyle.” This is left a vague generality, as though it were something everyone already understands. The so called “homosexual lifestyle” is associated with a US view of homosexuality and dates back to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and stories of bath houses in places such as San Francisco; hence folks like Dr Wayne West of JCHS uses it as well to medicalise gays in his antigay advocacy or the deceptive “HIV is a gay disease ploy.” There is no such thing as a ‘homosexual lifestyle’ just as there is no such thing as “heterosexual lifestyle” heterosexual live on a “lifestyle” continuum just as homosexuals do. The continuum includes people in decades long monogamous relationships, people who live in social isolation, people who in into bar scenes etc people who move from relationship to relationship.

When oh when is there also going to be a separation of sexual orientation from the automatic perceived link to buggery or anal sex? That abhorrence factor is the spoiler in these matters when discussed. We also seem to forget the buggery law as we ended up inheriting by way of our former colonial masters and a savings law clause was a legal instrument to discredit the Catholics in the extirpation exercise under King Henry VIII’s protestant reformation and royal supremacy in the 1500s. Lest we forget the very ‘King James Version’ the most successful English language translation was presided over by a bisexual being King James himself, not because of any correctness in the word/text but to quell the struggle between the puritans, the reformers (protestant) and established clergy (Catholics); “No Bishop, No King” the infamous words by James in his quest to preserve the hierarchy of the monarchy over the church of England.

The fact is we are not under law but are now under grace.

Peace & tolerance

H

also see:

Patois Bible waste of money ....  

Here is my podcast on that issue:

The use of Jamaican dialect to further stigmatize homosexuals in the new patois Bible

JAMAICAN RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY & THEOLOGIANS SCOFF AT THE “GAY BIBLE”  

Men who have anal sex with women are (likely to be) gay! ..... oh boi

Krystal Tomlinson & Colin Hines from FAME FM

Lawd some Jamaicans needs help. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

FAME FM’s Uncensored hosted by Krystal Tomlinson and the ever uncomfortable DJ Colin Hines when it comes to topics on homosexuality or as in last evening’s show on whether or not men who have anal sex with women or receive or accede to women’s wishes to penetrate them are gay? Proved we have a long way to go in this country in as far as the understanding of sexual orientation and such are concerned and as for the Twitter/Facebook comments is just sickening really; how backward we are as a country yet still despite so much information available at our fingertips literally.

Persons behind a microphone frankly in my view need to be well rounded and be reminded that even if they hold personal positions one is hosting a show and all points should contend in the proper exchange of ideas or information. This is not just a FAME FM problem as I find myself having to stomach for purposes of determining reality some rather inane discourse these days on radio as all kinds of antigay venom comes forth; silly season anyone? Especially when it comes to this business of referendum on buggery calls.

Thankfully Sexologist, Columnist & former radio show host on Nationwide Radio’s ‘All Woman’ Dr Shelly Ann Weeks was in house though late and another sexuality expert for the first half and even with good information flowing from both the ‘anal is gay’ analogy kept creeping into the conversation which sometimes descended into a shouting match. Dr Shelly Ann debunked it quickly by asking why have the hosts had designated anal as gay and who determined it so if persons choose to practice anal sex in heterosexual unions?

“I don’t have a gay part of my body” Dr Weeks said.

Colin Hines as usual cried foul from the beginning of the discussion and a male guest who came on who penetrates women anally was almost raked over the coals for his choice although he said he is not sexually attracted to men. I was pleased that Dr Weeks also explained that not all gay men indulge in anal penetration and do other things otherwise known as outer-course or non-penetrative activities; she teased Colin Hines that if he tried it he might like it; to which he got a little testy.

Then came the rape versus buggery argument where a male guest who says he retails sex toys dismissed anal sex without consent as rape but thankfully again Dr Shelly Ann Weeks debunked that thought instantly; she clearly stated rape is rape whether it was anal or vaginal penetration.

The question of young teens or adolescent girls who want to keep their virginity and who prefer or are forced to have unprotected anal sex so as to keep clear came up as a dangerous alternative if the right precautions were not taken; thankfully Dr Shelly again came to save the day as to safer anal sex, condom usage, lubrication, PH balance and diseases such as Hepatitis B etc. I was deeply disturbed as to the level of discourse at some points in the hour long show; save and except for Krystal Tomlinson’s forward thinking there clearly needs to be a serious campaign of some kind or discussion on buggery, anal health, erogenous zones, human sexuality and what homosexuality actually is. Anal sex does not make someone gay and the buggery law in Jamaica is not just only for gay or bisexual men who practice anal penetration with other men.

The infamous dancehall DJ Zebra case comes to mind, He was found guilty of carnal abuse and buggery and is serving 30 years (20 for rape; 10 for buggery).The Crown led evidence that the entertainer sexually assaulted the teenage daughter of his girlfriend.

It is said that the child had to run away from home and related her ordeal to a senior relative who reported the matter to the police.

Then came the practice of rimming or anal oral play as introduced by Krystal Tomlinson and the products on the market with Colin Hines expressing that the discussion was disturbing but the male guest by phone who has anal sex with women intervened and said that if persons believe that a man who penetrates a woman is gay and that is revolving around fear which could explain homophobic violence in Jamaica. He then asked how two men or two women in bed affect me or my life. To which Colin Hines gave the usually crappy correct answer in homophobes eyes that of the anus being the anus; and it’s not for sex; and he does not need lubricants and such as vaginas already have that naturally but Dr Shelly Ann Weeks intervened yet again to say that not all women lube naturally and require purchasing items to aid their sexual exploration. Then came the supposition of whether or not persons can be trusted although and those who “bun it out” (public abhorrence to anal sex) in public and then do it in private in other words are effectively pious hypocrites via public homophobia but have private fetishes and therefore should not be two-faced about it.

“I think we need to take the gayness off the table completely” Dr Weeks continued. Krystal Tomlinson had suggested it was gayish for a man to have anal sex with women as he may also be interested in men seeing it is the same orifice.

Colin asked the telephone male guest:

“A man being penetrated by a woman in his ‘bahind’ (colloquial for behind) is that gay?”

To which he said he does not know as he has never had that requested of him or had it done to him.

Sexuality is so beautiful and lovely Dr Shelly Ann Weeks outlined and parts of the body have several neurons and membranes etc and then the male sex toy retailer went down the road of labels such as BATTYMAN which he spelt out on air and when challenged by Dr Weeks as to everyone having ears, nipples, lips he then went on to suggest more lables such as the ridiculous ear man or nippleman or a bottomist; but it is not gay to which I just shook my head as it took so long near the end of the show to finally get some sense coming in the exchange in regards to him.

The use of the term ‘tumble bug’ especially by Colin Hines kept creeping in the exchange and is a stigmatizing term; I swear Colin Hines needs an intervention or change him as host. Other strange comments from Colin included:

“I am one of the idiots out there if I’m inclined to have anal sex then you’re inclined to have homosexual sex ..... that’s just me.”

“Anal sex, no thank you”

“What if someone were to say to you, you allow a woman to penetrate you; what’s to stop you from allowing a man to?”

“Are there no boundaries?” (Colin’s usual pet peeve, playing into the antigay advocacy tagline of moral nihilism).

Dr Shelly Ann Weeks responded appropriately to the first comment:

“No but Colin, let us explore your logic; with that logic then you’ll have to spread it right across the anatomy; you can’t say if a man has anal sex with a woman then he will do the same thing with a man, then you’ll have to say the same thing about if he kisses a woman; then you’ll have to say the same thing about if he plays with her nipples; both men and women have lips, both men and women have nipples, both men and women have anuses.”

In other words it amounts to sexual orientation.

Dr Weeks also responded to his third comment/question:

“The only difference a man has anatomically is fact that a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina; both of us have nipples; both of us have nose; both of us have eyes; both of us have butt cheeks; both of us have anuses. If you’re gonna say that rule about the anus then if a man kisses a woman what is to stop him from kissing another man?

Or if a man nibbles on a woman’s nipple, what’s stopping him from doing it to another man; so why is it we just zero in on the anus and decide that anything that a man does to a woman’s anus he will automatically do it to a man’s anus?”

Krystal Tomlinson interjected:

“Similarly in receiving a blow job ........ If the context is all eggs its eggs then all mouth is mouth; if you receive from a woman then you’ll receive it from a man ....... we don’t extend the logic that far.”

Colin Hines responded, “Then may God help unu” (you) and he continued that he felt anal sex is not supposed to happen and held his hardened position on the matter, he then ended by saying there is no redeeming quality in anal sex.

Audrey Cole Crosdale a social and behaviour change specialist who was a guest on the panel in the first half of the show mentioned early in the show that the anus can be considered an erogenous zone or words to such effect. She also drew an analogy of what attracts persons and things or looks that make different desirability. She mentioned socio-economic status can also be a turn on for some.

She said in part:

“A man’s anus might turn him on but he is not attracted to a man” which to me was the line for the night as it debunked the belief that sexual practice automatically determines sexual orientation especially when it comes to anal sex.

“A man who may want his woman to penetrate him it’s because he is stimulated by his anus; it turns him on because different parts of our body; some of us our breasts don’t turn us on while some of us we touch it and there is a trigger.....” she continued.

On the matter of a man on the receptive end another guest who arrived later in the show claimed that if the man penetrates a woman anally that does not mean he is gay but if he wants to have penetration done to him or if he accedes to his woman’s request or demands by her wearing a strap on for example then he is gay or inclined to have a man penetrate him. That female speaker was supposed to be a university student ...... sigh, help us lord. Fingers and other sex toys were not mentioned as part of the items substituted for such sexual play. Then came the usual “one way street barb” by the sex toy retailer, I am disappointed that for someone in the sex industry and who be of an opened mind he should be so ignorant and display such on national radio of all places; I wouldn’t patronise his shop or encourage persons to do so at all. He claimed that a woman had asked of him to perform anal sex on her and he promptly put her out of his house the evening in question as it totally turned him off.

Krystal Tomlinson was forced to do an intervention via Wikipedia as she read what the meaning of gay was and so on related to homosexuality. The discussion was trivial though in my view and the teaching moments were lost at some stages as shouting or talkover blocked the information.

Krystal asked the late arrive/female student that “.......the idea of a man surrendering his anus for penetration equals .......?

To which she answered:

“Well it takes away from what the fantasy should be.....” Dr Weeks correctly intervened and suggested the word ‘should’ was problematic as that an agreement or consent is expected by the parties involved and to each their own.

“Who makes that determination though?” asked Dr Weeks.

I pray for the day when I can hear some sensible discourse on homosexuality and anal sex more frequently and not the stuff that is broadcast these days. I recently heard Pastor Aaron Dumas aka “Tell Me Pastor” of Star News on Power 106FM with the same garbage as Colin Hines and as a psychologist correlating anal sex to homosexuality despite the fact that the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, DSM that guides all psychologists and psychiatrists does not see homosexuality as a disorder from as early as 1973; but he chooses to operate outside its sphere. He has also gone as far to encourage reparative therapy on numerous occasions despite the proof is out there that such a practice can be problematic to persons who so engage.

Sigh!

Peace & tolerance

H

also see my post on sister blog GLBTQ Jamaica: FAME FM’s ‘Uncensored’ radio show conflates homosexuality, paedophilia with transgenderism April 2015

and Oh really! ............ Penile/anal penetration is NOT SEX Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society?

Dr Shelly Ann Weeks on Homophobia - What are we afraid of?

Dr Shelly Ann Weeks on Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation

Sexuality - What is yours?

Safer rimming or anilingus .......... tips & suggestions 2012

Fame FM's "Uncensored" on Piercings, Men fighting for mirror time & dancehall's changing aesthetics 2011

The Ass-pects of anal sex 2010

Top Ten Gays on Campus ........ Which One are You?

I was reminded of this via Facebook recently from a three year old thread of which I had laughed so hard (hope you will when you read it). The stereotypical views especially on tertiary institutions is as old as profiling itself. After all campuses are a mix or microcosm of general society.

I decided to re-share it partially edited with photos added for some light humour for a change given the serious entries prior.

TOP TEN GAYS ON CAMPUS....... which one is u?

1. THE DL HOMOPHOBE – 

He can spot any gay guy anywhere at anytime. He always has something negative to say to or about the gay guy, but in reality he just wants the gay boy’s attention. Homophobes are usually attracted to masculine gay men as the feminine ones will blow their cover. Also Statistics show that the HOMOPHOBES are the messiest of them all.

2. THE AVERAGE STR8 GUY - 

This is the most difficult type to detect. He’s the typical straight guy, he loves sports, he adores cars, he can fix almost everything….nothing out of the ordinary till u walk in on him doing something with a dude. We call these men TRADES. You had no clue they were gay…and chances are they can teach the OPENLY gay guys a few tricks.

3. The SUPER DL NINJA – 

This is the guy who is TERRIFIED of people having the slightest clue he is gay. He will surf gay chatlines and send people to a dozen different websites until he finally reveals himself. The kind of guy that meets you on the docks at night…you sleep with him… and if you see him in public again he will DENY your existence.

(not an actual couple but representative of the line item below)

4. THE DL COUPLE – 

Now this is the most prevalent type of gay guys on campus. Two guys that always hang out together, they maybe work out buddies, members of the same fraternity, same sports team or school organization….Chances are if you see one the other is close behind and if you see one alone…….he’s on his way to the other. THEY ARE A COUPLE. No straight guy will spent 90% of his day with another guy unless they are in Iraq and that’s a whole nother story child.

5. MR DON’T ASK DON’T TELL – 

IF YOU AINT ASKING HE AINT TELLIN…SHIT EVEN IF YOU ASK HE AINT TELLIN. This is the guy in class you always suspected but never had any concrete proof to nail him. Unfortunately for you that you cant nail him….but every other dude on campus is…….OKAAAAAAAY!!!

(I deliberately used Michael Sam and his coming out that shocked many as he bears no stereotypical imagery to suspect him)

6. THE AVERAGE GAY GUY – 

He is professional, a great friend, a honor student, your RA, that guy that’s in the ROTC. He is awesome everyone on campus knows him all the girls have a crush on him…..you invite him out one night and he comes with a dude he introduces as his BOYFRIEND………..yes your honor student is in a relationship with a man and as popular as he is he managed to keep his personal life out of the spotlight. This is what most gay people should aspire to be like.

 the overly attentive man to his look, metrosexual anyone?

7. THE PRETTY BOI – 

This is the guy that looks better than 50% of the girls on campus. He wears designer clothes, has a body to die for..usually light skinned or Hispanic, hair you wish you had has the accessories of a typical pretty boi (contacts, earrings, photoshopped). You can find them prancing around your local mall or around town. They are usually conceited and not very nice.

(typical hip dude)

8. THE TRENDSETTER – 

They are the social mecca of fashion and social rituals. They start the latest trends, know the latest songs and the matching dances, knows your business before you do, and pretty much puts you out there. Only down side is that they are either fat, darker than sin and 9/10 BUTT UGLY.

this guy had two Louis Vuitton shoulder bags ...

9. THE HALF AND HALF – 

Have you ever seen a guy with tight jeans, a purse and couldn’t be more feminine and you wonder…. Why doesn’t he be a transsexual and get over with it. He wears girl jeans, a tank top, makeup and a purse big enough to fit a piano. They are usually bitter because nobody wants to be seen with them…unless they are HALF AND HALF TOO.

u better werQ Miss Ru ..... she is not obnoxious though 

butch queen voguing like a femme queen ..... legendary Pepper from back in the day of ballrooms in New York

10. THE OBNOXIOUS QUEEN - 

He greets you with a HEEEEEEEEEEEEEY GIIIIIRRRL!!! He refers to people as MISS THANG, he is the loudest motherfucker you have ever met, flirts with anything that breathes and is a club addict. Ladies and Gentlemen…this is THE POSTERCHILD FOR GAY. You can spot him on the map, his sexuality is as big as Texas and he doesn’t care who knows. In fact he wants you to know so he can have you next… RUN CHILD RUN…..

ENDS

I am none of them lol

Does any of the 10 categories match you or anyone you know?

I am more a Willi Ninja type (for purposes of this post) as in my hayday that was the imagery and behavioural presentation I naturally came into, I can easily pass publicly and serve it fiercely on the danceloor or in a battle with another queen or so.

“Butch Queen Realness,” a walking category, is the ability to pass as a masculine, heterosexual male beyond the ballroom walls, while emulating “European Runway” . The ideal was embracing effeminacy from a fashion magazine construct and re-affirming ones identity and comfort in that identity reaching towards divadom.

Finally some related podcasts regarding stereotypes, effemophobia and national homo-negativity:

Bad Man Nuh F*** Batty (Masculine Men Don't F*** Ass) (The Fear of The Feminine in JA ) 16.04.15 

Peace and tolerance

H

Gay "scrubbed clean" in the United Arab Emirates ???

After seeing this video and the comments it is obvious the supposed gay character was not a real effeminate man and was acting.

Gay people in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have attacked a YouTube video ‘tutorial’ which shows how gays can be ‘cured’ or ‘scrubbed clean’ of their sexuality.

The six-minute ‘tutorial’ entitled ‘Be Yourself’ has shocked the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community of the UAE.

The video depicts five young men as the starring characters: Rashid Al-Muaini, Majid Al-Muaini, Ali Al-Ghaithi, Jamel Al-Ghaithi and Mohammad Eissa. The scene is set in a typical suburban neighbourhood of one of the UAE cities (most likely Ajman), where the five meet.

Two are in a traditional Emirati dress of Kandura and Kiffayeh greeted by a visibly shy effeminate guy with long hair, wearing a t-shirt and jeans, who says ‘Hi guys’ in a high pitched voice, proceeding to shake their hands in a camp manner and playing with his hair.

He is contrasted with two other guys dressed in western style who pass-by and greet in a ‘brotherly’ macho-like manner.

The effeminate guy acts all shy and blushes when he’s invited, with a ‘wink’ to come inside the villa next door.

Once in the villa’s living room, the effeminate man is told that he needs to change his personality. One of the traditional-dressed men asks: ‘will you change it or not?’ He replies ‘yes but now?’ And is told ‘leave it to us’.

They proceed to show the effeminate guy how to mimic masculine gestures. Later he is given a ‘make-over’ where his hands and face are almost violently scrubbed with scouring cloths, and then his nails and hair are cut.

After the make-over the still effeminate guy gets a slap when he is about leave for saying ‘bye guys’ in his high pitch voice, and given a tip: ‘Thicken your voice!’

In the concluding scene all five characters meet up again. The effeminate guy seems less distinguished by his looks. His friends seem happy and proud of what they did and finish by thanking Allah, who helped bring about the ‘change’.

A Hadith appears in the closing scene roughly translating as: ‘If you see something wrong being done, speak up. If nothing happens, do something. If nothing happens then, change things with your heart.’

While the title ‘Be Yourself’ and video may look paradoxical even laughably ludicrous it nevertheless touches upon some profound issues for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the UAE.

Activists’ flashbacks

Gay Middle East spoke to three activists from Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transexual Rights UAE about the video on behalf of Gay Star News.

Abdullah, 24 from Abu-Dhabi, founder of the group commented: ‘The video signifies the level of challenge, we, the UAE LGBT community, have ahead of us. We don’t merely have to change the views of the government but also society itself. It angers me no end, but it also saddens me, this video would have been devastating if my 16-year-old self had watched it.

‘As a 16-year-old, I can still hear echoes in my mind of mom yelling at me not to flail my hand too much when I speak, which only lead to me being robotic and stiff, feeling I must keep both hands down when I speak, something that took a long time to get over.

‘My mom would also shout at me for using English terms like “guys” in her presence because it emulated the westerners and was a direct “attack” to the Arabic language and my [masculine] mannerisms.’

Abdullah told us his parents would force him to get a to ‘a crew cut’ so his hair won’t look like ‘a western propaganda’ gay person, something that deeply humiliated and angered him. He said they refused to buy him jeans and t-shirts because it made him ‘act girly’ telling him instead he must wear the ‘traditional Emirati dress’.

He said: ‘In the UAE, men are required to act in a away that reflects the Bedouin tribe which we are descended from. Many view homosexuality as a western invention and not a very good one.

‘[The video] brought flashbacks to me how on endless hot Friday afternoons I was forced to observe how men interact, or how they drink coffee by my father, so that I should emulate to make him proud.’

He adds: ‘I was banned from hanging out with my sisters too much because my parents alleged they were turning me into a woman.’ Finally his father gave up and rejected him, choosing one of Abdullah’s brothers to ‘make him proud’.

Fatima, a 31-year-old secretary from Abu-Dhabi points out more issues with the representation of the effeminate gay character: ‘The director, having chosen this particular young man and his looks to play the deviant, gender-confused homosexual is openly insulting every gay man on earth.

‘It's typical to have young, macho-wannabe boys chasing a ball in the street, god forbid the director shoots the film in a library or a study room that could really harm the image of what a real Arabic man is supposed to be doing in his free time.

‘They have a femme-fatale gay man to represent the entire population of homosexual men in the region, assuming that gay people are not being themselves, they just spend their lives pretending to be someone else for, I don't know, attention? And then to have a homosexual "cured" with a firm rub and a neat haircut and if he shows signs of relapse, just slap him back to his senses.

‘The massage of this video is ugly, hurtful and very dangerous. I hope whoever came up with this sick idea gets a visit from a gay cupid. Ha!’

Ali, a 25-year-old law student from Dubai was outraged by the video: ‘I found “Be Yourself” extremely offensive. When I read the title, I was thinking “Wow, finally some of these people have actually learnt something! Perhaps we can have a go at acceptance!” only to discover a video filled with prejudice.

‘I was gutted at the confidence in the faces of the actors on the fact that they can treat homosexuality just like that.

‘To all of those who think they can treat homosexuality by grooming, abusing and hurting I want to say “are you proud to be homophobic people? Leading people into an illusion that being gay is all about flapping your hands and having a girly voice?”’

Changing hearts

The UAE is a federation of seven emirates who each have different harsh laws regarding homosexuality, from up to 10 years in prison in Dubai to 14 in Abu-Dhabi, while Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code may even prescribe a death sentence for ‘consensual sodomy’. So punishment for homosexuality can include prison, fines, deportation, flogging and death.

Meanwhile psychologists and psychiatrists in the UAE regard being gay as a psychological disturbance that is, in some cases, to be ‘cured’ with hormonal ‘treatments’, despite global clinical guidance to the contrary.

Abdullah told us: ‘Homosexuality has always been a part of the Arabian world, it existed in poetry and writings that are found in Islam and even predate it. Not to mention it’s a natural part of humanity.’

But stereotyping of LGBT people and the idea that non-conforming sexuality is westernized or can be changed are rampant.

Abdullah said: ‘We want to change that, so that another 16-year-old or the impressionable LGBT youth, wouldn't have to go through what others, including myself, before them did. We will challenge those beliefs and misconceptions one person at a time, and if we don't change them we will reach to their hearts.’

Brain scans used to detect paedophilia ......

Given the sensitivities involved in our caustic homophobic society and the misconception that has been allowed to become so deeply entrenched in our national psyche that gay men are in essence paedophiles and looking for the next piece of young ass to have this study is to be watched closely as it can help to diffuse that stereo type that feeds our violent homophobia but I am almost sure someone from the psychiatric community is going refute this in some way via some alternate theory. We have to keep a close eye on this development.
Source

A study by German scientists shows that it may be possible to identify paedophiles by scanning their brains as they look at pictures of adults and children

In the study, which appears this month in the Archive of General Psychiatry, the scientists showed pictures of naked people of different ages to a group of diagnosed paedophiles and a normal control group. The researchers then scanned the subjects’ brains using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The differences in brain activity could pinpoint who was a paedophile and who was not at a rate of roughly 90 percent, according to the study.

The research, which involved professors from universities in Kiel, Berlin and Denmark, may have ground-breaking uses in the treatment of sex offenders, said Jorge Ponseti, one of the study's authors at the Christian Albrechts University of Kiel.

It is important to verify whether a first-time sex offender is truly a paedophile – in other words having an inherent attraction to prepubescent children – or merely committed a crime of opportunity, because treatment strategies are different for both groups Ponseti said.

“You can offer a paedophile drugs to lower sex drive or teach him in psychotherapy to avoid situations involving children, but you waste your time if you explain how to have a relationship with adult women,” Ponseti said. “You can approach someone who is not a true paedophile differently. It is important to know what kind of sex offender this is.”

Current techniques to determine whether someone is a paedophile, such as by using a device attached to the penis to measure arousal levels, are notoriously imprecise and not widely used in Germany. Some paedophiles are able to fool such devices by controlling their arousal levels.

Ponseti said he thinks the fMRI technique will be much more precise, although researchers are currently developing another study to see whether its possible for paedophiles to somehow fool it.

“Brain response to an emotional stimulus is very fast and it happens most likely before conscious acknowledgement of a picture takes place, so I think it is unlikely that faking will be successful,” Ponseti said.

Moises Mendoza
moises.mendoza@thelocal.de
twitter.com/moisesdmendoza

External link: Study abstract »

Assessment of Pedophilia Using Hemodynamic Brain Response to Sexual Stimuli

Jorge Ponseti, PhD; Oliver Granert, MSc; Olav Jansen, Prof MD; Stephan Wolff, MSc; Klaus Beier, Prof MD, PhD; Janina Neutze, MSc; Günther Deuschl, Prof MD;Hubertus Mehdorn, Prof MD; Hartwig Siebner, Prof MD; Hartmut Bosinski, Prof MD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. Published online October 3, 2011. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.130

Context Accurately assessing sexual preference is important in the treatment of child sex offenders. Phallometry is the standard method to identify sexual preference; however, this measure has been criticized for its intrusiveness and limited reliability.

Objective To evaluate whether spatial response pattern to sexual stimuli as revealed by a change in the blood oxygen level–dependent signal facilitates the identification of pedophiles.
Design During functional magnetic resonance imaging, pedophilic and nonpedophilic participants were briefly exposed to same- and opposite-sex images of nude children and adults. We calculated differences in blood oxygen level–dependent signals to child and adult sexual stimuli for each participant. The corresponding contrast images were entered into a group analysis to calculate whole-brain difference maps between groups. We calculated an expression value that corresponded to the group result for each participant. These expression values were submitted to 2 different classification algorithms: Fisher linear discriminant analysis and -nearest neighbor analysis. This classification procedure was cross-validated using the leave-one-out method.

Setting Section of Sexual Medicine, Medical School, Christian Albrechts University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Participants We recruited 24 participants with pedophilia who were sexually attracted to either prepubescent girls (n = 11) or prepubescent boys (n = 13) and 32 healthy male controls who were sexually attracted to either adult women (n = 18) or adult men (n = 14).

Main Outcome Measures Sensitivity and specificity scores of the 2 classification algorithms.
Results The highest classification accuracy was achieved by Fisher linear discriminant analysis, which showed a mean accuracy of 95% (100% specificity, 88% sensitivity).

Conclusions Functional brain response patterns to sexual stimuli contain sufficient information to identify pedophiles with high accuracy. The automatic classification of these patterns is a promising objective tool to clinically diagnose pedophilia.

 
also see: Why most "pedophiles" aren't really pedophiles, technically speaking

The Homo-Negativity Surrounding Paedophilia ……. From GLBTQ Jamaica Blog Combo (WordPressEdition)

Another disturbing paedophile accusation, homosexuality & paedohilia miscontrued

Khago's "Weh Dem a Seh?" ...........

So as the war of words continue between the upstarts (my words) Khago and I-Octane in the dancehall the stereotypical traits of metrosexuality, blurred gender lines or feminization are implied in the lyrics as each artist tries to paint each other as closeted gays. Interestingly Khago in this song talks about "gender confusion" when he alludes that rival DJ I-Octane is using makeup and shaving his eyebrows via his contract he is forced to wear particular types of clothing that makes him out to be on the DL at best. In a previous post where I highlighted I-Octane's "Dream Bout Boi" track which also lambasts Khago but also percieved modes of dress that hint at gay life.

I-Octane

Nuh Dream Bout Boi Here:

NUH DREAM BOUT BOY - I-OCTANE by khoolray

and

also see or hear above "Woman Wi Seh" by I-Octane as well.

Why are Jamaican men so insecure about their own masculinity? so much so to the point that anything that involves other men closely or deemed too close is also deemed as something sexual or cohersively so as if in the same way Jamaican men hit on or try to coherse women is somehow the same way another man in this perceived "too close for comfort" position will also try to do. And to think Khago himself is hot in the eyes of many MSMs here.

Khago

The Lyrics from "Weh Dem a Seh?" among other things contend:

"Sister locks wi nuh wear nor bredda locks"

(referring to a particular style of artificial hair interwoven into real hair for locking)

"No lip gloss ...." (suggesting other artists may wear such type make up)

"shaved eyebrows, wi nuh follow fags" (shaved eyebrows we don't follow fags/gays) [the first direct anti gay sentiment associated with perceived gay aesthetics]

"Wi nuh wear turtle neck cause wi nuh drifters" (we don't wear turtle necks as we are not drifters) [turtle neck clothes here suggesting a gay style of dress]

"No makeup to mi face dat a fi mi sisters" (no makeup to my face that's for my sisters) [suggesting feminine mode of dress by rival DJs]

"Wi locks real wi nuh wear fusion, we nuh join the gender confusion" (our locks are real we don't wear fusion {suggesting twisting fake hair and real to get the lengthy look} we don't join the gender confusion) [all this suggesting men who dress otherwise are confused about their gender

"Man str8 like 12 o'clock" ( Man is straight {orientation} like 12 o'clock) [suggesting comparison with the hands of the clock)

"no contract caan mek me over" (no contract can't make me over) [suggesting other artists maybe forced to use perceived feminized modes of dress and aesthetics in their public persona)

In the middle of the Jamaican metro-sexual revolution as I see it there is this back and forth between two possible great artists while instead of producing wonderful hits as we have seen they can, are distracted by this weirdness of perceived blurred gender lines but the real leader in all this metro-change is pushing on none the less despite some haemorrhaging from his Gaza camp and a major loss of support from a marketing guru Vybz Kartel pushes on despite his controversial lightened appearance and rumours of his HIV status. We are in interesting times people.

UPDATE:

Controversial DJ Tony Matterhorn with a new song critiquing other DJs for not calling names when bashing each other called "Dancehall Duppy (Ghost)" says that both Octane and Khago are tracing or quarreling like girls:

Here Khago tries to set the record straight but it seems the attempt only make matters worse and confusing for the viewing public:

Peace and tolerance

H

Cartoons and the use of gay typed characters part 2

cartoon above published July 26.07.11

See part 1 where I briefly looked at the Shebadarization of entertainment on a whole with brief effects on Jamaican psyche and associated gay typed characters on Jamaican stages.

Over these many years cartoonists in particular have been weighing in on the issues with every thing from very disturbing and stereotypical pieces to more satirical ones poking fun at the issues, many persons in the LGBT community and by extension the advocacy groupings have expressed some outrage specifically to today's Observer image as done by resident cartoonist Clovis:

This is following on the recent apology from the police high command on Superintendent Fitz Bailey and his assertions on gays involved in organized crimes without specifically naming the ones they are involved in.

also see:

Apology Accepted JCF but some questions on several fronts still linger ...

Other popular cartoons include the now infamous call from public defender to put prisoners to work however Clovis gave a spin on the issue by showing the two prisoners in a romantic position in jail-house fatigues, another was the barred closet door as hammered blocked by former Attorney General A.J. Nicholson.

Certainly the Boom Bye Bye one I included here was one of many others that were too offensive so I left them out of this entry that was a supposed response to the "Not in My Cabinet" rant on the BBC's Hard talk show in 2008/9 however one can also appreciate the cartoonists are also carrying the views of readers and John Public which may be for or against LGBT issues but given our very slow change to a more tolerant society the toons seem to be reflecting more comedic themes especially the Clovis ones that have a stereotypical cross dresser with male features also visibly shown.

As I said elsewhere sometimes we have to laugh things off sometimes if not we all may go mad.

Peace and tolerance

H

UPDATE July 20, 2011 - in response to the last cartoon (above) a letter to the Observer

Bad precedent

Dear Editor,

This is in regard to your cartoon of July 19.

I find your portrayal of gay people to be most offensive! Do you really believe that all gay people carry themselves in this manner? You are setting a bad precedent and initiating a stereotype that will just help perpetuate the rampant homophobia that plagues the Jamaican society.
Please act responsibly by understanding the ramifications of what you publish! I sincerely hope you will see the gravity of this and take corrective action.

P Valentine
Saxhomes@aol.com