Reconciling Homophobia and Homoeroticism in Hip-hop

[The Real]

There is no evidence of this. At all. This is psychotic rambling trying to make men even more feminine than they already are.

There's more than enough evidence. Like I said, many hypermasculine warrior cultures have included a documented gay component. Plato and the Athenians did it. Spartans were fukking each other. Samurai were fukking each other and young boys. Zulu engaged in intercrural sex. Military hazing has documented gay manifestations, as does military bonding culture. Boys private schools do, too. And of course, American prison culture, which isn't a warrior culture but nonetheless manifests similar results. The door to the "homo thug" phenomenon was also opened by the same elements, partially filtered through prison culture.

As for accusations of "psychotic rambling," calm down and stop the hysterics. No one is trying to make men "more feminine." Telling men not to hate women isn't feminine. It's pro-heterosexual. Telling men "homies over hoes," on the other hand, is not, and is part of the reason so many Black children grow up fatherless.

It is weird, but the meaning is not what you're making it out to be. The reach to make it homoerotic is greater than the reach to make it incestual.

So telling a female you have sex with that she's "more than" a lover by comparing her to a male relative is just "weird" but it would be a reach to interpret it exactly how it came out? How many straight men have you encountered who think of their wives as "brothers" as opposed to as women?

 

[TLOL is back]

There's more than enough evidence. Like I said, many hypermasculine warrior cultures have included a documented gay component. Plato and the Athenians did it. Spartans were fukking each other. Samurai were fukking each other and young boys. Zulu engaged in intercrural sex. Military hazing has documented gay manifestations, as does military bonding culture. Boys private schools do, too. And of course, American prison culture, which isn't a warrior culture but nonetheless manifests similar results. The door to the "homo thug" phenomenon was also opened by the same elements, partially filtered through prison culture.

Can you provide:

A) Quantifiable evidence that the cultures listed engaged in more homosexual sex than others?

B) Quantifiable evidence that those cultures were more hypermasculine than others?

C) Quantifiable evidence for a causal link?

Until then, this is just sociopathic pro-gay bullying.

[quote[As for accusations of "psychotic rambling," calm down and stop the hysterics. No one is trying to make men "more feminine."[/quote]

Yes.... Yes, you and your movement are.

Telling men not to hate women isn't feminine. It's pro-heterosexual.

I agree.

Telling men "homies over hoes," on the other hand, is not, and is part of the reason so many Black children grow up fatherless.

No, it is the reason less men backstab each other to please a monkey branching female.

So telling a female you have sex with that she's "more than" a lover by comparing her to a male relative is just "weird" but it would be a reach to interpret it exactly how it came out? How many straight men have you encountered who think of their wives as "brothers" as opposed to as women?

None, but I don't know people who write music either. Obviously the interpretation is that she is close like a brother. You chose to interpret it in a homoerotic way, which is interesting in of itself.

 

[sun raw]

When I was a youngin, I never understood the obsession rappers had with their dikks, dating back to EPMD always talking about "get the bozack" and all that and rappers posing grabbing their dikks.

The Chronic in particular is the gayest album ever. There's so many references to dikks in mouths and men getting fukked you'd think boys dance to it on stage in Afghanistan.

At some point the dikk worship really becomes ridiculous as hell. Like there's bragging about how you've got a big dikk and then there's something bordering on obsession.

 

[The Real]

Can you provide:

A) Quantifiable evidence that the cultures listed engaged in more homosexual sex than others?

B) Quantifiable evidence that those cultures were more hypermasculine than others?

C) Quantifiable evidence for a causal link?

Until then, this is just sociopathic pro-gay bullying.

I'm not sure you know what a sociopath is. Bullying? More hysterics and whiny language. I'm not pushing you or anyone else around. Where is this victim complex coming from?

Regardless, quantifiable evidence isn't necessary in this case. All those subcultures had documented, ritualized homoeroticism. Mainstream society did not. If you want to defend the idea that having institutionalized rituals pertaining to homosexual behavior isn't enough to establish a correlation between those subcultures and that behavior, especially when mainstream societies had no such gay rituals, be my guest. Since the Greek cases are common knowledge, I'll provide sources for samurai, Zulu, and others.

In the case of the samurai, I can copy straight from Wikipedia because the information is so well-verified:

"it was customary for a boy in the wakashū age category to undergo training in the martial arts by apprenticing to a more experienced adult man. The man was permitted, if the boy agreed, to take the boy as his lover until he came of age; this relationship, often formalized in a "brotherhood contract", was expected to be exclusive, with both partners swearing to take no other (male) lovers. This practice, along with clerical pederasty, developed into the codified system of age-structured homosexuality known as shudō, abbreviated from wakashūdo, the "way (do) of wakashū".

Leupp, Gary P. (1999). Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan. University of California Press. pp. 53–54.

Pflugfelder, Gregory M. (1997). Cartographies of desire: male–male sexuality in Japanese discourse, 1600–1950. University of California Press. p. 26.

Notice the language of "brotherhood"- the same language the Spartan warriors used.

For Zulu, check:

Hsu, Francis. Kinship and Culture (2009)

For homoerotic warrior culture among Vikings:
Gade, Kari Ellen: Homosexuality and Rape of Males in Old Norse Law and Literature (1986)

Jochens, Jenny: Reprentations of Skalds in the Sagas 2: Gender Relations (2001)

For homoerotic warrior culture in medieval Islam:

Murray, Stephen O. and Will Roscoe (Ed.): Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature (1997)

For the US military, see:

Belkin, Aaron. Bring Me Men: Military Masculinity and the Benign Facade of American Empire, 1898-2001 (2012)

Yes.... Yes, you and your movement are.

What movement? Prove it.

No, it is the reason less men backstab each other to please a monkey branching female.

I don't think you know the context of "homies over hoes." Anyway, you seem to love turning these topics around to the evils of women, so it seems like you have your own issues in that department. No one is denying that bad women exist, but we're talking about an attitude that places men and male relationships in general over women.

None, but I don't know people who write music either. Obviously the interpretation is that she is close like a brother. You chose to interpret it in a homoerotic way, which is interesting in of itself.

I chose to interpret it how it came out. You are reaching extra hard to try and prove that comparing a female lover to a male relative, while also suggesting that a female lover can never be as close as a male relative lends itself to other interpretations. In that case, you should be able to list a few of these other interpretations. There are any number of other ways you can describe closeness without resorting to what you yourself describe as "weird" language, especially in a genre of music where lyricism is the focus, so pretending it's just about closeness and nothing else is simply denial.

And do you also believe that no woman can ever be as close to you as a male relative?

 

[TLOL is back]

I'm not sure you know what a sociopath is. Bullying? More hysterics and whiny language. I'm not pushing you or anyone else around. Where is this victim complex coming from?

Regardless, quantifiable evidence isn't necessary in this case. All those subcultures had documented, ritualized homoeroticism.

You only have a case if you can supply quantifiable evidence that they were more "homoerotic" than other cultures.

Even then all you'd have is a correlation.

<snip block of text

So.... No evidence that they had more homoeroticism than other cultures; and no evidence they were more hypermasculine than other cultures? That's what I thought.

What movement? Prove it.

The whole pro-gay movement. Plenty of examples of it in this thread. You know very well that most straight men do not want to appear as if they have homosexual tendencies, so by presenting this hypermasculinity-->homoeroticism argument, which has no objective evidence supporting it whatsoever, you know that any "hypermasculine" man would "tone it down" a notch if he believed your nonsense.

I don't think you know the context of "homies over hoes." Anyway, you seem to love turning these topics around to the evils of women, so it seems like you have your own issues in that department. No one is denying that bad women exist, but we're talking about an attitude that places men and male relationships in general over women.

I was explaining the context of bros before hos you weirdo

I chose to interpret it how it came out. You are reaching extra hard to try and prove that comparing a female lover to a male relative, while also suggesting that a female lover can never be as close as a male relative lends itself to other interpretations. In that case, you should be able to list a few of these other interpretations. There are any number of other ways you can describe closeness without resorting to what you yourself describe as "weird" language, especially in a genre of music where lyricism is the focus, so pretending it's just about closeness and nothing else is simply denial.

No, pretending it is definitely not just about closeness, is being in denial. You do not know for sure what the artists mean by that, and neither do I. My interpretation indicates the artist is not deviant, your argument implies the artist has homosexual combined with incestual tendencies, which is one hell of a deviant tendency if I heard one. And you claim I'm the one whose reaching

And do you also believe that no woman can ever be as close to you as a male relative?

I believe the woman I love could be closer to me than any male relative.

 

[The Real]

You only have a case if you can supply quantifiable evidence that they were more "homoerotic" than other cultures.

Even then all you'd have is a correlation.

So.... No evidence that they had more homoeroticism than other cultures; and no evidence they were more hypermasculine than other cultures? That's what I thought.

The argument I made was that the military subcultures in those societies had defined homoerotic elements, manifested in actual, institutionalized rituals, that the mainstream societies did not. That is an empirical fact, and I gave you citations for it. Mainstream Japanese men were not fukking boys and young men, and yet the practice was common among samurai, etc. And it is a correlation, of course, the same way the connection between smoking and cancer is a correlation. So the question is why all those military subcultures had these homoerotic rituals when the mainstream societies they belonged to did not.

The whole pro-gay movement. Plenty of examples of it in this thread. You know very well that most straight men do not want to appear as if they have homosexual tendencies, so by presenting this hypermasculinity-->homoeroticism argument, which has no objective evidence supporting it whatsoever, you know that any "hypermasculine" man would "tone it down" a notch if he believed your nonsense.

This is conspiratorial fancy of the highest order. I don't think you even understand what "hypermasculinity" is or what you're arguing against. It has nothing to do with straight men "toning it down," whatever that means, or being less straight, as if that's possible.

I was explaining the context of bros before hos you weirdo

I was talking about "homies over hos," which is a phrase McGruder came up with to describe the attitude expressed in some gangsta rap songs that all women are hoes and can never rise to the status of a "homie." You're talking about something different.

No, pretending it is definitely not just about closeness, is being in denial. You do not know for sure what the artists mean by that, and neither do I. My interpretation indicates the artist is not deviant, your argument implies the artist has homosexual combined with incestual tendencies, which is one hell of a deviant tendency if I heard one. And you claim I'm the one whose reaching

We both know enough. And no, I'm not accusing Diddy himself of "deviance." I'm pointing out that he believes that a "brother" is "more than" a female lover can ever be, and so he can't help but compare a woman to a man as a result. Remember, this is a love song, not a song about a random ho.

I believe the woman I love could be closer to me than any male relative.

That's good to hear. Sadly, many gangsta rappers do not agree with you, including Diddy in that line.

 

[TLOL is back]

The argument I made was that the military subcultures in those societies had defined homoerotic elements, manifested in actual, institutionalized rituals, that the mainstream societies did not.

You would need to compare all hypermasculine cultures (provided you define hypermasculinity first, and provide evidence that those cultures were indeed hypermasculine) to all other subcultures (who you prove were not hypermasculine), in order to even begin to think of a correlation.

This is conspiratorial fancy of the highest order. I don't think you even understand what "hypermasculinity" is or what you're arguing against. It has nothing to do with straight men "toning it down," whatever that means, or being less straight, as if that's possible.

It has to do with people too "masculine" for your liking, toning it down.

Now if you/thisauthor were to rename this "reconciling misogyny with homoeroticism" it would be an entirely different story.

I was talking about "homies over hos," which is a phrase McGruder came up with to describe the attitude expressed in some gangsta rap songs that all women are hoes and can never rise to the status of a "homie." You're talking about something different.

My bad. In that case, it would indicate misogyny, with no evidence of leading to homoeroticism.

We both know enough. And no, I'm not accusing Diddy himself of "deviance." I'm pointing out that he believes that a "brother" is "more than" a female lover can ever be, and so he can't help but compare a woman to a man as a result. Remember, this is a love song, not a song about a random ho.

Hold on, you didn't indicate that that line is homoerotically influenced? In that case, what does the line have to do with anything?

That's good to hear. Sadly, many gangsta rappers do not agree with you, including Diddy in that line.

That is because there is a lot of misogyny in hip hop. That's not new. I don't give women a free pass, nor do I bash masculinity, so you may have gotten the idea that I hate women. My closest relationships have been with women.

 

[Brown_Pride]

No hate, but I don't recognize much of what you're arguing against in the article itself, though I would agree with you if I did. I appreciate the line by line- I'm going to respond in the same format.

Neither one, and if you're endorsing one of those two, I can see why the article wouldn't sit well with you. The thesis is that there is a strain (which we can agree isn't necessarily the dominant one anymore, but definitely was during gangsta rap's prime) of rap culture that promotes hypermasculinity, which includes misogyny and the fetishization of a certain kind of maleness, and that both of these are intricately connected to homoeroticism, which exists in a strange, repressed form in that same strain. The connection itself manifests in a few different ways, but all of them are ultimately negative.

The thesis is flawed because of the bolded. It's just out and out not true, at least not based on the support given, which was either incorrect or drawing on a lack of understanding on sex, power and culture.

You're simplifying the argument here. The fact is that Vibe magazine, and 50 Cent albums have a primarily male audience. So when you see a picture of 50, shirtless, greased up, flexing and posing on the cover of The Massacre, it isn't for a female viewership. So you have to ask yourself why, then, would that be appealing to a male viewer? What is it about that? That is very, very different from saying that a picture of a baseball player on a card is gay. A shirtless, oiled up man posing and flexing is not the same as a baseball player in a regular portrait. If you had a friend who only collected shirtless pics of male players, would you find that unremarkable?

Again, the argument is NOT that he advocated group sex. It's that there are homoerotic subtexts to certain kinds of sexual activity. In that lyric, Snoop specifically says, and this is not twisting his words, that it's "no fun" unless "we all (as in the men) get some." This is similar to frat boys who fantasize about high-fiving each other while fukking the same woman. In this case, the pleasure of each man is explicitly enhanced and mediated by the pleasure of the other men, which is exactly what Snoop is suggesting. That is textbook homoeroticism. Now, keep in mind that the general tenor of the song is misogynistic. Both Snoop and Kurupt say specifically that they don't respect these women and that they "aren't shyt." So the women aren't actually sources of enjoyment here- they are just tools that mediate between the real source of enjoyment, which is other men. In that specific context, yes, sharing is homoerotic.

and again that view is devoid of the relationship sex and power have. The sex isn't the source of enjoyment on that you're correct. It's the dominance over another person that is the source of enjoyment. Which is why if you do any reasonable research into the sociology of rapists it's NEVER about sex and ALWAYS about power. I highly suggest reading up on the subject.

No, he didn't conflate the two. He said that the two are similar enough, not by coincidence, but because they both issue from the same cultural norms, to open the door for confused behavior in the males who subscribe to those hypermasculine ideals.

but again the whole points is misunderstood by the thesis.

No one is coming up with a general explanation of "ghetto culture." This is specifically about hypermasculinity and those who subscribe to it.

well we're discussing "hip hop" which tends to thrive in "ghettos" and in prisons and does represent a large portion of the culture of both of these things...also that's what the article is about. We're not talking about masculinity in general but rather how it is reflected in Hip hop and hop that reflection is evidence of homoeroticism.

Of course rape is about power. But it's not just about power, because there's no such thing is power abstracted from particular social contexts. Power isn't an independent entity that can be measured or discussed as if it exists as an object. A man who rapes another man is after power, yes- but he's also ok with fukking a man, and chose that among all the other ways to exercise power. He doesn't have to see that as gay. But if a man gets your dikk hard, straight is not the word for you, either.

two different things but thank you for acknowledging power is a driving force behind sex, particularly in rape. If a dude get's your shyt hard then yeah that's gay, If however it's that way because you admire the power then that's something different. There's a difference between being sexually aroused by a man vs power.

He never says that homoeroticism is directly caused by misogyny. Rather, he says that the latter opens the door for "lines to blur." It's not a necessary connection, but is something that can and did happen. And misogyny, the way he talks about it, isn't the sole factor. There is also the element of upholding male relationships as the highest ones, which in itself isn't gay, but again, contributes to opening the door for it. Historically, both of those elements are correlated with homoeroticism. Look at the ancient Greeks. Plato specifically says women are inferior to men and that the highest form of relationship is "non-sexual" love between two men, exactly what several gangsta rappers have said. "Homies over hoes," as McGruder put it. Is it then any surprise that men were fukking all the time in Plato's culture, and that he himself extols fukking young boys and men?

my point was that being tight with your boys doesn't mean you wanna fuk them is all. But sure, if you're already sorta sweat then having that type of bond with another man might lead to that.

This is a general statement that I'm assuming refers to all the other arguments you made.

Again, he did not say that being tight with your boys necessarily leads to blurred lines. He said that the combination of hypermasculinity's misogyny and upholding of maleness as requisite for an ideal relationship opens the door for lines to blur. In some cases, this is followed by either subliminal or explicit homoeroticism, and in gangsta rap, that was the case. Young Thug would not be wearing dresses right now if thug culture didn't already have a homo element. Nothing homo he does has any connection to white gay culture invading, as some people desperately want to believe. It's all homegrown.

For sure it's homegrown, but as homosexuality is genetic then it's only obvious. It has nothing to do with the culture of hip hop, it has to everything to do with it being a part of humans.

Guess what there are gay EVERYHING. From soldiers to bakers to doctors to tribesmen. SOme men simply would rather be with another man. What this article tries to do is tie unrelated things together.

You can't say, "there are gay rappers so hip hop promotes being gay" any more than you can say there are gay murderers so murder promtes being gay or there are gay [insert human type] so [insert culture/society] promotes being gay.

Bottom line is that there are gay people in everything. The article conflates a struggle for power with being homo. The thesis is flawed.

 

[sun raw]

"Submission? Well that's a bit of a problem. See, rumor has it the Athenians have already turned you down, and if those philosophers and, uh, boy-lovers have found that kind of nerve, then..." -King Leonidas in the movie 300

I don't think homophobic societies or groups would tone down the masculinity, they'd just outright keep denying that the homoeroticism is there. It's a disavowal, "I know very well...but all the same..."

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Let's take another look at Nas here. In i gave you power, he uses homoerotic imagery to depict the phallic nature of gun/weapon to owner :




Always I'm in some shyt
My abdomen is the clip, the barrel is my dikk uncircumcised
Pull my skin back and cock me
I bust off when they unlock me



reference to anal

Nas graphically describing his penis and then describing how to use it as a weapon against men

busting past his "safety" of his sexuality when they 'unlock' him

@BarNone ​