Homosexuality in the Cosmere

[Falvaen]

Hi everyone! I wasn't sure where on the forums I should post this, but this seemed like the most appropriate place!

I am a newly converted, I just spent the last month reading every single Sanderson cosmere book, and I am now enthralled by the universe he created. I have read all of the annotations, and I even trawled through many of his old blog posts . I came across the one where he began talking about same-gendered marriage, and he mentioned that he intended to write some gay characters into his novels one day! And that got me thinking. "What would all of the different cosmere societies believe about homosexuality?". The topics has never come up in any of his books, so I felt free to let my imagination loose

Of course I am just talking about the different cultural biases, how the people of the worlds feel about the topic. I think it should also be mentioned, that just like our world, all of Brandon's worlds are patriarchal societies (except maybe Nalthis).

Sel

This is the planet I am most on the fence about (at least in Arelon and Teod). It's government has no religious ties, but the dominant religion in the Aonic countries is Shu-Korath, which teaches acceptance and unity, and I can't see why they would have any opposition. Shu-Dereth is focused on obedience(although to a fault) and while it is represented as an evil empire, I don't believe at it's roots there would be anything about homosexuality in it's scripture. Elantris however, Is Brandon's least "religious" book, and i don't think there is much you could say about the topic just based on the information we received in this book.

Scadrial

Scadrial is the one that I really thought about the most, as for a thousand years it was ruled by a tyrannical dictator who basically said that if any of the nobles had sex with skaa female, she had to be killed before she could give birth. I thought this created an interesting dynamic as, well, guys can't get pregnant hahaha. In my mind I can definitely see certain nobles taking advantage of skaa males, then never killing them. A lifelong concubine of sorts. With the relatively flagrant lives they led, this may have even become a status symbol. Of course for the skaa males, living in a patriarchal society, this might have become some of their worst nightmares. I my mind this would have led to incredible homophobia and fear post-ascension, as people would have associated it with the nobles. It may have of course switched the other way where the populous were just happy to be free of their rule, and sympathetic to the men who were taken.

Edit: I totally forgot about Ranette. Post-ascension, and no-one seems to mind, although i thought I would mention once again that this is a patriarchal society, and maybe people would care less about lesbianism in general.

Nalthis

Nalthis is probably my favourite cosmere world; I love the tropics! In my mind it would most likely be the most accepting world. In a place where everyone worships the Returned, lazy gods who walk around in next to nothing, I can see the general populace being lenient about almost anything. Hell, I think Lightsong himself pings highly on my gaydar.

Roshar

Roshar, and mostly Alethkar, I am also on the fence about. In TWoK, it is mentioned that there are tent brothels in the tent city just outside the Shattered Plains (correct me if I'm wrong), and so men would have "relief" so to speak close at hand. Also there would be a lot of manly bravado on the plains, what with the dueling and such, and being gay might seem a non-manly thing. But I think it should be mentioned this this is a 10 (or so) year siege! And there are basically only men everywhere! And they are often huddled in huts together for up to a couple of days! I mean come on Benioff, Achilles and Patroclus weren't cousins for heavens sake Who do you think you're kidding? hahaha

So yeah those are my thoughts and conjectures. I didn't really delve into female homosexuality but that could be a whole separate thread methinks, and I did not mean to talk about specific characters but feel free to yourselves. Also I didn't talk much about amorous feelings, as I was, once again, talking about cultural feelings around the topic! This is only really meant to be a discussion maker, so please no one take it too seriously. What do you all think?

Edit: I totally forgot the wonderful Ranette. Oh Wayne, clueless forever.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Falvaen

[Shivertongue he/him]

Very interesting topic. Welcome to 17th Shard, as well!

In terms of lesbianism, there is a lesbian character in The Alloy of Law. It doesn't exactly seem to be a secret, and nobody really seems to mind (save for the man who has a crush on her) so however things were under the Lord Ruler, 300 years later, at the very least, Elendel seems relatively accepting. Then again, we don't get a very large glimpse of this aspect of the world.

[Falvaen]

Oh right! Ranette! *facepalm* I totally forgot. Thankyou for reminding me first post edited

Edit: and thankyou for the response. You are right we haven't seen much of a glimpse of the Governmental, or even religious side of post-ascencion life (bar Pathism ;p). I wonder if Elendel has it's own Old Compton Street haha

Edited June 17, 2012 by Falvaen

[Sweetness she/her]

Point: Lightsong was so not gay.

Other than that, I tend to agree with you.

With Alethkar's rigid gender roles, I feel like homosexuality in either males or females would be so taboo as to be almost inconceivable, though.

[Strawberry Eggs she/her]

As I recalled in Warbreaker, the Return gods tend to be promiscuous since they don't have to worry about pregnancies (and STIs, I imagine). It's not hard to imagine that the gods wouldn't care so much about the gender of their lovers as well. I can imagine Idrians being more against homosexuality. They seem to have strict gender roles and perhaps homosexuality would be more associated with Hallandren.

[Yados]

Well, Roshar is a world with lots and lots of countries, races, and cultures. Much like our world, it would vary culture by culture.

Weirdly enough, I think it homosexuality would be most common (within the Vorin Kingdoms) within the Vorin devotaries themselves, where men and women seem almost totally excused from traditional gender roles. Women can eat masculine food and vice versa. Women don't cover their safe hands. Men can become literate. It's probably more common than most Alethi noblemen would consider. It would be a nice bit of irony for all those rigid Alethi nobles.

I feel, similar to you, that Scadrial would be the most modern in its dealings with homosexuality and, honestly, Sazed doesn't seem one to judge. I believe one of his commandments was not to seek lust without commitment, but that could apply to any gendered pairing. They're a worldly bunch over in Elendel.

But homosexuals have existed at all times in human history and within all cultures. I would be interested in seeing that experience on any of the Shardworlds.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Yados

[Commander Spoonface he/him]

Very interesting topic. Welcome to 17th Shard, as well!

In terms of lesbianism, there is a lesbian character in The Alloy of Law. It doesn't exactly seem to be a secret, and nobody really seems to mind (save for the man who has a crush on her) so however things were under the Lord Ruler, 300 years later, at the very least, Elendel seems relatively accepting. Then again, we don't get a very large glimpse of this aspect of the world.

Is this Word of God? I mean, Ranette does sort of seem like the stereotypical lesbian character, but I wouldn't like to assume that just because of a cultural stereotype.

[Falvaen]

Point: Lightsong was so not gay.

Other than that, I tend to agree with you.

With Alethkar's rigid gender roles, I feel like homosexuality in either males or females would be so taboo as to be almost inconceivable, though.

Oh yes, I am well aware that Lightsong wasn't gay. I just meant he seemed it in the occasional way that sometimes Baatman seems gay. Not anything specific just a feeling. At least he did to me, and I don't think I am the only one who felt that way. As for Alethkar I would agree that it would be incredibly taboo, but surely not inconceivable, not totally. Say if there were 200,000 men on the plains (I don;t remember how many there was sorry) and if we go by the stereotypical 10%, well y'know, thats 20,000 guys with at least some sort of same-sex attraction. Of course not to mention all the house wars going on in Alethkar. I think that thats reason to believe that the wars themself may be some kind of nexus or something. Wild conjecturing on my part of course.

As I recalled in Warbreaker, the Return gods tend to be promiscuous since they don't have to worry about pregnancies (and STIs, I imagine). It's not hard to imagine that the gods wouldn't care so much about the gender of their lovers as well. I can imagine Idrians being more against homosexuality. They seem to have strict gender roles and perhaps homosexuality would be more associated with Hallandren.

A good point, that I totally forgot about (that returned can't breed). I think the Idrians are much more conservative in almost every topic compared to Hallandren.

[CrazyRioter she/her]

Possibly Lightsong is bi.

Also word of Brandon is that Drehy from Bridge 4 is gay (He's based on a friend of Brandon's)

Edited June 18, 2012 by CrazyRioter

[Shivertongue he/him]

Is this Word of God? I mean, Ranette does sort of seem like the stereotypical lesbian character, but I wouldn't like to assume that just because of a cultural stereotype.

Brandon said before the book came out that there was a lesbian character in Alloy of Law, although I don't know if he ever said who it was. I do recall hearing that it was, for lack of a better term, kind of obvious.

[king of nowhere]

When Wax said that ranette wasn't intersted in men, I got the impression that she was the nerdy tipe who is only focused in her passion (guns, in her case) and is not intersted in social relatioships at all. the secluded way she lived got me this impression. But, if brandon said there was a lesbian character in alloy, it's probably her.

Altough I would think steris could be. the way she act so disdainful of any men, I'm tempted to fit her into the lesbian feminist stereotype.

For other worlds, I would think that hallandren would be open on the topic, while idrians would be very strict. In elantris I expect gays would be ok, under the fjordell empire I'm not sure - we see nothing on it in the book, but strict religions generally tend to be against homosexuality.

I expect the vorin culture to be the most homophibic of all: with the way the gender roles are so defined, men trying to read is already seen as an abomination. a man liking other man would probably rank far worse for them. Other cultures would probably be different, but we do not see much of them.

[Yados]

I expect the vorin culture to be the most homophibic of all: with the way the gender roles are so defined, men trying to read is already seen as an abomination. a man liking other man would probably rank far worse for them. Other cultures would probably be different, but we do not see much of them.

Well, more than just that I think their culture calls for a certain gendered symbiosis when it comes to the Alethi/Jah Kaved nobility(men fighting and managing troops or engaging in commerce, women reading, writing, and managing the house holds) which would keep homosexuality of any type from being openly acknowledged as a viable political pairing within court.

Now, everyone we have seen as a pov in Way of Kings has pretty well and truly internalized Vorin sensibilities. Kaladin, while learned, only reads glyphs. Dalinar is scandalized as anyone with the supposed revelation that his brother could write. Kaladin has his sensibilities pretty well rocked when he observes that one woman's safe hand. Dalinar is embarrassed that Navani remembers that he once tried "feminine food". etc

But then, if all individuals in a culture internalized everything that was "proper" history wouldn't be interesting. We've had an openly gay president of the united states during a time far more homophobic than present. During World War Two, England was very aware that at least a smattering of their troops were gay and did their best to minimize scandals. Ancient Greece, while fine with systematic pedagogy, even on a philosophical level, was just as homophobic as your stereotypical middle-american when it came to the idea of two adult men living together as a couple. Which didn't stop people from doing so.

Culture is complicated. Excuses are often made for people who are powerful and open, just as others are made into scapegoats for indecency. More than just that, people sneak around. Even in the strictest culture. The Highprinces may all have wives, but who knows what they or their wives do in their free time.

Note: I'm actually pretty wary of something like this in the plot of the second book. If part of the corruption of the highprinces that Dalinar wants to root out is found to be that some of them, or their wives, take lovers of their own genders... I'd have a problem with that. Because even if BS didn't have a problem with it, Dalinar certainly would, and we really don't have enough positive, open portrayals of homosexuality for a plot like that to seem anything but patently homophobic... even if it's where it would fit most naturally.

[king of nowhere]

I agree that even in the most conservative societies there's always someoene who manages to sneack around - and often the hing is well covered exactly because it is so scandalous that people don't want to talk about it. But we were talking about perception in the society, i understood. So, there's probably still the 5-10% of gays among the nobles, and some of them probably found ways to meet in secret, but I don't expect any of them to do outing.

[Yados]

I agree that even in the most conservative societies there's always someoene who manages to sneack around - and often the hing is well covered exactly because it is so scandalous that people don't want to talk about it. But we were talking about perception in the society, i understood. So, there's probably still the 5-10% of gays among the nobles, and some of them probably found ways to meet in secret, but I don't expect any of them to do outing.

Sure, but to articulate perhaps better than I might have above, a society with no place for homosexuality does not *always* mean that the behavior is seen as scandalous or immoral.

No, really.

Often, it's only when a society has a means of really conceptualizing something as a presence within their culture that phobias and racisms exist. A culture with no conception of homosexuality like, say, Vorin culture, might not have many homosexuals just as they don't have many heretics. It's simply not presented as way of life that exists via traditional ideals.

However, because they don't have that conception, they also don't have the same vitriol or preconceived notions about homosexuals. Because prejudices and phobias and -isms are cultural.

There may not be many homosexuals within the Vorin kingdoms, but because of that, they may not face any more stigma than someone like Jasnah does.

Contrast that to a culture like, say, Hallandran. It's free and open, largely. Which means that those, as you said 5-10 percent of the population that are queer in some way or another, might identify as such to themselves and others. But that means that there's a gay community or, at least, a gay demographic. And that's something that a culture can react against. In a culture where homosexuals are accepted as a presence, people can take issue with that presence because, well, it's there. It's not that there are some few people that live in defiance of cultural norms anymore. There are gays. Gays in Hallandran. Do we really want them giving their foul, tainted breath to our Returned? I hear "they" don't even appreciate color like the rest of us. Etc. This is called homophobia.

Then you have a culture like Idran (sp) who have consciously constructed themselves against their perception of what Hallandran culture is. Like Iran in the last few decades. They see Hallandran as promiscuous and profane and you get people who are *really* homophobic on a political matter. It's a culture of contrast to a perceived acceptance that might not really be all that tangible.

So yeah.

It's easy to say "here's the culture that's okay with gay people" and "here's the culture that isn't okay with gay people" but that's not really how it works all the time. Culture is weird, especially to those who exist on the fringes of it.

[Tazren he/him]

Interesting topic. Like others, I also got the feeling that Hallandran would be at least a bit tolerant. I'm sure there are plenty of people there who would find it "icky", like there are even in pretty tolerant countries in the real world. The whole promiscuity of the Returned made it seem like they, at least, wouldn't care all that much.

Contrast that to a culture like, say, Hallandran. It's free and open, largely. Which means that those, as you said 5-10 percent of the population that are queer in some way or another, might identify as such to themselves and others. But that means that there's a gay community or, at least, a gay demographic. And that's something that a culture can react against. In a culture where homosexuals are accepted as a presence, people can take issue with that presence because, well, it's there. It's not that there are some few people that live in defiance of cultural norms anymore. There are gays. Gays in Hallandran. Do we really want them giving their foul, tainted breath to our Returned? I hear "they" don't even appreciate color like the rest of us. Etc. This is called homophobia.

Then you have a culture like Idran (sp) who have consciously constructed themselves against their perception of what Hallandran culture is. Like Iran in the last few decades. They see Hallandran as promiscuous and profane and you get people who are *really* homophobic on a political matter. It's a culture of contrast to a perceived acceptance that might not really be all that tangible.

That's interesting, too. There wouldn't have to be a huge gay community, though. I mean, the way I see it, the reason that there's such a strong gay community in our world, is because gays haven't been tolerated for long. If gays were tolerated, there would be no need for gays to band together.

There used to be a LGBT-group on the campus of the uni I go to. It's been completely dead and inactive for years now, though. People believe the reason is that there's no need for it, because the university is a pretty tolerant place, as are all other social groups that exist.

It's easy to say "here's the culture that's okay with gay people" and "here's the culture that isn't okay with gay people" but that's not really how it works all the time. Culture is weird, especially to those who exist on the fringes of it.

I agree with this. It gets more difficult, since you can be alright with people being gay, but be opposed to gay culture and the stereotypical gay behaviour. And depending on what the stereotypical gay behaviour is, that may well affect how people view gays in general. I've met people who've been hardcore homophobes until they actually met real gay people and realised that, hey, gay people aren't that scary.

[Yados]

Interesting topic. Like others, I also got the feeling that Hallandran would be at least a bit tolerant. I'm sure there are plenty of people there who would find it "icky", like there are even in pretty tolerant countries in the real world. The whole promiscuity of the Returned made it seem like they, at least, wouldn't care all that much.

Well, to weaken my own argument, I don't necessarily see anything inherent in civilization or culture itself that would make some people inevitably find homosexuals "icky" any more than heterosexuals, people with different skin tones, or a woman's left hand. All cultures have their own baggage, but that baggage is not necessarily going to be the same. Much of Western's culture's problems/stereotypes about homosexuality are very specific to our history, enemies, and religions. That's not always going to translate when you have whole new worlds and whole new peoples.

That's interesting, too. There wouldn't have to be a huge gay community, though. I mean, the way I see it, the reason that there's such a strong gay community in our world, is because gays haven't been tolerated for long. If gays were tolerated, there would be no need for gays to band together.

This is an interesting point. People with identities outside the norm are more likely to be close knit when they feel estranged or threatened by the majority. In a utopian "open" culture where homosexuality is accepted we would probably see a more dispersed gay demographic who didn't their sexuality as their identity any more than a heterosexual person might.

There used to be a LGBT-group on the campus of the uni I go to. It's been completely dead and inactive for years now, though. People believe the reason is that there's no need for it, because the university is a pretty tolerant place, as are all other social groups that exist.

Not always a good sign. The LGBT-group at my highschool was pretty soundly stamped out because the parent's board was worried that the younger students might find out what homosexuality was. But then, my school was also obliged to to teach creationist theories (though with no small amount of sarcasm) alongside evolution in the middle school Biology Class. It comes down to the surrounding culture of the campus, I'm sure. Mine had quite a liberal student body and teachers with a very conservative administration and parents board.

I agree with this. It gets more difficult, since you can be alright with people being gay, but be opposed to gay culture and the stereotypical gay behaviour. And depending on what the stereotypical gay behaviour is, that may well affect how people view gays in general. I've met people who've been hardcore homophobes until they actually met real gay people and realised that, hey, gay people aren't that scary.

True, but "stereotypical gay behavior" changes culture to culture. The Spartans didn't see anything unmanly about homosexuality. The Thebans viewed homosexuals as better warriors than straight people. The Athenians found having sex with young men to be a statement of power within society.

Especially in Vorin Culture, homosexual people wouldn't have a cultural inclination or expectation to act one way or another. Without a gay culture of their own, they'd probably just be normal folk for their time/place aside from their sexuality. Much how Jasnah is an ardent scholar, and personifies her gender ideal within Vorin culture aside from the fact that she is a heretic.

You may have cultures that think of homosexuals as waifish or girl-y and you'd probably find those kinds of traits mirrored in that culture. You may have cultures where homosexuals are thought to be powerful and overtly masculine, you'd probably still find waifish homosexuals, but would also find that breed of cultural assumption as well.

Culture is a two way street. People shape it and are shaped by it in turn.

(let's ignore that we're using homosexuality to mean exclusively male on male homosexuality, a somewhat shallow reading. Like I've said in another thread, "queer" is usually a better term for discussions like this because it's an umbrella term that includes transexual identity as well)

Edited June 28, 2012 by Yados

[Tazren he/him]

Well, to weaken my own argument, I don't necessarily see anything inherent in civilization or culture itself that would make some people inevitably find homosexuals "icky" any more than heterosexuals, people with different skin tones, or a woman's left hand. All cultures have their own baggage, but that baggage is not necessarily going to be the same. Much of Western's culture's problems/stereotypes about homosexuality are very specific to our history, enemies, and religions. That's not always going to translate when you have whole new worlds and whole new peoples.

That is true, I suppose.

Not always a good sign. The LGBT-group at my highschool was pretty soundly stamped out because the parent's board was worried that the younger students might find out what homosexuality was. But then, my school was also obliged to to teach creationist theories (though with no small amount of sarcasm) alongside evolution in the middle school Biology Class. It comes down to the surrounding culture of the campus, I'm sure. Mine had quite a liberal student body and teachers with a very conservative administration and parents board.

Yours is an example of a really horrible situation ... This one over here is definitely from a lack of interest. There have been attempts (from the Student Union Board) to get people involved in the LGBT-group over the years, but people just aren't interested enough. Imo, probably because they're accepted in the various other social activities on campus and such. People generally don't care, or if they do, they mostly keep quiet about it.

So if there's a world where homosexuality has been accepted for a long time (perhaps forever), I could definitely see it as plausible that there wouldn't be any "gay culture" ... since people would just be gay, and nobody would care one way or another.

(let's ignore that we're using homosexuality to mean exclusively male on male homosexuality, a somewhat shallow reading. Like I've said in another thread, "queer" is usually a better term for discussions like this because it's an umbrella term that includes transexual identity as well)

This is sort of a big tangent, but when you mention transsexuality ... It reminds of a science fiction novel I read, by C.S. Friedman (In Conquest Born, I think), where there's one cultural that has a lot of telepaths. And among them, it's really common for people to "inhabit" the body of someone on the opposite sex. I know there was a scene where this was explained to someone from an enemy to this civilisation, and the person was horrified by thought of having his consciousness in a woman's body, which the man explaining it found perfectly natural.

I don't think it was mentioned explicitly, but I always got the feeling that in such a society, people wouldn't really care about gay, when switching bodies with people isn't much of an issue. And that they definitely shouldn't have huge issues with transsexuality ...

[Yados]

Yours is an example of a really horrible situation ... This one over here is definitely from a lack of interest. There have been attempts (from the Student Union Board) to get people involved in the LGBT-group over the years, but people just aren't interested enough. Imo, probably because they're accepted in the various other social activities on campus and such. People generally don't care, or if they do, they mostly keep quiet about it.

Lol. The term "Student Union" made me check your profile. You're from Sweden. That explains a lot. A very different situation than Texas. Of course, I'm in New York these days.

So if there's a world where homosexuality has been accepted for a long time (perhaps forever), I could definitely see it as plausible that there wouldn't be any "gay culture" ... since people would just be gay, and nobody would care one way or another.

True, but even if there's not a culture there might still be a cultural expectation. That happens a lot with race and gender. It's subtle but permeates a society. I won't go into examples.

This is sort of a big tangent, but when you mention transsexuality ... It reminds of a science fiction novel I read, by C.S. Friedman (In Conquest Born, I think), where there's one cultural that has a lot of telepaths. And among them, it's really common for people to "inhabit" the body of someone on the opposite sex. I know there was a scene where this was explained to someone from an enemy to this civilisation, and the person was horrified by thought of having his consciousness in a woman's body, which the man explaining it found perfectly natural.

I don't think it was mentioned explicitly, but I always got the feeling that in such a society, people wouldn't really care about gay, when switching bodies with people isn't much of an issue. And that they definitely shouldn't have huge issues with transsexuality ...

That sounds interesting. I've always meant to read CS Friedman. Of course, the series I was going to read was the one about psychic vampire faeries on the alien planet. Black Sun something.

[Tazren he/him]

The Coldfire trilogy, first book Black Sun Rising ^^ Awesome books as well.

[Commander Spoonface he/him]

(let's ignore that we're using homosexuality to mean exclusively male on male homosexuality, a somewhat shallow reading. Like I've said in another thread, "queer" is usually a better term for discussions like this because it's an umbrella term that includes transexual identity as well)

I'd think "queer" would never be a good term in any good discussion about homosexuality, seeing as it's extremely offensive.

EDIT: Those tricksy apostrophes...

Edited June 30, 2012 by Commander Spoonface

[Yados]

I'd think "queer" would never be a good term in any good discussion about homosexuality, seeing as it's extremely offensive.

EDIT: Those tricksy apostrophes...

Well, I certainly wasn't meaning to offend, and, if I did, I apologize.

However, in my personal experience and research into the subject, it's been communicated to me that "Queer" is an umbrella term and often preferred by the LGBT community.

Excerpts from Wikipedia pages "Queer" and "Queer Theory":

Linguistic reappropriation

One of the most famous attempts by the LGBT community to re-claim the term "queer" was through an organisation called Queer Nation, which was formed in March 1990; a few months later, an influential though anonymous flier was distributed at the New York Gay Pride Parade in June 1990 entitled "Queers Read This".[5]

Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations, and is often preferred by those who are activists; by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities; by those who reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight; and by those who see themselves as oppressed by the heteronormativity of the larger culture. In this usage it retains the historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender". It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows "queer"-identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels. In this context, "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for "queer" heterosexuals as well as "non-queer" homosexuals.

The term is sometimes capitalized when referring to an identity or community, rather than merely a sexual fact (cf. the capitalized use of Deaf).[6]

In the late 2000s and early 2010s, a number of internet communities started to use the term 'LGBTQ,' the 'Q' standing for 'queer,' to represent forms of sexuality that fall outside of the original LGBT framework, in order to promote awareness and acceptance of these forms of sexuality. The term has a similar function to that of LGBTI, except LGBTQ focuses on sexuality rather than gender.[7]

The range of what "queer" includes varies. In addition to referring to LGBT-identifying people, it can also encompass: pansexual, pomosexual, intersexual, genderqueer, asexual and autosexual people, and even gender normative heterosexuals whose sexual orientations or activities place them outside the heterosexual-defined mainstream, e.g., BDSM practitioners, or polyamorous persons.

For some queer-identified people, part of the point of the term "queer" is that it simultaneously builds up and tears down boundaries of identity. For instance, among genderqueer people, who do not solidly identify with one particular gender, once solid gender roles have been torn down, it becomes difficult to situate sexual identity. For some people, the non-specificity of the term is liberating. Queerness becomes a way to simultaneously make a political move against heteronormativity while simultaneously refusing to engage in traditional essentialist identity politics.[8]

Queer theory is grounded in gender and sexuality. Due to this association, a debate emerges as to whether sexual orientation is natural or essential to the person, as an essentialist believes, or if sexuality is a social construction and subject to change.[7]

The queer theory has two predominant strains:

Radical deconstructionism: interrogates categories of sexual orientations.

Radical subversion: disrupts the normalizing tendencies of the sexual order.

The essentialist feminists believed that genders "have an essential nature (e.g. nurturing and caring versus being aggressive and selfish), as opposed to differing by a variety of accidental or contingent features brought about by social forces".[8] Due to this belief in the essential nature of a person, it is also natural to assume that a person's sexual preference would be natural and essential to a person’s personality.

Queer theory was originally associated with radical gay politics of ACT UP, OutRage! and other groups which embraced "queer" as an identity label that pointed to a separatist, non-assimilationist politics.[8] Queer theory developed out of an examination of perceived limitations in the traditional identity politics of recognition and self-identity. In particular, queer theorists identified processes of consolidation or stabilization around some other identity labels (e.g. gay and lesbian); and construed queerness so as to resist this. Queer theory attempts to maintain a critique more than define a specific identity.

Acknowledging the inevitable violence of identity politics, and having no stake in its own ideology, queer is less an identity than a critique of identity. However, it is in no position to imagine itself outside the circuit of problems energized by identity politics. Instead of defending itself against those criticisms that its operations attract, queer allows those criticisms to shape its – for now unimaginable – future directions. "The term," writes Butler, "will be revised, dispelled, rendered obsolete to the extent that it yields to the demands which resist the term precisely because of the exclusions by which it is mobilized." The mobilization of queer foregrounds the conditions of political representation, its intentions and effects, its resistance to and recovery by the existing networks of power.[9]

I'm sure you can see why I thought it an appropriate term for use in the discussion.

[Tazren he/him]

I think the issue might arise because the definition of "queer" isn't universal. I've always considered it one of those terms that different people seem to interpret slightly differently, and that depends a lot on the context it's used in. I've always seen calling someone "queer" as offensive, whereas people who identify themselves as queer, as making a political statement. At least, those people I've met that have called themselves "queer" (instead of homosexual, for instance) have been all about making a political stance.

I am aware that this is an anctdotal argument, but I can imagine other people have had similar experiences.

In Sweden, we have a term called "HBTQ", which stands for "Homo, Bi, Trans- and Queer". So I guess that'd be LGHTQ in English. Which supposedly is more encompassing than LGBT.

[Yados]

I think the issue might arise because the definition of "queer" isn't universal. I've always considered it one of those terms that different people seem to interpret slightly differently, and that depends a lot on the context it's used in. I've always seen calling someone "queer" as offensive, whereas people who identify themselves as queer, as making a political statement. At least, those people I've met that have called themselves "queer" (instead of homosexual, for instance) have been all about making a political stance.

I am aware that this is an anctdotal argument, but I can imagine other people have had similar experiences.

In Sweden, we have a term called "HBTQ", which stands for "Homo, Bi, Trans- and Queer". So I guess that'd be LGHTQ in English. Which supposedly is more encompassing than LGBT.

Yeah, LGBTQ is a rapidly replacing/contending with LGBT stateside. Well, depending on the community. It varies.

I was certainly not advocating calling one or a group of people "queer". It was my observation that by using the term "queer" or "queerness" over homosexuality, we would hopefully extend the scope of the discussion beyond male-to-male relationships to lesbian and, more notably, trans realms.

[king of nowhere]

since we are nitpicking, we nowadays tend to see all LGBT under one unbrella, but it don't mean it would be the same for other cultures.

It is true that discrimination is not the standard in ancient civilizations - I assumed it was by comparing various middle-aged and arabian civilizations, but they all have their culture strongly influenced by the bible. in ancient greece it was perfectly ok, and I have no idea about china or native americans.

But, just because gays are accepted, it don't mean lesbians are too. Or maybe the "manly gay" model is accepted, while the "feminine gay" is not. Maybe there is some other kind of subtle distinction. I read a parody play where men having anal sex with other men as well as women was considered absolutely normal and not even homosexual, while a guy who only played the passive role (and not even by his will, but because he was castrated and could only take that role) was heavily derided and called fag.

So, there really is no way of telling how fictional cultures may feel in that regard. too many possibilities here

[Commander Spoonface he/him]

Yes, and there are even many people in our own culture who will accept homosexuals but not transsexuals. The question posed by this thread is not sexual deviancy in general, because there will always be some practices a culture finds taboo, but homosexuality specifically. I feel like the very fact that we have not encountered any openly homosexual characters in most of Brandon's works suggests that the majority of his culture are either:

A ) Not tolerant of homosexuality.

B ) See no significant difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, by virtue of which attention is never drawn to it.

I find the second unlikely, due to the fact that homosexuals make up a very small percentage of people and the majority will nearly always consider a minority different and strange.

EDIT: Emoticons ruining by A/B lists...

Edited July 2, 2012 by Commander Spoonface