Why Homosexuals Are A Signalling Hazard In Traditional Societies

Azerbaijan is a medium-sized dusty, semi-arid country in the Caucuses, nestled between Iran and Russia. It is approximately 95% Muslim despite its recent Soviet past. Azeri Muslims are not as fundamentalist as Saudi ones, but they’re not exactly proud degenerates, either. Soviet-era anti-sodomy laws were repealed in 2000, but only because the Council of Europe required it in order for Azerbaijan to join the Cool Western Countries Club. I am certain Azeris had other methods in mind of preventing sodomy that did not depend on a clause in the official criminal code. In Azerbaijan, homosexuality is effectively illegal.

In Azerbaijan, men can commonly be seen bringing each other flowers and kissing each other on the cheeks when they greet each other. Western women who travel to Azerbaijan are shocked at the local men’s lack of enthusiasm and initiative at opening doors for and extending chairs to them.

Serbia is about the same size as Azerbaijan, but a few hundred miles West, sitting between Catholic Croatia and Orthodox Bulgaria, which itself borders Muslim Turkey, which is about four times larger than the previous three countries combined. Serbia’s population is Orthodox Christian, though probably about as devout as Azeri Muslims are. Serbia also has a recent socialist past.

Sodomy was decriminalized in Serbia in the 1990s. Serbia’s constitution explicitly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Amnesty International finds Serbia’s “lack of will to tackle homophobia and transphobia” deeply problematic. A Gay Pride parade attempted in the capital around 2010 turned into a riot, although a successful one was held with heavy police protection and relatively little violence in 2014. In Serbia, homosexuality is deeply frowned upon, often to the point of frowns turning to fists, but not effectively illegal.

In Serbia, men shake or lock hands and hug heartily when they greet each other. Often they shout loudly, too. Western women who travel to Serbia find themselves wildly out-competed in the sexual market by the local women. Western men who travel to Serbia find this situation much to their liking.

The United States is a very large and ethnically diverse country ruled by an Anglo-Jewish elite. It is several thousand miles west of Serbia. The population could be briefly summarized as a Catholic and Protestant mix. The numbers of Orthodox and Muslim adherents – even poor ones – are negligible. The Supreme Court and President of the United States are very fond of homosexuals, as are the media and other information organs of the country.

In America, homosexuality is high-status, although this hasn’t been codified in law quite yet. Heterosexuality is generally viewed as neutral, and sometimes downright boring, if not slightly negative. In America, men don’t do much of anything when they greet each other, perhaps nod or shake hands. Oftentimes, they don’t acknowledge each other at all. Men who are relatively lower-class, black, Mexican, of recent immigrant extraction or otherwise out-of-step with the dominant American zeitgeist (admittedly, a significant portion of the population) will certainly be warmer when they greet, but the trendlines are clear.

I’m not sure what men do to greet each other in the Islamic State, where homosexuals are publicly thrown off of buildings, but I’m sure it’s hard to ignore (it may even involve AK-47s), and probably lends itself to mockery and accusations of latent homosexuality by liberal Westerners with the right opinions.

Which brings us to one more reason, alongside disease, sterility and effeminacy, that traditional social norms the world over are necessarily and correctly opposed to open homosexuality: the more homosexuals there are in a society, and the more open they are about their homosexuality, the less warm male heterosexuals can be towards each other, and the weaker the social bonds between male heterosexuals will be, and the weaker the social fabric of the society itself will be, as society is necessarily founded upon the Mannerbund between a society’s male heterosexuals who honor, uphold and propagate the society’s values.

Open homosexuals represent a signalling hazard for male heterosexuals. A male heterosexual who needs to signal appreciation, affection or love of a male heterosexual friend also needs to be sure that his signal will not be interpreted as a sexual advance – either by the intended recipient of the signal or by others. Homosexuals may be interested in signalling homosexuality, but male heterosexuals certainly are not.

The more open homosexuals there are in a society, the less certain a male heterosexual can be that a gesture of masculine camaraderie won’t be interpreted as a sexual advance.

You might laugh at this line of reasoning, but in Azerbaijan they bring each other flowers and kiss each others’ cheeks without a second thought, and I can guarantee how that would be interpreted in the West.

It is not interpreted that way in Azerbaijan, because there are officially no homosexuals. Male heterosexuals are free to do and say what they like without the risk of mis-signalling.

A signal may be interpreted as something as simple as words – in which case, what’s the big deal? Just find new words to express yourself – but the most effective social signals are never mere words, and a tightly-knit and highly-functioning society needs signals that are stronger than words. Words can be used by anybody. People lie with words. Words are a very weak signal, though they are often used anyway because they are still better than no signals at all.

Much stronger than words are actions and sacrifices. Demonstrating appreciation and affection is a much more powerful signal than simply stating it. Unfortunately, the scope of socially acceptable actions is limited unless there is a greater coordinated effort to change them or impose them from the top down, and if open homosexuals begin colonizing the existing socially acceptable actions, people will adjust their signals accordingly so as not to accidentally send the wrong impression. Often the adjustment means fewer signals at all.

Efforts to colonize new signalling spaces to make up for the ones colonized by open homosexuals are difficult because signals need widespread acceptance and understanding to function. That is not to say that they are totally unsuccessful – see the ubiquity of the phrase “no homo” in the West. What is often interpreted as a joke is actually something of an ingenious way to clarify signals that, due to the prevalence of homosexuals, could be interpreted differently. That may change if open homosexuals begin saying it too, perhaps even just ironically. Some new signal would have to be devised.

Or, the traditional solution to this signalling problem could just be applied. Ban deviancy in public.

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

29 Comments

  1. Laguna Beach Fogey May 17, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    You’re correct. The lack of close male friendships has been one sad result of the rise of homosexualism in the West. Another effect has been a general coarsening of male dress and manner. Dressing well, grooming oneself, demonstrating good manners and interest in culture, are all construed as queer, so normal men generally avoid doing those things. It’s totally fucked-up, but here we are.

    1. Good point. There are a litany of examples I left out for the sake of brevity. The full register of decay is too long to record in a thousand articles.

      Someone on Twitter mentioned Sudanese boys going to the US being taught not to hold hands because that would be interpreted as gay.

      Then you have the smarmy gay academics discovering that Shakespeare, Lincoln, and in fact most men before the 1960’s were secretly homosexual, or — at least, surely — bisexual. The evidence ranging from sharing a bed with a male friend to using the word “love” to refer to a male friend without six sentences of homosexual disavowal afterwards. The point lost on moderns is that the disavowal is only necessary today. It was not necessary back then. NBS links an article below which discusses this at length. It’s well worth reading.

      I remember some meme-quote from Black Twitter that went something along the lines of “straight dudes lucky them gays is gay otherwise all the girls would be dating gays smh.”

  2. I have dubbed this phenomenon the hermeneutic of gay suspicion, and was shocked to find that I was the first to use this phrase on the googleable interwebz.

    I was far from the first in noticing the pathology. Anthony Esolen took note of it back in 2005 in his article A Requiem for Friendship.

    1. Ctrl+v’d my favorite part, though the whole article, if a bit long, is worth a read:

      “What does all this have to do with sex, or with friendship? A great deal, I am afraid. The pansexualists—they who believe in the libertarian dogma that what two consenting adults do with their privates in private is nobody’s business—understand that the language had to be changed to assist the realization of their dream, and also that the realization of their dream would change the world, because it would change the language for everyone else.

      Language is not language if it is not communal; it is a neat trick of political abracadabra to argue for an individual’s right to change the very medium of our thought and our social intercourse. If clothing is optional on a beach, then that is a nude beach. It cannot be a nude beach for some and an ordinary beach for others; to wear clothes at that beach at the very least means something that it had not meant before. If you may paint your house phosphorescent orange and violet, and you persuade a couple of your neighbors to do likewise, you no longer have what anybody would call a historic neighborhood.

      If all of Kate’s friends leap into bed with whatever male gives them a hearty dinner at Burger King and a round of miniature golf, and Kate chooses instead to kiss her date once on the cheek and leave him on the porch, she will suggest to everybody that she is a prude. She may be, or may not be; she may be more firmly in the grip of lust than they are, for all we know, and may just detest the boy. But her actions have connotations they did not use to have.

      Imagine a world wherein the taboo has been broken and incest is loudly and defiantly celebrated. Your wife’s unmarried brother puts his hand on your daughter’s shoulder. That gesture, once innocent, must now mean something, or at least suggest something. If the uncle were wise and considerate, he would not make it in the first place. You see a father hugging his teenage daughter as she leaves the car to go to school. The possibility flits before your mind. The language has changed, and the individual can do nothing about it.

      By now the reader must see the point. I might say that of all human actions there is nothing more powerfully public than what two consenting adults do with their bodies behind (we hope) closed doors. Open homosexuality, loudly and defiantly celebrated, changes the language for everyone. If a man throws his arm around another man’s waist, it is now a sign—whether he is on the political right or the left, whether he believes in biblical proscriptions of homosexuality or not.

      If a man cradles the head of his weeping friend, the shadow of suspicion must cross your mind. If a teenage boy is found skinny-dipping with another boy—not five of them, but two—it is the first thing you will think, and you will think it despite the obvious fact that until swim trunks were invented this was exactly how two men or boys would go for a swim.

      Because language is communal, the individual can choose to make a sign or not. He cannot determine what the sign is to mean, not to others, not to the one he signals, and not even to himself.”

      1. That is a superb passage, Mark. It had been a while since I read the whole thing, and I had forgotten just how awesome Esolen’s argument was.

      2. I never thought about it this way, but maybe here’s why.

        “the libertarian dogma that what two consenting adults do with their privates in private is nobody’s business” means that nobody really cares. If those two boys skinny dipping together are gay or straight — logically they wouldn’t care about signalling because nobody would care anyway.

        Maybe that’s just not the way we are wired, and it’s obvious to others. But it’s not obvious to me. I really don’t want to care, but I am stuck in a society where caring seems to matter.

        By the way, I spend one day in Dubai on a layover between flights. This was before the huge construction boom. It was an interesting and very pleasant day even though it was summer and got up close to 140F. I am not Muslim, but I found that unless I ventured too close to a mosque, it was about the most relaxed place with the most natural camaraderie among strangers (men) that I’ve been in. I was sad to leave.

  3. To poke a hole in your balloon: in Israel there is a pretty big and open gay community, yet interaction between males is on the level of Azerbaijan. I suspect this has to do with the mandatory service / ethno-nationalism but maybe this is a remedy for the disease you describe in stead of a contradiction.

    1. Israel is a small but heavily ethnically mixed country, despite its Jewish nature. I am confident that there are very obvious social signals in dress, dialect, language, appearance, grooming, etc. that make it abundantly clear who is part of the gay community and who is a hard-charging heterosexual Israeli man.

    2. I’ve never been to Israel but I’ve heard the gays tend to be in Tel Aviv. Do straight men in Tel Aviv greet each other Azerbaijan-like?

      Speaking of national service, how do they handle gays in their military?

  4. Allow me to recount a Soviet joke about Georgians:

    — Wah-wah, my wife was just conscripted into the Army!
    — Wait, is your wife a man?
    — No, a young boy still!

    And there are many others about Caucasians in general not being enemies to homosexual intercourse. This is not without ground.

    Homosex is a crucial part of Persianized cultures. But of course, Westerners tend to interpret it through their own discourse, wrongly. A Taliban commander who keeps a boy harem while publicly hanging open gays (*) is not “closeted”. He is simply Afghan.

    (*) How there are any left for him to catch is another story.

    1. No wonder our military in Afghanistan doesn’t know the rules of engagement (or is stuck with inadequate rules) and has no way to deal with those people.

  5. You can see this in the Bible as well. The story of David and Jonathan has spawned a million homoerotic treatments, bearing in mind that 1) they would have been stoned to death if they actually had a gay relationship, and 2) David’s heterosexuality was well established through the unfortunate incident with Bathsheba.

    1. Good point. The Bible is not the only old-school place they do it too — any affectionate letters between men pre-1930 get the same treatment. Any historical figure who didn’t marry or like women much but had at least one male friend has been accused of being a raging homosexual.

      It is totally lost on these people that perhaps some exceptional men (since it is only ever exceptional men whose views, beliefs and behaviors get dissected) had exceptional friendships or exceptional antipathies towards marriage and/or women — or perhaps just family life, since that was normally a total package.

      Charles Darwin wrote a famous private list of pros and cons for marriage. Under pros he wrote “better than a dog, anyhow.”

      Slightly related: the fedora-tipping left-wing atheist’s joke about Mary being a woman who screwed around and lied to Joseph about it, thus Christianity was born with a miraculous virgin birth.

      That is very convenient for fedora-tipping atheists, and it is a very funny and insulting-to-the-outgroup just-so story that sounds plausible today, but the reality is that Ancient Middle Eastern shepherds probably had a pretty tight grip on their women, and probably had a pretty good idea of who was a whore and who was not. If Joseph, who logically had way better judgement of the situation than any of us, decided that a virgin birth was more likely than a slutty wife, perhaps we should take him at his word. Well, us Christians do already.

      Mary had a vagina. The similarities between her and the women of the West in 2016 stop there.

  6. “You might laugh at this line of reasoning, but in Azerbaijan they bring each other flowers and kiss each others’ cheeks without a second thought, and I can guarantee how that would be interpreted in the West. ”

    In Turkey men can kiss each others’s cheeks too. I also heard from my grandfather and father that they can bring flowers too. But, unfortunately we were exposed modernism more than Azerbaijan (thanks to USA), so these traditions begun to fade out.

    1. Good to have outside confirmation. How goes the reaction in Turkey?

      1. Kurdish militia and Turkish army are fighting against each other. Erdogan purged his Prime Minister Davutoglu, and some of his ministers. Minister of National Education dismissed 150 directors and over one thousand school principals.

        Just like the same Turkey.

  7. As usual, I find a suspicion I’ve had articulated brilliantly. Having worked with many Eastern to South Eastern Europeans, I’ve noticed that they are more apt to show affection for another man.
    I’ve also lived around Latinos in an urban setting and they are much more comfortable hugging another man (we shared a watering hole in Chicago, they even hugged me and were aware of my race-realist beliefs. They seem to have a healthier sense of camaraderie than most whites, but that’s for another article). In a way, it seems to suggest that they are more “vital” than the pitiful whipped whites (PWWs?) one so often sees today.

  8. Actually, since merely the “specter” of homosexuality is enough to break down male bonding, banning public displays of “deviancy” (no, not those male displays of affection, those other male displays of affection) won’t really work. There could be no homosexuals at all, but the mere possibility that they exist would have a chilling effect. Thus the only way to make male groups less brittle and susceptible to gay panics is simply to stop caring about homosexuality. A big step forward would be to get over the Semitic notion that homosexuality is an offense against God.

    1. Nice try, but no. False to history. Homosex is mentioned in the Bible. The “spectre” has been with us pretty much forever. You speak as tho’ the genie was somehow released from the bottle in 1968. Men had physically and emotionally closer relationships in the past. We believe this was salutary, natural, and normal. And something we should strive as men to get back to. Sexualizing such relationships, whether by suspicion or in reality, A) ruins them; B) is degenerate. Homosex, because it violates telos, is degenerate. Being hypersexualized is degenerate, irrespective of one’s phenotypical attractions. We won’t stop caring. We would be idiots to stop caring.

    2. You’re essentially simplifying the same statement as your dreadful counter-currents article from whenever back. Yes, in a group where homosexuality is treated negatively, false accusations of homosexuality can cause more damage to group cohesion than the presence of actual homosexuals. It can be a tool for manipulation by other groups. That doesn’t mean open acceptance of homosexual activity/degeneracy should be the norm, or that whatever societal, religious, sanitary or philosophical reasons for disproving of homosexual behavior can just be waved away and ignored, as you would wish.
      But what can one expect, from a man who has said that the best way to spread political ideology is to infect two people at a time and have them do the same, like a chain email scam or an amoeba. You can articulate yourself well at times, and overreach and baseless accusations have threatened successful groups throughout history, making it a meaningful topic to bring up, but you have your own “specter” of delusion and petulant stupidity to worry about.

    3. Also would really like to track down the source on this meme “Semitic notion that homosexuality is an offense against God” and give the guy a swirly. It’s not even wrong. Oh those ancient Chinese were so on board with homosex. Those stone age tribes that laugh about homosex, believing it cannot possibly be real, they’re so on-board. It was Da Joos that got to Aristotle I suppose.

      Da Joos are not especially famous for formulating, contributing to, or obeying Natural Law. Natural Law is a very European sort of thing.

      1. It’s interesting that LGBT advocates try to put such a demographic in the same light as blacks in the Civil Rights Era, and later Jews during WWII and post-war.

        It’s hard for me to have sympathy when victimhood is seen as daily occurrence in the eyes of modernists. At least in the States, that’s a false reality.

  9. >>A big step forward would be to get over the Semitic notion that homosexuality is an offense against God.

    If forward means one “big step” to the cliff, then yes, I’d say that’s one big step forward. But that’s one step I’m not willing to take.

    You see, this isn’t a big step forward to see the wonders of nature – the sea waves crashing into the cliff’s wall, admiring the sea’s wind, fresh air, and the sun’s rays. In this scenario one doesn’t have to lose his so-called archaic beliefs in order to take “one big step forward.” You can carry whatever beliefs you have to this cliff and then later walk away to return home.

    The cliff you want society to take is a cliff that encourages people to jump off in order to “progress.”

    Unfortunately, your “big step forward” isn’t the advancement of technology, architecture, engineering, or medicine. It’s not even the social advancement of treating others as humans with dignity as opposed to sub-humans scorned because of their melanin. Or even their own sex.

  10. The gay movement is working hard to coopt as many normal symbols as they can. Not only kissing and flowers, which were long gone in my life in America if they were ever here in relations between straight men. But also the word “gay”, the rainbow, and now they coopt every baker who dares sell wedding cakes. Gay pride parades could be modest and understated, but they never are — they want your streets. Now the transsexuals (not the same as gay, but another weird sexual related thing, and a fellow member of LGBTQ) want your bathrooms and showers.

    I don’t care what two other men do with each other. Some gay people are just fine about it. Example: Michael Bloomberg, yes he’s gay but it had nothing to do with his work as NYC mayor, and I know others less famous. But the damned gay movement judges their success, not by how much they’re left alone to do their thing, but by how much I’m not left alone to do mine.

    1. They want your streets because they’re not mere homosexuals — they’re progressive political homosexuals. Homosexuality is a disease, fetish or quirk depending on your point of view. Fine. Political homosexuality is a god-damn uniform, and with a uniform you can gather an army, and with an army you can take streets for yourself.

      Also, I don’t think Michael Bloomberg is gay.

  11. I remember noticing this phenomenon in society as far back as high school. A feeling that guys were hesitant to look each other in the eyes, because, you know…’is he hitting on me, or what?’ And I realized it was because of how ubiquitous homosexuality already was in US society at that time…I’ve expressed this idea to a few people recently, who immediately agreed with it..It was funny, reading this, and realizing immediately this was the very subject discussed. As always, an excellent SM piece.

  12. I think this depends more on testosterone than anything else.

    How exactly do black people greet each other in America?

    1. Otto von Bismarck June 1, 2016 at 9:34 am

  13. […] degrees of separation from known jihadists and Islamic radicals. He beat his ex-wife and got mad at open displays of homosexuality. Mainstream outlets report these facts in a revelatory and frightening tone, as if they weren’t […]

Comments are closed.