08-12-2018, 01:30 AM
This post aims to clarify the effects of the preconceived schematisms on way of living of the gays and their perceiving sexuality. Speaking in chat with gay guys of all ages I often meet situations that are quite typical of discomfort that can be grouped into two distinct categories. On one side the uneasiness of uncertainty is noted and for the other the discomfort of certainty. I try to explain it better, with the expression "uneasiness of uncertainty” I intend to refer to situations in which a guy does not find convincing answers to questions he considers fundamental, such as “Am I gay?” Or “Am I really in love with that guy? “, With the expression ”uneasiness of certainty “I mean what manifests itself through absolute statements like:” I feel anaffective, I never fall in love with anyone“ or ”I think I’m addicted to sex, I think I’m a maniac“.
Each of these forms of discomfort has its synthomatic elements, in the uneasiness of uncertainty are recurring expressions such as “I don’t know”, “I don’t understand”, in the uneasiness of of certainty are the classic adverbs “always” and “never”.
Where do these forms of discomfort come from? Often the origin can be found in the idea that it is necessary to conform to an abstract model of normality that obviously involves also schematizations and categories (labels) that end up being considered parameters of normality. Even in the gay world there is a need for normality, the so-called gay normality: it is normal for a gay guy to have a sexual activity as a couple partner, so if a guy does not have a couple sex life, he is not normal. I observe that the "normal / non-normal" cathegory passes from the behavior to the person. It is considered normal that a gay guy has “normal” levels of attraction to sex, if a guy feels attracted to sex less or more than what is considered normal, that guy is not normal. Masturbation is considered normal during adolescence and not normal in adulthood, so a 25-year-old guy who masturbates may feel un-normal. The list of presumed normalities could extend to sexual practices, monogamy and a lot of other things. Then there are other categories of presumed normality that have been introduced through concepts that have received some media success and that have become consolidated as an accredited interpretative model, it is the case of the “internalized homophobia” that seems to be the normal motivation of the non-acceptance of gay identity; or of the “absent father” who seems to be the normal determining cause of homosexuality. All these pseudo criteria of normality and pseudo points of reference are often accepted uncritically and, like all the criteria of presumed normality, create marginalization or self-marginalization.
Obviously, the criterion for verifying the normality of one’s own behavior, for a gay guy, is not based on a direct comparison with a large number of other more or less young guys, as happens between straight guys but, if ever, on comparisons with a restricted or very small number of gay friends if not even with what is found on the internet. The myths of normality are paradoxically more common among gays than among straight people, Basically because in the hetero field the comparisons can be extended to a much wider audience of peers. The discomfort deriving from the comparison of one’s own behaviors with the presumed normality risks to induce guys to consider as pathological some behaviors that are not pathological at all. In the past the sense of non-normality referred essentially to the fact of not being straight, the problems connected to the acceptance of the gay identity have diminished compared to a few decades ago, but other ways have been created to feel non-normal, this time it is about modalities within the gay dimension.
A gay guy can feel like a gay who doesn’t fall in love with guys considered predominantly handsome by other gay guys, he can feel too much or too little interested in sex, he can be attracted to sexual practices that don’t seem to be the most popular for the gays, he may have his behavior patterns, too free or too little free compared to the more accredited models, but in any case that guy will feel a form of discomfort that will make him feel not normal, beyond any rationl evaluation.
The homologation can get to involve also the way of dressing, the language, the cut of hair and similar things, as if there was a gay language or a gay fashion and being gay outside of these things was in fact a situation not normal. The feeling of exceptionality of their condition is typical of gay guys and accentuates the feeling of loneliness, of marginality even compared to other gays and also accentuates the tendency to feel victim precisely because exception with respect to the rules of a presumed gay normality. I often happen in chat to see resigned, almost fatalistic, attitudes of some guys about their alleged impossibility to integrate even among gays and often it is the condition of supposed non-normality that puts these guys in difficulty, then, during the interview they face all the issues that cause marginalization and understand that in reality there is no condition of non-normality except in relation to a hypothetical normality that is often very far from reality (often true metropolitan legends) and that, when it has an objective foundation, represents, at most, a trend line but in no way a rule valid for everyone. I often happen to hear these words: “So you think there is nothing absurd?” and to see the amazement of not feeling treated as a non-normal gay.
The perception of discomfort is often associated with the self-pathologisation of gays which leads to the strengthening of the socially widespread idea of a pathological or pathogenic dimension of being gay. I would like to point out that the qualification of homosexual discomfort in terms of pathology rather than discomfort of homologation has a subtle dimension so that the gays themselves unconsciously tend to assimilate it, indulging in attitudes of self-pity.
What criteria can be used to avoid the effect of the false models of normality? “Always saying how things really are” is a moral duty but doesn’t solve the problem because with the spread and plurality of the media and in particular through the Internet, the flow of information is in fact uncontrollable. The only means that can be effective is the dialogue and the serious confrontation with an audience as wide as possible not only of peers but of gays of all ages on issues related to sexuality and how to live gay identity.
All this is not only possible, but where it has been achieved, it has had a remarkable response in terms of convinced participation. Not referring to models of presumed gay normality doesn’t mean that for gays the various behaviors are indifferent or equivalent, there are behaviors that although not having anything anomalous, are, nonetheless, uncommon, are niche behaviors and, if we want, can easily become the object of criticism and misunderstanding by those who don’t share them or simply don’t know them. In the context of a couple relationship, where a two-way correspondence is supposed between the two partners, some behaviors, even if not anomalous, are dysfunctional, that is, they don’t are useful and sometimes create problems to the establishment and maintenance of the couple relationship.
At least theoretically, the maximum probability of being functional to the couple’s relationship must be recognized to the most widespread attitudes that can obviously be more easily shared with the other partner. It is essential to keep in mind that falling in love with a homosexual partner is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the creation of a couple relationship, this means that, if the other is not gay, a relationship is impossible, but for the realization of a true couple relationship it is not enough that the two partners share the same sexual orientation but it is necessary that they share also some fundamental opinions about some aspects of life well beyond sexuality, i.e. that they have a profound affinity of couple.
Homosexuality does not have an exclusively sexual dimension but interacts with several aspects of the personality, for example in determining the greater or lesser level of privacy of the couple life, the relationship with the families of origin or with the circles of friendships of origin of each of the two partners. In these fields it makes no sense to ask what is normal and what is not because it is about a cultural elements largely inherited from the original environment.
The representation of the gay world that each gay has formed and that, through presumed canons of normality can help to guide his behavior, is deeply conditioned by the quality and quantity of information available. The quality of information is linked to two fundamental conditions, namely the information must be not instrumental for other purposes and must be first hand, that is, must be provided by subjects who speak of themselves in the first person and are not therefore subject to external censorship.
The weight of the models and even stereotypes related to the gay reality is clearly perceived talking to boys affected by OCD with homosexual content, or obsessive compulsive disorder characterized by the intrusive idea of being gay. This is a typical disorder of 100% straight guys whose life is disturbed by the insistent and invasive presence of the fear of being gay. These guys, who are not gay, focus their fear of homosexuality on what they believe to be typically gay but after an appropriately detailed interview, to an eye accustomed to see the gay reality, it is evident that all what these guys consider proof of being gay, in reality, has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality but derives solely from the stereotypical image of homosexuality conveyed on a social level.
It is certainly less easy to evaluate the weight of the presumed normality models within the gay world in determining states of individual distress of gay guys, but it is evident that the lack of these normality models would allow a process of acceptance of gay identity much simpler and a faster social integration of gay guys with other gay guys. In a nutshell, we can say that accrediting behavior patterns as normal only increases discrimination and the state of discomfort.