It is true that gays, lesbians, and transgenders have little in common with each other, but their political alliance has become a fearsome juggernaut. LGBT stuff is everywhere in public conversation, and it is now important to figure it out. There is more to it than the crude and stupid propaganda that homosexuality is love, light, and freedom, that “love is love,” or that “trans women are women.” I was hesitant about doing research in this area because I thought it would be disgusting (who wants to read about anal sex?), but in fact I found it easy to maintain scientific detachment.

Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen is an enlightening book dealing with gender and homosexuality.

In Chapter 4 he recounts a study he did on why so many male dancers, such as ballet dancers, were gay. The rough argument he gives is “Because dancing is feminine, and gay men tend to be feminine.”

This puzzles me. Because it seems clear that dancing as such is not feminine at all. Professional dancing requires athleticism. Not essentially feminine. It requires mastery of one’s body. It takes great self-discipline and long practice. Men can dance with women which is romantic, and if one is a good dancer, he can charm women very efficiently. I can sort of see why ballet seems suspicious what with the tutus and all, but ballroom dancing, swing, flamenco? And even for ballet, for example, the martial arts actor Jean-Claude Van Damme, a perfectly straight guy, took up ballet of which he remarked that it “is an art, but it’s also one of the most difficult sports. If you can survive a ballet workout, you can survive a workout in any other sport.” What’s feminine about succeeding at it?

There is a further even more serious problem. Bailey seems to imply that art as such attracts gays. But it is typically the Artisan temperament that excels at such pursuits. In mapping onto beauty, this is the highest temperament of all, manifesting the passionate fiery masculine creative yang, a power that both dominates yin and generates an external effect. Both are imitations of the divine outpouring. The universe is the Almighty Father’s art, and He is not a homosexual. His (masculine) power gives shape to (feminine) matter, and begets a Son, and we humans are His adopted children. Gays do not reproduce. What gives?

Going back to ballet, there is a Simpsons episode on the subject. Bart is late to sign up for sports in school and is forced to take up ballet. He says, “Dancing is for girls.” And again, “I think ballet is for sissies,” at which point his instructor laughs derisively and replies, “Ballet is for the strong, the fierce, the determined. But for the sissies? Never!” You see what I am saying? There is nothing inherent in ballet that signifies that the male dancer is submissive or cowardly or ignoble or perverse. On the contrary, it’s for those with “fire in the belly.”

What may be feminine is subtlety and complexity of feeling, but while art may seek to evoke feelings, by itself it is external manifestation of physical technique and virtuosity which is on the contrary a masculine ideal.

Is it that dancing is not a competitive sport? In the first place, it often is. And competition can occur behind the scenes as the best dancers get the best opportunities to perform and enjoy higher incomes.

Is it that dancing is “delicate”? But which sophisticated activity isn’t? Philosophers “dance around” with their arguments as if fencing, that does not mean that philosophy is a feminine discipline. Being a stupid, rough, crude, unpolished brute like some gorilla is not what makes one a man.

Is it that dancing is traditionally how women entertained men? Think of veiled dancing girls performing for an Eastern caliph, or twirking for blacks, or lap dancing in a strip club. This is more plausible, but still, dancing as a career choice, the sort you see in theaters, appeals more to intellectual aesthetic sense than to sexual desire. And again women too can appreciate a man who dances.

Is it that dancing is a vanity? “Oh look at me, I am floating about to and fro happy as a clam, I am so pretty, look at how pretty I am.” If people, perhaps unconsciously, associate art, especially acting, with vanity, this may explain why it is perceived as unmasculine. But vanity is an individual vice and has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is unhelpful to condemn all artists like this.

Here’s an anecdote: when I was boy in the Soviet Union, I once saw a picture of Van Damme, whom I already mentioned, in some newspaper. I was astonished by how handsome he looked. It was almost a revelation. And the reason was that Soviet Russia had no entertainment and hence no celebrities and so no attractive figures in the public eye, male or female. I mean, who were we looking at, Brezhnev? Socialism is profoundly ugly. All good art uplifts the soul, and an actor’s good looks serve a social purpose which is cultivation of beauty, and so caring about appearance need not be vain.

Still, if vanity belongs to women, and gays tend to be feminine, this may draw some of them into these lines of work.

Here’s my hypothesis. The crucial aspect of artistic creativity is freedom from restraint. If Rationals study the law, Artisans break it, in a good sense. (Wicked criminals are the opposite of Artisans.) So this involves spontaneous unbounded self-expression. Becoming good at an art is a grueling task that takes self-control, but ultimately the performance itself requires the complete shedding of self-control, a liberation from all inhibitions and hang-ups. An artist must exhibit effortless graceful self-forgetful power.

Insofar as Artisans seek to be artistic, audacious, and adaptable, it is, in short, a chaotic endeavor, though again creative chaos is metaphysically the highest possible archetype.

But guess what, heterosexual men are by their nature seriously lawbound. Courting, marriage, taking care of family, monogamy and faithfulness, division of domestic labor are remarkably orderly, indeed “bourgeois,” endeavors that require submission to rules and sacrifices of personal ambitions. Many may be able to combine this with remarkable creativity. But gays may have a competitive advantage here by virtue of not being burdened by laws of sexual morality.

Now on the one hand, homosexuality is a vice and hence hardly metaphysically high. Indeed, I would classify it as destructive chaos. But humans are complicated. For some this freedom may lead to highly creative achievements.

And there is another reason. Self-expression can be a very good thing, but if it’s bad it can turn into a kind of shameless, almost demonic, exhibitionism intended in part to “shock to bourgeoisie.” Straight men might be less inclined to do the latter, but in so doing also be less capable of the former.

Finally, insofar as gay men are more feminine, their sexuality is more diffuse, receptive, and undirected. For an image, picture a woman writhing on the bed crazed with lust, moaning to no one in particular, “Fuck me, fuck me!” This absence of self-control, perhaps shameful, can also assist gays in their vocations.

Categories: Uncategorized

0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *