Letters to the editor

The following letter contains references to sexuality. Reader discretion is advised. Opinions expressed in this forum reflect the opinion of the writer and are not the opinions of this newspaper or its staff.

The quibble that dare not speak its name

Dear editor:

“The love that dares not speak its name.” That’s what it used to be called. Now it speaks its name loud and clear. What dares not speak its name these days is the quietest quibbling, the most diffident doubting, of “political correctness” on the subject.

It’s likely personal experience lies behind all the attitudes we think we hold on highflown principle alone. Yet it’s just as likely experience helps us discover inherent principles. With our power of reason we organize our experience, mere facts, into truth.

About age 20, my parents being out of town, the help having left for the day, I found myself alone in the office. In came a big, burly man wanting, so he said, to buy one of my father’s antique clocks. As the transaction was completed, he began coming out in his true colors, first with subtle pryings into my personal life, moving on to snickering, ever-more-obscene come-ons. I soon found myself cornered behind the desk, being groped.

I looked younger than my years, and more vulnerable. Lacking the pistol I sorely wished for, I could only yes-yes him along, keeping him guessing, till he tired of the game. He left with an invitation: “Look me up.” This man was no limp-wristed wimp. Popular culture seems blissfully blind that it takes two quite different kinds of people to “love,” even if they’re of the same sex. There are technical Latin terms for them, meaning essentially the dominator and the submitter. My “suitor” was one of the former, and he wanted me to be one of the latter.

Worse, he looked dangerous. The cast in his eyes was that of a man ready and willing to use brute-force to get what he wanted. This was about the time a local man of similar persuasion was found knife-murdered by his imported lover. The fashionable viewpoint is that my reaction to such aggressiveness was doubts about, fear for, my own manhood! Nonsense! My fears were for life-and-limb! Not that this accepts that feminist argument “It’s all about power, control!” He didn’t want to “control” me for the sake of control, of power. He made it quite clear what he wanted. He didn’t brag about his bigger muscles. He bragged about his sexuality, assuring me of its size and prowess.

My parents’ reactions were reminders, however unneeded, that men are men and women women. “Poor fellow!” was the sum of my mother’s. (Even to my mother, he, not I, his would-be “poor fellow,” was the “poor fellow”!) My father’s reaction was murderous rage. When the man came back, months later, he confronted him holding a half-inch stencil-knife.

“I’ve already told the chief of police all about you,” he said. “Now, I can’t kill you with this, but I can cut you up good. So you get your a �" out of here, and out of Nevada, and stay out. We know all about you now, and we’ll be ready for you if you come back.”

My mother had her point, of course. He was indeed a “poor fellow,” to be pitied. But he was other things too, calling for other reactions than pity, and more urgently. I often envisioned him moving on from his encounter with me, coming onto some other who really was the vulnerable teenager he’d taken me for �" perhaps a borderline case who under happier influences would have gone on to lead a contented heterosexual life. Or who’d learn from him to think of his sexuality in mercenary terms, as something to sell. Of course prostitution’s a venerable profession; and modern psychiatry even pronounces it (and all else) fine and dandy, just so it’s “consenting.”

But do we really want our children initiated into the mysteries of “love” by problematical “poor fellows,” statistically more prone than others to chaotic lives? The “progressive” blame the ills of homosexuality on the fact that it’s been marginalized, tolerated merely as a kind of social “red-light district.” But the problems don’t seem to go away, indeed anything but, for all the late coming-out-of-the-closet.

When my newspaper tells me “straight” young people nationwide are spending their educational hours and energy “standing up for” suchlikes, I can only shake my head in wonder. For me, they’re “standing up for” that high-probability violent criminal of my young experience and endorsing his dubious doings. And in my old-fangled vocabulary, the opposite of “straight” is still “bent,” not “gay.” The fashionable argument is, “it’s perfectly natural, they’re born that way!” But people are born hunchbacked, too, and that’s equally “natural.” But it’s hardly something to celebrate. Though who knows? Given the contemporary cultural climate, we may soon be invited, nay arm-twisted, into joining in “hunchback-pride” events.

My head shakes in wonder for another reason. The militantly “tolerant” seem to lack all historical perspective. “The individual is foolish,” as Burke points out; “but the species is wise.” The species, like it or not, has never been “tolerant.” For all we know “tolerance” just may lack “survival value,” as the evolutionists term it. It’s too soon to tell; for all cultures, including our own, except for its last few decades, have been “intolerant.” Homosexuality still risks the death penalty in many teeming cultures. Only in ours does “intolerance” consist of “hurting their feelings,” or failing to cheer loudly enough when the pep-squad chants its mantras.

“Tolerance” typically is urged under the rubric “equal rights,” words that have for Americans what the Polynesians called “mana.” Our world is becoming, like theirs, a place fairly hag-ridden with “taboos,” that other Polynesian term, a climate of superstitions, i.e. notions not to be questioned or reasoned about, or indeed, even mentioned.

“Tolerance” has given us “hate-crimes,” arguably the most dubious, mischievous notion ever to muddy up the legal waters. “Intentions must be gathered from acts,” said Dr. Johnson. A man is answerable in law for his acts. He’s presumed, on the basis of those acts, to have had the intention to do them. Otherwise his intentions, i.e. thoughts, are unknowable.

But “hate-crime” laws affect to know them. The accused is found guilty of “doing” thus-and-so. Well and good. Ah, but he also “thought” thus-and-so! And in the new dispensation, thoughts can be crimes, worse crimes. Double his sentence! This is granting the deviate not a “right” but a privilege. It’s become twice as criminal to victimize him as others, as the “straight.” Friends urge me, fiercely, don’t submit this piece. I’ll hurt feelings, ruffle feathers! But as I see it, truth, groping for truth, is more important than feathers, or even feelings. Convictions shouldn’t just be held in our hearts, they should come out of the closet!

Patrick Brophy

Nevada

Editor’s note: Many have wrestled with their views on homosexuality and its cultural impact recently in the pages of the Nevada Daily Mail. One writer admits discomfort at event thinking of such things. Another points out that good deeds, community service and compassion for others aren’t restricted by sexual orientation. Another says he does not believe Christianity and homosexuality are compatible, but agrees that homosexuals should not be singled out and discriminated against or harmed solely because of sexual orientation. Another’s life experiences with homosexual behavior were negative and he holds dear his right to reject such behavior and ideologies; although one could argue that a similar experience with an unwanted heterosexual advance might similarly color one’s view of heterosexuality.

Readers, despite how you each may feel about these issues, all points of view printed offer insights into a cultural issue that’s obviously controversial in many ways. In order to understand attitudes that form our culture �" both “tolerant” and “intolerant” �" it’s important to discuss them in an open a forum as possible. If one view’s allowed, shouldn’t the opposing views be allowed as well? Turns out, in this case, there seem to be as many differing views as there are readers. Some are passionate. Some are cautious.

All, I feel safe in assuming, are carefully considered �" and all equally deserving of being heard.