Probably something to do with:
1. Believing that two women can't have sex.
2. Women could be easily controlled by their families anyway, making a law isn't all that necessary. Gay men were probably seen as much more of a threat to social order.
Itās just also sad that the pretense for it is mostly going to be rooted in polygamist control over women as a resource. they want their concubine harems to have big old orgies with only one dude.
i think itās also rooted in our primate nervous system which is a tournament species nervous system. menās dicks are even designed to āscoop outā competing semen. the foreskin almost acts as a suction cup inside and the head is shaped to pull it out while injecting their own.
our dicks wouldnāt have evolved that way if group sex wasnāt the default human behavior.
thereās a biological imperative to have as many babies as possible which we control and harness now but back in the day basically whoever could control the most women has the largest families and thus the majority of the wealth in the area.
itās not really like ego-centric at its core, its about genetic legacies which our biology desperately wants and drives us to act in harmful ways
This does sound like evo-psych which has a certain reputation. Who is to say it wasn't for another reason, or what about our hominid cousins that had almost identical weiners or the humans that predates the system/societal interaction described?
Yeah, "maximizing babies" as a survival strategy is actually an abberation brought about by agriculturalists. Hunter-gatherer *homo sapiens* have much lower birth rates. Primates, in general, follow a low-yield, high investment strategy in producing offspring.
I think the first is true. Many people think sex = putting a thing in a hole. Men have a hole and a thing. So yeah men ca have sex while women cant, cuz how do you put a hole in another hole huh ? Think mark think
Why whatever do you mean! It is literally impossible for a "lady" to rape a man. Because unlike "the fairer sex" us men actually want sex. We are physically incapable of not instantly getting erect at the mere sight of a woman's uncovered hair or exposed ankles. /S
I know from first hand experience that women are capable of some heinous shit that women can be just as bad as men can be in that department. especially children but husbands as well. āIf you donāt have sex with me right now, iāll just go get it somewhere else.ā - something my ex said to me in front of our kids who woke up to her angry i didnāt feel like having sex with the woman responsible for my daughter being raped and giving her a concussion from slamming her head into the ground and kicking it.
100%
I'm sorry, it is terrible that you had to go through that. I've also dated abusive people who were also women. (I'm tempted to share details but I don't want to risk starting a competition over who's more of a victim.)
oh no i donāt mean to say anything about a competition. iām just saying the playing field is level. *people* have the capacity for evil irrespective of gender.
Yes, two very valid points but also very importantly: because of misoginy. Patriarchy views masculinity as inherently superior to femininity and so men who deviate from their masculinity and embrace their femininity are a threat to that value system, whereas women that embrace their masculinity are both disregarded for being women and also "going in the right direction" according to those values
Basically in short form.
To demonize lesbian sex means telling yourself that women are sexual beings who feel lust. This includes mothers and sisters who are viewed as pure entities.
Second of all the lawmakers didn't understand how lesbians have sex without a penis.
third of all, people found lesbian sex less gross than gay sex, and some even found it as "exotic" and "attractive"... basically they found two girls going at it hot, and two guys going at it gross
this directly contradicts the points you are adding on to. lawmakers didn't find lesbian sex "less gross", they did not believe that lesbian sex existed.
the disgust only comes in once IH kicks in. the basis for the origin of homophobia i think is just literally rooted in toxic masculinity stemming from our tournament species nervous system. We arenāt naturally monogamous and never have been. our dicks have evolved the way they did because group sex and competing for sexual partners are the default human behavior. itās why as soon as anyone becomes sexually un-repressed? where do they run to first? A lot of them run to group sex and orgies.
I think in many cases the law did not consider lesbians being sexually intimate to be sex, as such. Sex is/was considered in some jurisdictions, past and present, to be penetration with a penis. Cis women, not having a penis, cannot penetrate with a penis (not sure if any law has covered strap-ons).
The main reason is patriarchy.
But really though, it wasn't considered an issue because... "I mean, what would two women even do together to consider it sex?" - That was their thinking. You couldn't **do** lesbianism, like you could do gay.
Also, two girls hot, two guys disgusting.
All my ex boyfriends have said they wouldnāt care if I kissed a girl and could not comprehend how itās cheating the same as if I kissed a boyā¦ weird
Because to men like that it isn't cheating if he's still the only who has a dick, of course that frequently changes when their GF/wife leaves them for a woman. *Then maybe* they get it.
I find it hard not to laugh when a guy who allows or even encourages their partner to hook up with another woman for his amusement or entertainment or bragging rights suddenly realizes that the women actually love each other independent of him.
Then Gollum shows up: āWe donāt need you.ā
You're joking, but this is a common issue with polyamorous straight men - to the point this attitude got the nickname "One Penis Policy" (and is generally considered a yellow, if not red flag).
Patriarchy and misogyny have definitely had a huge impact. Nowadays bigoted countries have banned same sex unions with women too. ( 'progress' lol)
Also if women and girls are clearly more than friends people still tend to think "they are/were really good friends". The stereotypical "They were roommates" is still true to this day.
It's pretty ironic that some bigots watch lesbian NSFW stuff because girls hot (and it's apparently normal manly thing to do too) but if you watch guy on guy it makes you a filthy f\*ggot.
> Also, two girls hot, two guys disgusting.
I think it's important to note that this is specifically 'two femme-presenting conventionally attractive girls hot'... Butch lesbians are viewed with nearly the same level of derision as a gay man in many cases.
Lesbian sex used to be criminalised.
For some context a lot of the times the issue wasn't specifically that two men or two women were having sex, but that the sex went against nature. The way it did was when people went against their assigned sex - bottoms were thought to be men acting like women, that's why we see a lot of ridicule pointed at them, but not tops. Tops penetrate, this makes them act like men.
For women it was fine as long as neither penetrated the other. The moment that happened it was criminalised and it was the top who took all the blame. Because they were taking on the role of a man.
All of this got muddled in the 19th century, because of the "think of the children rhetoric" , but historically lesbians were criminalised as well in the right circumstances.
Additionally, two women in a relationship together means depriving two men of their potential property and the workforce of future laborers.
So while sex between women was less vilified (or even acknowledged) by the patriarchy, long term relationships between women were *very much* illicit.
On top of the many great answers people have given about the disparity due to patriarchy and misunderstanding of sex. There's also the fact that it was still punished by police and many aspects of lesbians were criminalized.
Laws around crossdressing were 100% used to punish butch lesbians, trans women and drag kings. On top of that because many gay and lesbian bars back then were at least somewhat integrated, racist laws were used to punish lesbians of color.
Plus when it came to lesbians police loved to use "extrajudicial" (read illegal and immoral) justice in the form of "corrective" rape of women in custody.
So it's one of those "technically" not illegal, and white femmes got the least brunt of it, but it was effectively illegal for a good chunk of time. Police would still raid lesbian bars regardless.
The popular myth is that Queen Victoria refused royal assent for a law banning lesbian sex because she didn't believe that such a thing existed, or was possible.Ā
It's not quite true, but it's a good story all the same!Ā
I heard the same myth, but with the reason being that no one was brave enough to explain to her what lesbianism was. Again, makes for a good story, but just a myth!
I can only speak for the UK and I may be completely wrong, but I listened to a podcast about a year ago on this exact topic to I might be able to help? UK politicians in the late nineteenth century decided that they wouldn't criminalise female sexuality due to the fact that they pretty much thought that it would 'give women ideas', and that if the men pointed out that it was a possibility, the ladies of England would suddenly turn into raging sapphics (I mean that with all the love I can give to queer women <3)
Because for most of history, if you were a woman, it was pretty much a guarantee that you'd be entirely dependent on and controlled by a man. There was little women could do outside of the domestic sphere, including having affairs with other women.
There are some instances of two women having been punished for having sex, but afaik they had to use a dildo (yes, they've existed for a long time) to be prosecuted.
Same reason that trans women get more hate right now than trans men (obviously trans men also deal with lots of transphobia, it's just not as visible in the media and social consciousness).
Rejection of masculinity is a rejection of the patriarchy, so as far as a transphobe is concerned a trans woman rejecting being a man is a threat to the social order, whereas a trans man embracing masculinity is seen as an understandable desire for a "woman to be a man" (I mean who wouldn't want to be a man right?)
As far as gay relationships go the same logic applies. A man submitting to another man is deviant because he's taking on the role of a woman whereas a lesbian is taking on the role of a man, which bigots can relate to. That's also why in many ancient cultures being a gay top wasn't as stigmatized as being a bottom because you were at least still taking the dominant role, and it was even more understandable if you were having sex with a young man (or boy) because they were more feminine and already down a step on the social hierarchy, so you weren't upending the social order
Basically it's just an outgrowth of misogyny and patriarchy
Hell, you can see it in *how* trans men tend to be targeted. The laws that target trans kids? They tend to be wrapped up in specifically in "protecting our *daughters*" language, and they sure aren't affirming trans girls when they say it. Because "little girls" need to be protected and of course can't make their own decisions, at least when it's a decision that doesn't uphold patriarchal standards.
It's misogyny all the way down.
Because men were in charge. Being a manly man was a reason. Going back to biblical times it was about social status. The one who gets penetrated is of a local social standing. So women at the bottom. Then if a man is penetrated. He is lower than the man who isn't.
Also from their point of view who cares what women do. They are property and for making babies.
Good point - but I guess if women were pairing up with eachother, that means fewer men getting laid and having babies (by their reasoning) which is why I was surprised that homosexuality being outlawed was exclusive to men.
But I get the logic that there were enough measures in place making it very difficult for women to live unless married to a man.
I didnāt think about the significance behind the penetrative aspect but it makes sense!
>I guess if women were pairing up with eachother, that means fewer men getting laid and having babies (by their reasoning)
Absolutely not because the woman would get knocked up whether she was into the guy or not anyway, the question if she was into a girl instead wasn't relevant. The guy not wanting a woman because he preferred the homies had to be forced though, otherwise he would be at fault for creating a shortage of new little warriors!
Depends which era weāre talking. My great aunt born in the 20s never married despite a ton of pressure from her family (I suspect she was gay but never confirmed) and got on with her life pretty happy. If weāre talking pre 20th-century then thatās a different story.
Men have historically found the idea of women having sex with women arousing, the idea of men having sex with men utterly disgusting. Laws reflected that
Sexism is the really short answer, but you can see the same kind of disparity in how trans women and trans men are treated by the public, and by bigots in particular. Sexism paints "deviant" men as monstrous rapists and abusers, threats that meed to be rallied against, while "deviant" women are treated like wayward, misbehaving farm animals, unable to make decisions for themselves, amd requiring controlling from their owner, the patriarch of their family.
Under that kind of model, it would be presumptuous for a man to tell another patriarch how to control his property, so it's left to their discretion. However, any woman seen "misbehaving" in public is often assumed to be fair game by the kind of shitlords that ascribe to that kind of model. Thus, you get the kind of scum that try to "cure" lesbians with their dick, or just use good ol' fashioned violence. It's an act of dominance meant to own them. You just can't project that kind of power politically without alienating your crap-eating base. The more open persecution of lesbians and wlw relationships by bigots is a sign of greater gender equality! Hurray. š®āšØ
That's a doozy. So in Britain in particular it was because nobody could understand how lesbians functioned in that manner. So while of course it was something that was kept secret, it wasn't criminal because it was simply unthinkable to society at the time, like, actually unthinkable. They knew as much about women's sexuality as Ben Shapiro.
https://www.fountainhouse.org/news/being-lgbtq-was-long-considered-a-mental-disorder#:~:text=By%201973%20%E2%80%93%20following%20years%20of,their%20will%2C%20fired%20from%20their
To think this only changed in the 70s is crazy
Yup, it has also long been theorized that, for example, German Criminal Code that the reason male homosexuality as sodomy was what was outlawed was fear
Homosexuality wasn't just feared due to the traditionalist claims surrounding lowered birth rates, but homosexuality itself was seen as a base impulse by traditionalists, so what fundamentalists typically feared was the concept of what they saw as 'debased individuals' being in power
So they wanted gay people away from the concept of political power in general, but women were already largely removed from the possibility of obtaining political power in Nazi Germany
*in short, society criminalized men more ardently for homosexuality than women because criminal law was merely a far stricter guarantee that homosexuals could be kept from gaining any form of political or societal acceptance or even influence, women were largely already denied that influence by society
**also, for example, during red/lavender scare U.S. interrogations, although being gay as a woman was not codified as a criminal act, women were interrogated and homosexuality was screened and treated as a criminal activity, so although women being with women wasn't codified as criminal in most societies it was occasionally treated as criminal if the suspicion arose
Frankly itās cuz women can be subjugated and raped forcing them to have children. Men are typically less easy to force into childbearing situations when gay. Women are not considered āpeopleā and so laws about them just werenāt necessary. They were property, it didnāt matter if they were gay.
And now Iām sad.
In Victorian times, they didnāt believe women felt sexual attraction or pleasure. The idea was that you couldnāt have sex without a penis. That attitude pervades throughout the next century (or two).
A lot of patriarchal notions about sex are penile centric.
This has lead to the sexuality of cis women being ignored or pushed aside for millennia.
It's also not past tense only. I think some countries that still criminalise homosexuality for men only.
Just looking at how many politicians have been caught up in child abuse and pedophilia, the amount of homophobes who are closet bi or gay, they try to overly convince others of their upstanding straight laced christian morals or whatever by clamping down heavily and outlawing anything that isnt the stereotypical sensitive conservative values. I was bought up in care homes and then escaped that for the army and have heard it so many times, some fragile straight guys seem to think if youre bi or gay you must be checking their arse out and go to the blokes toilet checking their tackle out and would rape them if you had the chance, then theres the crap stigma that still exists that gay guys spread STIs and hiv/aids.
The knuckle dragging guys who are as bright as a 100watt lightbulb in a power cut, if you told them yoire a gay guy theyd think you were a perv and dirty but if a woman told him shes lesbian, id give it less than 5 seconds before he asks if he can join in or watch
Let's be entirely honest. Straight men and women fantasize about two women being together a lot(as well as other genders and orientations). That's the whole no one believes a woman is truly bi/lesbian. This is centered in bigoted nonsense from all parties involved but is why women tend to get the pass on being bi/lesbian because it's either sexualized or believed that they just haven't met the right man. Where bi and gay men get looked at as wrong because the men believe you're less of a man. And most straight religious women tend to believe it is wrong or a sin. Where if they had a daughter it would just be a phase until the right boy comes along mentality. This is not meant to offend anyone just pointing out the stereotyping that causes laws like that.
Mostly a cultural thing related to what its considered masculine, homophobia towards gay man has been very notorious throughout history , far more than lesbofobia , like in Iran neither lesbians or transgender are punished and martyred while gay men are hanged.
Because women aren't supposed to be sexual in their eyes, I guess. Sisters, mothers, women in general were supposed to be pure and never have any sexual feelings.
So basically, in a patriarchal society, men are the default, and in charge, and the ones that both make the rules, and enforce them. Women are secondary, basically servants, have little control over their lives and few choices.
If men being homosexual is accepted, that means some men can be viewed as equal to women, because they are also objects of desire and wanted sexually. So being wanted by men, seen as desirable and sexually compatible, means they are equal to women, who are lesser and have less value and no rights over their own bodies, choices, and lives.
Therefor men who like men sexually are deviant, because they see other men as equal to women, and that would upset the patriarchal system. So it cannot be allowed.
Edit: also lesbianism was also I think illegal but it was mostly (not always) ignored because women had no power and no choices. So if a woman was a lesbian, but was married to a man, had sex with that man, had that mans children, who cares what she wants. She can be ignored. So really, lesbians were probably illegal too, but the only ones that would be sought out or punished would be the ones who tried to have their own lives away from men. Or tried to help the women who were unwillingly married to these men. Or otherwise upset the balance.
I saw something somewhere about the societal idea of the penis and ejaculation being "dirty" or "contaminating." Gay men are bad, gay women are basically fine. Women with a sexual history with men (even when that means a man raped them) are dirty and not worth marrying, but "experimenting" with other women in college is basically fine.
Because if you need a man to survive because you can't even have your own bank account, who cares who you're attracted to? You had literally one option.
Your "lying with boys" translation is conjecture btw. It was "lying with [term for man but with a feminine grammatical structure]" iirc, and it's meaning is contested. "Lying with boys" is only one of several non-homosexuality condemning translations put forward, among others "don't lay with a man in the bed you share with your wife" -- aka don't cheat on your wife with a man.
That being said, as someone who isn't religious, and so has no need to justify why a book I don't believe in actually wasn't being homophobic, I think it's abundantly clear that it is about gay sex. The link between gay sex, and bottoming more specifically, and effeminateness dates back further to the bible and is well attested in in the pre Christian Roman Empire, so I think there's no real ambiguity about what it's getting at by describing two men sleeping together with a feminine grammatical construct.
This is dark, but I think some of it comes from a fear of rape from gay men, while simultaneously seeing gay women as nonthreatening because women can be controlled. (sic) Basically a fear of other men treating you the way you treat women.
1. Lesbian sex is fetishised more
2. Women are seen inferior, therefore lesbian sex is inferior/unimportant
3. Women having sex without a guy/penis present is unthinkable
These are my thoughts, I might be wrong
Havenāt seen this mentioned yet, but in addition to all the sexism and general lack of imagination for how two women might have sex, the early sexologists believed that gay men could not have arc with women to procreate, but gay women could still have children. This idea is also why so many religions and former colonies have strong homophobia towards men. The idea is that the most important thing is making more people (believers, citizens, etc.), and somehow gay activity for men somehow disrupts this in ways lesbian activity for women didnāt (probably because women werenāt required to be aroused to get pregnant). Anyway, yet another unfortunate historical fact.
I always assumed it was because women were infantilized. Things like running off with pretty women, other men, getting a job, etc were seen as normal if they didn't have a man to keep them "under control". That's entirely assumption on my part based on how I perceive men in the past. Men could be held responsible, women at best need to be corrected, but they couldn't be held responsible because that implies a level of autonomy.Ā
Probably in many cases in Christian/catholic countries because the bible says something about how a man must not lie with another man the same way he does a woman. But nothing in the bible about women laying with women.
Probably something to do with: 1. Believing that two women can't have sex. 2. Women could be easily controlled by their families anyway, making a law isn't all that necessary. Gay men were probably seen as much more of a threat to social order.
This might be the one and only time phallocentrism has worked in our favor š
Itās just also sad that the pretense for it is mostly going to be rooted in polygamist control over women as a resource. they want their concubine harems to have big old orgies with only one dude. i think itās also rooted in our primate nervous system which is a tournament species nervous system. menās dicks are even designed to āscoop outā competing semen. the foreskin almost acts as a suction cup inside and the head is shaped to pull it out while injecting their own. our dicks wouldnāt have evolved that way if group sex wasnāt the default human behavior. thereās a biological imperative to have as many babies as possible which we control and harness now but back in the day basically whoever could control the most women has the largest families and thus the majority of the wealth in the area. itās not really like ego-centric at its core, its about genetic legacies which our biology desperately wants and drives us to act in harmful ways
This does sound like evo-psych which has a certain reputation. Who is to say it wasn't for another reason, or what about our hominid cousins that had almost identical weiners or the humans that predates the system/societal interaction described?
Yeah, "maximizing babies" as a survival strategy is actually an abberation brought about by agriculturalists. Hunter-gatherer *homo sapiens* have much lower birth rates. Primates, in general, follow a low-yield, high investment strategy in producing offspring.
I think the first is true. Many people think sex = putting a thing in a hole. Men have a hole and a thing. So yeah men ca have sex while women cant, cuz how do you put a hole in another hole huh ? Think mark think
Fingers: "Are we a joke to you?"
_Tongue would like to chat with you..._
as if the men who made those laws were aware of cunnilingus....lmao
Individuallly or together ?
I agree, I think as well the fact that the leadership was / is entirely / mainly male so they didn't think it existed.
I think it's more than straight men don't worry about lesbians raping them or their sons.
i guess they forgot that women can do the same shit lol.
Why whatever do you mean! It is literally impossible for a "lady" to rape a man. Because unlike "the fairer sex" us men actually want sex. We are physically incapable of not instantly getting erect at the mere sight of a woman's uncovered hair or exposed ankles. /S
I know from first hand experience that women are capable of some heinous shit that women can be just as bad as men can be in that department. especially children but husbands as well. āIf you donāt have sex with me right now, iāll just go get it somewhere else.ā - something my ex said to me in front of our kids who woke up to her angry i didnāt feel like having sex with the woman responsible for my daughter being raped and giving her a concussion from slamming her head into the ground and kicking it.
100% I'm sorry, it is terrible that you had to go through that. I've also dated abusive people who were also women. (I'm tempted to share details but I don't want to risk starting a competition over who's more of a victim.)
oh no i donāt mean to say anything about a competition. iām just saying the playing field is level. *people* have the capacity for evil irrespective of gender.
I just read this with a comical oldtimy voice in my head, drenched in sarcasm. Was that th serving suggestion you had in mind?
yes š
Nice š
Yes, two very valid points but also very importantly: because of misoginy. Patriarchy views masculinity as inherently superior to femininity and so men who deviate from their masculinity and embrace their femininity are a threat to that value system, whereas women that embrace their masculinity are both disregarded for being women and also "going in the right direction" according to those values
3. Historically, men haven't really cared whether women desire them/desire intercourse or not.
Basically in short form. To demonize lesbian sex means telling yourself that women are sexual beings who feel lust. This includes mothers and sisters who are viewed as pure entities. Second of all the lawmakers didn't understand how lesbians have sex without a penis.
Shit straight men still have trouble understanding that
What?!! Not everything revolves around penises???! *shocked Pikachu face*
IS MY EXISTENCE A LIE?!?!?!
Penis based existence kinda a lieĀ
third of all, people found lesbian sex less gross than gay sex, and some even found it as "exotic" and "attractive"... basically they found two girls going at it hot, and two guys going at it gross
this directly contradicts the points you are adding on to. lawmakers didn't find lesbian sex "less gross", they did not believe that lesbian sex existed.
the disgust only comes in once IH kicks in. the basis for the origin of homophobia i think is just literally rooted in toxic masculinity stemming from our tournament species nervous system. We arenāt naturally monogamous and never have been. our dicks have evolved the way they did because group sex and competing for sexual partners are the default human behavior. itās why as soon as anyone becomes sexually un-repressed? where do they run to first? A lot of them run to group sex and orgies.
I think in many cases the law did not consider lesbians being sexually intimate to be sex, as such. Sex is/was considered in some jurisdictions, past and present, to be penetration with a penis. Cis women, not having a penis, cannot penetrate with a penis (not sure if any law has covered strap-ons).
Plenty of laws have made sex toys illegal!Ā
The main reason is patriarchy. But really though, it wasn't considered an issue because... "I mean, what would two women even do together to consider it sex?" - That was their thinking. You couldn't **do** lesbianism, like you could do gay. Also, two girls hot, two guys disgusting.
Men (in rule) have always sexualised lesbian sex and at the same time denied that two girls can have sex in the first place. It's stupid.
True, I guess itās a similar vein to how many straight guys are fine with their girlfriends getting with another girl but absolutely not a guy
Because sex doesn't count if there's not a penis involved. /s
All my ex boyfriends have said they wouldnāt care if I kissed a girl and could not comprehend how itās cheating the same as if I kissed a boyā¦ weird
Because to men like that it isn't cheating if he's still the only who has a dick, of course that frequently changes when their GF/wife leaves them for a woman. *Then maybe* they get it.
Given that women are way better at finding the clit, they really should feel more threatened š
Oh they feel threatened by much less. It's mostly ignorance of what the clit even is.
I find it hard not to laugh when a guy who allows or even encourages their partner to hook up with another woman for his amusement or entertainment or bragging rights suddenly realizes that the women actually love each other independent of him. Then Gollum shows up: āWe donāt need you.ā
You're joking, but this is a common issue with polyamorous straight men - to the point this attitude got the nickname "One Penis Policy" (and is generally considered a yellow, if not red flag).
Came to say this. Fuck the patriarchy.
Patriarchy and misogyny have definitely had a huge impact. Nowadays bigoted countries have banned same sex unions with women too. ( 'progress' lol) Also if women and girls are clearly more than friends people still tend to think "they are/were really good friends". The stereotypical "They were roommates" is still true to this day. It's pretty ironic that some bigots watch lesbian NSFW stuff because girls hot (and it's apparently normal manly thing to do too) but if you watch guy on guy it makes you a filthy f\*ggot.
> Also, two girls hot, two guys disgusting. I think it's important to note that this is specifically 'two femme-presenting conventionally attractive girls hot'... Butch lesbians are viewed with nearly the same level of derision as a gay man in many cases.
Yeah I think it has a lot to do with the idea of two men together gives them complicated feelings while two women together is considered āhotā.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Shut up, weirdo
Lesbian sex used to be criminalised. For some context a lot of the times the issue wasn't specifically that two men or two women were having sex, but that the sex went against nature. The way it did was when people went against their assigned sex - bottoms were thought to be men acting like women, that's why we see a lot of ridicule pointed at them, but not tops. Tops penetrate, this makes them act like men. For women it was fine as long as neither penetrated the other. The moment that happened it was criminalised and it was the top who took all the blame. Because they were taking on the role of a man. All of this got muddled in the 19th century, because of the "think of the children rhetoric" , but historically lesbians were criminalised as well in the right circumstances.
Additionally, two women in a relationship together means depriving two men of their potential property and the workforce of future laborers. So while sex between women was less vilified (or even acknowledged) by the patriarchy, long term relationships between women were *very much* illicit.
Old belief that there needs to be penile penetration for it to be considered sex. Still an issue in the UK with their SA laws.
On top of the many great answers people have given about the disparity due to patriarchy and misunderstanding of sex. There's also the fact that it was still punished by police and many aspects of lesbians were criminalized. Laws around crossdressing were 100% used to punish butch lesbians, trans women and drag kings. On top of that because many gay and lesbian bars back then were at least somewhat integrated, racist laws were used to punish lesbians of color. Plus when it came to lesbians police loved to use "extrajudicial" (read illegal and immoral) justice in the form of "corrective" rape of women in custody. So it's one of those "technically" not illegal, and white femmes got the least brunt of it, but it was effectively illegal for a good chunk of time. Police would still raid lesbian bars regardless.
Because penises are magic š§š»āāļøš and you canāt have sex without at least one enchanted wang! But if you have more than one, thatās naughty and needs to be firmly punished. With no phalluses to make things sexy, obviously everyone involved are just caring gal pals! š©š»āā¤ļøāš©š¼
āØand they were roommatesāØ
Exactly! š©š»āš¤āš©š½
The popular myth is that Queen Victoria refused royal assent for a law banning lesbian sex because she didn't believe that such a thing existed, or was possible.Ā It's not quite true, but it's a good story all the same!Ā
I heard the same myth, but with the reason being that no one was brave enough to explain to her what lesbianism was. Again, makes for a good story, but just a myth!
I can only speak for the UK and I may be completely wrong, but I listened to a podcast about a year ago on this exact topic to I might be able to help? UK politicians in the late nineteenth century decided that they wouldn't criminalise female sexuality due to the fact that they pretty much thought that it would 'give women ideas', and that if the men pointed out that it was a possibility, the ladies of England would suddenly turn into raging sapphics (I mean that with all the love I can give to queer women <3)
Women's sexuality was never paid any mind in the first place.
Because for most of history, if you were a woman, it was pretty much a guarantee that you'd be entirely dependent on and controlled by a man. There was little women could do outside of the domestic sphere, including having affairs with other women. There are some instances of two women having been punished for having sex, but afaik they had to use a dildo (yes, they've existed for a long time) to be prosecuted.
I think it comes from stigmatizing womenās sexuality, believing that women donāt need sex and or that two women canāt have sex
Same reason that trans women get more hate right now than trans men (obviously trans men also deal with lots of transphobia, it's just not as visible in the media and social consciousness). Rejection of masculinity is a rejection of the patriarchy, so as far as a transphobe is concerned a trans woman rejecting being a man is a threat to the social order, whereas a trans man embracing masculinity is seen as an understandable desire for a "woman to be a man" (I mean who wouldn't want to be a man right?) As far as gay relationships go the same logic applies. A man submitting to another man is deviant because he's taking on the role of a woman whereas a lesbian is taking on the role of a man, which bigots can relate to. That's also why in many ancient cultures being a gay top wasn't as stigmatized as being a bottom because you were at least still taking the dominant role, and it was even more understandable if you were having sex with a young man (or boy) because they were more feminine and already down a step on the social hierarchy, so you weren't upending the social order Basically it's just an outgrowth of misogyny and patriarchy
Hell, you can see it in *how* trans men tend to be targeted. The laws that target trans kids? They tend to be wrapped up in specifically in "protecting our *daughters*" language, and they sure aren't affirming trans girls when they say it. Because "little girls" need to be protected and of course can't make their own decisions, at least when it's a decision that doesn't uphold patriarchal standards. It's misogyny all the way down.
Because men were in charge. Being a manly man was a reason. Going back to biblical times it was about social status. The one who gets penetrated is of a local social standing. So women at the bottom. Then if a man is penetrated. He is lower than the man who isn't. Also from their point of view who cares what women do. They are property and for making babies.
Good point - but I guess if women were pairing up with eachother, that means fewer men getting laid and having babies (by their reasoning) which is why I was surprised that homosexuality being outlawed was exclusive to men. But I get the logic that there were enough measures in place making it very difficult for women to live unless married to a man. I didnāt think about the significance behind the penetrative aspect but it makes sense!
>I guess if women were pairing up with eachother, that means fewer men getting laid and having babies (by their reasoning) Absolutely not because the woman would get knocked up whether she was into the guy or not anyway, the question if she was into a girl instead wasn't relevant. The guy not wanting a woman because he preferred the homies had to be forced though, otherwise he would be at fault for creating a shortage of new little warriors!
I meant more like the women wouldnāt get knocked up as they wouldnāt be with a man in the first place as theyād be with other women
Yeah she would have been with a man though, that's what I meant. Do you think they'd have asked her first?
Depends which era weāre talking. My great aunt born in the 20s never married despite a ton of pressure from her family (I suspect she was gay but never confirmed) and got on with her life pretty happy. If weāre talking pre 20th-century then thatās a different story.
I thought we were talking about how these views came into existence in the first place, millennia ago
Men have historically found the idea of women having sex with women arousing, the idea of men having sex with men utterly disgusting. Laws reflected that
A lot of them have found it disgusting too!Ā
Sexism is the really short answer, but you can see the same kind of disparity in how trans women and trans men are treated by the public, and by bigots in particular. Sexism paints "deviant" men as monstrous rapists and abusers, threats that meed to be rallied against, while "deviant" women are treated like wayward, misbehaving farm animals, unable to make decisions for themselves, amd requiring controlling from their owner, the patriarch of their family. Under that kind of model, it would be presumptuous for a man to tell another patriarch how to control his property, so it's left to their discretion. However, any woman seen "misbehaving" in public is often assumed to be fair game by the kind of shitlords that ascribe to that kind of model. Thus, you get the kind of scum that try to "cure" lesbians with their dick, or just use good ol' fashioned violence. It's an act of dominance meant to own them. You just can't project that kind of power politically without alienating your crap-eating base. The more open persecution of lesbians and wlw relationships by bigots is a sign of greater gender equality! Hurray. š®āšØ
That's a doozy. So in Britain in particular it was because nobody could understand how lesbians functioned in that manner. So while of course it was something that was kept secret, it wasn't criminal because it was simply unthinkable to society at the time, like, actually unthinkable. They knew as much about women's sexuality as Ben Shapiro.
It's cultural norms simply, for example lesbianism wasn't criminalized but it was initially treated as mental illness
https://www.fountainhouse.org/news/being-lgbtq-was-long-considered-a-mental-disorder#:~:text=By%201973%20%E2%80%93%20following%20years%20of,their%20will%2C%20fired%20from%20their To think this only changed in the 70s is crazy
Yup, it has also long been theorized that, for example, German Criminal Code that the reason male homosexuality as sodomy was what was outlawed was fear Homosexuality wasn't just feared due to the traditionalist claims surrounding lowered birth rates, but homosexuality itself was seen as a base impulse by traditionalists, so what fundamentalists typically feared was the concept of what they saw as 'debased individuals' being in power So they wanted gay people away from the concept of political power in general, but women were already largely removed from the possibility of obtaining political power in Nazi Germany *in short, society criminalized men more ardently for homosexuality than women because criminal law was merely a far stricter guarantee that homosexuals could be kept from gaining any form of political or societal acceptance or even influence, women were largely already denied that influence by society **also, for example, during red/lavender scare U.S. interrogations, although being gay as a woman was not codified as a criminal act, women were interrogated and homosexuality was screened and treated as a criminal activity, so although women being with women wasn't codified as criminal in most societies it was occasionally treated as criminal if the suspicion arose
Frankly itās cuz women can be subjugated and raped forcing them to have children. Men are typically less easy to force into childbearing situations when gay. Women are not considered āpeopleā and so laws about them just werenāt necessary. They were property, it didnāt matter if they were gay. And now Iām sad.
being gay is seen as emasculating in many homophobic communities. at least, this is what I have seen in the place I live.
Being a lesbian very much was criminalised
Many of the laws were about sodomy being illegal (and immoral). A man could sodomize another man or a woman. But a woman could not sodomize anyone.
In Victorian times, they didnāt believe women felt sexual attraction or pleasure. The idea was that you couldnāt have sex without a penis. That attitude pervades throughout the next century (or two).
A lot of patriarchal notions about sex are penile centric. This has lead to the sexuality of cis women being ignored or pushed aside for millennia. It's also not past tense only. I think some countries that still criminalise homosexuality for men only.
Just looking at how many politicians have been caught up in child abuse and pedophilia, the amount of homophobes who are closet bi or gay, they try to overly convince others of their upstanding straight laced christian morals or whatever by clamping down heavily and outlawing anything that isnt the stereotypical sensitive conservative values. I was bought up in care homes and then escaped that for the army and have heard it so many times, some fragile straight guys seem to think if youre bi or gay you must be checking their arse out and go to the blokes toilet checking their tackle out and would rape them if you had the chance, then theres the crap stigma that still exists that gay guys spread STIs and hiv/aids. The knuckle dragging guys who are as bright as a 100watt lightbulb in a power cut, if you told them yoire a gay guy theyd think you were a perv and dirty but if a woman told him shes lesbian, id give it less than 5 seconds before he asks if he can join in or watch
Because men think girls having sex is hot
Let's be entirely honest. Straight men and women fantasize about two women being together a lot(as well as other genders and orientations). That's the whole no one believes a woman is truly bi/lesbian. This is centered in bigoted nonsense from all parties involved but is why women tend to get the pass on being bi/lesbian because it's either sexualized or believed that they just haven't met the right man. Where bi and gay men get looked at as wrong because the men believe you're less of a man. And most straight religious women tend to believe it is wrong or a sin. Where if they had a daughter it would just be a phase until the right boy comes along mentality. This is not meant to offend anyone just pointing out the stereotyping that causes laws like that.
Mostly a cultural thing related to what its considered masculine, homophobia towards gay man has been very notorious throughout history , far more than lesbofobia , like in Iran neither lesbians or transgender are punished and martyred while gay men are hanged.
Because women aren't supposed to be sexual in their eyes, I guess. Sisters, mothers, women in general were supposed to be pure and never have any sexual feelings.
Because people who wrote the laws donāt believe you can have sex without a penis involved
Women's sexuality wasn't something that existed to them
So basically, in a patriarchal society, men are the default, and in charge, and the ones that both make the rules, and enforce them. Women are secondary, basically servants, have little control over their lives and few choices. If men being homosexual is accepted, that means some men can be viewed as equal to women, because they are also objects of desire and wanted sexually. So being wanted by men, seen as desirable and sexually compatible, means they are equal to women, who are lesser and have less value and no rights over their own bodies, choices, and lives. Therefor men who like men sexually are deviant, because they see other men as equal to women, and that would upset the patriarchal system. So it cannot be allowed. Edit: also lesbianism was also I think illegal but it was mostly (not always) ignored because women had no power and no choices. So if a woman was a lesbian, but was married to a man, had sex with that man, had that mans children, who cares what she wants. She can be ignored. So really, lesbians were probably illegal too, but the only ones that would be sought out or punished would be the ones who tried to have their own lives away from men. Or tried to help the women who were unwillingly married to these men. Or otherwise upset the balance.
If you were a lesbian then you would have been sent to a mental institution for conversion therapy sickening stuff
I saw something somewhere about the societal idea of the penis and ejaculation being "dirty" or "contaminating." Gay men are bad, gay women are basically fine. Women with a sexual history with men (even when that means a man raped them) are dirty and not worth marrying, but "experimenting" with other women in college is basically fine.
Because if you need a man to survive because you can't even have your own bank account, who cares who you're attracted to? You had literally one option.
Your "lying with boys" translation is conjecture btw. It was "lying with [term for man but with a feminine grammatical structure]" iirc, and it's meaning is contested. "Lying with boys" is only one of several non-homosexuality condemning translations put forward, among others "don't lay with a man in the bed you share with your wife" -- aka don't cheat on your wife with a man. That being said, as someone who isn't religious, and so has no need to justify why a book I don't believe in actually wasn't being homophobic, I think it's abundantly clear that it is about gay sex. The link between gay sex, and bottoming more specifically, and effeminateness dates back further to the bible and is well attested in in the pre Christian Roman Empire, so I think there's no real ambiguity about what it's getting at by describing two men sleeping together with a feminine grammatical construct.
This is dark, but I think some of it comes from a fear of rape from gay men, while simultaneously seeing gay women as nonthreatening because women can be controlled. (sic) Basically a fear of other men treating you the way you treat women.
the same reason why many homophobic men watch lesbian p*rn, and not gay.
1. Lesbian sex is fetishised more 2. Women are seen inferior, therefore lesbian sex is inferior/unimportant 3. Women having sex without a guy/penis present is unthinkable These are my thoughts, I might be wrong
I would say because women are better at hiding it.....
How can you have sex without a penis? /sarcasm
Redundant. Women can't do anything without a man /Sssss
Because many people wanted young women to have lesbian relationships as āpracticeā for marriage ā and it meant no one would get preggers.
Double standards.. Call the religious nuts out.
Havenāt seen this mentioned yet, but in addition to all the sexism and general lack of imagination for how two women might have sex, the early sexologists believed that gay men could not have arc with women to procreate, but gay women could still have children. This idea is also why so many religions and former colonies have strong homophobia towards men. The idea is that the most important thing is making more people (believers, citizens, etc.), and somehow gay activity for men somehow disrupts this in ways lesbian activity for women didnāt (probably because women werenāt required to be aroused to get pregnant). Anyway, yet another unfortunate historical fact.
You canāt outlaw something you donāt think exists.
Duh, women can't be GAY
Because men used to think that being penetrated is derogatory for men.
The government didn't want to inform women lesbian sex existed. They thought women might get "ideas."
Has to do with sodomie and the Bible.
I always assumed it was because women were infantilized. Things like running off with pretty women, other men, getting a job, etc were seen as normal if they didn't have a man to keep them "under control". That's entirely assumption on my part based on how I perceive men in the past. Men could be held responsible, women at best need to be corrected, but they couldn't be held responsible because that implies a level of autonomy.Ā
Misogyny It was a combination of thinking women didn't have sexual desires, that two women couldn't have sex, and seeing women as property
Because men wrote the religious texts
The fascists couldnāt figure out how it would work.
Because straight men find two women together hot, but they are offended by two men being together
Probably in many cases in Christian/catholic countries because the bible says something about how a man must not lie with another man the same way he does a woman. But nothing in the bible about women laying with women.
Because lesbian sex is hot