I don’t Mark Greene is, and the website where this story appears does not offer any biographical information. All I know about him is 1. He doesn’t think men touch boys or other men enough and 2. He blames No. 1 on “homophobic fanatics who police lesbians and gays in our society” (emphasis in original). So, I’m gonna venture a guess on where he comes from, socio-politically speaking.
In America in particular, if a young man attempts gentle platonic contact with another young man, he faces a very real risk of homophobic backlash either by that person or by those who witness the contact. This is, in part, because we frame all contact by men as being intentionally sexual until proven otherwise. Couple this with the homophobia that runs rampant in our culture, and you get a recipe for increased touch isolation that damages the lives of the vast majority of men.
Here’s where Mr. Green is out-of-touch: I actually see quite a lot of familiar, non-sexual touching going on between men; hugs, back slaps, hand shakes, arms-around-the-shoulder. I see it quite often, and in two venues in particular. 1. Sports, at all levels. 2. Church. I am guessing Mr. Greene would rank both sports and church among the worst places in America for the “rampant homophobia” he claims prevents dudes from engaging in “platonic touching.” Has it occurred to him that it’s people in his own Ivory Tower of Academia who are averse physical contact?
Also, I can’t help but notice that he uses antique photographs of men in physical contact with each other to illustrate his point that such things used to be okay before our culture became “rampantly homophobic.” Is he really claiming society was less homophobic a hundred years ago?
He has a point, though I don’t agree with this logic-chain.
While society then was more homophobic — to use a modern term — it was also much more comfortably homosocial. This was the era the saw the start of the Boy Scouts. When men and boys swam in the nude and thought nothing shameful about ot. When male-friends actually expressed their feelings of fraternity with each-other more freely, and were certainly much more physically-demonstrative without fear of the stigma of “queerness”. Of the cult of masculinity — and chivalry — exemplified by Theodore Roosevelt, Maj. John Wesley Powell, the Cowboy-myth, and the builders of the British Empire.
And also a time that in certain circles (probably-gay) men like Archibald Butt and Francis Davis Millet were at the centers of social and political power, died bravely, and were publicly memorialized. Where Cecil Rhodes built an empire for the Empire, and none called him “queer”.
And there wasn’t a mad panic about mentorship and teaching boys how to be men….and gentlemen.
Robert A. Heinlein was right.
Ted B., I agree. Aside from the logic and his attaching so much value to present-day “homophobia” (a made-up political word), I think he makes valid points. As a now 50-year old man, there are aspects of camaraderie and fraternity that I miss from even just my college and high school days; all understood to be ‘no homo’ long before the term.
Additionally, as a physical therapist, I find that with older patients (especially males and moreso those with military service) that a hand on the shoulder, a longer timed handshake and direct eye contact yield alertness, rapport building and an uplift in mood, outlook and physical effort in rehab and it does so almost immediately.
Rampant homophobia? Where? According to statistics that I have seen, Americans are much more accepting of the gay lifestyle, and that includes conservatives. A lesser number accepts gay marriage, and more would accept it if it weren’t called marriage, but civil or religious union. Marriage in the minds of many evokes the idea of it as a sacrament or a religious act. In professional and amature sports the players and touch each other. Watch european futbol or soccer, after a goal is scored, it looks like either an orgy or a gangbang is taking place after scoring a goal.
The paradox is society is perceived as more accepting of The Gheys and Ghey marriage, but at the same time is terrified that an adult male be left unsupervised in the presence of a male-minor. Youth-orientated volunteer organizations have been gutted by this paranoia; in increasing men will not volunteer anymore for fear of beinf falsely-accused of being a pedophile. Parents will no-longer allow their sons to join male youth groups for fear they’ll be molested — or turned gay.
In the 35-years since I was a college-aged asst Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts, the Scouting Movement has shrunk to 1/12th it’s membership in the 1970s. Much of that driven by homophobia and fears of pedophiles. I got out of Scouting in the 19080s when the BSA Handbook replaced how to avoid bears while camping to “…how to avoid the Scoutmaster while camping“.
Most of the middle-aged men I know no-longer participate or volunteer in any youth organizations out of “fear of touching a child”; and the implied-insult of the required background-checks. Most men my age are now reticent about even consoling a child-in-distress out of fear of false-accusation. When I was a child, any man who ignored a child in distress was a “cad” and shunned as unmanly; now to aid a child you’re a “child-molester” or potential rapist.
In many ways, homophobia is greater now than ever.
I don’t know what you are talking about organizations being gutted by fear. I had an infection control nurse who was pushing mentorship practically beg to put a child on my lap until I said my cousin teaches the NRA Eddie the Eagle gun course for kids.
Only from the minds of delusional 2-3%ers is touch considered sexual contact. Unsolicited sexual overtures are what heterosexual men and women find annoying regarding the sexual behavior of the homosexual/bisexual community.