So ‘gay’ used to mean ‘whore’ and ‘gays’ really do have a lot in common with ‘whores’ – the way the history of homosexual sex has often been to do with ‘trade’ and how men meet other men for sex in quite ‘transactional’ ways even if nobody gets paid, and how gay men have traditionally been vulnerable to attacks and violence, just like whores have, and how prejudice and hatred has meant some illnesses that have been prevalent among gay men and whores have gone without enough care or public health services, and how this has led to both gay men and whores becoming very knowledgeable and responsible about sexual health, and how gay men and whores have been criminalised, and how the spaces they occupy have been regulated and policed, and how they have had their own ‘districts’, and how they have been the subjects of depictions in art and literature as interesting cases of their gender, how they threaten the dominant norms of masculinity and femininity and how the words have blurred and changed over time and how there are so many words for each one: slut, slag, slapper, hooker, tart, meat, fag, queen, bitch, twink, pansy, homo, whore, gay.
What I wish is that queer historians and theorists, instead of saying that women don’t have a history of sexuality like gay men do, because women were all locked up in the domestic sphere (except for the whores), I wish they had made the link the comparison between the history and geography, the ‘ontology’ and epistemology of being a ‘whore’ and being a ‘homo’.
And I wish feminists, who on the whole don’t give a shit about either whores or gays (they have that in common too), could have found a way to examine how both have pushed the edges of gender out from the centre and have challenged what it means to be a man or a woman and have offered us great examples of revolutionary figures.
I wish you’d made these links.
I can see the links and I have not been looking for very long, or very hard.
It would have changed the course of history maybe.