Do you think it is possible to create a fictional world totally free of homophobia?

I'm not really sure what you're asking - if it's simply a world without homophobia, then the idea of homosexuality in itself could not be the story. Imagine, homophobia doesn't exist, so neither would this conversation. You would have gay couples along with heterosexual couples interacting without either one raising an eyebrow at the other (imagine, you don't comment on the fact that a woman is married to a man or vice versa - so where homosexuality is treated as normal, you wouldn't comment on the fact that the person's partner is of the same sex). You might consider having one of your leading character, if not the MC himself/herself, to be gay and be in a gay relationship. But you could not discuss "homosexuality" per se, just as no one really discusses heterosexuality. Sure we talk about sex and why can't I get a boyfriend or something or I don't understand women - but the sexual orientation itself is taken for granted.

So, in terms of a world - you haven't really asked a question, IMO.

I'm personally undecided about the right and wrong of homosexuality, but I can confirm that as a child, I didn't even bat an eyelid when two male characters on my favourite show conducted a very romantic and cute relationship (it was Sailor Moon, if anyone knows it). I think thanks in part to exposure like that, albeit quite minor, there's still a part of me that kinda thinks "Well, why not?"

I'd find transgender etc more difficult. This one baffled me even as a kid, before I could form many prejudices.

Well anyway...

Oh yeah, this reminds me - I read an article where two known and published authors were told to "de-gay" their character in their book. You may have a hard time with yours then, depending on your market. Theirs was a YA novel.

 

I loved Sailor Moon when I was younger, but I don't recall anything even remotely homosexual, not even when I watched it the other year... Maybe I'll have to watch it again...

Anyways, about the question - why do you care? If your story was set in a semi-realistic world, I'd probably just say yeah right. It depends on how the story is writen; if it's futuristic, I'd want to know how homophobia came a thing of the past; it it's a supernatural race in present times, I'd ask why do they all accept homosexuality? But you're story is set on a fictional planet and has no connection to the real world (though elements of the world maybe based of reality), so why be concerned? It's about how you right it that will make it believable or not.

This reminds me about one of my several ideas. Initially it's about a boy who slips through a rip into another world; later the world he came from merges with the world he ended up in - this idea will be a series (or so I believe and so I think would be best) and as a note, it'll be of the fantasy genre. Anyways, there will be several human-like species, one of which doesn't have homophobics... but then again their species doesn't have women, therefore they don't have hexerosexuals and so they are all gay, meaning they couldn't be homophobic. They appear to be male and refer to themselves as males, but they will have both the male and female capabilities with having children. Additionally, they are wary of females (with the exception of the "mermaids" (not what they will actually be called) that they have close relationships with, but never romantic/sexual), due to the fact that there are demons that take their form but can only appear as women; these demons use them as 'incubators' and when their young are born, their 'incubator' is killed. Originally they'd simple kill any female they saw and though some still do, they changed, restraining themselves because of another species they came into contact with, who are like human-kind with the need for men and women, though with reversed rolls (men being the ones that get pregnant).

This is still an idea and the majority of things still need figuring out and whatnot, but the point is, besides from me not caring if it is possile (which it obvously won't be), is that its about their culture. This species have feared the female form because of demons that use and kill them and though they were made to change, accepting that another specie needs both a man and women to breed, they remain fearful and wary of them (some continuing to kill women regardless). Additionally, other species with the common two genders, would be forced to accept their 'homosexuality', but there would be though who saw them as abomination to the world.

I'm far from being an expert, so these are just my personal beliefs on the matter. Wether an idea is possible or not doesn't really matter; how you write it and what's behind the idea will make the read think "yeah, I can believe this", or "You're joking right? How stupid!".

I'll leave it here - think I've gone on long enough, but I have it helps in some way.

 

Ok, how about you call yourself "The Artist" of the picture you are creating. I don't know how much that helps, but i'd thought i'd bring a suggestion for the non-God believers. Everyone has a right to believe in what they want. But calling yourself "The Artist" sounds like a good replacement.

 

To pick up where someone left off when they mentioned the Romans, my understanding of the Roman view of homosexuality was that they didn't really have one. They appreciated beauty in the physical form, be that masculine or feminine. If you look at their myths there are quite a few examples of men having relationships with other men, Apollo and Hyacinth for example. They were expected to marry women and sire children though and there were legal sanctions against men who remained unmarried past a certain age. To the person who mentioned the Spartans I should point out that there is evidence to show the relationships were non-sexual.

 

I do not see why it wouldn't be possible. Alexander the Great was bisexual, and in ancient Greek and Roman society homosexuality was accepted. Homophobia did not exist until Christianity.

 

In what context?

A few thoughts:

-The acceptance (or not) of same-sex relationships throughout history was very much a result of cultural values and structure. Yes the Greeks and Romans were fine with it, to an extent. A man was not looked down upon as long as he was "the man" and did the penetrating. The class of those involved mattered too. If both men were of the same social class, who cared? If the dominant (the "man" in the relationship) one was of lower class, however, the other partner was shamed. Nero was often mocked because it was suggested he was NOT the dominant when he slept with men. And because he played an instrument, which was something that slaves did for a proper Roman man. Such relationships were expected to be structured like that between a man and a woman in that society. Ie one person was in charge and stayed that way. They were all about the "hard gay" mindset. A man was still a ruler/killer. He just might enjoy banging other guys from time to time.

-The Spartans were all about homosexuality, though that was a result of a rediculously regimented society where a man might not SEE his wife for years. When you spent all day around other soldiers, your options were limited. Many of the societies of Asia that also "embrace" homosexuality to the eyes of outsiders have this origin. In Japan, for example, the samurai had a mentor-pupil relationship like the Greeks. It most certainly did not mean homosexuality was accepted on all levels. A practical result of this was that if a man was sleeping with other men, he both bonded to his comrades AND would not father any children he might be tempted to desert his post for. The alternative was that used by conquerors like the Mongols who often let their soldiers rape anyone they pleased as long as they killed the woman afterward.

-As for lesbians? A lesbian womb can still carry a child. A woman's desires did not matter. She was to be married off to bring wealth/security into the family. As long as she did not take male lovers in many societies (which would draw into question who was the father of any children in the marriage) then few cared. And lesbian relationships are actually tolerated amongst young women in some parts of the world. It is viewed as a learning phase where they practice until graduating to men. In much of Asia, for example, "schoolgirl romances" that don't end later in life are seen as immature. In other words it is "just a phase" they will grow out of.

So I would go back and look at the society you envision and how that will shape the people's views on same-sex couples.

 

I feel it may depend on your reader and their attitude to homosexuality, which will have been informed by events and attitudes in their lives.

For example, I live in a large, dynamic city with a prominent gay community and encounter several gay people every day, not only through work but also sometimes in my social circle. My experience is that homophobia seems to be well on the way out; at least I rarely come across it.

Someone in a small community out in the countryside may have different experiences. Gay people in their community may be afraid to come out. Many people around them may have minds closed to anything they don't understand.

I don't think it's something that would limit character development. I'd advise you to watch episodes of Spartacus to see how homosexual relationships (between the gladiators) are treated by the rest of the cast: no one bats an eyelid. It's accepted as being completely normal.

 

I apologize if someone already made this point before but... what IS homophobia? If you want to discuss a world free of "homophobia", first define that term. There are plenty of things these days that are considered homophobia, Islamophobia, etc, and every person has his own definition. I can rail against someone who I see as a homophobe, and 10 minutes later some bleeding heart is going to accuse ME of homophobia because I asked a question about the gay movement or suggested that the members of GLAAD shouldn't have bullied someone, or that a gay person somewhere is a regular and flawed human being rather than a demigod.

Oh, and when I saw the twin towers with smoke coming out of them I also had assumptions about the race and religion of the people who did that, so I suppose I'm an Islamophobe. So a world without Islamophobia, for instance, would be a world without people who presumed that the hijackers were Muslims.

Bottom line is you gotta define those terms before creating a world without them.

 

Short answer: yes.

I thought xenophobia was the fear of anything foreign? I'm assuming you said it to mean the fear of foreign ethnicities specifically. So if homosexuality in your world didn't have some sort of social stigma, gay people were comfortable coming out of the closet and heterosexuals saw homosexuality as something common or normal, I guess homophobia wouldn't exist. However, homophobia can also come from xenophobia in a world where homosexuality is considered to be something "fringe" and abnormal. Also, I guess it depends on how big the world you're creating is. Is it a village? Town? City? State? Country? Or a whole world? I'm guessing the bigger the world is, there'd be more variations on world views and cultures. Think of how different people are in our world.

 

You're aware that societies have already existed where homophobia didn't exist? I'm not an expert but during the ancient era, I'm under the impression that "homosexuality" didn't exist as a thing to be phobic about.

The Egyptians didn't seem to mind it (The bible denounces them as being cool with it), the Greeks certainly didn't mind, Romans were more concerned with the concept of "dominance" than sexuality and the Viking's didn't seem to mind who you had sex with recreationally, as long as you got married and had kids at some point.

It's really not that difficult to imagine a society without homophobia because the irrational fear of something requires that we believe it's a "thing" in the first place: If it doesn't exist at a conceptual level, we can't acknowledge its existence, let alone be afraid of it.

 

^-- All of what Mammamia said. As a gay person myself, I can tell you that homophobia (a coinage to which I take umbrage because it's not a phobia) is a construct, an artifact of Man. There is no reason for it to exist other than the history of Western Civ. As Mammamia correctly points out, homosexuality and other gender issues have been treated with a wide range of acceptance across the globe and across time. From staunch prohibition to non-issue to special place in society. It's completely understandable that you would question this, though. I don't want to make your question seem absurd. It's not. You are very probably a part and product of Western Civ., as am I, so how we think of homosexuality is tied into some deep cultural facets that have links into our foundations. But, as a writer, I think there is nothing holding you back from the creation of a time and place wherein homo"phobia" is a non-existant concept, or at least an idea held only by a few.

 

Frankly, and I know this is no place for that kind of debate, but I strongly believe that no modern-day notion of “homosexuallity” existed until the mid to late 19th century in the Western Europe. The identity of homosexual acts and relations was NEVER defined in the way it is nowadays. You can't put paiderastia of ancient Greeks in the same basket as modern-day LGBT ideology. No "homophobia" is possible without a pre-defined concept of "homosexuality" - one precede the other, in a logical order.

So, if the question is: "can you imagine a world without homophobia?" I'd ask it other way around: "can you imagine a world without homosexuality?"

 

Just because it wasn't spotlighted in certain parts of history doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are still Dinosaurs, Planets, Animals and even entire civilizations that we have no idea and will never know because they vanished.

 

Homophobia is a constructed belief not an ingrained one. Your world can be anything you want it be as long as you know it yourself.

 

You missed my point: "homophobia" is a cultural construct which depends very much on the way you characterize homosexuality in the first place.

 

I am wondering, if the people in your world are open minded why are they xenophobic?

Also, about homophobia, if it once existed in your world it is impossible to clear it completelly. There'll be ALWAYS homophoby on our world not because the man was made to be like that, but because some man on the past created some belief that it was wrong. I am not homophobic, but either don't think it is normal. Try to work on belief, people are driven by it, but anyway, I don't think it is possible to create a world populated by humans that is totally free of homophoby, at this point I think it is just part of being human, there'll be always one person or a group that won't accept it, that's to be realistic.

Or you could just "Once upon a time there was a world totally free of homophobia..." and it's done.

 

I'm currently reading Amped by Daniel H. Wilson. Seventy-five percent into the book and there has been no mention of homophobia, nor same-sex relationships. This leaves the ball in my court, as the reader, to decide whether this world contains homophobia or not. The same could be said for The Lord of the Rings.

I think it's fully possible to create a world that is entirely free of homophobia, but it would likely go unmentioned or feel forced. How can you show the lack of a belief when the belief doesn't exist?

 

I think you can do this by writing a story in which same-sex relationships occur, but everyone accepts them as ordinary, not even worth commenting on. Then you have a world that contains homosexuality, but no homophobia.

 

He could go deeper and make it so normal that it isn't called homosexuality, it is just normal in a way that people don't even...

 

These both are examples of what I am saying. If you have a story, even with characters within same-sex relationships, it would not be acknowledged as different if the world were free of homophobia. The concept would not exist in that world. Mentioning the lack of it, either through a character's thoughts or speech or through the narrative voice, would only exist to tell the reader that this world is different from our own. It draws attention to that singular issue that does not exist in the world of the story. Because of this, I feel that it will either be a passive element of the world or it will come across as the author pointing out how accepting the people of the story's world are.

It would be similar to trying to write a story containing multiple races of people in a world with no racism. They might recognize skin color in the way we look at hair color. It would just be part of their appearance and nothing more. The characters of the world wouldn't think anything different. But then you come across a line like this perhaps,

As Hiro looked atf those around him with their various skin tones, he thought about how well they all respected each other despite the color of their skin.

- or -

Girana had six races of people, each with their own skin color, but there was no racism among them.

The first comes across as awkward. The second is a matter of telling as opposed to showing. In the case of the latter, I would be expecting racism to show up somehow, otherwise it is an unnecessary statement within the piece.

The other option is to write the story without the discrimination and just let it be. I don't think we write about discrimination within a world that discrimination doesn't exist.

 

I may have misinterpreted you. In your first post, you mentioned a story that tells of a world without homophobia, but also without homosexuality. Of course, if there's no homosexuality, there's no homophobia. That would be irrational fear or rejection of something that simply doesn't exist. "I hate squelbs." "What's a squelb?" "I have no idea - I've never even heard of one before. But I hate them." Silly, right?

The point in question here is whether there can be no homophobia in a world where homosexuality exists. So, you depict homosexuality in your story, but you simply don't mention any objections to it. You aren't creating a world with no homophobia if that world also has no homosexuality.

 

Read the first chapter of 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom'.

 

Why? What's in it?

 

I feel a little silly at the moment. Somehow, I missed that this was the third page of discussion on the topic.

The heart of my issue is that if the story or characters are not driven in someway by the discrimination, does that detail really have any business being in the story? My point is not about ignoring objections, but the fact that in a world free of homophobia the lack of it's presence would not come up. Nobody in that world would take notice as it is not unusual.

My references to Amped and The Lord of the Rings come from the view point that, from what the authors give us, these world could be free of homophobia. This can work in reverse as well, since you can write a story with same-sex couples without discrimination, but that doesn't mean that the reader will interpret that as the general worldview in the story.

If the author wants to specifically state that this world doesn't have [whatever] belief/prejudice, it just comes off strange. If this belief/prejudice doesn't exist it will have no effect on the story or characters and doesn't need to be mentioned.

Our worlds are somewhat like characters. We don't need to know whether a character is believes in evolution or intelligent design unless it will impact the story. Sure, it gives us a little more insight into that character, but it changes nothing in the story so it's just fluff.

 

First off, I don't know how Abrahamaic religion came up, but there are many Christian denominations which see nothing wrong with LGBT.

As for prejudice, there are all sorts of prejudice. People in the US used to be racist against Irish and Germans. A society where no one is prejudiced is unrealistic (but you are writing -fiction-), but a society where no one is homophobic isn't.