this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
153 points (96.9% liked)

Today I learned

8833 readers
2 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

@todayilearned Today I learned about the "village homosexual" in Tahitian culture who is always available when there are no women.

Screenshot is from David Gilmore's* "Manhood in the Making".

____
* No, not that David Gilmore.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 75 points 1 week ago

That's the ignorant thinking of moralistic cultures throughout the ages and even today.

There have always been 'honorary homosexuals' in every culture, every time period and every place throughout humanity. These were just people who were just homosexual and if they were tolerated because of one cultural, religious or historical reason, they just came up with a tradition to keep them around. The practice didn't happen because there no women around, the practice happened because there was always going to be some individuals who would identify in different ways.

I'm indigenous Canadian and I grew up in a fairly traditional culture. My first language is Ojibway-Cree and I grew up around a lot of Elders who were all born in the wilderness. There were always a handful of people in our circles who identified differently from everyone else. Even our Elders knew this and they didn't anything unusual about it all ... it's just how people are and we were all taught and saw that it was just a normal part of humanity.

It was only when everyone started talking about it all in terms of Christianity or some modern religious morality that it became a problem.

In our modern world .... There is nothing wrong with an individual's sexual identity .... There is something wrong with how we all see an individual's sexual identity.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Homosexuality occurs in many species. Homophobia only in one.

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I've heard that many times, but it seems unlikely to me. I suspect that there's at least one other species that's sometimes homophobic.

[–] Goretantath@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago

Ikr, dolphins rape fish for pleasure so theres gotta be SOMETHING else out there.

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't mean this as a compliment, but homophobia is pretty complex thinking. The animals that I would believe might manage anything more complicated than "Bad. Bob waste seed and no make baby" (like dolphins or octopuses) exhibit a lot of homosexual behavior.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago

even that sentiment doesn't make sense for animals without culture, why would they care if someone else isn't making babies? that sounds great, more resources for my babies!

[–] IndieSpren@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 week ago

opprobrium: state of extreme disgrace or dishonor

[–] BlueEther@no.lastname.nz 11 points 1 week ago

There is a small piece in Te Ara (The Encyclopedia of New Zealand) about sexuality in the pacific, that you may find worth a read.

https://teara.govt.nz/mi/gender-diversity/page-4

[–] trugrog@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

shoutout to 'if books could kill podcast', just heard this fact from there recently

[–] Kathrin@trouth.eu 1 points 1 week ago

@trugrog That's where I got it from!

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

So there is a sociological explanation for Daffyd Thomas being the only gay in the village.

Strange how the lonely "village homosexual" wasn't so much lonely when the women were unavailable.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago

The rest of the paragraph quoted is "They are esteemd Valuable friends in that way and it is said, tho I never saw an instance of it, that they Converse with Men as familiar as weomen do—this however I do not aver as a fact as I never found any who did not detest the thought"

So it seems to me there were known femboys in the village and there were people having sex with them but majority of men were still homophobic and looked down of it.

Thats a pretty charitable interpretation of James Morrison's journal paragraph. I can't find a free copy of davids book so I'm not sure if he cites from something else in that chapter.