Equally, I can also say that Saudis always had a tradition of homosexuality and that only the advent of mass communication is what brought it out in the open nowadays. I can also argue that the definition of a homosexual in the East greatly differs to that in the West. In other words, Saudis (and others) do not regard the dominant partner in a homosexual relationship as being gay, only the submissive one is. However, I will happily understand if you reject my argument as being anecdotal and full of supposition.
do you have any evidence for the saudis always having a homosexual culture?
the afghani case is obvious and well known, can you provide some info on the saudi one?
Mass communication doesnt spread homosexuality, (i.e Sattelite TV, internet Porn) it erodes the morality of the youth and increases the probability of them participating in the
sexual deviance that is happening around them..
in a free mixing society thier will be more zina and it will be visible and homosexuality will be a practice for a minority of the population that is so inclined.
in a strictly segregated society with long years of bachelorhood for the males this leads to the only available option.
Nonsense. There is a bridge that takes them to Bahrain to indulge in all sorts of zina (if they so wish). Yemen is only round the corner and is full of rabid Saudis painting the town red. Bangkok, London and Amsterdam also receive their fair share of Saudi men who come looking for sex and all sorts of other pleasures. It is not like prison, they do have options and take full advantage of them, my friend.
Anyway, do you really think Bedouin women mix freely with men? Can she talk to her first cousin freely for example? Does she not have to cover up when she sees an approaching male?
As for the evidence of the Saudis always having a homosexual culture, it was implied my friend. It is very hard to conduct a discussion when you can't follow a straight line. You attempted to distinguish between the homosexual cultures in Afghanistan and Saudi. In one, you chose as evidence the story of the young boys in the original article, in the other you chose to refer to a newly imposed segregation. I asked you if this segregation has always been there but you chose to waffle about the difference between a Beduin woman and the urban one. You see, the Bedouin Saudi female might be freer than her urban sister but the difference is so minimal that it becomes irrelevant in our discussion here. Segregation exists on both sides and men (urban or Bedouin) cannot mix freely with women. This (if you’ve been following so far) will bring us back to the significance of segregation here and if it is a
major cause in the prevalence of homosexuality. So, I repeat, is it? If you say yes, I will say again that segregation was always there (regardless of the pedantic comparison between urban and rural segregation). It stands to reason then that homosexuality was also always there. Or else, segregation has nothing to do with this 'situational' homosexuality. Wouldn't you agree?
