Skip navigation

Category Archives: مثليين

Dork genius Nate Silver is one of the 2008 campaign’s breakout stars. Throughout the election he applied the statistical prowess he uses at his day job (he’s an analyst at Baseball Prospectus) to the presidential race. The Internet ate up his mathematical approach to punditry and his website, FiveThirtyEight, was swamped with 5 million visits on Election Day.

When the dust settled, Silver had called the electoral map almost perfectly, with only Obama flipping Indiana and Nebraska splitting its electoral votes coming as a surprise.

In the wake of California’s Proposition 8, which outlaws same-sex marriage, passing, people turned to exit polls and voting records to determine whodunit, with some blaming the African-American vote as the tipping point. Silver decided to use his site to break the numbers down and debunk some Prop. 8 myths, especially regarding whether African-American support for Obama tipped the scales in the measure’s favor.

Queerty talked with Silver about the black vote and Prop. 8, his own personal feeling on same-sex marriage and what he thinks about his *ahem* “big gay following”:

QUEERTY: Last weekend, at the Las Vegas protest against Prop 8., comedian Wanda Sykes came out and mentioned you during her speech– saying that you had disproved the “70% of black people voted against Prop. 8” meme. Is that what you said?

Nate Silver: That’s not exactly what I said. But there’s a related meme, which the notion that Prop 8 passed because of all the new supporters that Barack Obama turned out, and it’s just not true. People who were voting for the first time — almost all of whom supported Barack Obama — voted against Prop 8 by a 62:38 margin. Had Barack Obama not energized new types of voters and gotten them to the polls, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

Now, there are going to be people who want to slice and dice those numbers more finely, such as by looking at African-American voters, who voted for Prop 8 in the aggregate. But there are a couple of problems with that. Firstly, there is no evidence that new African-American voters — the ones who turned out for the first time because of Obama — voted to pass Prop 8. And secondly, this whole notion of trying to lump voters together into monolithic categories is silly. Black voters do not all behave alike; nor do white voters nor Latino voters. If there’s the need to assign blame, let’s assign blame to the individuals who chose to support the measure — and there were plenty of them in EVERY racial group.


How reliable are the exit polls and statistics about Prop. 8? How seriously should we take them?

Exit polls are somewhat less reliable than telephone-based polls of the same sample size. This is because of a technique called “cluster sampling” — exit polls are only conducted at certain precincts — which introduces another source of error that isn’t present in normal polls.

Also, remember that whenever we’re looking at the voting patterns of just one subgroup — such as African-Americans — the margins for error are much larger than when we’re looking at the entire sample. In consideration of these two things, the margins of error an in fact be quite high. There’s probably about a 10-point margin of error in looking at how African-Americans decided on Prop 8, for instance.

Why do you think Prop. 8 passed?

Well, every year the gay marriage bans have a more and more difficult time passing; this is principally a generational issue, and you have younger, generally more tolerant voters replacing older, generally less tolerant ones. If you sort of plotted those numbers out, and then adjusted for the fact that California is more progressive than other states that had passed gay marriage bans, you could see that Prop 8 was going to turn out to be very, very close — within a few points in one direction or the other. When an election is close, the side running the better campaign is usually going to win. In this case, for better or for worse, the ‘Yes’ side had a big head start in fundraising in messaging, and the ‘No’ side couldn’t catch up in time.

There continues to be new polls showing a shift on America’s changing attitudes towards marriage equality. Should we take them seriously? Is there any evidence that people are making up their minds one way or another on the issue?

People are making up their minds for marriage equality — it’s just happening very, very slowly. Eight years ago, I don’t think there are any states in the country that would have voted to uphold gay marriage — maybe Vermont and Hawaii. This year, you might have had a dozen states that would have voted against a Prop 8 type of measure — pretty much everything in New England, for instance, with California winding up just on the other side of the dividing line. Eight years from now, probably half the country will be ready for gay marriage.

What I don’t know is whether the passage of Prop 8 will clarify the issue for certain people and tend to accelerate the process. It very well might.

Personally, what do you think about Prop 8. and marriage equality? There’s a similar move to outlaw gay marriage in Illinois, where you’re from.

Well, I think the country needs to grow up a little bit and realize that gay marriage does no harm to anyone. I don’t even think the issue is particularly philosophically complex as compared with something like abortion.

On another note, you’ve become something of a gay icon, or at least object of affection. Have you noticed it at all? What do you think of it?

I’ve started to notice it a little bit, although so far it seems like I’m more a subject of geek affection than gay affection. Weird things happen once you appear on TV a couple times; I got a (straight) marriage proposal in my inbox the other day (which for any number of reasons, I turned down). But in general, the whole thing is a terrific confidence-booster. I’m just focused now on trying to build out the 538 brand and making sure I keep getting to do this stuff for a long time.

http://www.queerty.com/exclusive-nate-silver-on-african-americans-prop-8-and-being-a-hero-to-gays-geeks-everywhere-20081121/


The expression of male <!– document.write(“homoerotic“);//–>homoerotichomoerotic sentiment is one of the dominant themes in classical Arabic literature from the ninth century to the nineteenth.

In poetry, traditionally considered the supreme art among the Arabs, love lyrics by male poets about males were almost as popular as those about females, and in certain times and places even more popular. But in prose literature as well, including such varied genres as anecdotal collections, vignettes in rhymed prose known as maqamat, shadowplays, and explicit erotica, homoerotic themes, mostly male but also female, are anything but rare.Even though homosexual behavior is condemned in the strongest terms by Islamic law, a position reiterated by numerous legal and pietistic works devoted to the subject, homoerotic love generally appears in poetry and belles lettres as a phenomenon every bit as natural as heteroerotic love and subject to the same range of treatments, from humorous to passionate.

This striking affirmation of homosexuality does not, however, go back to the earliest period of Arabic literature. In the extant poetry from the sixth, seventh, and early eighth centuries–from a generation or two before the advent of Islam through its first century–there are virtually no references to homosexuality at all.

It was during this period that love poetry developed into an independent genre, or rather two, one playful and teasing, the other, known as udhri verse, passionate and even despairing; but both were initially uniformly heteroerotic.

Abu Nuwas and Pederastic Love

Then, quite abruptly in the late eighth century, in the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the newly founded capital at Baghdad, a generation of poets began to celebrate the illicit joys of wine and boys, in verses whose sparkle and charm have made the most famous of them, Abu Nuwas (died ca 815), one of the glories of Arabic literature.

The <!– document.write(“pederastic“);//–>pederasticpederastic love celebrated by Abu Nuwas is of a type familiar from ancient Greece. The objects of his affection are adolescent boys, whose charms are conventionally described in terms virtually identical to those for women: wide hips, a narrow waist, languid eyes, and so forth.

The sexual goal, implicitly understood in his chaster poems but graphically described in the more licentious ones, is anal intercourse, with the poet taking the active role. The boy is presumed to submit, if he does, out of mercenary rather than sexual motives, while the poet, as penetrator in the sexual act, retains his masculinity intact.

An interest in boys was fully compatible with an interest in women, and even Abu Nuwas wrote a number of love poems directed at the latter. Besides their physical attractions, boys and women also shared a subordinate status in society; in poetry about boys this subordination is often further emphasized by making the boy a member of the lower classes, or a slave, or a Christian.

Since drinking wine is forbidden by Islam, taverns were normally run by Christians, and one of Abu Nuwas’s favorite themes is the seduction of a Christian boy serving as cupbearer during a night of revelry in one of these taverns.

Convention stated that a boy lost his allure once he became adult, the transition being marked by the growth of his beard. The first down on the cheeks was universally considered an enhancement of the boy’s beauty, but also heralded its imminent termination.

This crucial transition became an extremely popular topos for poetry and soon enough generated a response defending the unspoilt beauty of a fully bearded young man. Both points of view continued to find advocates for centuries, resulting eventually in anthologies of “beard poetry” devoted exclusively to this debate.

Nevertheless, the age differential between active and passive partners in a male homosexual relation remained crucial since the sexual submission of one adult male to another was considered a repugnant idea in this society and assumed to be the result of a pathological desire to be penetrated.

The adult passive homosexual was an object of derision, and not normally a subject for poetry, an exception proving the rule being the licentious poet Jahshawayh (ninth century) who flaunted his passive homosexuality and wrote panegyrics on the penis.

The Two Genres of Erotic Verse

Explicitly sexual poetry such as Jahshawayh’s fell under the generic rubric “licentious” (mujun) and was distinguished from the chaster love lyric (ghazal). From the time of Abu Nuwas, both of these genres were cultivated in both heteroerotic and homoerotic varieties, and the speed with which the homoerotic love lyric, in particular, became established in the normal poetic repertoire is astonishing.

Such famous ninth-century poets as Abu Tammam, al-Buhturi, and Ibn al-Mu`tazz composed both homoerotic and heteroerotic love poems, but far more of the former. Homoerotic poetry was certainly not unwelcome at the caliphal court, and some caliphs actively encouraged it.

The libertine caliph al-Amin (reigned 809-813), in particular, who patronized Abu Nuwas, was notorious for his fondness for the court eunuchs, and in particular the black eunuch Kawthar. According to a famous story, his mother attempted to lure him away from the eunuchs by dressing up the court slave girls in boys’ clothing, bobbing their hair, and painting artificial mustaches on their faces.

The ploy succeeded in deflecting al-Amin’s attention but also initiated an extraordinary vogue among the aristocracy for these “boy-girls” (ghulamiyat) that was to persist for several generations.

There is no evidence that these ghulamiyat were identified in any way with lesbianism–they were, after all, meant to appeal to men. A few of them, however, were said to have had lesbian affairs, as were some of the slave girls in general, particularly some of those who were trained in poetry and song and commanded high prices–and considerable prestige–among the upper classes.

Lesbian Love Poetry

A certain amount of lesbian love poetry is preserved, but though the anthologists, uniformly male, evince little bias against lesbianism, they also display strikingly little interest in it, and most of the female poets we know of are represented as fully heterosexual in both their lives and their art.

Ninth-Century Court Wits

Some years after al-Amin, under the caliph al-Mutawakkil (reigned 847-861), homoerotic poetry again found favor at court, amid an atmosphere of general hedonism and libertinism. Al-Mutawakkil also offered encouragement to the mukhannaths, passive homosexual male transvestites who served as musicians and court jesters, and particularly the celebrated Abbada, whose witticisms were faithfully reported by anthologists for centuries.

Other court wits devoted their talents to composing scandalous essays with titles such as Lesbians and Passive Male Homosexuals, The Superiority of the Rectum over the Mouth, and Rare Anecdotes about Eunuchs. All these works are unfortunately lost, but we find extensive quotations from them in later Arabic works of erotica, the earliest surviving of which dates from the late tenth century.

Al-Jahiz’s Prose Discussions of Homosexuality

Extant prose discussions of homosexuality are in any case not lacking for the ninth century, most notably in the works of al-Jahiz (died 868), one of the greatest prose writers in the history of Arabic literature.

In his role of objective observer of the human scene, al-Jahiz broaches the topic frequently, remarking, for example, that “you will find among women some who prefer women, others who prefer men, others who prefer eunuchs, and yet others who like them all without distinction, and the same holds true with men’s preferences for men, women, or eunuchs.”

Elsewhere, however, he shows himself quite hostile to homosexuality in either sex, declaring it unnatural and shameful. He also remarks on the abruptness with which male homoeroticism has become a public, and literary, phenomenon, and offers an interesting, if not entirely convincing, explanation.

The revolutionary troops from eastern Iran who installed the Abbasid dynasty of caliphs in 750, he tells us, were forbidden to take their wives with them on campaign and resorted for sexual satisfaction to their pages; they then brought this newly acquired taste to Baghdad, where it has since flourished.

Besides its inherent implausibility, this explanation fails to account for an obvious continuity with both sexual and literary patterns known from the pre-Islamic eastern Mediterranean, and one that is deducible, although evidence is largely lacking, for the pre-Islamic Iranian world as well.

Al-Jahiz would not have known much about these earlier traditions, but, ironically, his own work reflects them. Certainly his most extended discussion of male homosexuality is to be found in his well-known Maids and Youths, a debate between proponents of the love of boys and the love of women (won by the latter, which is not surprising, given al-Jahiz’s own views).

The advocate of boys lists such advantages as their not menstruating or getting pregnant and their generally greater availability, whereas the advocate of women points out that boys are attractive for only a very short period–until their beards grow–but women can retain their allure into their forties.

What is striking is that the form of this debate, as well as many of its arguments, parallels similar debates in the Greek literature of late antiquity. Similarly, poems on the beard topos look almost like–but are not–translations of Greek poems preserved in the sixth-century Greek Anthology.

How these apparent continuities are to be reconciled with the discontinuity we find in Arabic literature is a puzzle that remains unexplained.

Anal Intercourse and Islamic Law

One of the arguments put forth by the advocate of women in al-Jahiz’s debate is that sex with boys is forbidden by Islamic law, whereas sex with women is licit under conditions of marriage or concubinage.

In fact, Islamic sanctions against anal intercourse, considered the male homosexual act, are extremely harsh. In contrast to the societal attitudes that are reflected in literature, both the active and passive partners are in law considered equally culpable.

The various legal schools differ on the appropriate punishment, some of them making <!– document.write(“sodomy“);//–>sodomysodomy a capital crime, others reducing the sentence to one hundred lashes for the unmarried offender, in analogy with the penalty for heterosexual fornication, and even the most lenient prescribing a discretionary punishment by the judge for which a reduced number of lashes and imprisonment are suggested.

As with heterosexual fornication, however, the rules of evidence are made almost impossibly stringent: Conviction is permitted only on the basis of repeated confession or the eyewitnessing of the act of penetration by four (in some schools two) male witnesses of established probity.

In general, the jurists treat (active) homosexuality in a manner strictly analogous to heterosexual fornication–as a natural temptation but a grievous (if apparently seldom prosecuted) offense.

This conception is echoed not only in al-Jahiz’s debate (in which the advocate of boys retorts to the advocate of women that heterosexual fornication is more harshly and explicitly condemned by the law than homosexual sodomy), but also in the numerous later debates composed in the same spirit over the following centuries (one of which turns up in the Arabian Nights).

Dying for Love

Another argument advanced by the advocate of girls in al-Jahiz’s debate is that no one is known ever to have died of love for a boy, whereas the famous lovers who have perished from unfulfilled passion for their unobtainable female beloveds are legion.

The reference here is to the udhri tradition of poet-lovers, whose equally devoted beloveds were married off to another man or otherwise separated from them, and who either went mad or died from their frustrated, chaste passion.

In al-Jahiz’s day, there was indeed no homoerotic poetry that took itself this seriously; but this deficiency was soon to be remedied. Already in al-Jahiz’s own old age, a bureaucrat named Khalid al-Katib was producing a long series of plaintive laments on an unobtainable boy, and in the following generation a prominent jurist was to codify a form of chaste homoerotic passion just as intense as that of the heteroerotic udhri tradition.

Ibn Dawud and The Book of the Flower

Muhammad ibn Dawud al-Zahiri, the son and successor of the founder of a conservative Islamic law school which has not survived, is best known for his anthology of poetry, The Book of the Flower, whose first half deals with love poetry and is considered the prototype of the “theory of love” genre in Arabic literature, of which we have dozens of exemplars extending into at least the eighteenth century.

Ibn Dawud’s book tracks the progress of the stereotypical love affair, illustrating each stage with both heteroerotic and homoerotic verses, the latter mostly from his own pen. Central to his idealizing view is a statement transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad that “He who loves passionately, remains chaste, hides his love, and then dies, dies a martyr,” and thus enters Paradise directly, without awaiting the Last Judgment.

According to several accounts of dubious historicity, Ibn Dawud cited this tradition on his deathbed, explaining that he was dying from his chaste passion for a younger man named Ibn Jami`.

The transmitter of these anecdotes, Ibn Dawud’s friend and colleague Niftawayh, himself composed chaste homoerotic love lyrics, and numerous later poets also pursued this genre.

The “Permitted Gaze”

Also particularly associated with the name of Ibn Dawud, although not explicitly attested in his book, was the doctrine of the “permitted gaze,” according to which looking on a boy’s beauty, without physical relations, was allowed under Islamic law.

The primary advocates of this doctrine, however, were not legal experts such as Ibn Dawud, but Sufi mystics, who began sometime in the ninth century to practice such “gazing” as a religious exercise, seeing in the beautiful boy a “witness” to God’s beauty and creative power.

Such exercises were often associated with spiritual “concerts,” and songs and verses celebrating the beauty of and love for a boy as a metaphor for God’s beauty became a significant subgenre of mystical Arabic poetry, though it was to achieve far greater popularity in Persian. Religious conservatives, however, continued for centuries to attack both the “permitted gaze” and the martyr tradition.

Al-Khubza’aruzzi and Ibn Waki’

In the century following Ibn Dawud, two poets stand out for their particular contributions to the homoerotic lyric.

The first, al-Khubza’aruzzi (died ca 938), was an illiterate baker of rice-bread in Basra, in lower Iraq, whose delicate lyrics on the beautiful young men of the city attracted the admiring attention of the aristocratic court poets, who would visit his bakery in order to hear him declaim his verses.

Two generations later, in the city of Tinnis in Egypt, Ibn Waki` al-Tinnisi (died 1003) charmed his contemporaries with his poetic evocations of gardens, wine, and boys, recalling both the waggishness of Abu Nuwas and the elegance of Ibn al-Mu`tazz.

The Anthologies of al-Tha’alibi

Extensive selections from the poetry of both al-Khubza’aruzzi and Ibn Waki` are preserved in several works by the indefatigable anthologist al-Tha`alibi (died 1038). Among al-Tha’alibi’s collections the one entitled The Book of Boys is unfortunately lost, but it was of considerable influence in later centuries, when a series of literary figures compiled similar “beauty” anthologies, beginning with al-`Adili’s (mid-thirteen century) A Thousand and One Boys and its heteroerotic companion A Thousand and One Girls.

Ibn Hazm

The parallel popularity of heteroerotic and male homoerotic love poetry (with lesbian poetry a rare anomaly) was as true of Islamic Spain as of elsewhere in the Arabic-speaking world.

Of particular interest in Andalusian literature is the best known of the “love theory” books, The Ring of the Dove by the jurist Ibn Hazm (died 1064), which eschews the anthology form, previously standard, for a mixture of the author’s own verse with prose anecdotes about his contemporaries and their affairs, both heterosexual and homosexual.

Aside from its final moralizing chapters condemning the evils of heterosexual fornication and sodomy, this work offers in its matter-of-fact way a valuable picture of love among the aristocracy and in the Andalusian courts.

Turkish Dominance: The Post-Classical Period

The classical period in Arabic literature closes with the twelfth century. The subsequent post-classical period is much less well known but remained at least as rich in homoerotic literature as the preceding centuries.

The increasing domination of Turks and Circassians in Arabic-speaking lands resulted in a perceptible shift in the canons of beauty, narrow “Turkish” eyes, for example, coming into fashion for both sexes.

The increasingly prevalent system of military slavery, which culminated in the Mamluk (slave) sultanate in late medieval Egypt, seems to have encouraged the cultivation of homosexual attachments in the barracks, and the young Turkish slave soldier, perhaps a bit older than his classical counterpart, became the ideal love object.

These developments are reflected in the encyclopedias and anthologies that this age of literary systematization produced in prodigious quantities, including regular series of “beard” books, “beauty” books, and general erotica, the best known example of the last of these being The Perfumed Garden by al-Nafzawi (fifteenth century).

Ibn Daniyal and al-Safadi

The range of homoerotic literature produced in the late medieval period, much of which remains to be discovered, is perhaps best illustrated by two works from fourteenth-century Egypt.

The Cairene eye physician and poet Ibn Daniyal (died 1310) exploited the popular art of the shadow play (in which translucent figures held against a backlighted screen served as characters for a kind of Punch and Judy show) to produce three extraordinary scripts virtuosic in style and licentious in genre.

The third of these plays, The Lovelorn (al-Mutayyam) mocks romantic convention by portraying an affair between the sex-obsessed title character and a standoffish Turkish slaveboy, which degenerates into an orgiastic banquet at which a series of characters representing a variety of sexual tastes declaim poetry before passing out from intoxication.

At the opposite extreme, al-Safadi (died 1363) composed a romantic maqama, comprising some seventy-five pages in elegant rhymed prose, in which a narrator tells of his falling in love with a young Turkish soldier whom he encountered hunting in a pleasure park, and of their subsequent tryst, whose physical consummation is left tantalizingly ambiguous.

Modern Attitudes toward Homoeroticism

The expression of homoerotic sentiment, in various forms, remained a constant of Arabic literature into the nineteenth century. In modern times, and in particular with the impact of the Victorian mores of colonizing Europeans, respectable society in the Arab world has on the whole become hostile to homosexuality and embarrassed by its prominence in the literary tradition. Recent conservative religious movements have only reinforced this negative stance.

Nevertheless, a few writers have broached the topic in their fiction, and though they tend to treat it more as a psychological and societal problem than as a cause for celebration, they do depict the survival of traditional attitudes alongside the more recent puritanism in their societies.

Particularly noteworthy are two novels with homosexual subplots by the Egyptian Nobelist Naguib Mahfouz, Midaq Alley and Sugar Street. Instances of homosexual themes in the extensive Arab Francophone literature include The Seven-Headed Serpent by Ali Ghanem and The Great Repudiation by Rachid Boudjedra, both Algerians, and Proud Beggars by the Egyptian Albert Cossery.

http://www.glbtq.com/literature/mid_e_lit_arabic.html


Harvey Bernard Milk
Harvey Milk

American politician and
gay rights activist


In office
January 8 – November 27, 1978
Preceded by District Created
Succeeded by Harry Britt
(appointed)
Constituency The Castro,
Haight-Ashbury,
Duboce Triangle,
Noe Valley

Born May 22, 1930(1930-05-22)
Woodmere, New York
Died November 27, 1978 (aged 48)
San Francisco, California
Nationality American
Political party Democratic
Residence San Francisco, California
Alma mater State University of New York at Albany

Tough actor honored with Stanley Kubrick Award

Sean Penn

With the rare exception, Sean Penn doesn’t play men of privilege. If the actor was transported back to the ’30s and ’40s, he’d likely be a contract player at Warner Bros., where talents like Cagney, Bogart and Garfield played streetwise toughs who never got a handout and survived on their wits.

Raised by unconventional, left-leaning parents — including a father (film and TV director Leo Penn) who was victimized by the blacklist — Penn has a predilection for working-class antiheroes that betrays a real-life need to understand, and sympathize with, those who’ve been victimized by a system too consumed by greed to give them a fair shake.

This fight against the status quo could be seen as a continuing thread in his work, wherein Penn’s identification with the downtrodden becomes a personal crusade.

Even as a relatively well-off celebrity, Penn could be seen as a scrapper — vigorously, perhaps even recklessly, defending his right to privacy while publicly exercising his freedom of speech. Penn’s forays to Baghdad and Tehran as a correspondent for the San Francisco Chronicle in recent years demonstrated a need to witness, firsthand, the hardships many Middle Easterners face, as well as those of American soldiers stationed there. Call it a Method-actor approach to probing the complexities of a culture too often defined by fearmongering and mass-media stereotypes.

As Penn told John Lahr, who profiled the actor for the New Yorker in 2006, being a reporter and an actor are almost interchangeable. “It all feels the same to me,” he said. “Acting is everymanness, and loving everyman. Finally, you’re reaching out to people’s pain.”

This everyman sensibility has caused Penn to avoid the blockbuster formulas and cookie-cutter action vehicles that are the inevitable domain of even the most respected actors. But much like Stanley Kubrick, the filmmaker for whom the Britannia Awards’ most prestigious honor (now being bestowed upon Penn) is named, the actor-writer-director has never shown a need for commerciality for commerciality’s sake. He prefers to express himself creatively on a much more personal and idiosyncratic level, burrowing into his subjects with the passion and fire of an artist whose commitment knows no bounds.

His newspaper commentaries revealed the qualities that make Penn so compelling as an actor and a filmmaker: his powers of observation, his respect for the English language and a combination of intellectual curiosity and visceral engagement.

His attraction to Chris McCandless, the young idealist of “Into the Wild” (2007) who turned his back on the material world only to perish in the Alaskan wilderness, reflects this need to test his mettle. Penn, who wrote the screenplay based on Jon Krakauer‘s book and directed the film, explained at the time that “there was something about going outside your comfort zone” that made the material and the character important, and, in turn, “finding out what you’re made of in doing that.”

This unwillingness to be tamed, as an artist or a citizen, goes some way in explaining an oeuvre peppered with a rogue’s gallery of salt-of-the-earth outsiders, misfits and renegades.

Of his ex-con stricken by grief and bent on revenge in “Mystic River,” for which he won an Oscar, the New York Times‘ A.O. Scott wrote that Penn’s Jimmy Markum “is not only one of the best performances of the year, but also one of the definitive pieces of screen acting in the last half century, the culmination of a realist tradition that began in the old Actors Studio and begat Brando, Dean, Pacino and De Niro.

“But Mr. Penn,” Scott continued, “as gifted and disciplined as any of his precursors, makes them all look like, well, actors. He has purged his work of any trace of theatricality or showmanship while retaining all the directness and force that their applications of the Method have brought into American movies.”

Often the characters he plays or the stories he tells as a filmmaker feature protagonists so volatile as to make the viewer squeamish, as exemplified by Viggo Mortensen‘s scary but magnetic Vietnam vet in “The Indian Runner” (1991), Penn’s directorial debut.

Penn makes that quality palpable, whether he means to or not. Woody Allen, who directed Penn in “Sweet and Lowdown” (1999), admitted in Lahr’s New Yorker feature that “it’s hard to get through to him, and you feel that at any minute he could blow up at you.”

Allen suggested that the actor keeps his emotional inner life in reserve as a way of protecting himself. But there’s a kinder, gentler side to Penn, as his jazz guitarist Emmet Ray in “Sweet and Lowdown” reveals, even if he’s guilty of selfishness and cruelty.

That gentleness and compassion could very well reach their greatest expression in “Milk,” in which Penn’s title performance represents the flip side of his blustery, corrupt demagogue in “All the King’s Men.” As the San Francisco supervisor and gay activist who was cut down by an assassin’s bullet in 1978, Penn’s displays the kind of sweetness and light that he’s largely kept in reserve.

And, perhaps for the first time, his real life as a political progressive and his dramatic portrayal as a trailblazing champion of civil rights could be seen as art imitating life.

Web: baftala.org

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117995332.html?categoryid=3324&cs=1&nid=2562

‘ميلك’ : ذهب ،ولكن لم ينسى ، فيلم “ميلك” : شون بن يؤدي ببراعة دور احد اهم الرواد من ناشطي حقوق المثليين في امريكا في فيلم يروي قصة كفاح المثليين في امريكا في السبعينات والثمانينات

شون بن في "ليب"

شون بن يؤدي احد اجرأ عروضه وأشدها اثارة في هذا الفيلم . يسرد المخرج “جس فان سانتس” قصة حياة الناشط والسياسي الامريكي المثلي “هارفي ميلك” ومصرع العنيف التراجيدي .

ميلك كان رجلا رقيقا مرحا يعمل في شركة تأمين عمره 40 سنة. وكان يحيا حياته المثلية في السر . في يوم وهو في محطة القطار التقي بشاب اصغر منه و احبا بعضهما ورحلا الى سان فرانسيسكو بعد ان سمعا انه هناك حي جديد يسكنه المثليين في ضاحية “كاسترو” .

بعد رحيلهما الى سان فرانسيسكو اطلق “ميلك” شعره ولحيته وغير افكاره الى الليبراليه الشديدة وصار ناشط سياسي يدافع عن حقوق الانسان بشكل عام و حقوق المثليين بشكل خاص .

في عام ١٩٧٧ رشح ميلك نفسه لمنصب مشرف في بلدية مدينة سان فرانسيسكو فكان بذلك أول رجل سياسة مثلي معلن لميوله يقوم بترشيح نفسه لمنصب ذو اهمية في اي بلدية في امريكا. ظل “هارفي ميلك ” يخسر عاما بعد عام ويتلقى التهديدات بالقتل ولكنه لم ييأس أو يتراجع وظل يرشح نفسه وشكّّلّ حلفاء وظل يعمل هو واصدقاءه من المثليين وحلفائه حتى تم انتخابه اخيرا وتولى مهام منصبه في كانون الثاني / يناير من عام 1978

“ميلك” كان شخصية رئيسية في المعركة ضد التعصب الاجتماعي ولكنه لم يحيا طويلا حتى يري التغييرات الضخمة التى ادى اليها انتصاره السياسي المتواضع. تم لأسف قتله على يد زميل له مشرف اسمه “دان وايت” كان رجل اطفاء سابق محافظ تولى منصبه في نفس الوقت مع “ميلك”. كان “وايت” يملك جانبا سوداويا غامضا ومزاج متقلب وتصرفات غير متوقعة وكان الى حد ما مفتونا ب”هارفي” لدرجة ان هارفي اعتقد انه ربما يكون مثلي يكتم امره . كان “وايت” متزوج امرأة وله اطفال. وكما يبدو انه كان غير متزن نفسيا. يوم واحد في تشرين الثاني / نوفمبر من عام 1978 في مبنى مكاتب البلديه وخلال الدوام في مكتب قام باطلاق الرصاص على “هارفي ميلك” و على رئيس بلدية سان فرانسيسكو في ذلك الوقت ” جورج موسكوني” على اثر خلاف سياسي مما ادى الى مصرع كليهما . حكم على “وايت” بالسجن ٥ سنوات فقط على الجريمتين . بعد خروجه من السجن بعام ونصف قام بالانتحار.

الفيلم يزخر بقصص المثليين الحقيقية . قصص حب وصداقة وولاء وخيانة وشجاعة وُجبن ويؤدي شون بن دوره بشكل رائع. يقوم بعض الاشخاص من اصدقاء وزملاء “ميلك” بالتمثيل في هذا الفيلم.

Sean Penn in "Milk"

Sean Penn gives one of his most fearless and thrilling performances in “Milk,” director Gus Van Sant’s recounting of the life and violent death of the first openly gay man to be elected to a significant municipal position in America. The year was 1977, the position was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the man was Harvey Milk, a disarmingly cheerful but determined gay-rights activist. Milk was a major figure in the battle against social intolerance, but he never lived to see the major changes his modest political triumph helped facilitate. After being sworn into office, he had less than one year to live before being murdered by an unbalanced fellow supervisor.

Van Sant takes up Milk’s story in 1970, in New York, where he’s a closeted gay man (and a Republican) working for an insurance company. It’s his fortieth birthday, and down in a subway station he strikes up a conversation with a younger man named Scott (James Franco), who’s friendly, but not especially available. “You’re cute,” he tells Harvey, “but I don’t date guys over forty.” Since Harvey comes in just under that particular wire, they return to his apartment and eventually make love.

Scott is surprised that Harvey is still in the closet. He suggests they relocate to San Francisco, where a new gay neighborhood is coming together in the Castro district. The ’60s hippie era is definitively dead, but Harvey, flushed with liberation, goes longhair anyway. Now completely out of the closet, he organizes a gay boycott of homophobic businesses. “We can change things,” he says, “but we have to start with our neighborhood.” Next, he strikes an unlikely alliance with the Teamsters for a gay boycott of the non-unionized Coors beer company, in return for which the Teamsters agree to accept gay truck drivers as members. Now thoroughly hooked on politics, Harvey cuts his hair and takes to wearing three-piece suits. He runs for various offices and keeps losing, but by smaller margins each time. His self-deprecating demeanor is hard to resist: “I know I’m not what you expected,” he tells one group of potential straight supporters, “but I left my high heels at home.”

Milk is sworn into office in January of 1978, along with another new supervisor named Dan White, a conservative ex-fireman. White is a man of deep and unpredictable dark moods; he seems obscurely conflicted, and Harvey is intrigued: “I think he may be one of us,” he tells some friends. Maybe, maybe not. One day in November of 1978, in a spasm of rage at a perceived political injustice, White goes to City Hall with a gun, shoots the mayor, George Moscone, in his office, then seeks out Milk, luring him into another office and shooting him, too. (White served just five years in jail for this double homicide; a year and a half after his release, he committed suicide.)

The most striking thing about Van Sant’s film is the carefully muted dignity with which it presents Milk’s story, never descending into melodrama or gay-rights boosterism (except at the very end, which perhaps should have been re-thought). Instead, he builds up an intimate portrait of the man through an accretion of simple human details. (He makes little attempt to canonize his subject, either, scrupulously highlighting Milk’s distasteful insistence on outing closeted gays, and his unattractive desire to impose his liberal political agenda in every direction.) And in Penn, the director has a near-perfect star: a straight actor capable of playing a gay man without holding back in depicting Milk’s mannerisms, but without treading anywhere near gay caricature, either.

Penn receives extraordinary support from the rest of the film’s cast. Franco, especially, conveys a luminous affection for the man who’ll eventually drive him away in his obsession with politics; Diego Luna is alternately hilarious and heartbreaking as Milk’s new boyfriend, the loveably whacked-out Jack Lira; and Emile Hirsch, as a street-cruising Castro kid converted to Milk’s political activism, and Alison Pill, as the candidate’s pretty but hard-nosed lesbian campaign manager, create fully inhabited, memorable characters. But Penn presides over the movie with complete and unforgettable conviction. When he tells a friend who’s asked if it’d be all right to visit him in City Hall that he certainly should, “and wear the tightest jeans possible — don’t blend in,” you marvel at the precision of his tone and delivery. He’s a wonder to watch.

James Franco

BEVERLY HILLS, California — Look beyond “Twilight” and “Four Christmases,” and you’ll see that it was a small-budget Gus Van Sant film that hauled in four times their per-screen averages this past weekend while entering the top 10 on only 36 screens. Read the reviews, listen to the Oscar hype or check the news, and you might find it hard to believe that a ’70s-set biopic about a homosexual politician could prove so popular and relevant with all kinds of audiences. But there was only one Harvey Milk — and appropriately enough, the movie that tells his story is similarly becoming a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon.

“It’s funny, I grew up in the Bay Area in Palo Alto, 45 minutes away from San Francisco,” marveled “Pineapple Express” star James Franco, who shows tremendous range alongside Sean Penn‘s portrayal of the nation’s first openly gay elected official, but grew up never having heard of Harvey Milk’s nearby Castro Street revolution. “I’m a huge Gus fan and really wanted to just work with him on anything. When I heard he was doing this movie about Milk, I did a little research on who Harvey Milk was. I remember when I first watched the Oscar-winning documentary, ‘The Times of Harvey Milk,’ that something about Milk kind of looked familiar, like maybe I had seen a picture or something when I was in the city as a kid or something, but the fact was that I didn’t learn anything about him in school or growing up. And here I am in the Bay Area! So the rest of the country, I’m sure, knows absolutely nothing about him.

“That’s sad,” Franco added. “One of the great things about this movie is that I hope it really raises the awareness of who Harvey was and what he did.”

But one of the main obstacles in making the film was finding the right lead actor — if you could count our greatest leading actors on one hand, listing the number who could effectively portray Milk would probably limit you to a finger or two. Luckily, four-time Oscar nominee (and winner for 2004’s “Mystic River”) Sean Penn was eager to dig deep and give what some are calling the best performance of his career, all in the name of raising that awareness.

“When I went to the set, the first day I was there, like, two or there weeks after they’d stared shooting, [Penn] was a different person — not the guy I met a few years ago at a film festival, not the guy I had been rehearsing with,” said Diego Luna, who, like Franco, portrays one of the influential lovers Milk was forced to put on the back burner during his all-absorbing quest for civil rights. “Sean found that character, and it’s very different from everything that he has done before. Normally, his characters are more dark, and this guy is a guy that knew that love was the only thing that mattered.”

Unfortunately, those familiar with the story of Harvey Milk also know that the tale has a villain: fellow city supervisor Dan White. And while the Twinkie-fueled assassin certainly deserves to be remembered as a bad guy, it was the job of Josh Brolin to put the humanity back into a historical madman.

“You don’t want to misrepresent [White]. The thing is, you want to represent him in a way that is accurate, and he is seen as the bad guy. He is the monster of the story, but that’s the result of the story,” Brolin said of his own awards-worthy work, another facet of “Milk” that is building huge awards-season buzz. “The more interesting question to me is ‘Why?’ How did the guy get to the point that he felt [murder] was the only thing that he could resort to? So you follow this guy’s life, you follow his frustrations, you follow — at least from my character’s point of view — that he did have a relationship with Harvey. He was trying to be diplomatic and open himself up to diversity in order to work with people he wasn’t used to being around, especially gay people at that time. … [His supporters] wanted San Francisco to be what it used to be, built on this Catholic, white mentality.”

To be sure, the film is a powerhouse of acting performances, led by the work of Penn, Brolin, Franco, Luna and “Speed Racer” star Emile Hirsch.

“This is an opportunity for a whole new generation of people to learn about who Harvey Milk was — especially young people — and I think it’s high time,” said 23-year-old Hirsch, who plays Milk protégé Cleve Jones in the film. “After I learned about his life and his story, I had such a different perspective of gay people in general, and the gay-rights movement. I had so much more sympathy, because it humanized the movement and gives you a very close-up view of gay people’s lives in the film; you see it in a different way. Most people don’t know that many gay people, so they can make judgments on things they don’t fully understand.

“What Milk says in the film so eloquently is, ‘People vote two to one for us when they know one of us,’ ” Hirsch remembered, quoting one of Harvey’s equal-rights-for-all lines from the film. “And it’s so true.”

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1600460/story.jhtml

Photo

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Even in liberal Hollywood, an openly gay actor with a marketable name is a hard commodity to find, and if anyone should know, it is the filmmakers behind new movie, “Milk.”

Fortunately for them they had Sean Penn, the very straight Oscar winner who has loyal fans and seems able to play any role in front of him, including San Francisco’s gay politician Harvey Milk who was murdered on the job in November, 1978.

“He came in kind of ready made” for the role, director Gus Van Sant told Reuters about winner of the best actor Academy Award for playing a hardened ex-convict in 2003’s “Mystic River.”

In real life, Penn has maintained a tough guy image ever since getting into scrapes with the paparazzi early in his career. Yet in the movies, he has shown wide versatility, whether playing a mentally retarded man in “I Am Sam,” a jazz guitarist in “Sweet and Lowdown” or a death row inmate in “Dead Man Walking” — all which earned him Oscar nominations.

Harvey Milk may be his best role yet, many critics say. Writing for USA Today, reviewer Claudia Puig called Penn’s performance “magnificent, career-topping” and Kenneth Turan, in a generally mixed review of the overall film, called Penn’s performance “strong and convincing.”

In recent years, several A-list actresses have come out of the closet as lesbians, including Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O’Donnell. But it has been a rare event for gay men. Perhaps the highest profile actor to do so was TV star Neil Patrick Harris.

“It was hard to find gay actors who were out,” said openly gay director Van Sant. “There really aren’t (many). You could do it, but they would be unknowns and that would be fine with me, but the money (financiers) would start to get nervous.”

CHANGING TIMES

The fact that Penn and his co-stars — James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Diego Luna — could feel comfortable playing gay roles, coupled with how small the pool of marketable gay actors truly is, shows at least one thing: times have changed in Hollywood for gay men but they have also stayed the same.

In watching “Milk” amid the current U.S. political battles over gay marriage, audiences can’t help but ponder progress on gay rights because in looking at Harvey Milk, writer Dustin Lance Black has chosen as a backdrop the politician’s battle against California’s Proposition 6, which would have banned gay teachers in public schools in 1978.

In this past election cycle, the state’s voters approved a proposition banning gay marriage and since the November 4 balloting, gays have taken to the streets to protest what they see as an assault on their civil rights.

What would Milk have done in the same position? “He’d be right there on the streets with the marchers,” Van Sant said.

“Milk” picks up on the politician’s life after he moves from New York to California, and it focuses almost exclusively on Milk’s political involvement in San Francisco.

Milk lost several early campaigns but finally was elected to the city’s Board of Supervisors, becoming the first openly gay man to hold a major public office in the United States.

By using broadcast film footage of the 1970s gay rights battles, Van Sant offers not just a portrait of a man, but a look at the times and the city, too.

After numerous false starts over more than a dozen years, “Milk” finally was made when marketable stars like Penn got involved. Also pivotal was the financial success of 2005 gay romance “Brokeback Mountain,” which raked in more than $175 million worldwide by winning fans among mainstream moviegoers.

A key factor for the success of “Milk” will be whether it, too, can cross over from strictly gay fans to the mainstream.

“I think it will,” said Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). “The culture has clearly changed with regard to acceptance and visibility of gay people. Having said that, our public policy has changed not as much as we would have liked it to.”

يا هل ترى هل هو افضل ان يرضي المثلي المجتمع ويظلم نفسه والمسكينة التي سيتزوجها ام يرضي نفسه والشخص الذي يحبه؟

هذه القصة من احدى المدونات. gayandkuwaitcity

ليلة الدخلة

هي ليله من أهم ليالي العمر, ليله ينعطف بها مسار الإنسان و هي بدايه الحياه الجديده للإنسان. ليله الزواج هي الليلة الكبيرة و الفرحه بهذه اليلة ليست من الضروري أن تكون بقدرعظامه اليلة الكبيرة, بل هي ليلة شؤم و حزن عند البعض….و منهم المثليين. الليلة الكبيرة أو ليله الزفاف هي كابوس للمثلي فهو بكل ما إستطاع يحاول الـأخير و التأجيل لتلك الليلة و في أحيان كثيره ينجحون في الفرار من تلك اليلة…و لا أبالغ أن قلت أن المثليين يذعرون من تلك الليلة…فيا صديق صديقي لا تذعر و لا تخف الكثير من المثليين إجتازوا إمتحان الليلة الكبيرة بنجاح, بالرغم من إختلافهم و إختلاف الوسائل المتبعه في إجتيازهم الإختبار…فقد إجتازوه.
_______________________________________________________

كان لقاء الأصدقاء في صباح ليلة زفاف بدر في أحد الصالونات الرجالي . بدر كان أول من وصل الصالون و أخذ أحمد بدر بالأحظان كعاشقان و ليس كعشيقين…عاشقان للحياة و الحب و الرجال, أما خالد و ناصر إكتفيا بالمصافحه و قبلتان باردتان على خد بدر.
أحمد: أين الحلاق؟
بدر: يعد الحمام المغربي.
ناصر: يا عيني يا عيني يا عريس!!!
خالد: يا خاسرتك يا عريس بالعروس…أنت بأصبع واحد كنت تقدر أن تملك سيد سيدها.
أحمد: العروس أفضل و أطهر له من ألف رجل.
خالد: تحدث حكيم زمانه.
بدر: و الله أحمد عقله يزن بلد ولولا نصائحه و دعمه لي لكان حاللي غير هذا الحال في هذا اليوم.
أحمد: هذا واجب علينا كأصدقاء نقف مع بعض.
يدخل الحلاق من الجنسيه الآسيويه الغرفه. فيسأله بدربالإنجليزيه عن ترتيب الأعمال التي ستكون في برنامج تجهيز العريس فيجيبه و ياخذه لغرفه خاصه ليقوم بتلك الأعمال ويبقى أصدقائه ينتظرانه
أحمد لخالد: ليس من اللائق أن تقول ما قلته لبدر في هذا اليوم…هذا اليوم صعب عليه يجب أن نقف معه و لا نجعله يندم على إتخاذه للقرار الزواج.
خالد: بدر رجل مثلي و زواجه لن يغير هذا الشيء…و أنا أردت أن أداعبه فقد كان يبدو لي متوترا.
أحمد: دعاباتك غير مناسبه…
ناصر: إلتزموا الصمت آخر ما نريده أن تتعاركا هنا…
و إلتزم الجميع بالصمت و هنا بدأ يستذكر أحمد بعض مواقفه مع بدر

أحمد: آجلاً أم عاجلاً ستتزوج يا بدر.أهلك مصريين على زواجك و انت لن تستطيع التهرب من إصرارهم.
بدر: ما ذا تريدني أن افعل إذاً؟
أحمد: إبحث عن الزوجه التي تناسبك؟ لا تضيع وقتك في التفكير بالزواج و لا تظن أن مصيرك سيكون نفسه مع أي زوجه…فهناك من قد تكون صالحه لك و أخرى لا.
بدر: بنسبه لي النساء سواء تقريبا.
أحمد: غير صحيح, إبحث عن الزوجه التي تكون صديقه لك و ليس كأم لأطفالك و ترضي عائلتك…إمرأه تساعدك في حياتك ولا تكون عبء عليك, بعض الزوجات يكونون عبء على أزواجهم و بعضهم يكونون سند لأزواجهم.
بدر: و الجنس؟
أحمد: الزواج ليس جنس فقط هو جزئيه بسيطه من الزواج ولكن نحن نعظم شأنها. المرأه تهتم بالرومانسيه أكثر من الجنس,المرأه أهم لها أن تكون مع رجل يظل عليه و يحنوعليها على زوج لا تلقي معه إلا في الفراش. لا تجعل همك بالزواج هو الجنس لانه هم الزواج أكبر بكثير.

بدر:لكن الزوجات لهم حاجات جنسيه, و يجب على الأزواج تلبيه حاجاتهم.

أحمد: نعم الزوجات لهن حاجات و لكن هذه الحاجه بإمكانك السيطره عليها؟

بدر: كيف؟؟؟

أحمد: لا تجعل رغبه زوجتك تتعدى السيطره…حاول معاشرتها مره بالشهر أو مرتين…خصوصا بعد العاده الشهريه للمرأه, بهذا الوقت تكون المرأه في قمت شهوتها…فإن أخمدت هذه الشهوه ستغنيك عن معاشرتها لشهر كامل.

بدر:و كيف أعاشرها و أنا عاجز جنسيا أمام المرأة؟؟؟

أحمد: بدر محاولتك للنوم مع عاهره لتختبر نفسك لن تكون كمحاولتك مع زوجتك. لأنك سترتبط بزوجتك برباط مقدس. مشاعرك نحو زوجتك ستكون مختلفه عن شعورك بإتجاه العاهره. إذا أحسنت إختيار الزوجه من المؤكد سيولد فيك نوع من الحب لها…لأن الجنس لن يكون كالفرض عليك بل سيكون رغبه منك لإسعادها…و على فكره أن شعورك بأنك بإمتحان عند كل مره تأتي بها زوجتك يضع حمل عليك…خذ الامور ببساطه.

بدر: و كيف أأخذ الأمور ببساطه؟؟؟

أحمد: يجب أن تعرف أن ليس من الضروري أن تجامع زوجتك كل مره تاتي بها زوجتك. فعندما تشعر بأنك عاجز و لن تستطيع مجامعته حاول إنهاء لقائك الحميم مع زوجتك بشكل رومنسي أو دبلماسي.

بدر:دبلماسي!!!!

أحمد: نعم ,حاول إشباع زوجتك بطرق أخرى إذا كنت عاجز بالطريقه المتعارف عليها. الرجل بإمكانه إشباع المرأه و هو في قمه عجزه الجنسي وبهذه الطريقه تكونون قد وصلتم لحل وسط.
ينادي خالد أحمد ليعيده إلى الحاضر.
خالد:أحمد هل وفرت حبوب الفياغرا لبدر.
أحمد: لا و لن أعطي بدر إلا حبوب مهدئه للأعصاب لتهدأ أعصابه عندما يزفوه لعروسه.
ناصر: لن تهدأ اعصاب بدر إلا بإمتلاكه حبوب الفياغرا. لأنه سيضمن من إنتصاب عضوه.
أحمد: هل تظنون أن بدر لايعرف شيء عن حبوب الفياغرا أو يعجز عن الحصول عليها.
خالد: بكل تأكيد…لا توصف الفياغرا إلا عن طريق وصفه طبيه يا دكتور أحمد.
أحمد: بدر لن يحتاج الفياغرا.
خالد: أنت تعرف أنه يحتاجها كما نحتاجها نحن في اوقات كهذه.
أحمد: سيجتاز هذه الليله دون الحاجه للفياغرا…
خالد: و إذا عجز.
أحمد: سأعطيه حبوب الفياغرا في اليوم الثاني…إذ لم يستطع بالطريقه الطبيعيه سأعطيه الفياغرا…لنجعله يحاول. فإذا عرف إن الفياغرا متوفره ربما لن يحاول سيتكل عل الفياغرا.
خالد: و ما المشكله في إستخدام الفياغرا؟
أحمد: الفياغرا لها أعراض جانبيه…كالصداع و الأنتصاب الطويل قد يسبب ألم حاد في العضو لأن خاصه أن معدل مده الانتصاب عن طريق الفياغرا أطول من مده الغنتصاب الطبيعيه, هل تعلم أن القضيب سيستمر بالإنتصاب حتى بعد القذف.
خالد: ما معدل مده الإنتصاب عن طريق الفياغرا؟
أحمد: ساعتين؟ و علا فكره الزوجه ستكشف إذ كان الزوج يعاشرها بمساعده الفياغرا.
خالد:كيف؟
أحمد: الزوجه مع الأيام ستتثقف جنسيا…و ستفهم جسم الرجل أكثر فأكثر مع العشره, و الزوجات يتم تثقيفهم جنسياً عند حدوث أي تأخير في الحمل في سبيل المساعده لحدوث الحمل, بالإضافه إلى عثور الزوجه على حبوب الفياغرا.
خالد: ماذا لو يجرب الفياغرا فقط في الليله الأولى و من ثم نجعله يحاول بالليالي التاليه؟
أحمد: لماذا تعطون ليله الزفاف أكبر من حجمها؟
خالد: بالنسبه لنا كمثليين لا نعطيها اكبر من حجمها هي كبيره بالنسبه لنا, هي فعلاً كبيره.

لا يكاد يمر يوم إلا ونسمع أو نقرأ عن حوادث تحرش جديدة بالنساء.. وقد يتكلم معظمهن في الجلسات الخاصة عن تعرضهن لهذه الحوادث التي باتت إحدى الظواهر المنتشرة في الحياة اليومية المعاصرة بامتياز.

أما كيف يتم التحرش وما هي الأسباب والخلفيات والدوافع التي تقف وراءه؟ وهل يقتصر على الرجال أم أن النساء أيضاً يتحرشون بالرجال؟!. هذا ما يحاول تحقيقنا الإجابة عليه من خلال رصد بعض حالات هذه الظاهرة ممن تعرض لها مباشرة.. إلى جانب استطلاع آراء الناس في هذه الظاهرة غير المطروحة كثيراً في إعلامنا، واستعراض بعض المقالات الهامة التي تناولتها:

تقول مها الطالبة الجامعية العشرينية: كلما خرجت من المنزل أشعر بعيون الرجال تلاحقني وتنظر إلى جسدي أو إلى صدري.. وأحياناً يقلبون لي شفاههم علامة على رغبتهم في التقبيل وممارسة الجنس. ولا يمكنني أن أستثني أي رجل.. بل أقول إن من المستحيل أن يمر بي رجل إلا وينظر إلي منذ أن أكون بعيدة عنه حتى مروري بجانبه.

هذا الرأي صحيح مع تراجع قيمة المرأة وانتشار الفضائيات الإباحية وفراغ الحياة العامة من التعبيرات السياسية والاجتماعية الجادة والهادفة، وبالتالي تحول الرجل إلى كائن جنسي!.

جميع الرجال شبقون!

وتؤكد ثناء ـ 35 عاماً ـ موظفة في إحدى الشركات العامة ـ أنها كلما صعدت إلى السرفيس أو الميكرو يسارع أحد الذكور إلى الجلوس جانبها، ويبدأ يمد يده إلى جيوبه أملاً في ملامستها.. وتراه يخرج النقود تارة والموبايل تارة أخرى.. ثم يكرر وضعه وإعادة إخراجه عدة مرات.. وأحياناً يتجرأ فيقرّب يده إلى يدها أو يلمس فخذه بفخذها ـ كما قالت ـ ولا يضيّع ميلة للسرفيس إلا ويميل نحوي عدا عن محاولة فتح حديث عن العمل أو الجامعة أو الجو أو غير ذلك…

ولدى سؤالها عن سبب ذلك.. ردت بأن الرجال جميعهم شبقون ويرغبون في الحصول على أية امرأة.. فالمهم لديهم إقامة علاقة جنسية.

ربما كان ذلك صحيحاً فالرجال بيولوجياً أكثر شبقاً من النساء، ولكن الموضوع متعلق بأن مجتمعنا الذكوري وتقاليدنا وعاداتنا تعطي الرجل الحق بفعل ما يشاء.. ذلك أن للرجال كل الحق بأي امرأة.. وبالتالي فهم لا يتحملون أي مسؤولية.. وبالمقابل تتحمل المرأة كامل المسؤولية.. وربما كان الفقر وانعدام العمل من بين الأسباب التي تجعل الرجال غير قادرين على فتح منزل للزواج.. ما يدفعهم إلى هذه التصرفات.

الحجاب والبنطلون

وترى رجاء ـ 44 عاماً مدرسة محافظة ـ أن الرجال يتحرشون بالنساء لأنهن أصبحن لا يسترن من أجسادهن شيئاً وربما يكون اللباس إغراء خالص سواء من حيث شكل الحجاب أو البنطلون أو الماكياج.. كلها عوامل تجذب الرجل وتدفعه لملاحقة النساء ومحاولة التحرش بهن.. وقد يكون عدم العمل والإباحية المنتشرة في الفضائيات والكليبات الغنائية التي باتت أقرب إلى الدعارة سبباً إضافياً.. لكنها تؤكد أن ملابس النساء قد تكون العامل الأساسي لهذه التحرشات.

لا يشك أحد أن اللباس من أهم معايير انجذاب الرجل للمرأة.. وهو كذلك من أهم أسباب التحرش.. فماذا يعمل الرجل الذي لا يستطيع إقامة علاقة صحيحة في مجتمعاتنا رغم أن أدياننا تحرص على منع ذلك بصورة شبه كلية، حيث قائمة الممنوعات تدور معظمها على القضايا الجنسية.. وتحويل العلاقة مع الجنس الآخر إلى علاقة طاهرة من خلال مؤسسة الزواج.. وقد لعبت كذلك القنوات الإباحية دوراً كبيراً في سلعنة المرأة أو جعلها مركز للمتعة الجنسية للرجل سواء بالكلام أو بغيره.

الكلمات الجميلة والرقيقة

تشير رباب ـ 28 عاماً طالبة ماجستير في علم الاجتماع ـ إلى أن هناك نوعاً من التحرش لا يظهر على أنه تحرش.. وهو الكلمات الجميلة والرقيقة التي يقولها الشاب للفتاة في الجامعة أو على طريق المدرسة أو الموظف لزميلته في العمل أو صاحب المعمل لسكرتيرته.. وتضيف أن تكرار ذلك بصورة مستمرة هو ما يخلق لدى الفتاة شعوراً حقيقياً بأن صاحب هذه الكلمات معجب بها، فيكون عندها قد أوقع الفتاة في علاقة معه، محاولاً إقناعها بأنها هي التي قبلت بالعلاقة ولم تتمُ عبر الأساليب والدهاليز التي يسلكها الذكور… وتؤكد رباب أن الفتاة أيضاً قد تتحرش بالرجل عبر نظرة خاصة من عينيها أو عبر لباسها!. طبعاً هذه الحالات كثيرة الانتشار وهي تؤدي بالفعل لعلاقات جنسية أو عاطفية غير جادة أو مسؤولة وتفتقر لأي آفاق مستقبلية.. وقد تستمر لفترة معينة نتيجة حاجة الفتاة للعمل أو نتيجة تورطها العاطفي مع ذلك الشخص. مع ذلك لا يمكن أن تسمى هذه الحالة غير تحرش جنسي، فهي علاقة قائمة على الكلام الجميل والمعايشة في العمل، وهو ما يترافق مع مشاعر حقيقية عند الأنثى بحكم تركيبتها العاطفية.. أما لدى الرجل فإن الهدف هو إرضاء شهوة من خلال علاقة جنسية يضيفها إلى سجلات فتوحاته المتكررة.. ولأن تلك العلاقات ليست مرتبطة بخطط للزواج فهي علاقة تحرش جنسي بالتحديد.

نظرة الرجال للمرأة السافرة!

ترى المدرسة والباحثة الفلسفية ميرنا ـ 34 عاماً ـ أن تزايد الكلام عن الأخلاق يتناسب طرداً مع التحرشات الذكورية بالنساء.. وهذا برأيها تعبير عن ثقافة ثنائية في كل مجالات المعرفة والحياة اليومية، وقد يكون سبب التحرش الوضع الاقتصادي المتردي إلى جانب ثقافة الإعلام والفضائيات والانترنت التي يظهر الكثير منها المرأة كسلعة وموضوع جنسي.. وهناك أيضاً ـ بحسب ميرنا ـ التعصب الديني الذي يجعل من الأم والأخت والابنة محرمات.. وغيرها محلل تماماً. إلا أن الأمر يزداد كارثية حين تكون المرأة سافرة.. فقد ينظر لها الكثير من الرجال على أنها غير شريفة ويحللون لنفسهم ولغيرهم كل طرق التحرش الرديئة بها.. من الكلام الجنسي والملامسة والحركات الجنسية والملاحقة في الشارع… حتى يتعرف على مكان إقامتها.. وقد يكون ذلك تعويضاً عن فتوحات حقيقية في العلم والسياسة والعمل بفتوحات جنسية.. من يدري؟!.

وتضيف ميرنا أن ثقافتنا الذكورية تعتبر أن المرأة موضوع إغراء جنسي وهي شهوانية وفتنة وناقصة عقل ودين.. ويكمل ذلك القانون الذي لا يحمي المرأة كما ينبغي.. وإن اشتكت المرأة تصبح هي الملامة والمتسبّبة.. حتى ولو لم تكن قد أغرت من تحرش بها، وتشير إلى أن المرأة قد تتحرش بالرجل عبر إغرائها له ولكنها لا تجرؤ على الإفصاح أو التعبير عن ذلك كما يفعل الرجل!

الظاهرة منتشرة في مصر

تقول الكاتبة اللبنانية دلال البزري في مقال لها بجريدة الحياة بتاريخ 12/10/2008 بعنوان: (أسئلة التحرّش ومفارقاته): إن الاستطلاعات والبحوث تشير إلى أن أكثر من 80 في المئة من المصريات معرّضات للتحرش، أكثر من 50 في المئة بصورة شبه يومية.. وغالبيتهن محجبات يخرجن من البيت مهيّئات للنظرات التحقيرية والألفاظ الغريزية واللّمس الجارح وتمزيق الثياب وانتهاك الجسد.

وقد وجد المفكر هشام شرابي أن عدم حل المشكلة الجنسية يعتبر من أهم عوامل تخلف مجتمعاتنا العربية.. وأن إعطاء الحق للإنسان في التمتع بالحياة الجنسية كيفما شاء هو حق شخصي وأمر ضروري، كي يستطيع الفرد تجاوز هذه العقد، ذلك أن الدافع الجنسي لا يمكن تجنبه وهو دافع فطري، وبالتالي عدم وجود علاقات جنسية واجتماعية وسياسية سليمة في المجتمع هو ما يكرس التخلف في المجالات ويزيد من حدة الانفلات الجنسي.

التحرش في المنزل

لعل الأرقام التي تتحدث عن هذا الموضوع أكثر من خطيرة, وهنا لا نتكلم عن حالات الاغتصاب أو غيرها، بل عن التحرش فقط.. وهناك من الباحثين من يرجع الموضوع إلى ابتعاد الناس عن الدين، وهو رأي يميل إليه أصحاب الرؤى الدينية في كل زمان ومكان.. لكن الحقيقة أن هذا الرأي غير دقيق تماماً، فالمجتمع المتدين هو مجتمع يخرج المرأة من حسابات الحرية الشخصية أو الوجود الحقيقي.. فهي دائماً أقل من الذكر وهو وصي عليها.. ولكنها قد تتعرض للتحرش في المنزل من خلال أولاد العم والخال وأحياناً الأخوة أنفسهم!.. وقد تضطر للسكوت عن ذلك خشية العقاب والتأنيب أو “الفضيحة”.. هذا من جهة، ومن جهة أخرى فإن المسألة لا تحل من خلال حشر المرأة في المنزل.. لأنها بحاجة إلى الذهاب للعمل ومشاركة الرجل تأمين حاجيات أسرتهما المنزلية.. وهناك الجامعة والمدرسة والسوق.. وبالتالي حكماً ستلتقي بالرجل.

موضوع جنسي!

ولأن الأمر كذلك فإن التربية الدينية لا يجب أن تنطلق من تحجيب وتحجيم المرأة أو منعها من الخروج من المنزل كما يفعل معظم الآباء حين يعلمون أن بناتهم يتعرضن للتحرش، بل يجب طرح موضوع التحرش للنقاش وعدم تحميلها المسؤولية وتقديم أفكار جدية تتجاوز من خلالها ذاتياً مشكلتها. وبالتالي ليست المشكلة في الابتعاد عن الدين أو في العودة إليه.. بل في أن مجتمعاتنا أصبحت بلا عمل وبلا تعليم.. وحتى بلا مستقبل حقيقي.. ولذلك نرى هذه الظاهرة بارزة ومنتشرة. لا شك أن هناك أسباباً عديدة للتحرش ومنها جديد تماماً وهو محاولات المرأة ذاتها للتحرش، لكن في المقابل ثمة الكثير من الطرق والوسائل للتخلص منه، ولا سيما تأمين العمل والثقافة الجنسية والارتقاء بمجتمعنا سياسياً واجتماعياً وتعليماً. لكن لا يمكن التخلص منه مطلقاً ولا وضع حلول حاسمة كذلك, وبالتالي الممكن فقط هو الحدّ من التحرش.

هذا الرأي ينطلق من كون العمل لن يُؤمن لجميع الناس، كما أن هناك نظرة المجتمع للمرأة وموقف المجتمع الذكوري منها في ظل تنامي المدّ الديني بالمفهوم الطقسي الشكلاني، لا القيمي الأخلاقي.. كل ذلك يزيد من معاناة المرأة في الخروج إلى العمل أو الجامعة أو المدرسة أو السوق.. ويأتي الكثير من وسائل الإعلام ليقدمها على أنها موضوع جنسي فقط.

سيريا لايت ـ عمّار ديّوب