Light up, Boys, and let's talk about structures

I found the discussion in Goldberg about the statement supposedly originated by Marlowe to be very entertaining: "They all that love not Tobacco & boies were fooles." In the structure of the colonial power of England of that day, use of tobacco products was viewed as a patriotic act. Sodomy was seen as anything that by its nature was subversive to the structures of the kingdom. Religion was the glue that seemed to hold this colonial house of cards together. And religion was totally devoid of anything resembling gaiety. If Marlowe did in fact make the statement referenced above, he was showing his extraordinary wit. To link a social practice that was both encouraged and considered "manly" with a clear reference to all that was considered subversive and weak, was to question the integrity of the primary foundational structures within the society. That would be enough to get a person killed in Marlowe's era. I still wonder what the real motivation behind the Baines Libel actually was, since so much of it appears to have received attention after Marlowe's death.

If the above reading is joined with the Sedgwick reading, it is interesting that the whole concept of social structures still plays such an important role in shaping personal and historical perceptions. The idea of love as an emotion and desire as a structure was fascinating. If I read that correctly, the emotion of love operates within a structure formed by desire, and desire can be defined in many different ways. Homosocial interactions can be perceived as either promoting the health of a society or eroding the integrity of the primary structures. In traditional patriarchal societies, male interaction that promotes male aims is acceptable as long as sexual interaction is kept out of the mix. Homophobia, according to the text, is a necessity for preserving this structure. Condemnation of homosexual activity may not be necessary based on the Greek model of older men mentoring and supporting the careers of younger men and boys. Lesbianism is less threatening to the structure, because it does not directly threaten the patriarchal traditions. I remember one investigation that I was privy to in the Navy long before the "Don't ask: Don't tell" era. A friend of mine who was a lesbian had been called in to be interrogated for "illicit conduct." Several young men had already been investigated for the same thing, and they were being given a discharge from the service on the grounds of engaging in homosexual activities. After about an hour with the interrogators, she had asked them, "It seems that you are convinced that I am a lesbian. So why don't you just kick me out?" Their answer had outraged her. They told her that they thought she was a valuable sailor, and all that she really needed was to find herself a good man to turn her life around. For that reason, they were willing to give her another chance. One investigator had winked at her as she left the room.
All of that may sound like ancient history, but if we look at the prevalence of girl-on-girl action in literature and film today, it is clear that this is not viewed as especially threatening to male dominated structures. Guys still do not have that sort of "following". Maybe they are the lucky ones, and the outsider status is the one that holds the dignity.