Homosexuality or homoaffection?
Reflections by Massimo Battaglio
Since homosexuality began to be studied scientifically at the end of the 19th century, the production of falsely scientific synonyms, euphemisms and denigrating terms also began to underline particular aspects, condemn or, on the contrary, avoid controversy.
On the one hand, the term "pederasty" came back into fashion; on the other hand, “homophily” and, subsequently, “homoaffectivity” appeared for the first time.
The history of "homophily" is indicative, a word coined in 1924 by the German Karl-Gunter Heimsoth, who in that year entitled his doctoral thesis in medicine "Hetero und Homophilie". In those years, in Germany, "Paragraph 175", an article of the Penal Code which criminalized sexual acts between males, was in force.
Furthermore, the young Nazi party promised to further update it to allow a more extensive and severe persecution of homosexual people, which it did in 1935 with its seizure of power.
Speaking openly about homosexuality could be dangerous, especially for a young psychoanalysis student like heimsoth, Homosexual but also a far-right militant. however, his Linguistic move did not spare him a bad end. he was Murdered by an sS commando In Berlin during The purge operation that began with the "Night Of the long knives".
“Homophilie” survived, always with a euphemistic character, until the 1950s/60s, especially in progressive ecclesiastical circles in the Anglo-Saxon area. It represented an attempt to avoid the clinical implications then underlying the word "homosexual", emphasizing instead the love aspect.
From the English language he passed to French and from there to Italian. In our language, to avoid assonances with more problematic terms such as "paraphilia" or "pedophilia", it was translated with "homoaffection", attested since 1969.
It is singular that, since its appearance, "homoaffection" was tinged with political colors. It was used mainly by right-wing homosexual activist groups, with explicit or implicit reverence to those who invented it. The intent of these groups was above all to distinguish themselves from the nascent homosexual movement and to reappropriate the issues of civil and human rights by wresting them from the new left and the radical movement which, in fact, held a monopoly on them.
Even in 2006, in the columns of La Stampa, Enrico Oliari insisted on these concepts:
“It is a mistake to leave the monopoly of the battle for the recognition of homoemotional couples to the left”
Oliari had been president of Arcigay Trento in 1995/'96. Then, in disagreement with the association, he Founded gaylib and subsequently moved to AN (National Alliance).
For his part, the journalist Alessandro Cecchi Paone had also publicly used the term "homoaffection". He did so on the occasion of his coming-out, which took place in 2004, almost at the same time as his candidacy in Forza Italia.
He later moved towards the Pannella-Bonino list, committed himself more systematically to the LGBT+ cause and never again used the definition "homoaffective", not even for himself. Instead he declared:
"I would like marriage between homosexuals but in Italy I am also happy with civil unions, as in France, while I am in favor of the adoption of singles, even gay ones. Gay people can live with whoever they want. The important thing is that they are a reliable person."
Today, “homoaffection” is used, correctly, not so much to indicate a person's sexual orientation but rather to describe the stable bond between two homosexual people. We often talk about "homoemotional couples"; much less than “homoaffective person”. And, in this case, we are referring to the type of relationship he experiences with his partner.
Personally, I find that the use of the term according to this last connotation is acceptable if not, in some context, even desirable. However, it seems silly to me to use it to avoid pronouncing the words "gay" or "lesbian" etc. In this case, it almost seems like a lack of respect to me, both for the people in question and for those who have fought for decades for these words to leave the scope of shame and condemnation.
I also find it decidedly compliant and incorrect to speak of "homoaffection" in a vindictive way, as if to point out, especially in political or religious environments, that homosexual people are also capable of affection and that they are not just looking for sex.
Surrendering because it reminds me of that old song"Painter, I have to talk to you” which ended with “even niggers go to heaven“At the time it may have seemed revolutionary; today it sounds like an insult.
If someone allowed himself to imagine a paradise populated only by people of Aryan lineage, he would rightly be considered crazy. Likewise, when someone dares to say that homosexual people are not capable of affection, I let them say it. With fanatics, I don't argue and I don't seek mediation, not even linguistic.
Incorrect because what distinguishes homosexual people from heterosexual people is precisely sexual attraction, certainly not the way of experiencing affectivity. At the dawn of my almost sixty-one years, I have never noticed major differences in couple dynamics between individuals of different sexes or of the same sex.
At most there is a smaller, and healthier, division of roles. maybe We talk with more openness and sincerity about the sexual sphere. But i don't think there is a different way of loving.
I therefore believe that the Term "homoaffective" should be completely avoided, especially in political and legal language, not only because it inherits divisions but above all because affectivity, unlike sexuality, is not an objective fact and cannot be measured except through a moral judgment. And politics, let alone the law, must not be allowed to divide people on moral grounds. rights belong To everyone, not just those who deserve them. it is a Principle that must always apply and even more so among us.
To be concrete: when I commit myself against homophobia, I am asking for a law that protects all homosexual, transsexual, bisexual, etc. people, not a provision that rewards "homoaffective" ones, that is, those who experience sexuality by involving their own sentimental dimension.
And when I fight for same-sex marriage, I don't want to have to prove that I'm ready to live it according to socially acceptable criteria. I want a legal institution identical to the one that has always been in force for heterosexual couples, which does not provide for any verification of the feelings existing between the spouses.
I would like to point out that not even religious marriages provide for checks of this kind. Only in very recent times, the formula that the spouses pronounce at the altar says "I promise to love you and honor you every day of my life". And this is a promise, not an assumption.
For centuries, the priest simply ascertained the marital wishes of the spouses by asking "Do you want N. to take N. as your legitimate wife / your legitimate husband according to the rite of Holy Mother Church?".
Why should we instead certify our affection? And I don't mean in front of the priest (maybe!), but also in front of society as a whole.
Society, especially its religious component, must stop experiencing sex with suspicion. It must abandon the hypocrisy of imagining a good sexuality only if experienced in a context of emotional exchange, as opposed to a bad sexuality when affection is lacking.
Life is made up of ups and downs; you cannot make definitive judgments on people and couples (indeed, it would be nice not to make them at all). Nor can it be denied that, precisely from the exercise of conscious sexuality, affection can be born or regenerated.
And, beyond everything, we cannot even pretend that sex doesn't also have a playful dimension, independent from the emotional one. And who are we to judge?
