Did heterosexuality exist in the Americas before 1492?

[Dr. MB]

According to The Red Nation, it's a violent capitalist construct.

Native people are under constant assault by a capitalist-colonial logic that seeks the erasure of non-capitalist ways of life. Colonial economies interrupt cooperation and association and force people instead into hierarchical relations with agents of colonial authority who function as a permanent occupying force on Native lands. These agents are in place to enforce and discipline Native peoples to ensure that we comply with capitalist-colonial logics. There are many methods and agents of enforcement and discipline. There are the police. There are corporations. There are also so-called ‘normal’ social and cultural practices like male-dominance, heterosexuality, and individualism that encourage us to conform to the common sense of capitalism-colonialism. These are all violent forms of social control and invasion that extract life from Natives and other oppressed peoples in order to increase profit margins and consolidate power in the hands of wealthy nation-states like the United States.

Is heterosexuality something that just didn't exist in the pre-colonial Americas? It's becoming more and more obvious to me that it didn't.

[SWE]

Understanding sexuality in terms of you're either heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc is not and historically has not been a universal thing, and yes there were societies in which no such concept as heterosexuality existed. I'm not well versed enough in Native American history to know if that was the case there, but it's absolutely not the absurdity OP is presenting it as.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Heterosexuality (and therefore and by extension homosexuality as well) as presently defined and understood did not exist before at least the 18th century anywhere, curiously.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Heterosexuality has never existed.

[Del Tachi]

Understanding sexuality in terms of you're either heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc is not and historically has not been a universal thing, and yes there were societies in which no such concept as heterosexuality existed. I'm not well versed enough in Native American history to know if that was the case there, but it's absolutely not the absurdity OP is presenting it as.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This was obviously set up as a joke thread, but I'll just repeat what I said on Pragcord.

Both sex and gender as human beings understand them have been evolving for literally centuries. In Biblical times and beyond, there really was no such thing as "homosexual" sex because each partner was assumed to be playing the "role" of either a man or a woman. (Although I've also read a conflicting article stating that sex was not even considered sex unless an ejaculating penis was involved, i.e. lesbianism was not considered a thing.)

Eunuchs were not considered men but they were not considered women, either. Native Americans had Two Spirit as a separate gender and still do. And prior to the adoption of the Visigothic Code, a man was only considered a "real man" if he was attracted to women, regardless if he was attracted to men as well.

Only after the Visigothic Code was promulgated was a man defined simply by the presence of male genitalia.

I learned all of this over a year ago whilst researching during a debate on homosexuality and early Christian views, but I stupidly forgot to bookmark my sources. If I'm wrong then Al or Nathan or Antonio or someone far better read on history can correct me. It's very interesting subject matter nonetheless.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Heterosexuality and homosexuality have obviously existed since time immemorial in the sense that there have always been people who are only interested in sleeping with members of one sex, but people in most societies would have understood those preferences as behavior patterns rather than personal identities prior to roughly the High Victorian era.

Worth noting that two-spirit identity as young Native Americans talk about it today is a "pan-Native" concept that wasn't present in every individual pre-contact society.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Heterosexuality and homosexuality have obviously existed since time immemorial in the sense that there have always been people who are only interested in sleeping with members of one sex, but people in most societies would have understood those preferences as behavior patterns rather than personal identities prior to roughly the High Victorian era.

Worth noting that two-spirit identity as young Native Americans talk about it today is a "pan-Native" concept that wasn't present in every individual pre-contact society.

This is obviously the correct answer. Although the tedious intersectionality of the original quote makes me want to reflexively take the strongest "yes" position possible.

But yeah, there were obviously people who strictly had heterosexual relationships regardless of whether they actively categorized them as such.

[Kingpoleon]

Heterosexuality and homosexuality have obviously existed since time immemorial in the sense that there have always been people who are only interested in sleeping with members of one sex, but people in most societies would have understood those preferences as behavior patterns rather than personal identities prior to roughly the High Victorian era.

Worth noting that two-spirit identity as young Native Americans talk about it today is a "pan-Native" concept that wasn't present in every individual pre-contact society.

It is hardly surprising that anti colonialism thinking perpetuates pan-Native Americanism, as it is naturally a paternalistic concept that view them not as savages who need to be civilized, but weak children who need to be protected.

[HillGoose]

nothing existed in 1492, the universe isn't even that old

[Cassius]

I agree largely with what has been said above. I think this particular framing of heterosexuality has more to do with the standard lazy leftist ‘everything I disapprove of is a capitalist construct’ trope than anything more solid though.

[Dr. MB]

Heterosexuality and homosexuality have obviously existed since time immemorial in the sense that there have always been people who are only interested in sleeping with members of one sex, but people in most societies would have understood those preferences as behavior patterns rather than personal identities prior to roughly the High Victorian era.

Worth noting that two-spirit identity as young Native Americans talk about it today is a "pan-Native" concept that wasn't present in every individual pre-contact society.

It is hardly surprising that anti colonialism thinking perpetuates pan-Native Americanism, as it is naturally a paternalistic concept that view them not as savages who need to be civilized, but weak children who need to be protected.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.

[John Dule]

The amount of effort that leftists can put into purely semantic arguments will never cease to amaze me. Who freaking cares whether or not a group of people that could barely build permanent structures used the exact same categorization of sexuality as modern Tumblr users do? That does nothing to disprove the common-sense fact that heterosexual relations have been present (and the norm) in every single culture throughout human history. Gender and sexuality are not social constructs, and even if they were, that would not be a sufficient argument to show that we ought to deviate from or abandon them.

[Kingpoleon]

Gender and sexuality are not social constructs, and even if they were, that would not be a sufficient argument to show that we ought to deviate from or abandon them.

I would somewhat dispute the latter. Sexuality can only not be a social construct if it is innate and present when born. Whereas it generally manifests during puberty, it is highly unlikely that society has no influence upon it.

[John Dule]

Gender and sexuality are not social constructs, and even if they were, that would not be a sufficient argument to show that we ought to deviate from or abandon them.

I would somewhat dispute the latter. Sexuality can only not be a social construct if it is innate and present when born. Whereas it generally manifests during puberty, it is highly unlikely that society has no influence upon it.

I'm not saying that society can't influence individuals in certain ways. But claiming that "sexuality is a social construct" implies that the very concept of heterosexuality is an arbitrary fabrication developed through socialization and wholly divorced from biology. This is just absurd. And if that's not what the advocates of that position mean when they say that, then they need to be clearer about their actual position.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Gender and sexuality are not social constructs, and even if they were, that would not be a sufficient argument to show that we ought to deviate from or abandon them.

I would somewhat dispute the latter. Sexuality can only not be a social construct if it is innate and present when born. Whereas it generally manifests during puberty, it is highly unlikely that society has no influence upon it.

I'm not saying that society can't influence individuals in certain ways. But claiming that "sexuality is a social construct" implies that the very concept of heterosexuality is an arbitrary fabrication developed through socialization and wholly divorced from biology. This is just absurd. And if that's not what the advocates of that position mean when they say that, then they need to be clearer about their actual position.

That's such a fringe position though that it borders on being a strawman, and debating it is pointless. If Tumblr and Twitter and Facebook and these lesser-known blogs were actually representative of mainstream views, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders would've become their parties' nominees.

[John Dule]

Gender and sexuality are not social constructs, and even if they were, that would not be a sufficient argument to show that we ought to deviate from or abandon them.

I would somewhat dispute the latter. Sexuality can only not be a social construct if it is innate and present when born. Whereas it generally manifests during puberty, it is highly unlikely that society has no influence upon it.

I'm not saying that society can't influence individuals in certain ways. But claiming that "sexuality is a social construct" implies that the very concept of heterosexuality is an arbitrary fabrication developed through socialization and wholly divorced from biology. This is just absurd. And if that's not what the advocates of that position mean when they say that, then they need to be clearer about their actual position.

That's such a fringe position though that it borders on being a strawman, and debating it is pointless. If Tumblr and Twitter and Facebook and these lesser-known blogs were actually representative of mainstream views, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders would've become their parties' nominees.

Then what exactly is meant by saying "heterosexuality is a social construct?" You might as well say that "elbows are a social construct" because we didn't have a word for them until Shakespeare invented it. But that does not mean that the people prior to that term being coined didn't have elbows. Similarly, prior to the quasi-scientific classification of sexualities in modern times, male-female sexual relations were the norm in every culture in human existence.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Gender and sexuality are not social constructs, and even if they were, that would not be a sufficient argument to show that we ought to deviate from or abandon them.

I would somewhat dispute the latter. Sexuality can only not be a social construct if it is innate and present when born. Whereas it generally manifests during puberty, it is highly unlikely that society has no influence upon it.

I'm not saying that society can't influence individuals in certain ways. But claiming that "sexuality is a social construct" implies that the very concept of heterosexuality is an arbitrary fabrication developed through socialization and wholly divorced from biology. This is just absurd. And if that's not what the advocates of that position mean when they say that, then they need to be clearer about their actual position.

That's such a fringe position though that it borders on being a strawman, and debating it is pointless. If Tumblr and Twitter and Facebook and these lesser-known blogs were actually representative of mainstream views, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders would've become their parties' nominees.

Then what exactly is meant by saying "heterosexuality is a social construct?" You might as well say that "elbows are a social construct" because we didn't have a word for them until Shakespeare invented it. But that does not mean that the people prior to that term being coined didn't have elbows. Similarly, prior to the quasi-scientific classification of sexualities in modern times, male-female sexual relations were the norm in every culture in human existence.

I'm not defending the statement itself; I agree with you. My point is that kookery is commonplace for a lot of these ivory tower folks and not all of their ideas are worth considering or debating.

And to again clarify - yes, male-female sexual relations have always the norm but early European history shows us that the way sexuality was understood is very different from the way it is today, i.e. we don't declare that a man is a man simply based on his attracted to women and while that may sound absurd today, it was not considered that way centuries ago. Same goes for eunuchs having their own separate classification, among other bizarre and also harmful social conventions.

[Sestak]

Gender and sexuality are not social constructs, and even if they were, that would not be a sufficient argument to show that we ought to deviate from or abandon them.

I would somewhat dispute the latter. Sexuality can only not be a social construct if it is innate and present when born. Whereas it generally manifests during puberty, it is highly unlikely that society has no influence upon it.

I'm not saying that society can't influence individuals in certain ways. But claiming that "sexuality is a social construct" implies that the very concept of heterosexuality is an arbitrary fabrication developed through socialization and wholly divorced from biology. This is just absurd. And if that's not what the advocates of that position mean when they say that, then they need to be clearer about their actual position.

That's such a fringe position though that it borders on being a strawman, and debating it is pointless. If Tumblr and Twitter and Facebook and these lesser-known blogs were actually representative of mainstream views, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders would've become their parties' nominees.

Then what exactly is meant by saying "heterosexuality is a social construct?"

see Nathan's post

[Wikipedia delenda est]

The amount of effort that leftists can put into purely semantic arguments will never cease to amaze me. Who freaking cares whether or not a group of people that could barely build permanent structures used the exact same categorization of sexuality as modern Tumblr users do? That does nothing to disprove the common-sense fact that heterosexual relations have been present (and the norm) in every single culture throughout human history. Gender and sexuality are not social constructs, and even if they were, that would not be a sufficient argument to show that we ought to deviate from or abandon them.

That is a stereotyped and demonstrably false claim that is easily disproven by a simple Google search. The Aztec city of Tenochitlan had a population of over 200,000 - making it one of the largest cities in the world at the time - before it was decimated by disease and conquest. What is not often known is how advanced and prosperous the Central and South American Native Empires were. The Incan Empire functioned as a sort of pre-modern welfare state - among other things it cared for the sick and old, ensured clothing and other basic necessities for the citzenry, and provided food supplies should the crops fail - resulting in considerably higher living standards for commoners than in the Old World. During their conquest of the Empire, Pizarro and the conquistadors were astonished at the sheer lack of beggars and vagrants, so unlike their homeland in poor old Europe.

[John Dule]

The amount of effort that leftists can put into purely semantic arguments will never cease to amaze me. Who freaking cares whether or not a group of people that could barely build permanent structures used the exact same categorization of sexuality as modern Tumblr users do? That does nothing to disprove the common-sense fact that heterosexual relations have been present (and the norm) in every single culture throughout human history. Gender and sexuality are not social constructs, and even if they were, that would not be a sufficient argument to show that we ought to deviate from or abandon them.

That is a stereotyped and demonstrably false claim that is easily disproven by a simple Google search. The Aztec city of Tenochitlan had a population of over 200,000 - making it one of the largest cities in the world at the time - before it was decimated by disease and conquest. What is not often known is how advanced and prosperous the Central and South American Native Empires were. The Incan Empire functioned as a sort of pre-modern welfare state - among other things it cared for the sick and old, ensured clothing and other basic necessities for the citzenry, and provided food supplies should the crops fail - resulting in considerably higher living standards for commoners than in the Old World. During their conquest of the Empire, Pizarro and the conquistadors were astonished at the sheer lack of beggars and vagrants, so unlike their homeland in poor old Europe.

I was clearly referring to the natives of the United States with that remark. I have been to the pyramids in Mexico and climbed them myself.

[Kingpoleon]

I was clearly referring to the natives of the United States with that remark. I have been to the pyramids in Mexico and climbed them myself.

Are you unfamiliar with the Mississippian mounds? Cahokia was an entire city built upon high, man made mounds, the largest of which was as big as a pyramid. It was fairly close to Saint Louis, and at its height, was slightly larger in population than the contemporary city of London.

[John Dule]

I was clearly referring to the natives of the United States with that remark. I have been to the pyramids in Mexico and climbed them myself.

Are you unfamiliar with the Mississippian mounds? Cahokia was an entire city built upon high, man made mounds, the largest of which was as big as a pyramid. It was fairly close to Saint Louis, and at its height, was slightly larger in population than the contemporary city of London.

Unless I am incorrect, the extent to which we can call those "permanent structures" is debatable. Most of those structures are now gone, and those that remain have become increasingly overgrown to the point that they resemble grassy hills. Not exactly Giza.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I was clearly referring to the natives of the United States with that remark. I have been to the pyramids in Mexico and climbed them myself.

Are you unfamiliar with the Mississippian mounds? Cahokia was an entire city built upon high, man made mounds, the largest of which was as big as a pyramid. It was fairly close to Saint Louis, and at its height, was slightly larger in population than the contemporary city of London.

Unless I am incorrect, the extent to which we can call those "permanent structures" is debatable. Most of those structures are now gone, and those that remain have become increasingly overgrown to the point that they resemble grassy hills. Not exactly Giza.

You seem to be using a very narrow definition of "permanent structures" that would exclude most of the architectural products of civilizations that built with wood rather than stone. If Japan was suddenly depopulated much of Kyoto and Nara would soon cease to be "permanent structures" by this standard too.

[John Dule]

I was clearly referring to the natives of the United States with that remark. I have been to the pyramids in Mexico and climbed them myself.

Are you unfamiliar with the Mississippian mounds? Cahokia was an entire city built upon high, man made mounds, the largest of which was as big as a pyramid. It was fairly close to Saint Louis, and at its height, was slightly larger in population than the contemporary city of London.

Unless I am incorrect, the extent to which we can call those "permanent structures" is debatable. Most of those structures are now gone, and those that remain have become increasingly overgrown to the point that they resemble grassy hills. Not exactly Giza.

You seem to be using a very narrow definition of "permanent structures" that would exclude most of the architectural products of civilizations that built with wood rather than stone. If Japan was suddenly depopulated much of Kyoto and Nara would soon cease to be "permanent structures" by this standard too.

Hmm, I suppose "permanent structure" can refer to just any building with a roof that stays in one place. Nevertheless, I was thinking more about structures that can stand the test of time.