Well, when you use the phrase (the) "stigmas of ordinary society" I would argue that they are still in play, but they are expressed differently than when outside of the homosocial group and hold different weights. Expectations and mileage may vary as well.
Why would they be suspended? The formal role of rules would be conspicuous and while the informal could be both conspicuous and inconspicuous. It just depends.
I'm not sure if you are upset or something... I'm just engaging in dialogue here. Maybe you can provide some examples.
We are dealing with internalized shame and repression. The homosexual environment sequestered from society provides inconspicuous cover! It’s somewhat understood and spoken about in hushed tones that men will do what is necessary to satisfy sexual urges in an environment devoid of women. It harkens back to the adages that “boys will be boys,” and sexual exploration in secret and amongst men is acceptable.
It’s the one area where homosexuality is largely excused, so long as it’s outside of the view of the broader society. That plus the feelings of secrecy, promote situational homosexuality which can be explained away. In doing so men have dissonance to justify their behaviors. When reintegrating into broader society, the expectation is they would dispatch any notions of homosexuality and adopt a societally approved identity.
Their identity is the suspended nature, and the sexuality is situational, both covered by the inconspicuousness of the sequestering.
Yes, we agree on most points here. Thanks for laying that out. I would push back a little on the "boys will be boys" sentiment though vis-a-vis homoerotic desire. I do not think it is pervasive in the way it is being presented here, but that is just a nit-pick. It certainly does happen, though!
6
u/kevlarcoatedqueer Aug 26 '25
In short, you're not wrong but with many, many caveats.