Loose Lips	Loose Lips Archive

A friend was recently discussing a local health clinic and said, "It's so old that it used to have homophile in its name!" Homophile is a largely obsolete alternative to homosexual. But the different origins of these two terms shed light on two faces of our GLBT movement.

Homophile was coined from the Greek roots homo (same) and philos (love). So a homophile is one who loves others of the same gender. Homosexual, by contrast, is formed from Greek homo (same) and Latin sexualis (sex). (The Latin is compatible with two distinct senses of "sex": it can refer to the act of intercourse, or it can also refer to different genders.) And so it refers to sexual acts with those of the same gender, and to people inclined to such acts.

T

View our poll archive

he political movement labeled homophile appears to have begun in Europe, with the term showing up in both the Netherlands and Denmark in 1950. Miss Poubelle doesn't find citations in English until 1960, and then usually in quotations, discussing those two countries. Google shows that homosexual is now about 20 times as common as homophile, and most current citations for homophile are discussing political movements of about 40 years ago. Homosexual is considerably older, dating from 1892.

A dainty covering

From the view of some gay organizations in the 1950s and 1960s, homophile was a better word for our movement than the already existing homosexual. One reason was because it didn't so readily make straight people think about the sexual aspect of gay life. The Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis are often classified by historians as American examples of homophile organizations. In an over-simplified view of gay history, these early organizations tried to make GLBT people as acceptable to straight people as possible. They emphasized that we are just like everyone else, except for whom we choose to love.

Miss Poubelle would say that for some audiences, this might be the best way to frame our argument. Because most Western religions celebrate love-- while condemning non-marital or non-procreative sex-- an argument based on our right to love whom we choose may win some religious minds to our side. And in fact, liberal religions that support gay and lesbian people often do so on the basis of support of love. Unitarian Universalist president William Sinkford, supporting the right to same-sex marriage, said that his church was "standing on the side of love."

While emphasizing love may be a good political strategy in some contexts, readers of The Guide know that there is more to gay sexuality than that. Our ad "Looking for True Love or a Piss-Play Partner? Turn to The Guide personals!" nicely captures the dichotomy. Some of us want the right to have long-time loving relationships or even marriages. Some of us want to have an exciting night at the baths. And some of us want both and don't see these desires as incompatible. Emphasizing our right to love is great, but it doesn't prevent the police from shutting down the local sauna or peep show.

Homosexual is a less comfortable word, but it has the virtue of keeping the sex in homosexuality. A movement based on the liberty to engage in homosexual acts seeks allies among other people with minority sexual tastes-- such as sadomasochists, straight swingers, or cross-dressers. In contrast, our modern equivalents of the homophile associations seek allies among ethnic and religious minorities.

While less comforting for straight audiences, the truth about gay sexuality is more complicated than a same-sex version of Ozzy and Harriet. For many of us, our gay politics are tied up with a general philosophy of sexual liberation-- the idea that free exploration of our sexuality is a good thing. We want to be able to love who we choose. And to have sex with whom we choose. We neglect these two aspects of our struggle at our peril, and what we need is a movement that fights for both these things at once.