Bard, Christine.
Les Femmes dans la société française au XX siècle
. Paris: Armand Colin, 2001.
———, ed.
Un siècle d’antiféminisme
. Paris: Fayard, 1999.
Bluche, François. “Vice ultramontain (Relativité du).” In
Dictionnaire du Grand Siècle
. Paris: Fayard, 1990.
Bonnet, Marie-Jo.
Les Relations amoureuses entre les femmes du XVT au XXe siècle
. Pans: Odile Jacob, 1995.
Borrillo Daniel.
Homosexualités et droit
. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1998.
———. L’Homophobie
. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2000.
———, Eric Fassin, and Marcela Iacub, eds.
Au-delà du PaCS, L’expertise familiale à l’épreuve de l’homosexualité
. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1999.
Boswell, John.
Christianisme, tolérance sociale et homosexualité
. Paris: Gallimard, 1985. [Published in the US as
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People
in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century
. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980.]
Bourdieu, Pierre.
La Domination masculine
. Paris: Le Seuil, 1998. [Published in the US as
Masculine Domination
. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 2001.]
Boutin, Christine.
Le “Mariage” des homosexuels? CUCS, PIC, PaCS et autres projets législatifs
. Paris: Critérion, 1998.
Camus, Renaud.
Journal d’un voyage en France
. Paris: Hachette-POL, 1981.
Carlier, François.
Etudes de pathologie sociale, Les deux prostitutions
. Paris: E. Dcntu, 1887.
Charcot, Jean-Martin, and Victor Magnan. “Inversion du sens génital et autres perversions sexuelles,”
Archives de neurologie
, nos. 7 and 12 (1882).
Corbin, Alain. “Amour et sexualité.” In
Histoire de vie privée
. Vol. 4: “De la Révolution à la Grande Guerre.” Edited by Georges Duby and Philippe Ariès. Paris: Le Seuil, 1988. [Published in the US as
A History of Private Life
. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 1987–91.]
———.
Les Filles de noce, misère sexuelle et prostitution (XIX siècle)
. Paris: Aubier Montaigne, 1978.
Dejean, Joan.
Sappho. Les fi
c
tions du Désir: 1546–1937
. Paris: Hachette, 1994.
Delphy, Christine. “L’Humanitarisme républicain contre les mouvements homos,”
Politique: La revue
, no. 5 (1997).
Dubost, Jean-François.
La France italienne, XVIe-XVIIe s
. Paris: Aubier, 1997.
Eribon, Didier.
Réflexions sur la question gay
. Paris: Fayard, 1999. [Published in the US as
Insult and the Making of the Gay Self
. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004.]
Fassin, Eric. “Homosexualité, mariage, famille,”
Le Monde
(November 5, 1997).
———. “L’Intellectuel spécifique” et le PaCS: politique des saviors,” Mouvements, no. 7 (2000).
———. “Le Savant, l’expert et le politique. La famille des sociologues,”
Genèses
, no. 32 (1998).
Flandrin, Jean-Louis. “Contraception, mariage et relations amoureuses dans l’Occident Chrétien,”
Annales ESC
(November–December 1972).
Fourest, Caroline, and Fiammetta Venner.
Les Anti-Pacs ou la dernière croisade homophobe
. Paris: Pro Choix, 1999.
Fraisse, Geneviève.
Muse de la raison, la démocratie exclusive et la différence des sexes
. Paris: Alinéa, 1989.
Girard, Jacques.
Le Mouvement homosexuel en France (1945-1980)
. Paris: Syros, 1981.
Graille, Patrick.
Les Hermaphr
o
dites aux XVII et XVIII siècles
. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2001.
Hernandez, Louis.
Les Procès de sodomie aux XVI, XVII, XVIII siècles
. Paris: Bibliothèque des curieux, 1920.
Hervé, Frédéric,
La Censure du cinéma en France à la Libération
. Paris: ADHE, 2001.
Leroy-Forgeot, Flora and Caroline Mécary.
Le PaCS
, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2001.
Lever, Maurice.
Les Bûchers de Sodome
. Paris: Fayard, 1985.
Martel, Frédéric.
Le Rose et le noir. Les homosexuels en France depuis 1968
. Paris: Le Seuil, 1996. [Published in the US as
The Pink and The Black: Homosexuals in France since 1968
. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1999.]
———. “Les Risques supposés du communautarisme gay,”
Le Figaro
(January 24, 2001).
Merrick, Jeffrey, and Bryant T. Ragan, Jr., eds.
Homosexuality in Modern France
. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996.
Merrick, Jeffrey., and Michael Sibalis, eds.
Homosexuality in French History and Culture
. New York: Harrington Park Press, 2001.
Meynard, Philippe.
Le Prix de la différence
. Paris: Michel Lafon, 2000.
Mossuz-Lavau, Janine.
Les Lois de l’amour: les politiques de la sexualité en France (1950–1990)
. Paris: Payot, 1991.
Mounier, Emmanuel.
Traité du caractère
. Paris: Le Seuil, 1946.
Pellegrin, Nicole. “L’Androgyne au XVIe siècle, pour une relecture des saviors.” In
Femmes et pouvoirs sous l’Ancien Régime
. Edited by Danielle Haase-Dubosc and Eliane Viennot. Paris: Rivages/Histoire, 1991.
Poirier, Guy.
L’Homosexualité dans l’imaginaire de la Renaissance
. Paris: Champion, 1996.
Rey, Michel. “Police et sodomie à Paris au XVIII siècle,”
Revue d’histoire moderne et contemp
o
raine
(1982).
Robinson, Christopher.
Scandal in the Ink, Male & Female Homosexuality in Twentieth Century French Literature
. London: Cassell, 1995.
Sibalis, Michael David. “The Regulation of Male Homosexuality in Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, 1789–1815.” In
Homosexuality in Modern France
. Edited by Jeffrey Merrick and Bryant T. Ragan, Jr., eds. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996.
Sohn, Anne-Marie.
Du premier baiser à l’alcôve, la sexualité des Français au quotidien (1850–1950)
. Paris: Aubier, 1996.
SOS homophobie.
Rapport 2001 sur l’homophobie
. Paris: SOS homophobie, 2001.
Steinberg, Sylvie.
La Confusion des sexes, Le travestissement de la Renaissance à la Révol
u
tion
. Paris: Fayard, 2001.
Tamagne, Florence.
Histoire de l’homosexualité en Europe, Berlin, Londres, Paris, 1919–
1939. Paris: Le Seuil, 2000. [Published in the US as
A History of Homosexuality in Europe: Berlin, London, Paris, 1919–1939
. New York: Algora, 2004.]
Tardieu, Ambroise.
Etude médico-légale sur les attentats aux moeurs
. Paris: J-B. Baillière, 1857.
Théry, Irène.
Couple, filiation et parenté aujourd’hui, le droit face aux mut
a
tions de la famille et de la vie privée
. Paris: Odile Jacob, “La Documentation française,” 1998.
Thévenot, Xavier.
Homosexualités masculines et morale chrétienne
. Paris: Le Cerf, 1992.
Tin, Louis-Georges, ed.
Homosexualités, expre
s
sion/répression
. Paris: Stock, 2000.
Tissot, S.
L’Onanisme dissertation sur les maladies produites par la masturb
a
tion
. Lausanne: Chapuis, 1760.
—Adoption; Against Nature; Anti-PaCS; Boutin, Christine; Caricature; Cinema; Communism; Custine, Astolphe de; Far Right, the; Favorites; Gide, André; Henri III; Heresy; Heterosexism; Literature; Marriage; Medicine; Media; Mirguet, Paul; Monsieur; Parenting; Pétain, Philippe; Police; School; Theology; Viau, Théophile de; Villon, François.
GAY PARENTHOOD.
See
Parenting
GAYPHOBIA
The idea that “gayphobia” (where “gay” is defined as gay men) and “homophobia” are one and the same has the effect of rendering lesbians invisible, which is one of the essential tenets of
lesbophobia
. Nevertheless, there are specific forms of homophobia that only or principally concern gay men.
One such example is the idea that all homosexuals are pedophiles, a belief that is without a doubt enhanced by the linguistic proximity between the term “
pedophilia
,” referring to a sexual attraction to children, and the word “pederasty,” which has long been a synonym of homosexuality. Apart from any historical references, the contemporary link between homosexuality and pedophilia functions on two levels: the first is a moral one, which tends to ascribe morality to sexual practices; the second is a political one, in which conservatives with an anti-homosexual agenda encourage the belief that gay men are pedophiles. One example of the latter in France was a drawing which appeared on the front page of the right-wing newspaper
Présent
depicting a male couple promising a small boy that they would receive him with “open bed sheets”; the publication of this image resulted in a lawsuit brought by the Gay and Lesbian Center and Pro Choice FLH (Fonds de lutte contre l’homophobie, a legal organization) against the newspaper. Similarly, in
Le Figaro
in 1998, historian Emmanuel Le Roy-Ladurie contended: “The fact of entrusting children to gay male couples (as will happen some day by logical evolution if PaCS [Pacte civil de solidarité; Civil solidarity pact] is adopted) will contribute to increasing the risk of pedophilia which is already high”; his reference to “gay
male
couples” reveals its gayphobia, as it is masculine homosexuality that is clearly the target.
Another example of gayphobia based on the perceived link between male homosexuality and pedophilia is the ongoing fight against sexual awareness and education programs in schools, based on the belief that students need to be “protected.” Suspicion of pedophilia is thus a form of anti-gay
rhetoric
which does not apply to lesbians (although in a definition that appeared in the 1999 edition of the
Larousse Dictionary
in France, the entry for “pedophile” included a reference to “pedophile lesbians”). Further, the website Media G (
media-g
.
net
) identified specific examples of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, particularly when there were criminal trials involving the “pedophilia network,” or
scandals
like the one that befell the Catholic Church in the United States in 2002.
Gayphobia has also appeared in the rhetoric of certain heterosexual or lesbian feminists, such as with regard to the issue of gay
parenting
. While the approval of gay men and lesbians raising children is far from unanimous, it is generally presumed that lesbian parents are less suspect than gay male parents at raising children. In the same manner, sociologist Irène Théry believes that children can be educated by lesbians, but not by gay men. In this prejudicial belief that is shared by some of the most progressive feminists, one can see a type of residual sexist ideology which proposes that maternity represents the essence of femininity.
More damaging is the fact that some feminists accuse gay men of being as much society’s oppressors as heterosexual men. At Paris’s Lesbian and Gay Pride Parade in 2001, the Groupe du 6 novembre (November 6 Group), which defines itself as a network of “lesbians whose history is linked to proslavery, colonization, imperialism, and forced migrations,” distributed stickers that read: “Slaves have their master, prisoners have their screw, women have their rapist, lesbians have their gay,” an analogy that puts gay men at the same level as rapists and slavekeepers.
This form of gayphobia, which can also extend to male transsexuals, reproaches gay men for their masculinity—the flip side to the gayphobia expressed by heterosexual men who consider that homosexuals are not “true men.” This latter logic was expressed by Jean Genet in
Notre-Dame-des-Fleurs:
“A male that screws another one is a double male”; in essence, the male homosexual is always the “buggered,” never the “buggerer.” This form of sexual
insult
, which is not without links to misogyny, is less aimed at the sexual practice itself (even if the moral dimension is not absent) than at the loss of social status as determined by one’s passive (i.e. feminine) position. This form of gayphobia is also evident in some gay men themselves, whose internalized gayphobia is manifested by presenting themselves as hyper-masculine in order to counter any accusations of passivity or the symbolic submission to domination.
Another form of gayphobia refers to the paradoxical perception that gay men are overprivileged: the idea that they make up the majority of DINKs (“Dual Income, No Kids”), enjoying socio-economic success which is somehow undeserved. Lesbians are not often included in this description, given the belief that on average women earn less than the norm in society.
This perception that homosexuals are generally well off, and hence do not need or even deserve legislative protection, was evident the day after legislative elections in France in June 1997, when an article in the newsweekly
Marianne
stated that the task of the new government was to deal with unemployment, not homosexuals. It echoes French politician Henri Emmanuelli’s famous retort to homosexuals: “You are a pain in the neck with your fag problems, as they do not interest the people.” In fact, the 1998 debates in France over PaCS, the proposed civil union pact, was an occasion for new expressions of gayphobia, in that there were no similar discourses aimed specifically at lesbians. However, it is important to note that few French feminists publicly supported the idea that the government should acknowledge gay couples. Their stunning silence might be explained by the fact that, initially, PaCS appeared to be a Band-Aid legal solution for gay male survivors of partners who had died of
AIDS
, who found themselves with no spousal rights; perhaps the reticence of feminists was due to their disparaging opinions about
marriage
, an institution they often criticize.
At any rate, in French conservative circles, the approval of PaCS was less a question of whether it would reduce discrimination aimed at homosexuals, but whether it could be justified based on the “differential” contribution of homosexuals and heterosexuals to the public good. In November 1998, Member of Parliament Jacques Myard, who once equated homosexuality with zoophilia, warned that “the real goal of PaCS is to recognize gay couples and to grant them rights without asking for anything in return.” In the same way, in an April 1997 article published in
Droit de la famille
(Right of the family), Bernard Beignier wrote: “Sociological studies have demonstrated that a gay couple generally earns an income superior to that of a heterosexual couple, for evident reasons. It is thus unreasonable to offer the same benefits when justifications of these benefits are lacking.” It would be interesting to find out which “sociological studies” the author was referring to, not to mention which “evident reasons.” In any event, the implication is that gay men are not charitable, an idea which Pierre Lellouche, a Paris member of French president Jacques Chirac’s party, used to describe PaCS as “tragic for the equilibrium of our society.” The fiscal argument, traditional in Neo-Poujadist trends, was also made during the anti-PaCS debates; it was advised that the real “costs” of PaCS should be weighed against the contributions, financial and otherwise, of homosexuals.