Lesbian Pulp Fiction
Lesbian Pulp Montage from Duke University
Lesbian pulp fiction (most popular in the 1950’s and 1960’s) portayed lesbian women in a variety of unhappy situations (except a few notable exceptions, including Prince of Salt, ). Many of the lesbian charaters in these novels, due to the prohibition of mailing literature that appeared to support a homosexual lifestyle (or to counter the popular idea that homosexuals were not mentally ill individuals), married men. If a woman were to remain a lesbian in these novels, she always met an ill-fated end, hospitalized in an institution or even death.
What I find most interesting about these novels is not the ways in which lesbian women are portrayed. Who were the writers of these lesbian pulp fiction novels? Who was the intended audience? Lesbian pulp novels were written by both men and women. From what I can tell, the women authors are both heterosexual and homosexual, and the male authors appear to be largely heterosexual. Audience-wise, lesbian pulp novels appeared to be widely read by heterosexual and homosexual individuals. According to the Sallie Bingham Center for Women’s History and Culture at Duke University, lesbian pulp novels appealed to lesbian readers who were desparate to find a representation of their indentity within popular culture, while providing a moral lesson about the proper place of lesbians within society.
For heterosexual readers, however, lesbian pulp novels satisfied their curiosity, as well as providing a “scientific” study of lesbian culture for the uninformed. This curiousity in the actions and lives of lesbians is reflected today in American popular culture, seen on MTV dating shows like Next, and Date My Mom. Let’s face it, people are intrigued by lesbians.
What is it about lesbians that people are so interested in? Are the things that lesbians do really that different from the things that heterosexuals do? Supposedly, heterosexual men are interested in lesbians because of what lesbians do in bed (and perhaps the hope that they can join the lesbians in bed?). But, truth be told, not all lesbians look like the lesbians on the L-Word or on the MTV daing shows. Are lesbians inherently different from heterosexuals because of their sexual orientation? Does what we do in bed distinguish us in other aspects of our lives? (I can’t answer these questions, but they are interesting!)
More on lesbian pulp fiction: http://library.duke.edu/specialcollections/bingham/guides/lesbianpulp/
Sid Davis and 1950/60’s Anti-Homosexual Propaganda
Sid Davis’ film career was sparked by the 1949 murder of six year old Linda Joyce Glucoft. Urged by his desire to protect young childen (his daugher, Jill, was six at the time of Linda’s murder) from the dangers of strangers, Davis began to produce 10 – 30 minute ‘educational’ films for young people (150 in total). Boys Beware (1961), is a 10 minute film intended to educate young boys about the dangers of homosexuals.
Here’s what Boys Beware tells us about homosexuals:
Homosexual men prey on young boys.
Homosexuality is a sickness.
Homosexuals are criminals.
Homosexuals can engage in violence and murder.
This film clearly portrays homosexual men as child molesters (A similar film called Girls Beware sets out to inform girls to watch out for strange men, too). Of course, the 1950’s and 1960’s are a time in which homosexual men are portrayed as predators and dangerous to young boys, and homosexuality is still considered a mental illness (and is included in the 1963 verison of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Ok, we now know that children (both boys and girls) are more likely to be molested by men (pedophiles) in heterosexual marriages who consider themselves to be heterosexuals, however homosexual individuals (especially men) are villanized as predators even today.
This homosexual-as-pedophile rhetoric is seen in the literature of many anti-gay groups, most notably Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Paul Cameron, the head of the Family Research Council, has published numerous ’statistically driven’ articles that support the hypothesis that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters. The problem with Cameron’s research is that he classifies any man who has sexual relations with a boy as a homosexual, ignoring the context in which the molestation occurs. So a heterosexual man in a heterosexual marriage who molests a boy is, according to Cameron, a homosexual. Paul Cameron actually rejects the term pedophile for these men, preferring to classify them as homosexual. Research from the Family Research Council has been used in court cases deciding custody issues when homosexual individuals are involved. So, perhaps we are not too far away from the views put forth in Sid Davis’ videos.
What is even more disturbing is Sid Davis’ (and Paul Cameron’s) assertions that homosexuals are criminals, a topic that I will return to on a later date.
Some useful links:
Background on Boys Beware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Beware
Some information on Paul Cameron: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html
