Quote Originally Posted by sometimes_miss View Post
Where it all comes from.

Simply, a woman is considered to be submissive to males. At least sexually, this is 99% of the time true, basically the act involves the woman being 'taken' by the male as he impregnates her. A male who openly embraces the behavior/appearance of females is considered suspect of being similar to them.
Now, also for 99.9% of human existance, submissive males were a danger to their tribe/society. Every male was depended upon to defend his group in battle. A gay or submissive male was seen as a huge risk for the society, as he was considered more likely to not only not hold up his responsibilities in the line of battle, but perhaps at other times when he may be needed to protect others, and therefore was a danger to the lives of his fellow male AND female citizens of that society. Those tribes that did not consider the feminine male a danger would die off as the less aggressive males were not able to defend their societies.
Which made the spread of homophobia almost a genetically driven thing over many generations.
Now you might say to yourself, 'Why, I'd never leave the side of my fellow soldier! I'd rather die!'. But they don't know that. At one point or another, we all know that someone in love will risk everything for the object of their affection. A potentially homosexual male, therefore, is seen as an unacceptable risk because he might leave his place in the line of battle to go defend another man that he loves, opening the flank to attack.
Societies that risk this will be more likely to lose battles than those that do not, and over thousands of years, that behavior will be gradually be erased from the population. Even though we like to think we are now 'civilized', so that those reasons don't matter anymore, well for about 90% of the planet, that's not true. Women (and other men) still depend on the other males to hold up their responsibility for protection of others like them; if I see a woman with her children being accosted on the street by a male, I'm still expected to go to her defense. So in a sense, nothing has changed. Gay males, or anyone suspected of being such, are still seen as a risk to the safety of the society. You can argue about it all you want, but that's where the feelings originate from.
And seeing of how being feminine kills off sexual attraction to us in nearly all women, I suspect nothing is going to change much in the near future, at least not soon enough to make a substantial difference in our love lives. Sure, you'll still get a few women interested in us (for whatever reasons); but the masses? Nope. Not gonna happen. .
That was not always the case. There is a monument to a Greek Legion all of whom had male lovers/partners and who were defeated only because of overwhelming enemy superiority. I believe that they weren't even allowed to be in the Legion UNLESS they brought their lovers.

"Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece was regarded as contributing to morale.[1] Although the primary example is the Sacred Band of Thebes, a unit said to have been formed of same-sex couples, the Spartan tradition of military heroism has also been explained in light of strong emotional bonds resulting from homosexual relationships.[2] Various ancient Greek sources record incidents of courage in battle and interpret them as motivated by homoerotic bonds." wiki article Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece