Queer in the Netherlands: Pro-Gay and Anti-Sex; Sexual Politics at a Turning Point.
Gert Hekma
The sexopolitical landscape of the Netherlands has changed considerably over the last few years. From a country with a liberal reputation, it has become illiberal in many respects. This is a development I will discuss in this chapter by focusing on attitudes towards homo/sexual issues. It must, however, be made clear that this development is strongly connected with anxieties about national identity, and in particular about immigration. There is a great fear that ‘new Dutch’, and especially Muslim citizens, reject some Dutch norms, including the principle of equality for men and women and for hetero and homo citizens. At the same time, the Dutch have started to worry about their sexual freedoms, and have put in place the means to limit these. The question now stands: what does Dutch sexual liberalism factually mean? (See Hekma 2005; 2006.)
The Sexual Revolution
Since the 1970s, the Netherlands has been regarded as one of the most liberal countries in the world with regard to sexual politics. It transformed itself from a country that was strongly religious and conservative in sexual morals to one that is highly secular in such matters. In the nineteenth century its politics were predominantly liberal and, for much of the twentieth century, predominantly Christian. The liberals inherited a French style legal system that was sexually tolerant as it enshrined the principle of the separation of church and state. The Christians amended this in 1911 in a restrictive direction and introduced new laws on homosexuality, abortion, contraception and pornography. They added to the Republican model of the French – all citizens are equal for the law and no one will have special rights - the communitarian model of pillarization – whereby protestant, catholic, humanist and possibly other groups were “sovereign in their own circle”. In the 1950s the two social groups that had been most in favor of a strict sexual morality, the Catholics and the orthodox Reformed Calvinists, were moved by psychiatrists and social workers to reconsider their sexual values. In the course of the 1960s, these groups became more tolerant of sexual variation including masturbation, homosexuality and premarital sex. The 1960s also witnessed the rise of the youth, student and feminist movements that by and large supported sexual liberalism. Parallel to this development, Dutch society became highly secular (nowadays 50% of the population observes no religion whereas a mere 20% visits religious institutions more than once a month), while the religious pillars and parties lost their predominant position. The relative strength of the sexual reform movement, and the lack of resistance by religious and political authorities, resulted in a rather easy transition to a more liberal sexual culture. In 1967, the leader of the influential Dutch Society for Sexual Reform (NVSH), a civil organization comprising, at that time, 200,000 members, gave a lecture in which she opposed the criminalization of homosexuality, prostitution and pornography; taboos on pre- and extramarital sex; and impediments on divorce. She suggested the need to break down the straightforward understanding of gender and sexuality. Although she foresaw these changes for 2000, most were realized within ten years. (The exception is the last point: if anything, gender and sexual roles have rather hardened; see Nabrink 1978 for NVSH and Kennedy 1995 for the sexual revolution in Holland.)
The change in public opinion was followed by changes in the law. Divorce was made easier; pornography was decriminalized. Contraception became more widely available, including its prescription to adolescent women as a facet of medical care, and access to abortion was made easier. The law governing the differential age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex (21 versus 16 years), was changed in 1971; both were set at 16. An Equal Rights Law covering issues of ethnicity, gender and sexual preference was introduced in 1994. The final stage of legal sexual liberalization was the decriminalization of prostitution in 2000 and the opening of marriage for same-sex couples in 2001, the Netherlands being in both cases the first country to institute such laws. A new moral majority of progressive values began to set the tone (see also Naerssen 1987; Schuyf 1999; Hekma 2006).
2001: The Turning Point
2001 was for LGBT Holland marked by three major events: firstly the opening up of marriage for same-sex couples; secondly the declaration of imam Khalid El-Moumni on homosexuals; and thirdly the rise of Pim Fortuyn in the political arena. The first event got more international than local attention as it coincided with the engagement of the crown prince that mesmerized the national media. It was a blow for the royal family that the betrothal of the future king was overshadowed in the global news by marrying queens. The symbol of the Dutch nation, a royal family that marries, reproduces and was no longer so protestant with a Catholic crown princess, was confronted in this year with Muslim imams who rejected Dutch culture because of its tolerance for same-sex marriage. The third event was the amazing rise to political power of a right-wing queen, Pim Fortuyn.
With the opening up of marriage for same-sex couples in 2001 there were no longer any provisions in civil or criminal law that discriminated against homosexuals. The legal fight for gay rights had effectively come to an end. As a result, most Dutch citizens, both gay and straight, started to believe that the struggle for homosexual emancipation was over. They argued that there was no longer any need for a movement. But these legal changes have proved no guarantee for the social acceptance of gays and lesbians. Teachers have become less willing to come out of the closet and gay men face verbal and physical abuse on their cruising grounds and in certain urban neighborhoods, especially those with a high percentage of residents from ethnic minorities. The self-congratulatory complacency that has become a landmark in Dutch discussions of homosexual emancipation and sexual freedoms appears to be misplaced. Homosexuality is still a problem. Authorities such as school boards or policemen continue to refuse to defend gay and lesbian rights. Since the 1998 Amsterdam Gay Games, many straight and some gay people have begun to say that homosexuals should not be too open and visible, so as not to offend others. Others suggest that, given the availability of bars and discos and marital options for gays and lesbians, they do not need to flaunt their sexuality in public any longer. They propose that it would be better to close down gay sex venues such as parks, dark rooms and saunas because they claim, despite the facts, that straights have no such options.
A chief source of conflict around homosexuality concerns the Muslim community. About 10% of the Dutch population is made up of recent immigrants. The major groups – Turks and Moroccans – plus a substantial number of Surinamese and other migrants are Muslims. As a result, Muslims now make up 6% of the Dutch population, half of them (some half a million people) being active believers. Within the Muslim religious community homosexuality is generally condemned. On May 3 2001, a month after the Dutch celebrated their first same-sex marriages in the Amsterdam City Hall, they were startled by a “behind the news” TV-program that interviewed imam Khalid El-Moumni. This unknown Muslim leader, interviewed in the context of antigay violence in his home town of Rotterdam, stated that Europeans were less than dogs and pigs because they condoned same-sex marriage. The Dutch were shocked. Some gay men filed a complaint against the imam. Others remembered that not so long ago several clergymen and priests, including an archbishop and a bishop, had been in court for denouncing gays and lesbians but had not been convicted because of the right to exercise freedom of religious expression. The imam would be acquitted for the same reason. Journalists reported on the widespread male homosexual practices in Morocco, and speculated that these probably went on among Dutch Moroccans too. Some politicians wanted to extradite the imam and the prime minister used his 10-minute weekly interview on television to make it clear that no one should denounce homosexuals – the first time he had come to the defense of gays and lesbians in the 7 years of his tenure. The minister responsible for integration invited a hastily composed group of imams to tell them that they should respect gays and lesbians. Most imams interviewed in the media, however, made it clear that same-sex behavior was a sin in Islam (Hekma 2002).
As so often in intercultural communication, this represented a complex confluence of opinions. Khalid El-Moumni’s remark was generally seen as antigay, but in fact it was, beyond that, anti-European. The Netherlands just happened to be the first country in Europe to introduce such marriages. Indeed, according to most gays and lesbians there was in fact no such thing as “same-sex marriage” in the Netherlands, because marriage was the same for all. The statement of the imam was also seen as endorsing the antigay violence allegedly perpetrated more often by Muslim than non-Muslim male youngsters. In fact the imam had denounced this violence in a part of the interview that was not aired. The question was also posed as to why these queer-bashing young men were seen predominantly as Muslim and not as Moroccan or Turkish, and, correspondingly, why “white” queer-bashers were not defined as “Christian” (Hekma 2002). Overall the interventions of the imams on homosexuality strengthened the perception that recent immigrants to the multicultural Dutch society were overly traditional. In the early 1990s Muslim youngsters appeared to be overrepresented in crime statistics, including those for rape and sexual harassment. Later, the Dutch expressed concern about women veiling themselves or not being allowed to go out to party like their brothers; about female and male circumcision; about honor killings (the murder by family members of female and also male kin who have dishonored the family by sleeping with “inappropriate” partners); about “import” marriages (the expectation had been that the second generation would marry partners from Holland, but in fact some 75% married partners from the country of origin); and about sex education and co-education – in particular the refusal to mix boys and girls in sports classes. Authorities and scholars voiced the opinion that the new immigrants would integrate better when their housing, education and labor conditions improved. They completely neglected sexual issues that have proved to be more explosive in the debate on integration, including the disrespect for women and for gays and lesbians that many Dutch felt the new immigrants expressed. Muslims were seen as representative of this attitude (Gijsberts and Dagevos 2009).
Of course, nobody knows exactly how prevalent disrespect for women and homosexuals is among the new immigrants. In surveys, 95% of the “white” Dutch say that they accept gays and lesbians as opposed to only 60% of Dutch Turks. 83% of the first group allegedly have no problem with gay marriage, compared to 31% of the Moroccans and 26% of the Turks in Holland (Keuzenkamp 2006: 48). These numbers though hide a high percentage of politically correct answers as many respondents, especially among the “white” Dutch, know what responses are “desirable”. The first ethnic party with a political program, the Arab-European League, identified three main things they wanted to restrain: prostitution, homosexuality and alcohol (Sijsjes and Huinder 2003). Yet there is no question that many others are eager to integrate into Dutch society. Many new Dutch are women who embrace emancipation while some are gay or lesbian and enjoy sexual freedoms in the Netherlands. Many others among this immigrant youth appreciate Dutch freedoms that don’t exist in their (parents’) country of origin. The new gay immigrants have established specialized organizations and they opened their own bar in 2001. They also set up in 1997 a successful foundation Yoesuf (since 2009 Malaica), which provides information on Islam and homosexuality, organizes workshops and offers social support. On the other hand, many new Dutch stress gender differences and see women who dress “daringly” as sluts whom they can threaten. Moroccan male youngsters are indeed more prominent when it comes to antigay slurs or queer-bashing. Such behavior gives the “white” Dutch the idea that they are seeing a regression to a time when gender and sexual rights meant much less than they do today. Women and gays after the 1960s were a victorious minority but nowadays many have the feeling of being on the losing side once more.
The rise of Pim Fortuyn in the political arena in 2001 and his murder in 2002 meant another watershed in Dutch politics. His loudly voiced anti-migrant sentiments received full attention from the media. Although he showed some nostalgia for a past Holland and was conservative on gender issues, this was certainly not the case with regard to sexual politics. He was progressive on issues of gay and intergenerational sexuality, and expressed his anxiety about the sexual morality of the new immigrants. His persona was dandyesque and openly gay, and he made no secret of his visit to dark rooms or his sexual experiences with Moroccan youth – which taught him, he said, how “backward” Muslim culture was. Just days before the national elections, he was murdered by an animal rights activist who was angered by his defense of the fur industry. His party “List Pim Fortuyn” (2002-2007) saw a landslide victory and entered parliament with 26 seats out of a total of 150 -- albeit with no explicit program on gay issues and no MPs who were gay or lesbian. His personal gay politics disappeared with him from the party’s interests (Pels 2003).
Homosexuality had always been a left-liberal issue in The Netherlands. The meagre support for gay and lesbian emancipation until the end of the twentieth century came mainly from Labor, the Green Left and both liberal parties. After 2001, this changed completely and ever since it has been the (extreme) right that has become the main supporter of gay rights. They use the Dutch tradition of women’s and gay emancipation – that they never much favored before – as a stick with which to beat the Muslims and a way to express their Islamophobia, which, as far as some Muslim attitudes regarding the rights of women, gays and lesbians are concerned, may be plausible and not unfounded. Ayan Hirschi Ali, Rita Verdonk who created her own list “Pride of the Netherlands” (TON), Geert Wilders who founded the Party for the Freedom (PVV) or Marco Pastors of List Pim Fortuyn in Rotterdam all took up the cause of gays and lesbians. On the other hand the left parties, especially Labor, shied away from controversial issues that might have a negative impact upon their many immigrant voters. Journalists who continued to be leftist were accused of belonging to the “left church” of people that still believed in a multicultural society – and this was perceived as an insult after 2001. Also the gay movement changed its leadership from mainly Labor supporters to a close ally of Verdonk’s. Gays and lesbians themselves are divided on the issue of the state of progress on homosexual issues: a third thinks that progress has been made in recent years , another third thinks the opposite, while the final third claims it does not know. The first group probably refers to legal changes and the second one to lack of social change. Left intellectuals, both gay and straight, now say – in order to distance themselves from the right – that homosexuals are faced by few problems today in The Netherlands, underlining that there is no need any longer for queer politics. In short, the Dutch have become confused in the aftermath of 2001, and many admit to this.
The aftermath
From research carried out on behalf of the Dutch government on the acceptance of gays and lesbians a rather new picture of the situation has emerged (Keuzenkamp c.s. 2006). In the first place, it is quite usual to be out, or have been outed, in the workplace. But this is on condition, in particular for gay men, that they should behave “normally”. This is a demand that both gay men and their straight colleagues voice. Almost all reject “nichten” (sissies) which means in the Dutch context appearing effeminate and behaving in ways that are traditionally ‘unmasculine’, as well being oversexualized, e.g. by showing an interest in kinky or public sex. The general level of intolerance for homosexuality, which lies at 5% for all Dutch, goes up to 45% for those who claim to be offended by two kissing men in public (as opposed to 7% affronted by a straight couple) – and probably more than this 45% actually feel this, because the Dutch know to give politically correct answers. Many young queers still struggle for several years with their sexual preferences before coming out, as they feel that homosexuality remains a social problem. The acceptance of gays and lesbians has not changed the power dynamics between gay and straight citizens because heterosexuals continue to set the standards of behavior: heteronormativity goes unchallenged. Most Dutch gays and lesbians are happy with their place at the table and do little to change the straight structure of society. They would also have a problem deciding where to begin. This means that young people, when they depart from sexual or gender norms, are at the mercy of straight worlds of families, schools and sports. As the sexual age of consent is set at 16 years, while kids come out as homosexual much earlier, these youngsters face a long period in which they have to survive in straight environments with little chance to get into contact with homosexual life. The gay movement, instead of contesting this high age of consent, supports it and helps young queers with being gay, but counsels them not to act upon their sexual preferences out of fear of being accused of facilitating pedophiles. This confirms once more the obsolete Christian belief that being gay doesn’t mean acting on it, continuing the archaic difference between identity and behavior.
The situation is of course more complicated. Apart from the “white” gays and lesbians there are those of immigrant background who participate in the gay world, have created their own organizations, and – a unique feature of the Amsterdam landscape – have had their own gay bar Habibi Ana (my beloved) since the day that imam El Moumni spoke out against same-sex marriage. They are the darlings of Dutch politics (right, left and liberal), and over the last few years have received a large share of the budget for gay emancipation because they are seen by the left as bridge between Dutch and immigrant cultures and by the extreme right as a thorn in the side of the Muslim community. The scattered information on their lives makes it clear that most of them face a difficult situation between the famous idea of Dutch tolerance and a home culture that often rejects gay and lesbian choices.
To the various concerns regarding homosexuality an old one was added in 2007. During Amsterdam’s annual gay weekend at the beginning of August several gay men were beaten up. After this event, the media and politicians voiced a great anxiety both about the violence and about Amsterdam’s reputation for being gay-tolerant. It resulted in a research project on the motives of queer bashers (Buijs et al 2008).
The recent political concern regarding homosexual issues has one positive result. There is nowadays a general feeling that pupils of secondary schools should be taught about homosexuality as a part of sex education. This aim is, however, difficult to put in practice given the pillarized structure of Dutch education, with Christian and Muslim schools being prone to refuse to disseminate such information, or adapt this teaching to their own interests. Teachers and headteachers of schools with a majority of new immigrant youngsters are often hesitant to provide comprehensive sex education because they are afraid of both parents’ and pupils’ reactions to lessons on homosexuality, and even on AIDS or masturbation. The new government, notwithstanding all its good intentions, was more eager to provide financial means to non-religious schools for religious education than to all schools to provide (homo)sexual education.
The concerns about homosexual emancipation felt by all political parties have led to a series of measures like sex education and to small investments in local emancipation efforts and in gay ethnic minority and sports organizations. Larger budgets aim to support gay and lesbian movements in Eastern Europe and the Global South. This financial support may help the gay and lesbian movement to organize itself, but it offers mainly short-term rather than long-term grants, and has little effect on the straight majority. The high priority given to homosexual emancipation in Dutch politics has remained largely rhetorical and has done little to alter the straight structure of society.
The drive for sexual equality
Another complication in Dutch sexual attitudes involves a drive for sexual equality that has gained importance since the 1950s all over the world. The theory of sexual desire has changed from the theory that opposites attract (man/ woman; old/ young; queen/ trade or butch/ femme) to an ideology that sexual relations should be between equals. Straight couples moved from a situation where the wife was supposed to be obedient to her husband to one where equality in class, education and power has become the norm. Gay men and lesbian women stopped having sex with ‘heterosexuals’ along the lines of queer with trade and butch with femme, and started rather to have relations among themselves, gay with gay and lesbian with lesbian (see Hekma 1992; Chauncey 1994). Straight sex became much easier once virginity stopped being a marital obligation for women and the pill dispensed with worries about pregnancies. Gay men (more than lesbians) got their own sexual cultures with saunas, bars, discos and dark rooms where they could find their equals – other homosexuals. In fact, homosexual relations can fulfill the new norm of equality much more easily than heterosexual ones (see Braun et.al. 2003 for heteros). This drive for sexual equality, inspired by normative versions of socialism and feminism, helped the emancipation of adult homosexuality and paved the way for same-sex marriage but led on the other hand to the demonization of intergenerational sexuality, bestiality and prostitution (Hekma 2008). Sexual inequality has become unimaginable and in some cases even abject, even though it can be argued that the expectation of an absence of power dynamics in loving and erotic relations is simplistic and unrealistic (Sinfield 2004). The sexual model is becoming, as Don Kulick (2005) describes in the case of Sweden, the faithful and egalitarian couple, preferably straight: a strict gender dichotomy, with no promiscuity and no public sex, while kinky sex serves at best as foreplay and porn functions as stimulation where desire has become extinct. Gays and lesbians can be included at the margins as long as they behave “normally”. Dutch politicians have suggested that sex education should teach pupils that sex and love belong together, suggesting monogamous couples as the norm. This emerging system is applauded both by the Dutch themselves and by foreigners (Giddens 1992 eulogizes what he calls “pure relations”). The present system with a strengthening taboo on sexual inequalities and the eager promotion of monogamous couples is, according to the Dutch, the pinnacle of liberalism. This self-congratulatory complacency with their assumed sexual freedoms is, given the growing number of laws and regulations governing sex, totally mistaken.
New laws, regulations and concerns
This model of ideal sexual equality has legal and social consequences. Although prostitution was legalized in Holland in 2000, this did not have the desired effect of destigmatizing the profession. Rather, the opposite has happened. Sexwork remained abject because it is based in social inequalities. Since decriminalization, the animosity against the sex industry has grown. Accusations that it relies on criminal connections and on the abuse and trafficking of women have led to the closure of large parts of the more visible segments of the sex industry. Thus the “tippelzone” (a police-controlled space in an industrial area where women were allowed to street-walk) was closed in both Amsterdam and Rotterdam and the former decided to restrict its famous Red Light District and reinforce its boundaries. The decision was based purely on prejudice as the city authorities did not come up with much proof of the alleged evils or crimes, and did not explain why the police were not already regularly prosecuting the criminal offenses. Nor was it explained why criminality in some parts of the industry should justify measures against all of it. The move was even more surprising given that the sex industry is one of the big tourist attractions of the city, and a symbol of Amsterdam’s status as an international city of sexual freedom. The city appears to promote emancipation when it comes to ethnic integration, but apparently does not extend this to sexual freedom.
The list of legal-sexual concerns has become much longer since a “nuclear family cabinet”, consisting of two Christian parties and Labor, held power from 2007 to 2010. The minister of Justice has criminalized virtual child pornography and grooming (assuming a false identity to persuade minors to undress for a webcam) and intended to set the age of consent for engaging in pornography and prostitution at 21 or even 23, instead of 18 years. (In 2002 the age of consent for non-venal sex went up from 12 to 16 and for paid sex from 16 to 18 years.) He requested stricter regulation for brothels and stiffer penalties in cases of child pornography. In the past it was illegal to produce or sell the latter ; now it has become illegal to possess or even look at it. While in the past, production of such pornography was forbidden because it was assumed it would necessitate child abuse, the reason now given is that such porn leads to the sexual abuse of children – thus creating much broader definitions of what child porn is. New laws forbid sex with animals, although there already was a law forbidding cruelty towards animals. The main reason given is the opinion of the Dutch that such behavior is perverted - and much worse apparently than the mass murder of animals for the meat industry. Bestial porn is forbidden along with bestiality because of its excesses that are in fact already illegal. In these cases, the concern is not abuse, but sexual libertarianism that is now seen as unacceptable and as not fitting the ideals of conservatives.
Another concern that led to a broad debate in the media was the presumed pornification or oversexualization of society in particular on the streets and in the media. The discussion started with an oversized billboard representation of a woman in a small bikini, an underwear advertisement. This was seen as offensive to women and detrimental for girls. Although no measures were taken, the debate continued, focusing in particular on the representation of female dancers as sexualized in appearance and submissive to male musicians in pop clips on MTV and other channels. Explicit sexual imagery on television had already been relegated to late evening broadcast. Grooming; young girls offering sex in exchange for drink, clothing or a dinner; and women undergoing surgical operations to enhance their facial or vaginal beauties were other concerns. When the Labor minister of Education published a report on women’s emancipation, it included a chapter on this topic of oversexualization. The term was not defined and no data on the topic was produced; it was simply assumed that there is too much sex in society. The main concern is its negative influence on girls. No questions were asked about in which fields there would be too much or too little sex, or what would be the right amount. It is apparent that there is too little focus on sex in education, as the pillarization along religious lines has created far more attention to religious than to sexual themes. But how do these compare in content and in their influence on children? Such questions were rarely raised in the debate on pornification.
An ongoing issue, about which opinion remains divided, concerns gay cruising areas. Since the early 1980s most urban authorities responsible for parks have allowed these areas to operate in the interests of closeted gay men who had few other options. The state authority responsible for highways often took the opposite view, closing down those that were too gay-active, or cutting down the shrubs to put an end to these brushwood encounters. Complaints from citizens often led to closing down such gay spaces. Recently an Amsterdam liberal-right city council member proposed, among other pro-gay policies, to protect queers and to promote safe sex in cruising areas. He was silenced by his party on this issue. The outcome of these debates is predictable. The popular opposition, using the arguments that straight people have no cruising areas and that gay people can now marry or have sufficient saunas and dark rooms, will win and gay cruising will be outlawed. These same straight people will oppose straight cruising (that is, of course, as widespread as the gay version, but for obvious reasons less concentrated) and will seek to limit the red light districts where heterosexual men do similar things that gays do in their sexual venues. Another significant factor in the opposition to gay cruising is the growing importance accorded to the faithful couple, as discussed above.
What do all these discussions and concerns mean for Dutch adult sexual life? The most recent survey indicates that 80% of Dutch citizens are in a monogamous relationship, and half of these 80% are not happy with it. 20% have physical and another 20% mental problems that require specialist help (Bakker & Vanwesenbeeck 2007). The ideology of serial monogamy remains the norm for most people, which makes experimenting with variant forms of sexual pleasure outside primary relationships highly unlikely. There are only a few spaces for sexual innovation apart from the bedroom – the best examples would be sex parties that are mainly organized for kinky gay men, and to a lesser extent for people of other orientations and preferences. Oral and anal sex is the furthest most Dutch claim to go, with pornography and sex toys being used to spice up the sex-life of the couple.
For many years now more and more emphasis has been placed on the idea of Dutch citizenship. This has led to citizenship lessons, to the creation of a national museum for Dutch history, to a series of “windows” on Dutch history that would be taught to all students, and to a stronger feeling of what it means to “be Dutch”. Immigration has become more restricted and immigrants have to pass an examination on Dutch language and society before they are allowed to enter the country. The idea that we Dutch are so tolerant of gays and lesbians, and support sexual diversity, has also become a part of our national identity. Queerly, the lessons for new immigrants make clear that you have to respect kissing and marrying homosexuals, and also female nudism, while nearly half of the Dutch population itself rejects gay men kissing in public. The Dutch seem to have problems with their own ideals of sexual tolerance. With the focus on citizenship lessons, it has been suggested that sexual and gender diversity be included in this education because youngsters should not be pressured into a heteronormative straitjacket. It has also been suggested that diversity tests should be created to combat straight, white and male norms in political, educational, sport and other institutions (Keuzenkamp 2006; Buijs 2008). The aim is that everyone can feel that they belong. But few concrete measures were taken to realize this.
In conclusion
There is no doubt that gays and lesbians are getting a marginal place at the table in a resolutely heteronormative Netherlands. As long as LGBs behave “normally” and remain quiet, they will be defended by the “white” Dutch from right to left. Society has become pro-gay. Unknown numbers of queers will continue their less respected sexual and critical practices. The pressure on “deviant” homo- and heterosexual practices is growing both from the “white” majority that sees its own sexual ideology as normative and from ethnic minorities that coalesce with the old Dutch on sexual and gender norms. The dichotomy of male and female, foundational for the operations of the straight mind, goes unquestioned among both groups that also support ideas of monogamy, the confluence of love and sex, and sexual privacy.
While the “normal” gays and lesbians who create their own little families of choice are always more accepted – and, indeed, may become the standard, as they are more demonstrably “equal” than their heterosexual compatriots – the kinky and promiscuous queers may become ever more marginalized. The queer culture of the seventies that separated sex and love, promoted erotic diversity, and engaged in public sex, might be a sexual system that suits most people better because queers regarded sex and love as different emotions that often go in opposite directions (see Warner 1999; Moore 2004). Sexual pleasure often depends on moments and situations while love is rather about growing intimacy and mutual knowledge. But the sexual trend goes in an opposite puritanical direction, not only for queers but also for those people who embody sexual diversity. Dutch society may have become pro-gay, but unless you are in a monogamous couple, it is also becoming more anti-sexual. Dutch sexual liberalism, in short, has a very limited range.
Bibliography:
Bakker, F. and Vanwesenbeeck, I. (eds) 2007. Seksuele gezondheid in Nederland 2006. Delft: Eburon.
Braun, V., Gavey, N. and McPhilips, K. 2003. The "Fair Deal"? Unpacking Accounts of "Reciprocity" in Heterosex. Sexualities, 6(2), 237-61.
Buijs, L., Hekma, G. and Duyvendak, J.W. 2009. Als ze maar van me afblijven. Een onderzoek naar antihomoseksueel geweld in Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Chauncey, G. 1994. Gay New York. Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890-1940. New York: Basic Books.Giddens, A. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy. Sexuality, Love & Eroticism in Modern Societies. London: Polity.
Gijsberts, M. and Dagevos, J. (eds) 2009. Jaarrapport Integratie 2009. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Hekma, G. 1992. De roze rand van donker Amsterdam. De opkomst van een homoseksuele kroegcultuur 1930-1970. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.
- 2002. Imams and homosexuality. A post-gay debate in The Netherlands, Sexualities 5 (2), 269-80.
- 2005, How libertine is the Netherlands? Exploring contemporary Dutch sexual cultures, in Regulating Sex: The Politics of Intimacy and Identity, edited by E. Bernstein and L. Schaffner. New York: Routledge, 209-24.
- 2006. The demise of gay and lesbian radicalism in the Netherlands, in New Social Movements and Sexuality, edited by M, Chateauvert. Sofia: Bilitis Resource Center, 134-45.
- 2008. The drive for sexual equality, Sexualities 11 (1), 51-5.
Iacub, M. and Maniglier, P. 2005. Antimanuel d'éducation sexuelle. Rosny: Breal.
Kennedy, J.C. 1995 Nieuw Babylon in aanbouw. Nederland in de jaren zestig. Amsterdam/Meppel: Boom
Keuzenkamp, S., Bos, D., Duyvendak, J.W. and Hekma, G. (eds) 2006. Gewoon doen. Acceptatie van homoseksualiteit in Nederland. Den Haag: SCP; English version S. Keuzenkamp and D. Bos, Out in The Netherlands, The Hague: SCP, 2007; both available on www.scp.nl.
Kulick , D. 2005. Four hundred thousand Swedish perverts, GLQ 11 (2), 205-35.
Moore, P. 2004. Beyond Shame. Reclaiming the Abandoned History of Radical Gay History. Boston: Beacon Press.
Nabrink, G. 1978. Seksuele hervorming in Nederland. Achtergronden en geschiedenis vam de Nieuw-Malthusiaanse Bond (NMB) en de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Sekusuele Hervorming (NVSH), 1881-1971. Nijmegen: SUN.
Naerssen, A.X. van (ed) 1987. Gay life in Dutch society. New York: Harrington Press.
Pels, D. 2003. De geest van Pim. Het gedachtegoed van een politieke dandy, Amsterdam: Anthos.
Schuyf, J. and Krouwel, A. 1999. The Dutch lesbian and gay movement. The Politics of Accommodation, in The Global Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Politics, edited by B. D. Adam e.a. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 158-83.
Sijsjes, B. and C. Huinder. 2003. De Arabisch Europese Liga in Nederland, on http://www.forum.nl/pdf/ael.pdf (downloaded April 8 2010)
Sinfield, A. 2004. On Sexuality and Power. New York: Columbia University Press.
Warner, M. 1999. The Trouble with Normal. Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life. New York: The Free Press.