CDZ The fluidity and complexity that characterizes all human sexual desire

[320 Years of History]

Apparently, there's a recently published book describing what is, also apparently, a new (?) phenomenon: sex between straight white men allows them to leverage whiteness and masculinity to authenticate their heterosexuality in the context of sex with men. (What their whiteness has to do with it is open to question, but those weren't my words, but rather the words of Jane Ward.) The book, Not Gay Sex between Straight White Men, becomes available tomorrow. Below is the description of it.

A straight white girl can kiss a girl, like it, and still call herself straight—her boyfriend may even encourage her. But can straight white guys experience the same easy sexual fluidity, or would kissing a guy just mean that they are really gay?

Not Gay thrusts deep into a world where straight guy-on-guy action is not a myth but a reality: there’s fraternity and military hazing rituals, where new recruits are made to grab each other’s penises and stick fingers up their fellow members’ anuses; online personal ads, where straight men seek other straight men to masturbate with; and, last but not least, the long and clandestine history of straight men frequenting public restrooms for sexual encounters with other men. For Jane Ward, these sexual practices reveal a unique social space where straight white men can—and do—have sex with other straight white men; in fact, she argues, to do so reaffirms rather than challenges their gender and racial identity.

Ward illustrates that sex between straight white men allows them to leverage whiteness and masculinity to authenticate their heterosexuality in the context of sex with men. By understanding their same-sex sexual practice as meaningless, accidental, or even necessary, straight white men can perform homosexual contact in heterosexual ways. These sex acts are not slippages into a queer way of being or expressions of a desired but unarticulated gay identity. Instead, Ward argues, they reveal the fluidity and complexity that characterizes all human sexual desire. In the end, Ward’s analysis offers a new way to think about heterosexuality—not as the opposite or absence of homosexuality, but as its own unique mode of engaging in homosexual sex, a mode characterized by pretense, dis-identification and racial and heterosexual privilege. Daring, insightful, and brimming with wit, Not Gay is a fascinating new take on the complexities of heterosexuality in the modern era. Reviews​

This thread's questions?

• What exactly does it mean to be gay, be one a man or a woman?
• Is there a difference between willfully engaging in homosexual sex acts (something -- though I'm not saying what -- more than a hug or kiss on the cheek) and being gay? Does frequency pay a role in any distinction that may or may not exist?
• Is sex between men (regardless of their race) gay if they don't self identify as gay? Same question for women.

Important!!!​

Stay on the topic and focus on the thread questions. This is not the thread in which to air your views on homosexuality in general...only your remarks that directly answer the questions asked.​

 

[Disir]

Homosexuality is defined by the single act but only since the Kinsey Reports. So, I think for an accurate picture one needs to go backward so you have a decent comparison. There is a real good social history book here:
Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940: George Chauncey: 9780465026210: Amazon.com: Books

The problem is that you can't make a comparison between that location and say........Kansas.

It was definitely more fluid before the Kinsey Reports. Of course, other nation-states or cultures have not been defined or even influenced by the Kinsey Reports.

 

[FA_Q2]

?

The book sounds like rubbish to be honest. Straight men (don't care what race) in general do have sex with other straight men as a source of recreation or pleasure. I certainly am not bying it is some sort or exploration of 'masculinity.' If you are attracted to and have sex with other men the you at the very least bi-sexual.

As to the questions you pose:
What exactly does it mean to be gay, be one a man or a woman?
I think it is a pretty clear line - when you are attracted to the same sex.

Is there a difference between willfully engaging in homosexual sex acts (something -- though I'm not saying what -- more than a hug or kiss on the cheek) and being gay? Does frequency pay a role in any distinction that may or may not exist?
Yes. The difference I would say is that one may be willful but may not require actual attraction and the other (actually being gay) would require attraction. Frequency is, IMHO, utterly irrelevant. You can be gay and never even touched another person of the same sex. Many gays are in that state before they come to grips with what they are. I would state that the case of people having gay sex without attraction though is highly rare. There has to be some motivation behind the sex. Without attraction there is little to no reason to have gay sex PARTICULARLY as a man where the act itself is negatively seen in society in general. For women this is somewhat different IMHO as lesbian acts are generally not recoiled from in the same manner. Just looking at the anti-gay narrative reveals this. I hear absolutely nothing about lesbians ever. Vitriolic or homophobic language is almost exclusively attached to 'gay' and associated with men. If two men are kissing in the park it is likely that others are looking away or at least trying to ignore it. If there are two women kissing in the park there is likely a young man somewhere near them staring intently or cat calling. I believe that biology plays a rather large role in this attitude as well as strong social norms with it simply being accepted that women can be much more personal with each other than men. About the only place that I can see consensual gay sex without attraction occurring is in pornography, prostitution and prison. In the former cases monetary gain has replaced attraction as the driving force and in the latter is another world altogether.

I have to wonder if even those cases truly are matters of straight men as well and not at least bisexual. I know that I would have a damned hard time 'performing' with another man - the very idea is a turn off to me. I think that really leads to the reality that sexual orientation is not as cut and dry as most think - there are varying degrees of sexual preference that gay and straight simply do not fully cover.


Is sex between men (regardless of their race) gay if they don't self identify as gay? Same question for women.
Yes. A person does not suddenly become a dog because they wish it or 'identify' as such. A gay man is gay weather or not he is ready to admit it to himself or the world.

 

[Disir]

The book sounds like rubbish to be honest. Straight men (don't care what race) in general do have sex with other straight men as a source of recreation or pleasure. I certainly am not bying it is some sort or exploration of 'masculinity.' If you are attracted to and have sex with other men the you at the very least bi-sexual.

It isn't an exploration of masculinity. Look at the way that you immediately define it right at this moment. You define it because for most of us those definitions have been in place for all of our lives. After Kinsey homosexuality was defined by a single act. Remove the definitions and it is much more fluid.

 

[FA_Q2]

The book sounds like rubbish to be honest. Straight men (don't care what race) in general do have sex with other straight men as a source of recreation or pleasure. I certainly am not bying it is some sort or exploration of 'masculinity.' If you are attracted to and have sex with other men the you at the very least bi-sexual.

It isn't an exploration of masculinity. Look at the way that you immediately define it right at this moment. You define it because for most of us those definitions have been in place for all of our lives. After Kinsey homosexuality was defined by a single act. Remove the definitions and it is much more fluid.

That was one of the claims from the book that was in the OP:
"Ward illustrates that sex between straight white men allows them to leverage whiteness and masculinity to authenticate their heterosexuality in the context of sex with men."

Remove the definitions to what end? I already acknowledged that sexuality is not as cut and dry as gay/straight but it is just silly to call out men having sex with other men as straight. Remove basic definitions and you are left with words that don't mean anything. Though the Miriam definition might be defined as a single act I have explicitly stated that I do not think that is a valid definition anyway. What makes one gay really is in weather or not they are attracted to the same sex or not.

 

[Disir]

The book sounds like rubbish to be honest. Straight men (don't care what race) in general do have sex with other straight men as a source of recreation or pleasure. I certainly am not bying it is some sort or exploration of 'masculinity.' If you are attracted to and have sex with other men the you at the very least bi-sexual.

It isn't an exploration of masculinity. Look at the way that you immediately define it right at this moment. You define it because for most of us those definitions have been in place for all of our lives. After Kinsey homosexuality was defined by a single act. Remove the definitions and it is much more fluid.

That was one of the claims from the book that was in the OP:
"Ward illustrates that sex between straight white men allows them to leverage whiteness and masculinity to authenticate their heterosexuality in the context of sex with men."

Remove the definitions to what end? I already acknowledged that sexuality is not as cut and dry as gay/straight but it is just silly to call out men having sex with other men as straight. Remove basic definitions and you are left with words that don't mean anything. Though the Miriam definition might be defined as a single act I have explicitly stated that I do not think that is a valid definition anyway. What makes one gay really is in weather or not they are attracted to the same sex or not.

Ha. Dang it. You followed my post and I thought you were talking to me. I apologize.

 

[FA_Q2]

The book sounds like rubbish to be honest. Straight men (don't care what race) in general do have sex with other straight men as a source of recreation or pleasure. I certainly am not bying it is some sort or exploration of 'masculinity.' If you are attracted to and have sex with other men the you at the very least bi-sexual.

It isn't an exploration of masculinity. Look at the way that you immediately define it right at this moment. You define it because for most of us those definitions have been in place for all of our lives. After Kinsey homosexuality was defined by a single act. Remove the definitions and it is much more fluid.

That was one of the claims from the book that was in the OP:
"Ward illustrates that sex between straight white men allows them to leverage whiteness and masculinity to authenticate their heterosexuality in the context of sex with men."

Remove the definitions to what end? I already acknowledged that sexuality is not as cut and dry as gay/straight but it is just silly to call out men having sex with other men as straight. Remove basic definitions and you are left with words that don't mean anything. Though the Miriam definition might be defined as a single act I have explicitly stated that I do not think that is a valid definition anyway. What makes one gay really is in weather or not they are attracted to the same sex or not.

Ha. Dang it. You followed my post and I thought you were talking to me. I apologize.

LOL. I can see where that came from considering that you had mentioned a book as well.

 

[The Great Goose]

Im disturbed by the emphasis on "white".

 

[320 Years of History]

... What makes one gay really is in weather or not they are attracted to the same sex or not.

That, in general, is pretty much my position as well, albeit with a slight nuance on what I suppose is part of the "attracted to" element. I unquestionably agree that gayness and straightness is not near as cut and dried as a lot of propaganda, for want of a better term, would have us believe.

Some time ago, I asked a guy self identifies as being gay how he knows he's gay. His answer was that although there are plenty of men and women whom he finds physically attractive, he's not once come by a woman with whom he feels an emotional connection. He said he can easily have sex with a woman and enjoy it, but even over the course of extended periods has he experienced an emotional connection beyond friendship with any of them, no matter how "good" the sexual and social interaction between them. In contrast, he explained, he's felt a deeper emotional connection, "romantic love" if you will, with men. He said that he only pursues relationships with men because it's with a guy that, for him, there's any real prospect of his finding an enduring, deep, and emotional "love connection," so to speak.

In short, he said, he just "connects" with guys and, try as he might, just doesn't feel any such thing toward women. I suppose that makes him something like "sex flexible" but "emotionally gay." It stands to reason in my mind that insofar as he is that combination of things, other folks -- men or women, and race irrelevant -- can be "emotionally straight" or "emotionally bi," either one in association with being "sex flexible" or "sex inflexible."

His explanation was the first time I had heard gayness explained that way, but it was the first explanation I had before or since that actually made sense to me. Hearing it and then understanding it wasn't a hard thing to do. Certainly I've had sex with plenty of women for whom I have nothing more than a casual emotional attraction, but we "hook up" at will and enjoy each other's company, but whom I don't love and whom I never likely will or would love. My wife, on the other hand, I did love. I have never had any remotely similar emotional feelings for a guy, but I can look at a man, say, Tom Cruise, and know he's a better looking guy than any number of other men of roughly the same age.

Having said all that, I can understand why for other straight guys, the matter of whether one is straight or gay (perhaps bisexual too) is a far more binary type of thing. As it is with, IMO, lots of guys, when the opportunity to presents itself for me to "hook up" with a hot woman, even one with whom I had no prior inclination to do so, I go ahead and do so just for "sh*ts & grins." In contrast, were a hot guy to proposition me for a tryst, I just wouldn't, not even for "sh*ts & grins," even though I can tell he's quite attractive because even if it were to be that I enjoyed it, it's a dead end thing; it's much the same as what the gay fellow said -- it's a dead end act and thus a waste of my time. Seeing and saying a given man is handsome, or more or less handsome than some other dude, doesn't mean I want to sleep with him, much less try to develop a deep emotional connection with him, it just means I'm not blind, insecure, and "stupid," so to speak.

Who knows? Maybe when I was in my late teens or 20s I'd have given such an offer "the old college try" but the opportunity didn't present itself, and at this point in my life, I know damn well that had it, it'd have even back then been a "dead end" thing. I certainly wasn't as a young man "grossed out" by the idea of gay sex; it just wasn't something that captured my interest. Perhaps what the book's author is getting at is that these days, young men and women, not being "grossed out" by the idea are trying out gay sex for "sh*ts & grins" and discovering that they enjoy it as a recreational activity? I don't know. I suppose if folks can stave off sexual frustration by being "sex flexible" even if they are emotionally inflexible, that's a good thing. Better to be not frustrated, or less frustrated than to be frustrated.