“Sometimes straight men touch each other’s dicks or touch each other’s anuses,” Jane Ward (pictured) tells Queerty in an exclusive interview, “and they do it for a number of reasons that they don’t perceive as sexual.”
The provocative Ward is an associate professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies at University of California Riverside, where she teaches courses in feminist, queer, and heterosexuality studies.
She is also the author of the best-selling Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men, which is currently lighting up the blogosphere.
In an exclusive interview, Ward spoke to Queerty about the reasons so many straight-identifying men hookup with each other and the mysterious origins of the word “bro-job.”
Queerty: First, I believe a congratulations is in order. You’re book is currently #1 on Amazon’s Gay & Lesbian Nonfiction list.
Jane Ward: I have to say I’m delighted, but I’m also surprised. I was not expecting so many people to be interested. I think it’s triggering for a lot of people. Gay men have an investment in it. I’ve also gotten a lot of feedback from bi-identified people. And of all these people — I’d say, 95 percent — have not actually read the book yet, so that’s interesting. And then this word “bro-job” got thrown into the mix which, interestingly, I don’t even use in the book. But now that’s sort of taken on a life of it’s own.
Did you coin the term “bro-job” or did it emerge from comment boards on the internet?
I wish I had coined that term, but I did not. I do describe in the book what could arguably be called “bro-jobs,” but I never once use that word. So later, it’s sort of like a game of telephone, four blogs down the line I’m reading stuff that says “Jane Ward has written an entire book about ‘bro-jobs’.” I just had to laugh. But also I worried for the gay men who would be like “Oh, of course I’m going to buy that!” and think it’s going to be something more pornographic than it is. So hopefully they won’t be disappointed. There are some hot photos in the book, for sure!
OK, so if it’s not “an entire book about ‘bro-jobs’,” what is it about?
Well, there’s been a lot of interest in the past 10 or 15 years in the broader culture on the subject of sexual fluidity, but the attention has focused almost exclusively on women. You know, girls who hookup or make out with girls at parties or at the club or whatever for the attention of straight male onlookers. Or it has focused on mostly Black but also Latino men on the down-low. And so the book emerged, in part, out of the question: Who’s left out of this conversation about sexual fluidity? Well, it’s straight white men. But do they not also have a more complex sexuality than we have imagined, and, if they do, then why are we not talking about it? This book is about shining the spotlight on what straight white men are up to with one another.
So what are they up to with one another?
A lot! When writing the book, I did not do any interviews with straight-identified men themselves. I looked at historical documents, military documents, a lot of photographic evidence, news reports, and personal ads placed by people claiming to be straight-identified men. I looked at the Hells Angels biker gang. I looked at research on the history of straight-identified men having sex with men in public bathrooms. I looked at examples in popular culture.
A lot of people have conducted research on sex between straight-identified men, but often they are looking at one particular context. Like prisons, for instance. Often what those researchers conclude is: These are straight-identified men who are engaging in temporary homosexual sex acts under very unique circumstances. In prison, no women are sexually available and so straight men are doing this out of deprivation.
What I argue in the book is that straight men actually manufacture opportunities to have sexual contact with one another all the time in pretty much any environment, whether it’s constrained or not, whether women are available or not.
What makes a straight-identifying man who has sex with men different from a bisexual man?
In the book, I ask the question: Might it be productive to allow people to choose their own sexual orientation? To let them pick the label?
When straight-identified people engage in homosexual sex and they have no interest whatsoever in bi identification or gay identification, they want nothing to do with queer subculture, they’re deeply invested in heteronormativity, they feel very comfortable with straightness, they want to be understood as straight, then it’s actually most useful to say these people are straight.
If we’re thinking of bisexuality or homosexuality as purely technical descriptions of sex acts and not sexuality identities, then yes, whenever somebody is engaged in homosexual sex we could say that it’s homosexual. But that doesn’t tell us anything about the identity of the person involved or the cultural context in which that sex is occurring.
Homosexual sex and desire is basically part of the human condition. It’s what all humans do. The difference among us is how we understand those sex practices, and straight people understand what they’re doing very differently than bi or gay people.
How exactly do they understand it?
Often the people I write about in the book don’t think what they’re doing is sexual at all. I mean, if you’re a gay man and you put your finger in another man’s anus, there’s a really good chance you think that’s a sexual act. But the straight men I write about who engage in the exact same act don’t think so. They call it a joke, they call it hazing, they call it humiliation, they say “I was drunk,” and it flies under the radar of sexuality because the person engaged in it truly doesn’t have any meaningful attachment to that sex act.
A lot of people would probably argue, “No, that’s not true. They are gay. They’re just expressing repressed homosexual desires.”
I would say this kind of contact between straight people is so common that if the way that we’re going to make sense of it is to say they’re just closeted and repressed and gay then everyone is closeted and repressed and gay, and that does not seem very useful. The vast majority of those people are going to have hetero weddings and they’re going to have kids and they’re going to live out their straight lives and they’re never going to look back on that time they put their finger in another dude’s butt while they were in a fraternity and be like, “I was secretly gay.” That’s not what’s going on here. What’s going on here is that sometimes straight men touch each other’s dicks or touch each other’s anuses and they do it for a number of reasons that they don’t perceive as sexual.
So what are some of the reasons?
One of the primary reasons they do it, ironically, is as a way of strengthening their heterosexuality and expressing their homophobia. It’s like, “If I can stick my finger in another dude’s butt and I can make a big show of how gross I think it is, and when I’m done I can stand up, still a straight dude, totally unbroken, not a fag, then I’m all the more heterosexual.”
That makes sense when it comes to hazing or drunken debauchery, but what about the guys you mentioned who are placing personal ads looking for other straight men to hookup with? How is that strengthening their heterosexuality?
You have to look at the function of the sex act. Obviously, one function is to get off. But sex acts also have a lot of cultural meaning. When we have sex it helps to build our identity or reinforce something about our identity. When you’re straight and you’re having homosexual sex, you set that sex up in a way that it reinforces your heterosexuality.
If you look at the casual encounters ads on Craigslist, for instance, a lot of the men say they want to watch straight porn together. They want to talk about women and women’s bodies. Some of them want to talk about gang rape of women. Some of them want to talk about sexual conquests in college. There’s a lot of homophobia in the ads with people saying “I don’t want to do any fag shit,” “This is just going to be a hand job,” or whatever.
But those are just anonymous personal ads posted on Craigslist. Anyone could be writing them.
Of course, this is the internet. I did not interview these men. It could be anyone writing these ads. We don’t really know. But certainly what we do know from these ads is that they’re crafted in a way that’s expressing a desire for a kind of sex that would happen between straight men, that would be totally heteroerotic, not homoerotic. They want to drink beer, watch sports, watch straight porn, talk about pussy.
I could be wrong, but I’m queer and I’ve been friends with gay men for 20 years, and this kind of fantasy of talking about vaginas while giving each other hand jobs is not something I’ve seen in gay subculture. Have you?
I can’t say that I have. I also can’t say that I’ve ever met a gay man who has expressed the need to fool around with a woman to affirm or reaffirm his homosexuality.
We live in a heteronormative culture. Straight men, especially in junior high and high school, but even later on, live constantly under threat of someone thinking they might be a fag. So they’re kind of obsessed with constantly performing their heterosexuality.
One way they manage that is by being homophobic, by constantly talking about how other men are fags, because if you can make other men fags, then you’re not a fag. Another way is through these sort of chicken acts of playacting at being gay.
The story is different for gay men. Most people, in the process of coming out, go through the process of dis-identifying with straightness or heterosexual culture. After that, once one is marked as queer, there’s far less work that needs to be done to sustain their queer identity.
OK. Sort of like how once you’ve been made an outcast, you live and think like an outcast.
Right. Because once you’re in that category then the expectations are far lower. Thank god. You’re liberated.
Why do you think gay men are so fascinated by the subject of straight-identifying men having sex with other men?
Well, anecdotally, I think many gay men find it really hot! And I think many gay men have had sex with straight-identified men or are familiar with this dynamic.
From an academic perspective, I think there are a few important reasons. One is that the boundary between straight and gay, or straight and bi, is such a significant part of our daily existence and our claims to nondiscrimination. One of the most expedient gay political arguments is that we are all “born this way” — with the idea being that straight people must accept us if we have no other choice than to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. But this argument leaves very little room for sexual fluidity. It also raises confusion for people about how someone who appears to have been “born straight,” let’s say, could engage in homosexual sex.
I think another reason gay men are so interested in this topic is that many straight men can be such homophobic assholes, that there’s some pleasure in knowing that even straight dudes engage in some of the very same behaviors that they shame gay men for participating in. And I think a lot queer people — not just gay men — have an impulse, for better or for worse, to want to swell our ranks, to feel like our tribe is growing, and so we walk around like little gay detectors looking for other people we can claim as one of us.
Related: Five Reasons Every Straight Man Should Go Gay At Least Once Or Five Times
Sounds to me like a whole knew way to be politically correct and homophobic at the same time.
” Might it be productive to allow people to choose their own sexual orientation?”
Just great . . And we are back to the right wing christian repubs who tell us over and over that being gay is a choice. F.ck that and this idiot women and her nonsense about str8 bros suking dick.
Honestly even if being gay is a choice, is that such a bad thing? There are so many legal protections afforded to people for saying they have deeply held beliefs in a sky god and that is truly a choice. I mean no one is born christian.
I don’t believe that being gay is a choice, I sure as hell didn’t choose it. However I don’t see why we can’t frame it that it’s not a choice for many and just fluid for others. We deserve rights because under the law we’re all equal and even if some scientist finds the genetic or environmental trigger that explains sexuality tomorrow, it shouldn’t change that.
So sorry to disagree – but if you suck dick – you’re gay
“I would say this kind of contact between straight people is so common that if the way that we’re going to make sense of it is to say they’re just closeted and repressed and gay then everyone is closeted and repressed and gay, and that does not seem very useful.”
Actually, I disagree completely. It would be VERY useful to say they are closeted and repressed bi men simply because it would show — once and for all — how widespread these actions and/or behaviors are. One of the biggest sources of gay oppression is the us/them divide. When all of “us” have a little bit of “them” in us, it makes all of these divides and the bigotry they engender that much more difficult to sustain.
I don’t see how you can enjoy sex with another man and be totally straight. I’m just not buying that someone is 100 percent straight but still enjoys sex with another man. He is at the least bisexual. Touching private parts for sexual enjoyment IS SEXUAL.
Straight-identifying men enjoy sexualized behavior with each other because it’s a form of male bonding, an affirmation of shared virility. If you don’t fit into this bonding/virility scheme, you’re considered strange.
I also agree that it’s not useful to classify such men as “closet cases”. People who go around calling such men “closet cases” are usually inadequate queens who spend their whole lives judging others. It’s a form of identity imposition which speaks volumes about the person who is imposing the label.
I also think it would be refreshing if a male author studied straight-identifying males in the way this female author has. Male authors of such topics seem to be few and far between. There is almost a phobia there in this regard.
@theoneandonlygregoryd: Yes and you’re a biphobic bigot.
My first impression is that adding “White Men” to the title of the book (and the fact that it’s written by a White Female) makes me really NOT want to know what’s in the book. Second,
The thing that makes this topic provocative now is this political agenda to make Gay A Genetic Disorder aka The Born Gay Campaign
@theoneandonlygregoryd: Gonna have to disagree with you on that one. I’ve eaten p*ssy and have sucked on big ole breasts… still gay. Or does it work different for straight or bi men?
I think most “straight guys” will tell you that the first thing out of a female’s mouth when a guy tries to talk to her is: “What Do You Do?” As if a guy has to pass a background check and have good credit to even say hi to a B.
Woman bring a lot of f-king baggage to the plate and, a guy has to be deeply committed to being perceived as straight and being married to put up with women.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM with her work is that admits in the interview that didn’t talk to ANY OF THE MEN SHE STUDIED!
“I did not do any interviews with straight-identified men themselves.”
How is any of this supposed to be taken seriously???
She also mentions “straight” men giving each other handjobs and such in public restrooms… and basically compares them to drunken fratboys jerking each other off at 2 in the morning. Seriously??? There’s a BIG difference between a drunken Pike kissing his bud’s dick after a keg party and a married 40 yr old closet-case getting head down at the mall on his lunch hour.
Sorry, but she has NO IDEA what she’s talking about if this interview is in any way an accurate reflection of her book.
But yes… sexuality is fluid in white males, so she did get that part correct. But DUH, and so what??? She keeps chalking this up to a heteronormative culture, but what she really should be talking about is the homophobic culture and how that drives so many bi-oriented men into a life of forced heterosexual behavior.
Good lord…. I’d rather read Rick Santorum’s prayer journal than this woman’s “research.” Pass.
Touch anuses? Oh no bro, you aint 100% straight.
I think she’s over complicating it, young males = Martini, “anytime, anyplace, anywhere…” they can get hard looking at soup.
@Spike: “Just great . . And we are back to the right wing christian repubs who tell us over and over that being gay is a choice. F.ck that and this idiot women and her nonsense about str8 bros suking dick.”
Why would this even be a problem? I’ve never understood why liking same-sex had to be some innate trait for it be acceptable, like some sort of handicap.
@Ladbrook: “But yes… sexuality is fluid in white males, so she did get that part correct. But DUH, and so what??? She keeps chalking this up to a heteronormative culture, but what she really should be talking about is the homophobic culture and how that drives so many bi-oriented men into a life of forced heterosexual behavior. ”
I think she’s saying the same thing. Heteronormative and homophobic are synonyms, for practical purposes. Take this:
“We live in a heteronormative culture. Straight men, especially in junior high and high school, but even later on, live constantly under threat of someone thinking they might be a fag. So they’re kind of obsessed with constantly performing their heterosexuality.”
Replace the first line with “We live in a homophobic culture.” and you get the same thing.
@Ladbrook: In your hypothetical scenarios they’re both the same type of people, guys who are in denial or closeted about their sexuality.
I actually have a diploma in Study in Sexuality. Recently I got a call asking as to the marketability of my diploma. I did a minors in Sexuality and my majors in Feminism. And I answered “Not very, if I could go back I’d study something a lot more concrete and less based on hypothetical non-sense.
Here’s the truth about Queer Theory and everything affiliated with that non-sense: It’s all bullshit. Basically, Queer Theorist like this idiot want to impose queerness on everything and anything they can. Note I am saying queerness and not gayness, or bisexuality. As per morons like this dumb broad, gayness and bisexuality were created in Germany in the early 1900’s, prior to that, there’s never been gayness, et all, which is bullshit, because just about every culture has recognized same-sex love and attraction. That they did not call it that, is simply language trends. Rimming is a fairly new word, does that mean that people didn’t practice rimming prior to not having an actual word for it?
It starts with Michel Foucault and it goes down from there. There are plenty of gay thinkers and intellectuals though that have pretty much hung this hog wash to dry. Nothing, I repeat, nothing that is Queer Theory is based on anything other than mere speculation. The pervy professors that write ad nausea about bathhouses and ‘men-who-have-sex-with-men’ as is the current trend in parlance with these people, always seem to project their fantasies on those they are studying.
They claim that to project ideas of a universal gayness on peoples in the past, or in other parts of the world that are not western is to impose moral values to the other. This imposition is akin to colonialism. And yet, they have no qualms projecting their universal truth about ‘men-who-have-sex-with-men’ as the universal truth of sexuality.
Actually, Foucault himself was so stupid that he contracts himself. In The History of Sexuality, Foucault claims that anyone that speaks to the truth of sexuality, attempts to present themselves are some kind of renegade when in fact according to Foucault a discussion about sexuality is anything but innovative as we have always been obsessed with sex. This, as he presents himself as a sexual renegade in discussing sexuality.
Here’s the question this dumb bitch along with those who think like her fail to answer: If sexuality if as fluid as they claim, then reparation therapy then, is in fact effective. After all, if sexuality is fluid, then homosexuality can indeed be cured. This is where none of these theorists -I repeat: theorists- will go. Because then they have to endorse that Michelle and Marcus Bachmann are in fact correct in their premise and thus endorsed by these academics.
When I posed this question at University time and time and time and time again, NONE of my professors would engage with the answer.
But as someone has mentioned already, this hogwash is nothing more than repackaging homophobia in the language of post-modernism.
@Mercurical Memo: Well said. Thank you.
@Clark35: No, I don’t think that’s true. Same-sex sexuality activity in adolescence is extremely common, and not all males come of age sexually at the same time. We all remember the circle jerks from camp when we were 12 or 13, but most of those boys actually do grow up to be straight. Drunken sexual contact in high school or college MAY indicate repressed or budding gay or bi feelings, but it might also simply be something not that different from what most boys do in elementary or jr high. In high school I had two “playmates” (one brief, one not so brief). Both saw what we were doing very differently from how I saw it. Neither had ever had a girlfriend or a sexual experience with a girl, and once that started for them, their play time with me stopped. Again, I think that’s fairly normal for heterosexual teenagers who have not yet engaged in sexual activity with females their own age. (BTW, both have been married for decades and are quite happy and quite straight.)
That’s all very different from grown men getting or giving handjobs and blowjobs in a public restroom. Those men are far more likely to be closeted gay men socialized to hate themselves (see: Craig, Larry) or perhaps bi men seeking something on the side. The writer here seems to be equating all of this as more or less the exact same thing. I just think she’s very wrong in her assumptions. And don’t forget, by her own admission, she doesn’t talk to any of these men. She just ASSUMES STUFF and ASSIGNS MEANING AND MOTIVE. Mostly, I think, she’s just projecting things onto them that have nothing to do with any actual reality. Does she use any sort of scientific method? If this interview is a reflection of the book, then her “method” is apparently her own wishful thinking.
@Mercurical Memo: Thank you for the analysis, I agree with you – I’ve always had a problem with the premise of “we are all Bi-sexual” on some level, it’s a scale” – I find that to be insulting intellectually.
Sex is both a physical and a psychological fulfillment; I’ve met men who wanted to try to have sex with a man to try it, and see how it feels physically – it is the homophobic culture that paint their reaction to the experience, whether to have a “I tried it, its not for me, let’s move on now”, or a deeply negative reaction that includes homophobia.
But, but… he said no homo.
lol! What a joke. “Cultural studies” and “Gender studies” academics don’t seem to be bound by any standards for research. She admits that she conducted no survey of straight men and didn’t interview a single heterosexual male for this book. Instead she relied on “examples from popular culture” and unspecified “military documents.” She “looked at the Hell’s Angels.” How can you “look at” the Hell’s Angels without speaking with them? And btw, how is a biker group, which peaked in the 1970s, representative of straight men in 2015?
But most absurd of of all, she relies on personal ads. I guess she never heard that personal ads often exaggerate, mislead, conceal and outright lie. Nor are they representative. Reading through personals is not a reliable way to study a group. In fact, some of the most wildly inaccurate research on gay men ever conducted was by the anti-gay nutter Dr. Paul Cameron, who relied upon an analysis of gay personal ads in the 1980s and 1990s. Like Ward, Paul Cameron didn’t want to be bothered with actual research standards and methodologies to get an accurate picture of the group he was studying.
First, I hope she is not tenured. Second, she needs to take a logic class, as she displays a phenomenal lack of it. How can she possibly draw rational conclusions about such a dynamic subject if she only looked at tangible evidence- and the validity of that evidence itself is in question. For example, on what basis does she determine that straight-identifying personals reflect actual heteronormativity? I’d also be interested to know what she means when she calls herself “queer,” considering she rejects objective categorization.
It’s sad what academia has devolved to. Sociology is one of the most worthless areas of study, IMO, because it basically reflects “learning” about basic human activity for the privileged, isolated classes who lack that experience. I’m embarrassed for her.
@Mercurical Memo: No, not well said, in fact your hateful diatribe was rather incoherent for more reasons than one. No need to refer the female author as “dumb broad” or “bitch” simply because you disagree with her premise. The unfortunate thing is, Memo, there is a chance there’s a halfway valid point buried somewhere in your poorly expressed post, but it got lost due to your rage and inability to form a coherent and convincing argument.
@Ladbrook: I had similar experiences with straight males in college and agree with your overall assessment. Additionally, I hooked up with several girls in college and never considered myself anything other than completely gay. It’s common for young adults to experiment – college especially can be a time of indulging in activity or exploration (both sexual and non sexual) that we’d never repeat as post grad adults. I engaged in sexual activity with far too many straight guys in college to believe they’re all closeted gay or bi.
WRONG!!!! Sexuality to me is one of the most misunderstood things. I don’t know why so many feel as though we all have to be painted into black and white categories. I absolutely believe in sexual fluidity and that we all fall along a spectrum. Some are 100% gay and 100% straight and the rest fall in between. I consider myself gay with bi tendencies. I used to have sex with women a few times a year before I got with my now fiancé. Sometimes I just wanted some titties in my face and the feel of pussy and the softness of a woman’s body. Psychologically as well, it was easier because there were more clearly defined roles when engaging in sex with women. And yes, it was no problem for me to get it up and it staying up. It’s like the occasional itch I needed to scratch and once I did I was good for awhile until the itch came up again. I used to have a great PRN and she was the perfect, no strings, no questions type that I could hook up with and she knew I was gay.
So on the flip side, I think there are men out there who are hetero with bi tendencies. There are lots of hetero guys who have very close relationships with one another that sometimes cross the line into intimacy. I don’t consider engaging in the occasional act of homosexual behavior to necessarily mean one is gay. Now sure there are guys who are gay and simply not admitting it and are dealing with internalized homophobia, denial, and are repressing their true feelings,, but Ive had intimate moments with guys I consider straight, but whose sexuality varied in its fluidity. Stop trying to put everyone in a cozy box. Sexuality is very complex because it deals with the physiological and the psychological. I hate labels. I wish we could all just be sexual beings regardless of who the person is we are having sex with. It shouldn’t need written analysis but appreciate this woman writing this book and talking specifically about White males since the whole “DL” topic has mostly been in a demonizing fashion toward Black and Latino males.
@Kyle85: actually, no I don’t have to respect anyone who can’t even get their pedagogy straight. First problem with her ‘research’ is that she has not stayed her point of privilege or position of power in studying the other or the political reasoning behind it. After all to the queer theorist everything is political. Let’s start with that. Secondly, I don’t need to have some feminist respect for someone attempting to deligitimatize sexualities by suggesting so trivially ‘do we need labels’ without understanding hegemonic power that attempts to recreate and mobilize homophobia and shame.
Just because she wets her panties at the prostect of bro-jobs is not indicative of truth. Her research is as sloppy as the suggestion that because rape is a scenario in porn or popular culture women then in fact want to be raped. If a cisgender male were to present that as fact, feminists would be neutering him. So somehow we are supposed to be respectful of an individual that creates truth according to their perception? Again without having established a point of privilege? Sure.
Her ‘study’ is no less homophobic than insipid gay brain theories. She is not only serving as fodder for reparative therapy but also in restablishing the very problematic masculinities that feminists have a problem with. Except where it’s not a right wing zealot saying it in his vulgar and pedestrian language, she relies in post-structuralist jargon a la Judith butler for cred.
Again I say, dumb broad.
Jane Ward is making the rounds pimping her book in every pop culture venue possible. She is obviously tailoring her answers to her audience because she was much more candid to the fawning questions she got from New York magazine where she blasted gays who disagree her fiction masquerading as “science” as suffering from internalized homophobia for not realizing that basically, yes sexuality all comes down to choice! Of course, she redefines words so often to fit her theory that “choice” simply means self-labelling which is one of those “trivially true but irrelevant” questions. Here is the link andI just copied my comment from there to here
Ugh – Jane Ward strikes again with another volume of pop pseudoscience heavily marketed to the press with best click bait titles ever! Unfortunately, most empirical sociologists cringe because she is notorious for employing weak methodology shaped by the most extreme post-structuralist/queer theory in order to justify ridiculously counter-intuitive per-determined conclusions that just so happen to match her politics. Ethnography is basically a non-quantitative black box that is ripe for abuse because it is basically boils down to the researcher’s subjective opinion that can be distorted by the anecdotal nature of the study.
Ward is a hard core social constructionist who rejects any biological explanations for human behavior, especially when it comes to gender and sexuality. For her, there is no reality to sexual identities outside of a very extreme anti-capitalist, anti-normative politics, which the vast majority of people, gay and straight, would reject as nonsense. Her view of “queer” identity is so narrow and political that it would exclude almost everyone who currently identifies as LGBT so I guess we are all heterosexual then!
“That’s about queer subculture, which is anchored to a long tradition of anti-normative political practices and anti-normative sex practices and appreciation for a much broader array of bodies and kinds of relationships and so forth, and so I think most straight people don’t actually want to be part of it. I think straight people who engage in homosexual sex, what makes them straight is precisely that they have no interest whatsoever in being part of queer subculture, and so in the last chapter I’m making the point that they could if they wanted to, but they don’t…”
Finally, she really crosses the line when she claims that any LGBT who disagrees her just-so theorizing and asserts an innate sexuality is suffering from internalized homophobia! Talk about chutzpah! Ward, just like the religious right, is motivated by a kind of faith based denial of science – her faith being in Queer Theory – and allows her own ideology to trump the lived experiences and narratives of the vast majority of LGBT people.
@Jacob23: well said man! I wasted 5 years on this hog wash and all I have to show for it is a worthless piece of paper and a $40,000 student debt. This non-sense is all based on perception and projection and unreadable language that they themselves do not understand but readily quote. Is it no wonder Judith Butler was awarded a bad writing award?
Jane Ward is biphobic, homophobic, and is practicing bisexual erasure with her junk book/junk sham science known as sociology. She is apparently bi or lesbian which makes her even more of a hypocrite and biphobia is just as bad as homophobia is.
@Kyle85: If they really were straight/hetero they would not have had sex with you. But a lot of queens need the fantasy pipe dream of having sex with a “real hetero guy”.
@Blackceo: In that case you and those guys are bisexual.
This is what I believe in:
The gay guys are on the end of the spectrum. There is no fluidity for them and they will be always gay. They represent around 5% of guys.
The Bi guys represent a considerably larger portion of the spectrum, probably more than 20%. Maybe a lot more that that. These guys have had at least one homo experience in their lifetime even though the majority of them get married and procriate.
The heterosexual guys are on the other end of the spectrum. They feel NO attraction to other guys, even very beautiful ones. They will never ever fuck a guy. They are a minority.
@Billy Budd: And that’s more or less what Kinsey theorized. It’s probably not the perfect theory, much less provable, but it’s still the only one that even comes close to making sense.
If we lived in other times, I mean a time where homosexuality were fashionable (like it was in classical greece for example, 500-300 BC), the number of active BI GUYS would explode and go through the roof. Trust me on this.
It’s funny how only one poster noted that the author did not interview any straight men before writing this book. Her entire theory is based on pure speculation on what these men must be feeling and thinking.
Not sure why anyone is taking someone seriously who just wrote a book out of thin air while doing no research.
I don’t agree. I’m a gay man. Just because I desire to have sex with women a few times a year doesn’t make me bisexual. Put a guy and a girl in front of me Im almost always gonna go for the guy. My sexual thoughts revolve mainly around men. I could never marry a woman because my attraction for men is way higher. So that’s why I say Im gay with bi tendencies but I don’t consider myself bisexual. Dipping in the lady pond very infrequently while dipping in the man pond with great frequency does not a bisexual person make. Am I 100% gay? No. But like 95%.
Yes you are bisexual; but you’re just in denial about it or want to call yourself “gay” because of internalized biphobia. A bisexual person does not have to be completely equal or 50/50 as you’re not.
If you were gay/homosexual you would not have any sexual attraction to women at all.
@Billy Budd: Kinsey never claimed that most people or most men are bisexual. He simply just showed the various ways people-both women and men-can be bisexual with his studies and the Kinsey scale.
@Billy Budd: It was more that being a ped0 was fashionable/legal back then. Adult men could be bisexual or gay/homosexual but if you bottomed you were seen as a “woman”.
Labeling everything makes it feel fixed, final, constant. As if anything in life was constant. A straight guy can be curious, try it, not like it and move on. Or perhaps like it and enjoy both genders. Or like it so much he realizes he is gay. Either way we are sexual beings.
@Ladbrook: Actually no Kinsey did not theorize this. He and his other researchers never claimed that people who are heterosexual are rare or that people who are gay/lesbian are rare, and that most people are bisexual. If you actually read the actual studies nowhere do they claim this.
@Mercurical Memo: What sort of job do you have with a degree in sexuality/women’s studies? I know a guy who majored in Women’s studies and he works as a waiter.
They aren’t straight. They can lie to themselves and the world, but they aren’t straight.
@Mercurical Memo: You’re still coming across as incoherent and unhinged, unfortunately. It’s as if you have zero ability to express a point clearly and succinctly. Just lots of overwrought rambling, hostility and name calling. Let me ask you this, Memo, so I might better understand where you’re coming from: how would you frame or characterize a young man who engages in sexual relations with another male during his youth but then goes on to get married, have children and live a stereotypical straight life, never again to be sexually involved with males? I was involved with several guys this way while in college, one for a sustained period of time (two years) and I never considered him anything other than straight. In fact, it was our discordant sexual orientations that ended things; he was never going to be gay and able to love me or any other man and I was never going to settle for being in such an emotionally limited relationship with a guy who openly ogled women and felt the need to hook up with them.
@Tommy Ogletree: But would you say that about women who mess around with other females? Because I never hear anyone insisting that they are lesbians or even bisexual. It’s generally considered totally acceptable for females to explore same sex sex for one reason or another. Yet guys don’t get the same free pass to play. Its total sexist bullshit. Society’s insistence on labeling any male who has sexual contact with another male as straight or bi (even though most of them get off on straight porn, women in general and have no capacity to feel romantic love for another man) is bigoted, utterly wrong and punitive. Straight dudes sometimes suck dick and take it up the ass. And just like every time I fucked a female, no sexual orientations were altered in the process. Maybe the problem is we need to stop focusing so much on sex and more on raw desire, attraction and love. Orientation is more about these things than it is sex. I’m a guy, I get hard at the drop of a hat and could potentially fuck anything or anyone anytime, mostly because of the relentless coursing of testosterone through my veins. Regardless, I have always been and always will be unequivocally gay.
“Internalized biphobia” ???!!! No. I totally believe in bisexuality and don’t think it’s a learner’s permit to full gay status, but the bisexual people I know don’t like one over the other the way I do. Because I subscribe to just sexual fluidity I guess technically I could be bisexual. On the Kinsey scale it’s the 2-4 people who are bisexual. I’m like a 5.7.
So she wrote a “study” but didn’t do any research or interviews with actual people but did look at pictures and look over some things from the military written back when admitting you were gay would get you thrown out, or, earlier sent to lock up.
Is she kidding? HomophobIA at its finest. “Don’t worry man, yeah, we suck each other off but we aren’t FA*S!!!!
It also sounds like the fantasy that straight Mormon women choose to believe when they catch their husbands in bed with a man, “He said he isn’t gay, it was just a one time thing”.
Straight guys love each other. There is a definite bond between them. Sometimes they fool around with each other. Sometimes they fool around with gay men. It doesn’t mean they’re gay. All men are extremely sexual. It’s just the male nature.
That is terrible social science. “I did not do any interviews with straight-identified men themselves. I looked at historical documents, military documents, a lot of photographic evidence, news reports, and personal ads placed by people claiming to be straight-identified men.” In other words, you took 2nd hand sources out of context and made up your own interpretation to fight your predefined narrative.
Did she ever once question whether those anonymous personal ads were legitimate? They were probably by closet cases or married men.
Sure, I can believe that a straight guy might experiment when he’s younger, or have a circle jerk with his friends when he’s horny and drunk. However, if a guy is regularly hooking up with his buddies, then he’s at least bisexual.
I also get tired of the stereotype that gay guys don’t drink beer and watch sports together. Watching straight porn is a good way to seduce a closet case, because he can pretend to watch the woman and get turned on and then have sex with his buddy conveniently there. How does she know they talk about pussy if she doesn’t directly interview them?
I have be with so many so called straight men. If there wives put out for them they wouldn’t come to me to get a great oral or to know what anal feels like. Thank you straight men for the pleasure to serve you
@Cam: What is this insistence on guys having gay sex and yet not wanting to be called gay? This sounds more like homophobia than social science.
If you sleep with men on a regular basis, you are gay. If you also sleep with women regularly, then you are bi. Bi definition, you are not straight.
It’s like saying you like yellow, and sometimes you mix it with a bit of blue, but you definitely don’t like green.
A man is at his most powerful when he is bonding with other men. He is at his weakest when he is bonding with women.
When he’s bonding with men, he’s affirming his and his buddies’ masculine qualities. The male-to-male synergy reinforces his own masculinity, his own sense of virility. But when he is bonding with women, he reduces his masculinity in exchange for her sexual consent. He basically feminizes himself in order to obtain her permission to engage in sex with her.
Again, this is just good ole homophobia now hidden behind a phony study.
She didn’t interview anybody, if you actually read what she said, she is saying that men were straight because in the personal ad where they were looking for gay sex, they said that they were straight.
Let that sink in.
Yeah, and Larry Craig and George Reckers both loudly proclaimed themselves straight also, as does every self hating closet case.
So she based her conclusions on what people wrote in personal ads, or what people told military investigators, where if they admitted to being gay they would be kicked out.
The definition of straight is different than the definition of bisexual or gay.
You don’t get to eat meat and call yourself a vegetarian. “Oh gee, yeah, I have sex with men all the time, but I’m straight”. No you aren’t, you’re bi or gay.
Again, this is the same homophobic B.S. that the ex-gay movement, or hopeful yet delusional Mormon wives have used for years.
Rudy M Martinez
So straight women can do girl on girl stuff just for fun and still be straight, but guys can’t do the same thing…
The world of double standards
Might have worked a few decades ago, but her convoluted justifications are really too weak to fly now.
Visually, seems like retro fashion gone bad……nothing in her argument stands up to even basic scrutiny. Men having sex with men is not straight. At best it may be opportunistic/temporary homosexuality, but homosexuality it definitely is.
Moreover, she seems to contradict herself by trying to validate what she herself describes as straight men literally setting up opportunities for gay sex. How is that a way to reinforce their straightness…?
What is truly bent in this article is her assumption that someone is actually going to swallow all this confused, half baked drivel.
@Cam: I wonder if she even knows any gay men? She certainly writes as if she rarely, if ever, has in-depth conversations with them.
@MarionPaige: We’re simultaneously running in two directions with queer theory telling us “gender is a performance” and “sexuality is a social construct”, and political activists telling us “Born this way!” We want to acknowledge fluidity and constructedness to be postmodern, and at the same time we’re essentialists to get those political gains. The truth is somewhere in the middle, until there’s conclusive evidence one way or the other, which in fact, may never materialize at all….
@Rudy M Martinez: said…”So straight women can do girl on girl stuff just for fun and still be straight, but guys can’t do the same thing…
The world of double standards”
No, actually the only double standard there is that straight girls can make-out in a bar and get favorable attention for it, two guys would have to fight their way out of the bar.
As for straight women “Doing Girl on Girl Stuff” for fun, um no, YOU are the one that said they would still be straight. If a woman is running personal ads calling herself straight but soliciting other women for sex, then she is as delusional and self hating as the guys who are doing it.
But let me ask you, why do YOU have the homophobic standard that anybody can literally conform to the definition of gay or bi, and not BE gay or bi?
@Rudy M Martinez: Who says that?
If you have sex with someone of your same sex once or for a brief time, you are experimenting or “bi curious”. If you have sex with both genders regularly, you are bi. If you have sex only with your own sex or rarely with the opposite, you are gay.
If you have sex with someone of the same sex and call yourself straight, you are a closet case.
The double standard is that society despises gay men more than lesbians.
@jason smeds: Another ignorant statement from the low esteem Jason.
So what she is saying is that some straight men aren’t gay or bisexual, they just don’t get enough at home and as long as they get to climax will stick it anywhere. I already knew that. But what she is suggesting is that society should now accept that this is just something that occurs with some straight guys and should be accepted. and that we should also allow the “straight” man to label himself that way because his fragile little ego couldn’t handle or accept any other label. If he is with a woman its still cheating. If he is having sexual relations with another male (whether he considers it real sex or not) it is at least bisexual activity. If something like that occurs a couple of times in a young man’s life it can be considered experimenting. If its a regular occurrence, especially past your mid-20s it is a behavior, no matter what label you give it.
Just a small observation. Heterosexual men are labeled as”Straight / Straight identified”, labeling them as bi or gay is wrong because they don’t want to be labeled as such. Translation: Just because? Gays are repeatedly identified as “fag & queer. She may wish to look into her hostility towards gay men. I could have called her a typical Lesbian but don’t want to label her.
@Spike: I agree!!!
So a vegetarian could eat meat and still label themselves as a vegetarian as long as they refer to the meat as a vegetable.
This is another case of useless theorizing about sexuality. She refers to “straight-identified” men as if that’s the same as “straight men.” It isn’t. It just means men who may or may not have gay tendencies — but if they do, they’re not admitting to it. I was “straight-identifying” at one time myself, but now I identify as gay. That does NOT mean that I was once straight.
She also fails to recognize that age makes a big difference. Young, horny men will fuck anything that moves. Most gay men I know have had multiple experiences with women when they were young. Many straight men and teens are horny enough to go for a blowjob from a gay man, and in some cultures anal sex with a man isn’t homosexual as long as you’re the top and never the bottom.
By the time we get to a certain age, we know what we want, the hormones aren’t raging quite as much, and we settle into our true sexuality. That may be bisexual, and the bisexual guy may still identify as straight, but it does NOT mean our sexuality if “fluid.” To say that it is fluid simply plays into the myth that gays can be “cured.”
@Mercurical Memo: Great comments above. I am sorry you spent your time and money seeking useful knowledge, only to be subjected to political screeds that were tarted-up as as “theory.” BTW, a lot has been said about why these folks write in a manner that is difficult or impossible to understand. The famous linguist Noam Chomsky called them out for what they are: defensive frauds. They know that their work would not get much respect if it were written in plain English, so they make it as inscrutable as possible. If you can’t understand it, it must be very profound!
It is amazing to me how this phenomenon has endured for so long. You would think that smart people with strong political views would chafe at the thought of churning out unreadable works, which are nothing more than their own political opinions and which have no impact on the real world. 100 years ago, academics in these fields would be dedicated to studying and resolving major social problems afflicting human society. Today, they are writing about how the gendered anus is represented in heteronormative discourse on Dancing With The Stars. These people are not only a waste of space, but they draw away talent and energy of people who could actually improve the condition of the world.
BTW, here’s a sample of some of Jane Ward’s other “scholarly works.” She seems obsessed with taking down heterosexuality, smearing gays as [email protected], promoting transgenderism, and using children to experiment with queer theory:
“Radical Experiments Involving Innocent Children: Locating Parenthood in Queer Utopia.” 2013
“Queer Feminist Pigs: A Spectator’s Manifesta.” 2013
“Gender Labor: Transmen, Femmes, and the Collective Work of Transgression.” 2010
“Queer Pedagogies: Queering Women’s Studies.” 2009.
“If Foucault Parented: Why Letting Children ‘Be Who They Are’ Is Not the Queer Goal.” 2012.
“The Heteroflexible Anus: How Straight White Men are Redefining the Meaning of Anal Penetration.” 2011
“Femmes, Transmen, and the Labor of Forgetting.” 2009
“Femme Labor and the Production of Trans Masculinity.” 2007
After I read that she didn’t interview any “straight-identified” men I lost interest. How could you write a book about straight men having sexual contact with other straight men without asking them why?? Without interviewing them we don’t know if they’re even real or how straight or gay they are perceived by other people. Her examples of guys touching other guy’s buttholes as part of hazing or fraternity rituals shouldn’t be construed as anything more than crazy drunk behavior. None of the straight men engaging in this behavior will say they looked forward to or desired to put their finger in another man’s butt. Touching another man’s butt will likely be a once in a lifetime thing that will never be a part of their adult life. Finally, it is only straight men who aren’t very comfortable with that identification who need to reinforce their heterosexuality and it has been proven repeatedly that it is these same type of men who typically engage in homophobic behavior rather than straight men who are secure in their sexuality. The people buying this book without regard for the source material and the sexuality of the author are frankly stupid because this woman has no business writing on this subject and the publisher should be ashamed for publishing a book hoping for sales based on a titillating title knowing it is completely lacking in substance.
@AxelDC: Actually someone is bisexual if they’re sexually attracted to both genders and it does not matter which sex/gender they’re most sexually attracted to. If someone’s gay they’re only sexually attracted to the same gender and again it does not matter which gender/sex they mainly sleep with. I know gay men who told me how they have had sex with women or even married women for decades, and they are not bisexual just because they had sex with women because they’re not sexually attracted to women. Some of these gay men did not want to be gay at first as young adults so they tried sleeping with women and just discovered that they’re not sexually attracted to women at all.
@theoneandonlygregoryd: Sexuality isn’t black and white. Don’t be stupid.
Here’s what many of you don’t seem to realize: this “dumb broad,” this “dumb bitch,” has researched, written, and published a book to critical academic acclaim. How many of you can claim the same?
Just because what she has written doesn’t match up to your lives exactly doesn’t mean it’s any less valid. Another thing is that this is a cultural studies work, not necessarily a sociological or anthropological work, though it definitely shares characteristics of those fields. Cultural studies does not have to include first-hand accounts (the lack of interviews you all are criticizing her for). Cultural studies is exactly that: a study devoted to analyzing the works and processes a culture produces and what those works and processes mean in certain contexts.
I myself did a cultural studies/new-historicist paper for my MA portfolio about the perception of children from the late 1800s to the present. I studied cultural works, e.g. essays, plays, musicals, movies. I did not interview people from the late 1800s (how could I?), but from their works, a general feeling of their attitude toward children became evident. I was not criticized for a lack of interviews; I graduated with my MA. The same concept applies here. Ward studied micro-works (craigslist ads), cultural practices (frat hazing), articles written about “lewd” behavior, and from those she was able to come up with a coherent argument about the fluidity of sexual practices among straight, white men.
This is perhaps one of the first comprehensive studies about straight, white men. As she said in her interview, more attention has been given to women and men of color. This work is all the more important because it lifts the veil on the hypocrisy of straight, white men and problematizes the rhetoric used when discussing LGBT rights, much of which is decided by the very same men who engage in these practices.
A majority of your comments are filled with vitriolic, misogynistic sentiments and you don’t seem to realize that. This book is written by an ally and member of the LGBT “community” and I’m disappointed to see a lack of that very same word.
@bicks236: Have you actually even read interviews with the author, or read this book? There’s nothing about actual heterosexual/straight men at all in it.
You have admit she comes up with great titles. I wish I’d thought of writing something call “The Heteroflexible Anus”
@bicks236: Um, if you are studying people from the 19th century, who are no longer alive, then you make do the sources that are available. When we want to study some aspect of ancient history and all we have are a few writings by Josephus, then we look at those few writings of Josephus. But when you are studying people alive today and you want to draw conclusions about these same people, their motivations, their feelings and their psyches, then you need to gather information from those people. There is no justification for avoiding the subjects of the study and looking at personal ads and popular culture.
And btw, even when the limits on information justify looking at secondary sources, as with your paper, that does not mean that the methodology chosen is sound or that the conclusions are accurate. You assert that, from your review of musicals, movies and plays “a general feeling of their attitude toward children became evident.” You don’t know that. You are assuming it. I don’t know why you wouldn’t also look to a variety of other sources to see if they all show the same perception of children: common law, civil codes, newspaper articles, materials from boys and girls societies, scientific literature, autobiographies, etc.
Ward’s study isn’t “comprehensive.” It’s a joke. And it doesn’t become valuable because it attacks straight guys or “problematizes” certain rhetoric. You apparently think that the value of an academic study is found in its ideology, i.e., if it attacks something or some group which you don’t like, then its good work, if it validates something you don’t like, then it’s bad. I couldn’t care less about what you or Ward want to “problematize.” She and you should be concerned with accuracy, not ideology.
Straight guys will go gay if you pressure them enough! – *gag*
Is this little campaign spreading the sexual fluidity myth more about making people think being gay is a choice or tricking gay men/boys into giving straight guys an excuse to attack us?
It’s so tired, pathetic, and lame. Simply put no matter what you think about the label it somewhat protects us from harm because we know who we can and can’t hit on/flirt with/ask out. So all of you sexual fluidity champions can call yourselves bi and shove the weak argument back up your anus where it came from already.
And the irony of a woman writing about male sexuality is almost deafening. Try to tell a woman about herself with zero experience from the male perspective and see how far you get. This trick can go have many seats.
I’m calling bullshit. If these guys who are giving/getting blowjobs, or both, don’t want to identify as gay or bi fine by me. But, please, don’t try to convince me that they’re fucking “straight” or whatever that’s supposed to mean. Whatever.
Choosing “MAN-ON-MAN” sex isn’t “straight!” Better research, please!
“…But also I worried for the gay men who would be like “Oh, of course I’m going to buy that!” and think it’s going to be something more pornographic than it is.”
Interesting, but NOT “WORRIED” about “staight” guys who give each other “BRO-JOBS” not being disappointed since these bisexuals/gay men tend to not stop at “bro-jobs.” Is she for real?
I’m trying to figure out what nonsense I can write to have a “bestseller” on Amazon? I’m taking ideas!
“…and straight people understand what they’re doing very differently than bi or gay people.”
It’s called “DENIAL” and cowardly!
You’re book is currently #1 on Amazon’s Gay & Lesbian Nonfiction list….
And the “Straight” Nonfiction list??????
Completely agreed. She looks exclusively at second hand information. She is an academic. She should know the limitations of these sources and the credibility of the conclusions one can draw from them.
“…if you suck dick – you’re gay”
Okay, but…does it work the other way? I mean, if you lick pussy, do you lose your gay card?
“…So hopefully they won’t be disappointed.” I suppose those who do buy the book isn’t just looking for a few more, as she calls them, “hot photos,” but rather ACCURATE information that doesn’t make gay men the villains, but sadly for some the victims of emotionally empty, detached impulse sex (= USED!) with guys ashamed of their sexuality or what to hold on to their perceived “straight” privileges.
What do you classify as “sex”? Sexual bonding between men when the object of that bonding is a woman is NOT “sex between men”. It’s simply a shared feeling of sexuality loaded with a desire to share with other men and perhaps to add a competitive, masturbatory edge to their unified desire for a woman’s body.
Again, think carefully of what you actually mean by the word “sex”. It’s such a general term, it’s misleading to use.
“…they’re deeply invested in heteronormativity.” Having HOMOSEXUAL/”MAN-ON-MAN” sex tells us otherwise. How about our CHOICE, more than one time sexual behavior define our LABELS? Now that would pay it forward!
@DuMaurier: “…Okay, but…does it work the other way? I mean, if you lick pussy, do you lose your gay card?”
Well if you are licking for pleasure, then yes, “you lose your gay card!”
“…then it’s actually most useful to say these people are straight.”
Sure if you don’t need quality, intelligent research to be a “bestseller” in the “gay/lesbian non-fiction” list on Amazon.
My question, how did a book on “STRAIGHT” sex between “STRAIGHT” men be placed on a GAY/LESBIAN category. AUTHOR???
“…They call it a joke, they call it hazing, they call it humiliation, they say “I was drunk,” and it flies under the radar of sexuality because the person engaged in it truly doesn’t have any meaningful attachment to that sex act.”
First, according to her statement, she DIDN’T INTERVIEW any of these “self-labeling straight” males, certainly not the ones in WHITE fraternities, in the Navy or MARINES! She definitely does remember the “SCANDAL” of “GAY4PAY” Marine porn as late as the “90’s early 2000’s.
“…I mean, if you’re a gay man and you put your finger in another man’s anus, there’s a really good chance you think that’s a sexual act. But the straight men I write about who engage in the exact same act don’t think so.”
And those who are sex workers in so called, “GAY4PAY” PORN? AUTHOR?????
“One of the primary reasons they do it, ironically, is as a way of strengthening their heterosexuality and expressing their homophobia. It’s like, “If I can stick my finger in another dude’s butt and I can make a big show of how gross I think it is, and when I’m done I can stand up, still a straight dude, totally unbroken, not a fag, then I’m all the more heterosexual.”
Finally, something that probably true of the ones’ who REALLY are “straight/heterosexual that has shamefully reinforces the twisted, homophobic social narrative, as idiotic as it actually is, and the man-made “Bible” is used to perpetuate the same!
“…I could be wrong, but I’m queer and I’ve been friends with gay men for 20 years, and this kind of fantasy of talking about vaginas while giving each other hand jobs is not something I’ve seen in gay subculture. Have you?”
You are wrong because you have NOT witnessed either scene! Have you?
The problem here is the spurious, near-meaningless term “straight-identifying”. First, what does it actually mean – either in the context of this book, or generally? Mostly it just means the person in question *claims* to be straight. Or sees themselves as straight. Or wants to be seen as straight. Often it’s used interchangeably with “straight-acting” – and you can suck a lot of dick and fuck a lot of ass while still being “straight acting”. Moreover, the contexts in which these guys are “straight-identifying” raise all manner of questions. Anyone who has ever used Craigslist knows that practically everyone is “straight”. They’re online every day cruising for sex with other men, but they’re straight. Hardly anybody on the m4m pages of Craigslist is actually gay. And never mind that most of these straight-identifying men wouldn’t recognise a vagina if it gave birth on their dinner table. The author also mentions straight-identifying men in prison, again without making any distinctions about their sexual histories or behaviour outside prison. Hell, if I were in prison I’d be “straight-identifying” too. It’d be a whole helluva lot safer than being openly gay. Just as it’s a whole helluva lot easier if you’re a Black African American, a Latino, or any number of Asian nationalities. In short, the term “straight identifying” is useless, and, in the case of this book, a convenient cover-all to prop up a whole load of highly questionable assumptions. Without it, most of the provocative suggestions and theories within would collapse like a pack of cards.
What I really want to know is…why do we care? Analyzing this to do death is a waste of time. Sexuality is on a continuum, everybody knows it, and fixating on this topic is really for purposes of a salacious read.
You can be gay and spend your whole life having sex with women. And you can be straight and have sex with men, for money or survival and it won’t make you gay. Our sexual activities are fluid, who we desire isn’t. Gay or straight is who we can fall in love with.
@bicks236: said….”Here’s what many of you don’t seem to realize: this “dumb broad,” this “dumb bitch,” has researched, written, and published a book to critical academic acclaim. How many of you can claim the same?
Just because what she has written doesn’t match up to your lives exactly doesn’t mean it’s any less valid.”
No, actually what makes it less valid is the fact that she has written a “Study” without actually conducting any valid research or interviews with the actual subjects being studied. This removes all academic validity from it.
The fact that you lashed out and attacked the simple act of dissagreeing with her shows that you have your own major baggage and an agenda to support this non-academic, and homophobic/biphobic drivel.
Yet you just judged people calling them “inadequate queens,” did you not?
I want to thank the wives out there for rejecting their husbands advances as those men keep coming to me. Keep it up boys I’m waiting.
No, if you do it by choice, you aren’t straight. Someone isn’t being completely honest here.
I think of Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa.
It’s crazy how many gay men are willing to support this homophobic agenda. At the end of the day it’s all about being afraid to proudly state that you are gay. Easing the “blow” by claiming bisexual, curious, or flexible is complete cowardice beyond the age of 24.
You know who you are. If you’re gay then you’re gay so be a man and own it. Your sexuality is not fluid, grow up.
If you’re actually bisexual then great, claim it… But have sense to know that people only care about you being with a man. No one cares if you’re bi in a straight relationship so there’s really no point trying to identify with us unless you’re in primarily gay relationships facing the same scrutiny(and remember you have the option to flip flop when you can’t handle the scrutiny but the rest of us don’t).
So tired of this new crop of kids thinking they’re some kind of special breed of bisexual unicorns who are above labels that help gay people know who to interact with safely. All these morons are doing is making it easier to stay closeted and deny who you are.
@Captain Obvious: I agree I am a queen hear me roar.
@OzJosh: “…Just as it’s a whole helluva lot easier if you’re a Black African American, a Latino, or any number of Asian nationalities.”
Get all your points, but lost w/the above statment. Can you clarify in context with your whole comment?
@DuMaurier: Pretty much, it would make you bisexual.
@Captain Obvious: Yes and you’re biphobic and for bisexual erasure telling people who are bisexual but in a relationship with the opposite gender to stay closeted or not come out.
@Doughosier: I don’t know of any men who are actually hetero/straight who have had sex with men for money or survival, or women who are hetero/straight had sex with women for cash or survival. I can fall in love with both genders as I’m bisexual but not everyone that’s bisexual does fall in love with both genders but they’re still bisexual.
Just reading all the above sick stuff makes me realise that America is going down the toilet, fast. Sodom and Gomorrah, here we come!
And I bet your grandparents were saying the same thing when the Civil Rights legislation was passed. You folks certainly are consistent going down the generations.
@Edsel: I agree until people feel comfortable to come out men will keep going down in toilets in the USA.
@bottom250: +/- 75-80% of heterosexual men & women engage in oral sex & +/- 33% of heterosexual men & women have engaged in anal sex. They like it. Jealous much?
Sex and sexual orientation are not the same thing. Sex is just the physical, mechanical, pleasurable act of release. Sexual orientation is also about who you are attracted to and pair with on a deeper, emotional level. Who you fall in love with. I’ve known a lot of men who love women on an intimate, emotional level and still like to have sex with men sometimes. NSA, cum and go so to speak.
@scotshot: Great for heterosexual couples. Thanks for sharing?
Sorry I misaddressed.The comment was intended for Edsel who made the comment regarding Sodom & Gomorrah. There are millions more heterosexuals having anal & oral sex than the gay population in America. Just wanted to point out to him the finger should pe pointed elsewhere.
Whoopi! Wosie! EeWizabeth!
What say you about a stwait WOMAN
that has witten a book about stwait MEN
that give one another a bwo job ???!!!??
@scotshot: This is so random.
No, this is just the latest variation on the old, “Don’t worry, you aren’t gay, it’s just a phase, you can be straight if you want to” B.S. that has been in phony studies for decades.
Well, I’ll add my two-cents about this controversy : Str8 or Repressed gay? To begin with there seems to be a lack of any real scientific evidence supporting anyones POV on sexuality (or identity)+, so, I guess, my POV is as good as anyone’s else’s !
My belief is that some so-called str8 guys having same sex interplay are actually repressed homosexuals. Some so-called str8 guys having same-sex interplay can be actually str8 after having an ‘itch’ satisfied by having same sex interplay. ( In this last case, they may find their ‘itch’ was not all that great a thing to be satisfied by ‘scratching’ it with same sex interplay!) I think the answer lies in what turns us on and to what degree it does! This also bring up the ‘fantasy that str8 women harbor about men being str8! That is if a guy is involved with a woman, he is automatically str8! Yikes! I’ve been out for a long time and I can tell you a good number of gay men have had a female (sexually) in their lives and still identify themselves as being gay! Finally, the ‘lines are drawn’ in a male’s life by the constraints of religion,society, and familial considerations. Some don’t want to be marginalized or thought of as being a f*g. Their masculine persona does not allow it!
Maybe this kind of thing will finally get us beyond the politicization of our sexual “orientation” and onto a place where no one gives a ****. Straight or gay, the only real scientific evidence points to us all being on some Kinsian scale as “bi”. And who cares if we are? Wouldn’t that be perfect? I mean I identify as “gay” because I prefer men, but if I psych myself up enough I’m sure I could have sex with a warm cantaloupe. No one has ever studied the science of preference, and psychology isn’t allowed to study the science of sexual preference because – politically – we’ve already decided it’s not a “preference,” but a “predisposition.” What makes us gay? The ability to perform or our preference? No one has really stated because “preference” implies choice, yet we’re all capable of having intercourse with just about anything. Maybe we’re all just sexual beings looking to get our rocks off? Maybe we’re “gay” or “straight” because society says we have to be one or the other, at the same time telling us it’s not a choice. The lack of logic makes my head hurt. At the end of the day, our rally cry should be “WHO GIVES A ****!”
@philatonian: I’m a perfect Kinsey 6 and I’m sticking to it. Still a virgin after all these years!
@philatonian: “…the only real scientific evidence points to us all being on some Kinsian scale.”
What we do know is you know next to nothing about sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual PREFERENCES, human behavior, or brain science;or you simply smoked crack before your fingers crashed onto your computer keys!
Straight or gay, men like sex. Period. If a straight guy thinks nobody will find out about it, he’ll be glad to participate in a little sex with a gay guy. Every man and I mean EVERY man likes a good BJ. Just because a straight guy likes that once in a while, does not make him gay. Stop with the fucking labels already! It’s just sex, for Christ’s sake!
I take it you are str8? Well, welcome! It’s nice you find an occasional hot hunk massaging your sexual urges and then go back to the str8 world, sexually gratified! (Nothing like it!).
@Sluggo2007: “…Straight or gay, men like sex. Period.”
“Straight,” LABEL; “Gay,” LABEL; “Men,” LABEL. Period! You, moron. Oops, label!
What you defined is bisexuality.
Comments are closed.