It's Not Gay If ....
"In other words: It's not gay if the guy you're having sex with doesn't seem gay at all."
Nor is it nearly as funny as it might seem at first. That is to say, this is how important it is:
This idea of homosexual sex cementing heterosexuality and traditional, rural masculinity certainly feels counterintuitive, but it clicks a little once you read some of the specific findings from Silva's interviews. The most important thing to keep in mind here is that rural masculinity is "[c]entral to the men's self-understanding." Quoting another researcher, Silva notes that it guides their "thoughts, tastes, and practices. It provides them with their fundamental sense of self; it structures how they understand the world around them; and it influences how they codify sameness and difference." As with just about all straight MSM, there's a tension at work: How can these men do what they're doing without it threatening parts of their identity that feel vital to who they are?
In some of the subcultures Ward studied, straight MSM were able to reinterpret homosexual identity as actually strengthening their heterosexual identities. So it was with Silva's subjects as well―they found ways to cast their homosexual liaisons as reaffirming their rural masculinity. One way they did so was by seeking out partners who were similar to them. "This is a key element of bud-sex," writes Silva. "Partnering with other men similarly privileged on several intersecting axes—gender, race, and sexual identity—allowed the participants to normalize and authenticate their sexual experiences as normatively masculine." In other words: If you, a straight guy from the country, once in a while have sex with other straight guys from the country, it doesn't threaten your straight, rural identity as much as it would if instead you, for example, traveled to the nearest major metro area and tried to pick up dudes at a gay bar. You're not the sort of man who would go to a gay bar―you're not gay!
It's difficult here not to slip into the old middle-school joke of "It's not gay if …"―"It's not gay" if your eyes are closed, or the lights are off, or you're best friends―but that's actually what the men in Silva's study did, in a sense ....
(Singal↱)
The thing is that it gets really
complicated. These men aren't screwing around about their screwing around. We ought not be surprised to find them discussing these trysts in a manner "similar to the way many straight men talk about women―it's nice to have them around and it's (of course) great to have sex with them, but they're so clingy".
And, well ... I mean―
After Jane Ward's book came out last year, Rich Juzwiak laid out a critique in Gawker that I also saw in many of the responses to my Q&A with her: While Ward sidestepped the question of her subjects' "actual" sexual orientations―"I am not concerned with whether the men I describe in this book are 'really' straight or gay," she wrote―it should matter. As Juzwiak put it: "Given the cultural incentives that remain for a straight-seeming gay, given the long-road to self-acceptance that makes many feel incapable or fearful of honestly answering questions about identity—which would undoubtedly alter the often vague data that provide the basis for Ward's arguments—it seems that one should care about the wide canyon between what men claim they are and what they actually are." In other words, Ward sidestepped an important political and rights minefield by taking her subjects' claims about their sexuality more or less at face value.
There are certainly some good reasons for sociologists and others to not examine individuals' claims about their identities too critically. But still: Juzwiak's critique is important, and it looms large in the background of one particular segment of Silva's paper. Actually, it turned out, some of Silva's subjects really weren't all that opposed to a certain level of deeper engagement with their bud-sex buds, at least when it came to their "regulars," or the men they hooked up with habitually ....
.... Whatever else is going on here, clearly these men are getting some companionship out of these relationships. It isn't just about sex if you make a point of getting coffee, and especially if you spend nights together, go shopping or out to dinner, and so on. But there are sturdy incentives in place for them to not take that step of identifying, or identifying fully, as gay or bi. Instead, they frame their bud-sex, even when it's accompanied by other forms of intimacy, in a way that reinforces their rural, straight masculinity.
―you know, just don't call it a neat or tidy package.
There is one part of the ego that disputes:
No, seriously, what the hell?
And there is, of course, that other part of the ego sitting back and very nearly gloating―(
What, am I supposed to be surprised?)―except for a stiff dose―(
Holy shit, they're serious! They really believe this! That's how important it is?)―of confusion that it really
would be so simple and (
cough!) straightforward. After all this time and effort? And we kind of knew, too, and not just a matter of simple belief; there were plenty of examples coinciding with that sneaking suspicion according to Ockham that the simplest explanation is that these men just cannot bear to acknowledge the truth.
But more to the point, this would seem to be how important identity customs are to some people. "Bud-sex" might seem a little cringeworthy, and men have always had a small bag of excuses for heteronormative crossover, but those who disdain the so-called liberal PC of social sciences ought to bear the word "heteroflexible" in mind, because even
that, apparently, is insufficient. Singal quotes Silva:
Ward (2015) examines dudesex, a type of male–male sex that white, masculine, straight men in urban or military contexts frame as a way to bond and build masculinity with other, similar "bros." Carrillo and Hoffman (2016) refer to their primarily urban participants as heteroflexible, given that they were exclusively or primarily attracted to women. While the participants in this study share overlap with those groups, they also frame their same-sex sex in subtly different ways: not as an opportunity to bond with urban "bros," and only sometimes—but not always—as a novel sexual pursuit, given that they had sexual attractions all across the spectrum. Instead, as Silva (forthcoming) explores, the participants reinforced their straightness through unconventional interpretations of same-sex sex: as "helpin' a buddy out," relieving "urges," acting on sexual desires for men without sexual attractions to them, relieving general sexual needs, and/or a way to act on sexual attractions. "Bud-sex" captures these interpretations, as well as how the participants had sex and with whom they partnered. The specific type of sex the participants had with other men—bud-sex—cemented their rural masculinity and heterosexuality, and distinguishes them from other MSM.
And it is, indeed, this compartmentalization that seems so fascinating. Because here is a fun but fleeting and useless joke: The question of masculinity as a superficial presentation can be important to a gay male like myself, whose personal presentation invokes specific traditional "feminine" typing cues. How does the man who would appreciate these gender aspects relate to them? Are we engaging dimensions of masculinity? Does he require feminization in order to engage these acts with another man? Does it not matter in any specific and relevant context?
Because what happens if the answer is that what I really need is a straight man?
Getting past that joke is probably more important, but how do we frame the question to properly regard the association of or relationship 'twixt sexual behavior and masculinity? And in a time in which masculinity countenances occasional and affecting propositions of its disposability in both conceptual and living contexts, how do we regard the
merits of masculine disposability?
This, of course, is similar to the way many straight men talk about women―it's nice to have them around and it's (of course) great to have sex with them, but they're so clingy. Overall, it's just more fun to hang out around masculine guys who share your straight-guy preferences and vocabulary, and who are less emotionally demanding.
If we attend masculinity according to the proposition of delivering seed generally, versus the heteronormative narrative of delivering seed unto a female, it makes a little more sense:
It's not gay if he's disposable. Which is, of course, a rough way of putting it, but it's not gay if it's
merely getting off.
And this is the heart of objectivization: It's gay if you're having sex with another man. It's not gay if you're using a sex toy to get off. And if that seems a problematic summary for treating men as if they are disposable, the problem isn't necessarily the summary itself.
____________________
Notes:
Singal, Jesse. "The Phenomenon of ‘Bud Sex’ Between Straight Rural Men". Science of Us. 18 December 2016. NYMag.com. 18 December 2016. http://sciof.us/2hn6Zo9
) who simply don't like having women on their team.
