[NOTE: This essay discusses men (maleness) and women (femaleness) as an aggregate. It goes without saying that there is an exception to just about every rule but here I am talking about the whole and not portions of it. Further, while the term ‘queer’ refers to many identities I will mostly focus on gay men as popular culture understands them. These are men that still identify fully as male and masculine performing.]
No one understands masculinity better than queer men. We are men. Were raised to be like straight men, rejected normative masculinity and reformed it to match who we were born to be. We’ve tested, broken through, and recreated its boundaries limitless times and in ways that straight men have often never considered or only imagined. Fear and disinterest immure straight men in a wall apart from queered masculinity.
As for women, masculinity is something they can only grasp academically. Some feminists would reject this, claiming that as members of a patriarchy they understand very well what masculinity is. This, however, is arrogant. Women understand masculinity about as well as a historian understands the times she speaks and writes about. The historian is a product of and connected to those times. She [the historian] is aware of the cultures, has lost relatives to the wars and has touched the ruins – but she has not lived in and through them. She is affected by it but is not in it. There’s an obvious difference.
In the psychology of all people, male and female alike, queer men exist in the twilight of gender. We are acknowledged as being male but not entirely as men. The genitals are there but where is the spirit?
Gay men specifically, occupy an interesting place in the new America where sexuality and gender differences are fast in becoming either normative or sanctioned. Because of the twilight zone we occupy, a physical male presence with a perceived feminine psychology, many straight men befriend and behave around gay men in a way they are too afraid to with either straight men or women.
In essence, we are male enough that we have access to the inner sanctum of masculine circles while being perceived female enough that our heterosexual male friends will interact with us in a way they would often avoid with their fellow straight men. There is an emotional intimacy straight men can reach with their gay male friends that is generally uncomfortable with their straight male and female counterparts.
The intimacy I am referring to is not sexual. It is an emotional intimacy, the kind we imagine between confidants. Straight men are taught to and indeed prefer to perceive one another as strong, both physically and emotionally. This stoicism perforce alters and limits the intimacy capable of being had between straight men.
Straight men are more likely to allow themselves to be vulnerable around a trusted female friend than a male equivalent because weakness is societally celebrated in women and men understand that emotional intimacy is regarded by them as a bonding tool. However, women fundamentally cannot understand the pressure of being hetero-male in a heteronormative patriarchal culture. As a result, their thoughts, commentary and advice on the matter is often alien and beside the point as far as practicality is concerned.
Gay men are thus, at this point in time, ideal confidants for straight men in a high-pressure hetero-patriarchal environment. Gay men understand the sexuality of men in general, masculinity and what is expected of it, why and when it is troublesome and how to address its conflicts in a male-centric way. Gay men offer a chance to remain masculine while being vulnerable: to discuss relationships, sex and sexuality, and all of this in a non-joking manner without compromising one’s male persona.
I have had male acquaintances seriously engage me in all manner of assistance and advice in sex, relationships, women, and anxieties after less than an hour and realizing that, because I am sexually deviant in our society but also a male, none of these topics are taboo or cause for character assassination and judgment. There is the implicit understanding that because gay men live the experience of emasculation as homosexuals in a hetero-patriarchal woman-fucking world, we are substantially less likely to condemn a questioning and deviating masculinity.
It has been noted that gay men in America are also close to straight women for the reason that they share in the perceived sexual humiliation that straight men often have of them, though gay men still stop short of being the best girlfriends because ultimately they are still men and biologically incapable of experiencing womanhood under patriarchy from birth to death.
Women, however, are in no need of such a confidant as emotional intimacy is not lacking but also because the pressures are different. Women do not suffer from the same gender expression restrictions that men do. For men it is nearly fascist in nature. The ‘tomboy’ for example, has no negative and only neutral connotations while the ‘pansy’ and ‘sissyboy’ are likely to be pulverized in an alley.
This relationship between straight and gay men is new and could dissipate if America continues to progress for the better in a way that opens gender expression. That would be a good thing. So much of this, after all, is about societal constructs of gender and its expression. But until then it is a necessary and positive option.
Reparative or conversion therapy is a method used to ‘fix’ homosexuality. Its premise is based entirely on one of two or both of the following notions: hetero-normative masculinity and heterosexuality as ‘the natural state’. In essence, that it is bad parenting that leads to homosexuality. Both of these notions, however, are socially constructed concepts and deeply grounded in the Abrahamic religions’ understanding of gender and sexuality. In other words, the premise is utterly unscientific and as vacuous as it is arbitrary.
But however you feel about this stance it implicitly poses one big question to the ‘nature’ side of the gay debate, ‘If it is genetic then how do gays exist if they fail to reproduce?’
Well, the short answer is we don’t know. The longer answer provides us with numerous workable theories which confirm what we’ve always thought which is that sexuality is a very complicated aspect of human biology.
Male Fertility (The Johnny Depp Effect)
It has long been understood that women prefer more feminine features in men, both behavioral and physical. Compassionate men with heavier lashes apparently give one an edge. So it is possible that in the right dose these genes confer a reproductive edge. If, however, too many of these genes are inherited then a man may end up too fabulous and boom, homosexuality.
Other studies suggest female relatives of gay men on the maternal side show signs of being more reproductive than female relatives of straight men, suggesting that a gene in the X chromosome of men confers heightened fertility in women. This increased fertility is thought to be connected to an increased attraction to men that can sometimes miss the mark in women and land in men, leading to same-sex attraction.
The Big Brother Effect
Studies show that with every boy a woman has she increases by a third the chances that her next son will be gay. No one really knows why this is but there are theories. The belief is that with every male a woman has her body increasingly develops an immune reaction to the proteins involved in developing the male brain, resulting in an altered sexuality and possibly more. Because said woman has presumably had children before this event who have gone on to reproduce themselves, this pre-natal mishap continues unabated.
Among identical twins, if one is gay there is a twenty percent chance the other twin will be too which, while high enough to not be random, isn’t as high as we might expect if homosexuality was strictly and simply genetic. The explanation here is that ‘epimarks’, what determines whether a gene is active or not, is not always inherited.
The shortest answer is that plenty of gay people do indeed have biological children (about 37%, 60% of which are biological) and that would be enough to do the trick.
In the end however, it seems sexuality is associated with a number of genetic and developmental factors that impact its outcome. It is even possible that more than one process is responsible. Though ultimately, whether it is genetic or not is irrelevant to the question of whether two consenting adults should be able to fuck.
It seems to me many people have failed to understand the act of sex at its core and what it means for human behavior. While I am not a psychologist or physician I am a veteran of the sexual playground and frankly, I think that counts for more than a degree with little to no actual experience in the matter – especially in a sex-scared country like the United States.
Some people seem to believe that sexual encounters should represent something closer to tea-time than the carnal, hungry, sweaty encounter that it truly is. No one is saying sex can’t be romantic or love-centered as opposed to lust-centered, but even then, as I stated in an earlier post, this is still ultimately a meeting of urges and not identities. Acts that transpire during sex cannot and do not translate to the public sphere.
What do I mean by this? To give an example, I was reading a recent New York Times article about Stanford and a girl who claims to have been raped after the fact by one of their assigned ‘mentors’. I am not going to take a position on that but I want to relay and discuss a detail of it, one used as proof against the accused as testimony of his bad character.
At one point she claims that during consensual sex he would put his hand around her throat. This is clearly meant to evoke violent imagery and cast her one-time partner in a negative, controlling and vicious light. But the reality is that within the context of consensual sex (which it was) this doesn’t mean much.
So many people do this. I do this. My friends (gay and straight) have done it. And many heterosexual female friends of mine have expressed receiving pleasure from such behavior during the loving nasty. I was once told by a girl I went clubbing with that I was obviously gay because I wasn’t ‘aggressive’ enough which she viewed as unattractive. I even know some heterosexual men that enjoy the same behavior from their female partners.
Sexual behavior between intimates cannot and does not translate to the public sphere. Putting a hand around someone’s throat during consensual sex is not the same as doing so to a colleague or partner in public, at work, or while dinner is being made. Because someone might do this during consensual sex does not mean they will do it outside of a sexual context. Nor does it say anything about their nature as a violent or non-violent person.
Context matters because location and audience matters. How we speak to a younger sibling, a close friend, a grandparent, stranger, or superior is determined by a multitude of factors. You might be very assertive with a younger sibling and cowed by your colleagues – so are you truly a passive person or assertive person? Or are you someone who knows how to read and understand social cues?
Sexual encounters are not the same as social encounters and the rules are different. What is expected is different and what is considered acceptable and unacceptable is different. Kissing hellos and goodbyes do not include tongue. In the movie theatre, however, a tongue may very well be included.
If my partner wants me to aggressively control his body while fucking him at high-speed this does not mean I go around grabbing people’s arms in public. And if I enjoy a slow fuck this scarcely means I will shy away from using violence in public. Who we are in bed divagates from who we are in public because it often becomes a realm of fantasy.
I fully acknowledge that violent personas can bring their violence into the bedroom. But we must also acknowledge that because a behavior is exhibited in bed does not mean it is a manifestation of who that person will become in society.
Fucking is a power dynamic. The feminist myth that equality can be achieved between partners within the act of sex is as ridiculous as it is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the feminist contention with penetration is entirely arbitrary. The notion that penetration is somehow inherently subjugating or denigrating to the receiver is predicated on little more than the insecurities and warped vantage points of what can only be described as sexual simpletons. That the penis and its purpose automatically render one dominator in sex speaks to the infantile and dichotomous mentality of feminists. Their hysterical and juvenile approach not only misses the point but dismisses the obvious power that receivers retain in the act of engulfing another’s body. Lastly, that individuality should at all be considered in sex only highlights that people like Dworkin fundamentally misunderstand it as a congress of identities when in fact it is a congress of urges.
Whether we are talking about two men, two women, or a heterosexual pair, merely because one person is inserting something into the other scarcely means the other is demeaned or subjugated. Is it not possible to ride a man into submission, forcing him to groans helplessly under the thrall of gyrating hips while your anus or vagina engulfs and overwhelms his penis? Why can a vagina or anus swallowing a cock not be considered empowering? Is this not a state of mind? Is this not actually a matter of who has confidently taken the reigns of the entire act of sex as a vehicle – as opposed to it all simply being a matter of whose penis is where?
And why must submission be bad? Why does getting on one’s knees and sucking a penis or having cum splattered over one’s face in the ecstasy of male orgasm be considered reduction as opposed to elation? Submission, letting one’s body go and releasing control, requires far more courage and trust than taking reigns ever could. This is a matter of mind frames, not what and where a body part is. Driving a car can be as fun as being driven ladies and gentlemen.
Neither partner can be in control at the same time. There will always be one partner exerting more control over the vehicle of sex than the other, but this control can change hands as fluidly as can the desire to control or submit. Neither is inherently bad, nor are they associated with any one body part. The penis does not become domination and the vagina and anus do not represent submission. Those that suggest otherwise are either afraid or entirely ignorant of what sex is. Ultimately, these naysayers are uncomfortable with sex and maybe for everyone’s sake they shouldn’t participate if they find it so disconcerting.
Consent is important. Having fun is important. Trusting is important. But whether you are penetrating or engulfing, this is fundamentally unimportant.
I’m not lying when I say that as a sodomite practitioner of the dark arts of sex, a shit-ton of hetero-men have asked me about how to broach the topic of anal intercourse with their lady friends.
In my whopping two and a half decades on this planet I’ve probably been approached close to a hundred times both seriously and semi-facetiously on the topic and so I figure it may be appropriate to publish something. There is, of course, stuff out there but most of it is bullshit and frankly, no one knows anal better than The Gayz.
Let’s first discuss the difference between men and women when it comes to anal fucking, for there are some biological disparities and they make a difference. The biggest is the prostate gland which is used for creating alkaline fluid so that semen can survive in the acidic environment of the vagina. The prostate contributes about 30% of the fluid to the ejaculate. It is located just after the bladder and surrounds the urethra which is why when it is inflamed it can impede urination.
Women don’t need a prostate gland and so don’t receive the same sensation that men can, which is incredible. It can actually induce orgasm. The experience of male orgasm while the prostate is being stimulated is a substantial one. I would put it at ten times the pleasure of a normal orgasm during intercourse. The pressure created by a penis, dildo, or even something small like a finger, creates an immensely satisfying sensation before and during release and I highly recommend that all men try this at least once. Women can also gain pleasure from anal sex and I have several female friends who thoroughly enjoy the experience and many people derive pleasure from not just the physical sensation but also the psychological aura it inspires.
Talking About It
It is likely a given that most people are at least interested in trying anal sex so how do we broach the topic with our partners? Well first we need to ask them and start a dialogue. If you are too uncomfortable to have this conversation then you shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. Sex needs to be discussed openly and maximizing the pleasure and adventure with committed partners makes it a necessity. Make sure that you’ve done some reading so that you can answer some basic questions your partner might have and recommend that your partner do some reading of their own. Make sure your sources are legitimate ones like some of the links I have provided. Religious and moral authority type books and sites are definitely to be ignored. Stick with practical information on the subject and leave the judgments behind. What is most important is that both partners be comfortable before proceeding.
Once you’ve decided to proceed you need to make sure you understand how to best prepare. Condoms are always a good idea but if you’re going to bare-back it then understand that things could get a little dirty down there. It is fully possible to make this a clean and non-odorous experience. I have seen it done a million times with experienced partners and I would even bet there were fewer fluids sloshing around than in vaginal. But remember that experiences vary and it can be very difficult to know what is going on down there so don’t expect your partner to be 100% certain. Having a recent bowel movement helps a lot but you can also test yourself out in the shower to warm up and get a feel for how crunchy things may be in the ol’ sphincter. Testing yourself and cleaning the region around the hole with some soapy water is also important and I highly recommend it.
Lubricant is an absolute necessity and only the most experienced and comfortable practitioners can do without it. In any case, however, it is always better with lube as it makes the entire event cleaner, safer, and more comfortable. Apply lubricant generously to both the outside of the anus and around the penis, finger, or object you’re using. Make sure you are using a WATER-BASED lubricant like Astroglide. It is the most natural and easiest to clean away and won’t leave any residue after washing.
Before insertion you need to start small. Begin with a finger and play with the rim and work your way slightly deeper, inching in as you relax and acclimate. Make this an experience for you and your partner, it can be incredibly sexy and liberating. Once you can handle two fingers deep inside you, then you know you’re ready for the dig D.
When you’re finally ready to stick it in be prepared to do this slowly. And I mean very slowly, it may take a minute or two for you to fully insert. Guys, try not to get too excited. If you go too fast and stab your partner’s asshole with a charging dick the muscles in their anus will spasm creating a VERY unpleasant sensation that will last for several seconds. This will turn your partner off of the experience, maybe even forever, so be gentle.
Once your partner gives you the go and lets you know everything is in order and comfortable, thrust away. The anal canal will relax and widen substantially. You likely will not have to repeat the slow entry once you’ve got things started. If you pull out don’t rush back in but proceed steadily, the muscles should be relaxed enough to handle this. But as always, pay attention to your partner and their reactions.
On a personal note, for those of you that are in a hurry or are otherwise fierce in the sack, I’ve had a lot of luck with hasty insertions by simply clenching my anus tightly while the insertion takes place. This, of course, requires a lot of lube so that the object or penis can slide in despite the tension, but in my experience this clenching negates the usual spasms and once they are comfortably inside you can release slowly and continue.
By no means insert a dick, finger, or object that has been up the anus into a vagina or mouth. This is a very bad idea and for obvious reasons. As I said before, this process can be very clean and one’s dick may even appear as clean as it did before entering, but the bacteria are still there and before moving to another hole you should definitely still wash.
The receiving partner will know if something is about to happen, that’s right, I mean ol’ number two. If you feel suddenly that you’re going to drop a hot one you have some options as to how to release your partner. First off, for this reason it is always good to do anal sex in the shower where things can be cleaned quickly and efficiently, especially if you’re not up to date on your body. But otherwise do not simply release your sphincter. Clench and hold while your partner slides out. They will likely be a little dirty if you’ve had an accident but if they’ve been wearing a condom this is easily dealt with. If not, then the penetrative partner has some washing to do.
As for the receiver, keep clenching until you get to the toilet. After intense anal sex you may feel a little loose downstairs and your body may react by wanting to shit even when you don’t really have anything to drop. You may even feel a little gassy. This is normal and has happened to me many times. It goes away pretty quickly and is just your body’s way of readjusting.
If you find you are particularly nasty down there then it is time to stop and try something else. If there is only minute fecal matter then of course that is up to you and your partner to decide how to proceed. Over time, as you gain experience, you should reach a point where, as the receiver, you can accurately judge what the inside has in store for your partner.
…that this is very risky sex for promiscuous and inexperienced users. You should always be using a condom, especially if you do not 100% trust your partner. Risk of transmission of HIV is particularly high in receptive anal intercourse.
For those of you giving it as opposed to receiving it, remember this is no time to go crazy. Serious damage can be done to the rectum if you are not careful. You need to be gentle and listen to your partner and of course, lube lube lube.
The links I’ve provided have tons of practical information about the practice, joys, and risks. I suggest reading them alongside this article if you’re interested in more information on the topic.
ADDENDUM: I want to be clear on this point…how legalized prostitution or sex work should be implemented and whether or not it reduces sex trafficking is irrelevant to the conversation I am having here. I am simply arguing that it should not be outright illegal and that an adult has the right to have sex with another person and receive money for it. That fundamental stance is the one I am taking. The question of whether I can choose to use my body for this purpose is the focus.
I recently gave up some students for the reason that they were both boring and lazy. These are the guys and gals who show up lethargic and coked out on a day’s work in the office. I swear to the gods that don’t exist, sometimes it’s like teaching English to a group of freshly lobotomized narcoleptics. That being said, our last day together wasn’t so bad. I said fuck it to the syllabus and forced everyone to talk about prostitution.
I feel pretty strongly about bodily rights. People should have complete control over what they do with their body and there is no reason why the State should be controlling it. The prohibition of prostitution is a major attack on our bodies’ rights. If adults wish to make a career or a little cash selling themselves sexually they should be fully free to do so – and especially on one’s own property. You’ll find that any argument to the contrary is sententiously grounded in the arbitrary morality of religions or the insecure, patriarchal obsession with holding women’s bodies hostage.
This is not the first time I have asserted that what we find morally repugnant is not necessarily worthy of legislation. For any of you raising your eyebrows at this lovely little number, remember that law is no place for personal preferences or silly, school yard discomforts. The case must be made that prostitution is absolutely harmful to both vendor and society – and I assert that no such case exists.
Some of the most common claims regarding prostitution’s inequities include abusive pimps and their exploitation of prostitutes. While it is true that prostitutes make up a highly vulnerable class of workers, it is not because sex work is inherently more dangerous than say, coal mining, but because they are illicit and cannot rely on the regulation or protection of their governments as other workers can. It is not unlike being an illegal immigrant in that when your human rights are clearly violated the consequences of calling attention to these trespasses represent a larger threat to your general livelihood.
The next complaint is typically that legal prostitution facilitates the practice of trafficking, but this is casuistry at best since that objection pertains to a form of human slavery which is obviously entirely distinct from a sane adult choosing sex work. The first is coercive, the second is voluntary. We might as well claim that allowing a 14 year old to mow lawns or work behind the counter of a family business will facilitate widespread child labor. But this is precisely what government regulation and force of law is for. The potential for abuse of opportunity does not justify abrogating it. I might add, just to beat this dead horse one last time, just as sex workers can be exploited, so can immigrants, that hardly makes legalized immigration a bad idea.
So far, all our complaints can easily be dealt with by regulation and force of law. Other concerns, such as those regarding trafficking are neither here nor there. But what about sexually transmitted diseases. Isn’t prostitution a hotbed for promulgating all kinds of nasty conditions like syphilis and HIV/AIDS? Well, no more than a college campus I’d say. And this is where I reiterate that people are entitled to have sex as often as they want so long as it is consenting – it is again the decision of adults to test themselves regularly and ask partners about this kind of thing. Pregnant women probably shouldn’t drink or smoke at all during pregnancy but…it is not actually illegal for them to kick back the occasional glass or take a few drags. Nor should it be.
Further, many people go on to claim that sex work is a last resort for desperate women and states shouldn’t encourage the practice. But there are many jobs we all hate doing or would resort to only if absolutely necessary. Manual labor in the hot sun for example, being paid next to nothing for hours of excruciatingly physical work, is not anyone’s idea of the ideal job. Nor, would I think, being an enlisted soldier sent to war. But manual laborers and soldiers are still protected in a number of ways, such as guaranteed pay and a fixed number of reasonable hours – sex workers could expect the same under the aegis of government. Even if this is simply the ability to trust that when a client has abused you your being a sex worker will not be held against you, that is enough to prove that government support matters.
In summary, complaints about the ills of illegal sex work and its concomitant exploitation of the people in it, have no bearing on the right to choose to sell one’s body with sex. Those complaints relate to human slavery and pertain to the failed protection of a class of worker. We can choose to sell our bodies for physical labor, art, and fashion, so why not sex? How would selling one’s body for sex, under the aegis of government, be different? And I might remind you, whether others like it or not is not important.
DISCLAIMER: I recognize not ALL Russians are idiots. I am, after all, married to a genius. Some actually manage to educate themselves on issues pertaining to sexuality. But most of them don’t. Though remember, this diatribe is equally applicable to homophobes the world over, including the USA. Muscovites serve only as my primary example since Moscow is where I live and it is among these people, numerous young and old students of English ranging in the middle class to wealthy sphere, that I have surveyed and discussed these matters with. All this being said, it is also true that I have met some real gems in Moscow who have a real desire to learn more about human sexuality and have taken a personal interest in learning and asking questions despite the bullshit.
HERE WE GO…
It is not as though I think America is a bastion of acceptance and ‘live and let live’ policies but compared to Russia…it is. This one is for the assholes in Russia who fancy themselves all kinds of open-minded and tolerant but who, after having been asked their opinion, expose themselves for the ignorant douche bags they truly are.
I am not talking about country Siberians here…that’s right, I am talking about Muscovites. In order for me to find the powerful stupidity and ignorance I encounter on the daily regarding human sexuality in Moscow, I would have to travel to Salt Lake City, Utah to find its American equivalent.
Here is a list of the most common opinions regarding gays. If you’re from a more enlightened country then you may feel a little like you’ve just traveled back in time because for most of us, this shit hasn’t been taken seriously since the fifties. (Remember, these are ostensibly educated and middle to upper class people we are talking about – city-goin’ folk and shit.)
- I don’t personally have a problem with gays but why do they have to force their sexuality on me?
The only groups of people that have ever institutionally forced their sexuality on anyone have been rapists and ignorant heterosexuals. Beating and sodomizing people to death for possible homosexuality (such as in Volgograd last year), creating laws which restrict free speech about a given topic (the infamous anti-gay propaganda laws), and conflating same-sex partnerships with pedophilia (as Putin did during the Olympic games), is a form of social policing that certainly qualifies as coercion to conform to a heterosexist social norm. I have yet to hear of gay couples forcing straight people to rape members of the same sex or laws forbidding straight people from being honest about their affections.
- Gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children because then they will teach their children to be gay.
This might be the dumbest load of horse-shit I have ever heard in my life, exposing the powerful stupidity of people everywhere who subscribe to it. Like just about every gay person that has ever existed I was raised by a heterosexual couple. Surprise, homosexuality is not a socially conditioned phenomenon. Sexuality is highly complex and has both genetic and social factors that influence it. But there is no such thing as ‘training’ to be gay. There is also an overwhelming abundance of scientific research from the most enlightened nations on the planet (namely Europe and North America) that have collectively rejected this very adolescent concept of the ‘gay recruiter’. And in case you’re wondering, thousands of gay couples have raised functioning straight children – in countries where it is allowed.
- Now that the West has legalized gay marriage and protected gay rights, more people are becoming gay.
The level of mental retardation that thrives within this country’s borders surprises even those familiar with such scholars as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly. The growing visibility of gay people in politics, media, and culture is a direct result of increased legal and social recognition and legitimacy in the West. Gay people do not just materialize when being gay is socially sanctioned. A magical tractor beam does not appear in the sky and start populating your country with gays the moment you are no longer persecuting them – but they do stop pretending to be someone else when they don’t have to worry as much about a bigoted, paranoid, and very insecure heterosexual person becoming hysterical and killing them.
- Homosexuality is unnatural – we know this because they cannot have children.
Not true and not true again. First of all, many people cannot biologically have children. Your grandparents more than likely are no longer fertile and some people are born sterile or become so after an illness or accident. So if you cannot reproduce you shouldn’t be allowed to have a relationship? Really? And what about adoption? Can gay couples not adopt children and raise lovingly those that many heterosexual ‘parents’ wantonly gave birth to and then abandoned? As for the ‘it’s unnatural’ argument, I cannot imagine anything more imbecilic to say since homosexuality is in fact pervasive in nature. Not only that, even if homosexuality could not be found in nature – rape, murder, cannibalism and much more can be and in abundance. So if you are going to use good ol’ Mother Nature as your qualifier, be careful. That street runs both ways.
- But if everyone was gay the human race would die out.
Oh my good lord…how stupid are you? Everyone isn’t gay and most people do not deviate from heterosexual relations. Unless you believe legalization will suddenly turn you into a homosexual. Are you a latent homosexual? I didn’t think so.
Last time I checked Spain and Sweden still have people in them. And we have already established that relationships are not exclusively for reproduction. And I might also add we have more people on this planet than we can feed and more children than we have people to care for them. And to be clear, most ‘gay’ people are not exclusively gay. Human sexuality actually defies this kind of binary categorization.
Many people are capable of finding a HUMAN BEING attractive without obsessing over their genitals – but the difference is often who you prefer to have long standing relationships with. On top of all this, you are not entitled to others being reproductive. I do not have to produce children to make you feel better about the future of the human race. It is, in fact, not a right of yours that others have children and spread the good word. People can choose NOT to have children, and plenty of heterosexual couples do just that. So maybe you should talk to them if you’re so fucking worried about it.
- I’m cool with it, I just don’t like it when they hit on me.
Really? You must be pretty fucking hot to be so awash with the attentions of gay boys all the time. More likely than not you haven’t been hit on by a gay man, and if you were, again, more likely than not, when you made it clear you weren’t interested said gay man walked away. Because unlike many a heterosexual man who struggle to take a clue from a disinterested lady, gay men don’t waste their time with straight men. Mostly that is… In any case, stop fucking flattering yourselves. In the same way you aren’t hot for every lady in town, so too are gay men capable of discriminating between the lusty and dusty.
No, we don’t have to take sexual objectification seriously. Sexual objectification is not the problem nor is it a problem. Nor does it exclusively affect women. The emotional assumption that sexual objectification causes problems or is somehow ‘bad’ distracts from genuine ills like obsessive consumerism, which is the direct result of capitalism and its complete inability to afford purpose or time to foster it. But instead of focusing on that, we turn our attention to something that is so obviously a non-issue.
Sexual objectification, as feminists and many others describe it, has always existed and is little more than a manifestation of the mechanism our genes use to motivate us to FUCK. It is as simple as that. Our penchant for viewing and thinking of others as sexualized bodies is not only usual but necessary for our survival as a species. More than this, even non-sexually speaking, it is not necessary to consider the inner lives of everyone around us in order to respect or interact with them successfully. In fact, the notion that we should arbitrarily respect anyone or automatically care about their aspirations is bosh.
Mainly, sexual objectification in markets is a byproduct of consumerism and the process of sales. It is a means, not an end, and it works well because it comes naturally to us. We will almost always find someone sexy before we find them interesting. Face first, thoughts later. Even innocence in the court room may depend on how handsome you are.
So let’s break this concept down and the reasons why body culture and S.O. exist and examine whether they’re as inimical to society as some people (mostly feminists) propound they are.
Marketing vs. Sexual Objectification
The most obvious example of this supposed problem is featured ubiquitously in glossy rags. They aren’t the only ones however, for even the more intellectual of periodicals attempt to digitally nip and tuck away physical imperfections. This is presumably done because we prefer to look at attractive people, in other words ‘sexy’ people. Again, sales.
If we’re talking about featuring people on a magazine then this also means we are selling a product which needs to be appealing in order to be bought. The product is the magazine but the person on the cover, or the feature, must inevitably become a product as well because their image is also being sold – in fact it is often used as the reason for the purchase. Buy me because inside there are intimate and equally inane details about the life of Madonna or Justin Bieber. In fact, any time we create art, videos, advertisements, or anything to be consumed with ourselves in it, we perforce turn ourselves into commodities. This includes blogs and youtube videos.
Sexual objectification is just a tool used in the process of commodification; the turning of something into a commodity to be sold. It is not always necessary but is often one of many techniques used in selling a product that features people. Aside from using the attractiveness or sexiness of one’s body we might also use a catchy title, one that is frighteningly misleading. It is also likely that the product promises some secret or insight into how to live better, or even something like an improvement upon one’s education such as tips on business savvy.
When people talk about Forbes and use it as an example of how men aren’t sexually objectified they are off-base and casuistic for two reasons: Forbes is selling information about business; and the people featured, while made to look as attractive as possible, are there for their financial success and not their bodies. But this doesn’t mean you can’t include that if said person ALSO has a nice bod.
Alternatively, Vogue sells fashion which is inextricably attached to body image, fit, physicality, and general appearance. Of course the women in Vogue need be sexy and sexualized because we dress to impress and sexiness is impressive – it speaks to the most base, primitive, and largely subconscious part of our psyche. Not all products use the same techniques because they are not always relevant. But even if they did it would not be because of a conspiracy to objectify women rather it would be because IT FUCKING WORKS! If selling hearts and minds was as effective, if people cared strictly about one’s hopes and dreams, our mags would have thought clouds littering the front pages as opposed to tits and pectorals.
So if you have a problem generally with how sexualized people are in editorials, film, whatever, or how unrealistically their bodies are portrayed, even if it isn’t strictly sexual, then your problem is with how capitalist culture’s marketing schemes exploit our biology. After all, products are always portrayed as better looking and more efficient than they really are, why should people be any different?
Inimical? Or not?
Sexually objectifying someone or something is not categorically bad for us. It can be bad for us, like eating too much or exercising too strenuously. But in and of itself, how could it be? It’s just a biological motive to fuck someone.
Markets exploit it, and individuals exploit it when they want to fuck or get fucked. When people dress in a sexually appealing manner are they hoping for their audience to wonder about their intellectual endeavors or are they offering a better view of their torso, waistline, tits, or biceps? It’s obvious.
I have nice arms and decent pectorals – I don’t wear tight shirts for my health, I wear them because I am aware of their effect on people and I receive compliments. Even if I am monogamous and taken, I may still enjoy being thought of sexually by those around me. It is invigorating to be wanted. Welcome to the warm-blooded side of the human fucking race.
Generally condemning sexual objectification is equivalent to condemning sexual attraction, it also exposes a remarkable ignorance of human biology and sexuality. Long before people exchanged thoughts and ideas our ancestors were fucking like crazy, entirely untouched by notions of mutual concern.
Feminists and those overly concerned and obsessed with S.O. could take a few lessons from Marx. The reality is their contention has more to do with an economic system and its effects than it does with anything like patriarchy. As usual they’ve missed the point and confused a human issue with a specifically female issue. And this, in turn, is why modern Western feminism accomplishes nothing because its explanations are so often little more than a series of emotional assumptions that are unfounded and unsubstantiated in reality.