The Musings of a Confused Man

My friend, James, once commented to me that in our society, masculinity is a terribly fragile thing. To underscore his point, he offered an example: “If a guy likes flowers, it’s automatically assumed he’s gay.” I’m certainly inclined to agree with James on his observation, but I also have to admit that I find myself wondering what being gay has to do with one’s masculinity. After all, I’m gay, and I consider myself 100% male. My masculinity is not up to debate.

Because of this conversation, I started wondering why this idea that gays are inherently “not masculine” comes from. And while I considered all of the stereotypes which are the source of James’s lament, I decided that the matter had to go deeper than that. So I dug deeper, and realized that the real issue is deeply routed in how our society – and especially the men in it – have viewed sex in general over the past few decades.

Sex and sexual prowess has been the primary determination of a man’s masculinity for quite some time, now. Indeed, the only other factor of masculinity that even comes close to degree of importance is athleticism and physical strength. To comfirm this, one merely needs to go back to the high school locker room and pay attention to the two things that teenage boys brag to each other about: How great they did at the last game and what girl they “bagged” over the weekend.

When you look at it from the most common view in our society, sex is all about the man. The man is the active partner, doing his thing to the woman, who is often seen as just laying there and letting him go at it. If she gets any pleasure from the experience, that’s fine. But even her pleasure is often seen merely as a sign of the man’s prowess and ability in bed. After all, anyone who watched the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine tells Jerry that she always faked orgasm whenever the two of them had sex knows that Jerry was far more concerned about how this demonstrated a lack of his own skill in bed than any sincere concern for Elaine’s lack of pleasure. Based on my own observations and conversations with people, I think it is safe to say that this is a clear case of television portraying a strong cultural trend.

But obviously, this paradigm only works when the sexual activity in question involves both a man and a woman. When you introduce a sexual situation which only involves men, this paradigm less becomes comfortable. Suddenly, rather than the activity being all about the man and the woman being a more-or-less passive participant, you have two men. Under this paradigm – and it is only natural for us to try and squeeze any situation into our current paradigm because we are comfortable with it – you are left with the problem that suddenly, one of the men must become passive and let it be all about the other man. Suddenly, a man has to subject himself to the needs and whims of another. This is a scenario that most men in our society cannot comprehend, and it makes them uncomfortable.

This passivity is something which men in our society have been taught to avoid as a rule. Indeed, in this sense, the idea of passively submitting to another man’s sexual prowess also collides with the competitive, athletic, and physical strength components of our understanding of masculinity.

Interestingly, some society’s – and even some segments of our own society – have dealt with this dissonance to some degree by only ostracizing gay men who take on the “passive” role in male-to-male sex. In our society, you can see this by the fact that many men seem to be disgusted by the idea of “taking it up the ass,” but remain relatively quiet about having anal sex with a receptive partner – male or female.

The solution to this, of course, is to develop a new paradigm of human sexuality that does not rely so heavily on a strict dichotomy between passive partners and active partners, as well as coming to appreciate the importance of a receptive – be it actively receptive or passively receptive – role in sex. Not only will this help undo the divide between masculinity and homosexuality, but it will force us to further explore a broader and deeper understanding of masculinity.

Today, while recuperating from whatever illness beset me late yesterday afternoon, I decided to watch But I'm a Cheerleader, which is possibly one of the cheesiest movies I have ever seen. This is a movie that tries to play off of every stereotype of gay men and lesbians they can think of. And amazingly, it works in this instance.

I think the reason it works for this movie is because it's a movie about a group of young people who have been shipped off to some insane camp to turn them all straight. The camp attempts to do this by teaching each teen to break away from the queer stereotypes and try to act more like tha "proper" boy or girl, based on gender stereotypes we've all heard.

I think part of what makes the whole thing funny, if a little scary, is that based on some of my own investigations of groups that try to turn gay people straight -- including one book I read while back in college, such programs really do put a significant amount of stock in such stereotypes. Suddenly, being a straight guy is as much about being able to talk cars and sports as it is about who you want to cuddle with. (And we won't even mention all the other things we want to do together!)

I think I find this mentality particularly strange because there are certain stereotypes I fit that have nothing to do with the fact that I'm gay. For example, I absolutely stink at sports. Whether it's volleyball, baseball, soccer, football, or any other sport you can name, I'm lousy at it. However, that's because of how my brain chose to adapt to the fact that I lived the first twenty eight or so years of my life with a lazy eye. Having your entire perception of the world shift to the left or right by a couple inches at a critical moment tends to make catching, hitting, or kicking a quickly moving object quite the challenge. Being gay has nothing to do with it. It's just one of those odd coincidences.

And that's the problem with such stereotypes around gender and sexuality. They completely miss the bigger picture.

Matt over at InterstateQ has an update on the recent doings of Michael Glatze, former editor of Young Gay America and now happy ex-gay. Apparently, he's been sending an email to various gay bloggers, the full test of which can be found courtesy of Good as You. (Other bloggers, like Brady, have received the same message as a comment on their blogs. Being the curious sort, I decided to read this mass mailing. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Part of me wants to laugh because of how ridiculous the whole thing is. However, the part of me who realizes that Mr. Glatze likely believes the things he's saying wants to cry. At any rate, I had to comment on a few comments in this "email."

Think about that; you could – really – be a man or a woman! Not a strange creature… but, real!

Apparently, Mr. Glatze has confused sexual orientation with Gender Identity Disorder. The fact that I am romantically and sexually attracted to other men does not negate the fact that I am a man myself one iota. If Mr. Glatze felt that his homosexuality made him "less of a man," then that is unfortunate and something he should have sought to rectify. But I find his desire to project his lacking sense of masculinity on me or the rest of the gay community at large.

Gay Identity has been packaged and fed to you...

Actually, gay identity is something that I came to understand myself. In reality, I grew up knowing nothing about gay identity. In fact, I didn't know there was such a thing as same sex sexual activity until seventh grade. (And believe me, it wasn't presented to me in a positive light by any stretch of the imagination.) No, the idea of sexual orientation as an integral part of identity was something I didn't learn about until well into adulthood, after many years of trying to change or ignore my feelings and desires.

...those angry voices in your mind, planted there by Satan, might scream and judge and ridicule...

This may be one of the most bizarre statements I have heard in a long time. To suggest that there are voices in another person's head -- angry or otherwise -- seems absolutely strange. I find myself wondering if Mr. Glatze makes this suggestion because he has angry voices inside his head. After all, it is common for us to assume that everyone thinks and feels exactly like us. If that is the case, then Mr. Glatze has my deepest sympathy. Because if he's been dealing with angry voices in his head, he has much bigger issues to face than the question of his sexual orientation. I merely hope he gets any hope he might need.

I know, in my heart, that all homosexuals desire to be free.

The thing that Mr. Glatze fails to understand is that many of us are free. The problem is, he chooses to see a non-heterosexual orientation as something that holds us in bondage. He is welcome to that opinion. But to assume that we share that basic viewpoint with him on any level and therefore desire the "freedom" he's offering is both foolish and rude.

This man's letter demonstrates everything that is wrong with the ex-gay movement.