The "no-sex" class and homophobia
So let's review. I had a little breakthrough about a month ago, derived from but not exactly part of feminist theory, that men have indoctrinated ourselves to believe that women are the "no-sex" class: incapable of independent sexual desire and therefore requiring some form of leverage ranging from constant complements, through economic enticement, and, at the extreme end, sexual assault.
When I mention it to men they tend to say something like "y'know, you're kind on to something there." When I mention it to women, though, they generally say something along the lines of, oh, say, "WTF?" Or "huh?" Because, you see, for women have -- and generally can't help noticing -- perfectly autonomous, innate erotic capacities that require no outside management at all.
Rather than explain *how* men might have gotten such an idea I'd like to take a moment to explain one of its consequences: homophobia.
See. If men have this mistaken idea that women would rather not have sex with them, and that without a lot of management on our parts might spend their days in kitchens crocheting doilies and talking about their feelings, and that therefore if men want to have sex they have to somehow "convert" women from their "natural" asexual orientation, then... it would make sense that, believing that nonsense as if it were Gospel, men might worry that some other man might try to *convert them!*
Never mind that very few actual gay men seem at all interested in "converting" straight men. If you answer a solicitation with "no thank you, I'm not gay" they say ok, or maybe too bad, and then never bring it up again. But if you're a straight man steeped in the paradigm that *your* gender of preference will just naturally say no until you finally wear them down (one way or another) it just doesn't compute that gay men wouldn't take your demurral as step one of what might turn into a lengthy, and perhaps increasingly coercive, series of attempts that, really, won't end until they either "have their way" or you somehow or other manage to permanently stop them.
Extrapolating from the straight male paradigm that all women must be converted from their natural reluctance to have sex, it's not even irrational (from within the paradigm, anyway) for straight men to worry that, given enough time and effort, gay men really can eventually convert *them.*
Implausible, yes. Irrational, no.
It's all built on an illusion. In fact, straight women *don't* require conversion to desire sex with men. They already want it. (And to the extent they decline it has *nothing* to do with lack of desire.) Which is a pretty good thing because as far as I can tell you *can't convert anybody,* male or female, to a sexual orientation other than the one they were born with.
To the extent straight men don't get this, they're going to remain freaked out about homosexuality. On the other hand, when we finally drop the totally unproductive paradigm of women as the "no-sex" class, homophobia will evaporate.
---
And can I just take a second here to say that, no matter that it's far far harder on gay men, homophobia as amplified by then "no-sex" class paradigm, is a horrific burden on *straight* men? Kochanie and Hugo Schwyzer point to some of the more depraved consequences but there are tens of thousands of other, lesser examples that indicate we're no less crippled. From the daft aversion men have to their *wives* purses to the latest TMI Tuesday question 1. Should guys wear pink? straight men terrorize themselves (and others) with the persistent, and as far as I can tell *totally* unfounded fear that something... *anything*... could somehow turn you gay.
Dudes, get with the program! There's nothing we can do to make women want sex with us -- if they're straight they already do, if they're not then nothing we can ever do will change that. And for exactly the same reasons there's nothing we can do to *make* us gay, assuming we actually *aren't.*
Bottom line: Clawing our way out of our "no-sex" class paradigm kills to birds with one stone -- 1) we can simply appreciate our partner's sexuality rather than struggle madly to manage it and 2) we can stop worrying that anybody might similarly manage our own. It just doesn't work that way.
I wonder if that conversion theme crosses over to why a dominant position such as "missionary" carries that name?
Rups
[It's a totally sensible inference, Rupert, but the name was coined as a term of derision -- as far as I know missionaries themselves never called it that. Instead, the story goes, the "natives" who would watch them and/or were told to do it that way couldn't believe than anyone would have sex in such a boring position. I'm not sure if it ever really did happen that way, but hipsters were propagating it at least as early as the 1950's. Thanks! --fl]
[Oops, strike that. According to Wikipedia "There is a common belief that the term 'missionary position' arose in response to teachings by Christian missionaries that this sex position was the only 'proper' way to engage in sexual intercourse. This is in fact a myth. The reality is that the term probably originated some time between 1945 and 1965 through a confluence of (apparently honest) misunderstandings and misinterpretations of historical documents." Same idea but with less derisive intent, at least originally. Hipsters did and do still use it sardonically, however. Sorry about that. --fl]
Thank goodness my husband is secure enough to not only accept my sexuality but to celebrate it. All that just hurts my head.
[Glad to hear it, DFP. Thanks. --fl]
ok... huh?
Gosh, fig, I had no idea men (in general) put all women in the "no-sex" class. As a disabled woman in my 50s, I've been in that class for a long time (as far as most men are concerned, anyway). Who knew I had all that company :)
I thought homophobia was just arrogance - men thinking that everyone who was sexually attracted to men would be sexually attracted to them. I never fail to be enlightened here.
Cheers! liz
[formerly SuZQ from My Naked Truth. I'm in the process of reinventing myself]
[Thanks, Liz. First of all, it's nice to get back in touch. Secondly, it's not like you can go around asking men "do you think women are the no-sex class?" and we'll all agree. But it usually takes just a question or two before we start saying "now that you mention it..." And, I contend, the cool thing about it is that once we get it -- that if someone declines it's for some reason *other* than they just aren't interested in sex -- then it totally changes our outlook from "how can I coax it out of her anyway" to something more like "what nonsexual factors are getting in the way?" The first puts the focus entirely on how to apply leverage to her -- to "objectify" her. The second permits assessment of one's self and on circumstances in general as well. And all sorts of cool possibilities arise out of that. Thanks, Liz. --fl]
This is, of course, why a grown man would try to "convert" lesbians - or assume that two women enjoying each other will naturally invite him in.
Everything's better when a dick is involved, to put it crudely, and if a woman thinks otherwise, it's his job to prove it.
[Yeah, I've got a post brewing about lesbians, "lesbians" and the no-sex class paradigm. In a nutshell, though, it's a way for men to deepen our suspicion that, while women *might* be sexual after all they're *still* not necessarily interested in *us!* (See also stripping, wherein the *whole point* is to never get to actually having sex. Gotta finish that post too.) Thanks, TWG. --fl]
I've been really enjoying this rif on the feminist observation that women are the sex-class. You probably know this, but just in case, when a feminist talks about women as the sex-class what they have in mind is the ways in which women are culturally defined in terms of their sexual attractiveness to men. Part and parcel of this is the denial that women have any sexual desires or sexual identity of their own. In that sense you aren't really in any disagreement.
Perhaps a good unpacking of the phrase 'sex-class' would be 'class whose role is to be an object of sexual desire'.
[Excellent questions, E. Enough so that I've made your comment into a separate post. So thank you. Also, by the way, please let me know if my response works for you or if I need to say more. Thanks! --fl]
This probably goes along with the somewhat puzzling notion that lesbian sex isn't real sex -- that somehow, with no penis involved, it isn't cheating or "real sex."
I can tell you that it very much IS "real adult sex." Very, very much.
[Agreed. From the male perspective it doesn't count because women can do it and still say no to men. (Weird? Yup.) There's the "girls gone wild" effect of getting to fantasize that if the women are wild enough to actually have sex with each other they might be deviant enough to also have sex with *me.* There are other dimensions, of course, including (ironically) a homophobic preference not to look at men's bodies while viewing porn. But since it's my favorite hammer these days I'm going to say the no-sex element plays a bigger part. Thanks, WG. --fl]
Great point of view on this, and it reinforces my own belief that the most homophobic men are the ones who don't really like women either! My theory: they think that gay men will treat them as badly as they themselves treat women. You know how it goes; when faced with "NO" it's all come on baby, you don't mean that, can I change your mind, no you really mean that? okay, bitch you must be a dyke if you don't want to sleep with me. Or they coerce. Or threaten. Or get violent. Or try to humiliate the woman to assuage their bruised egos. (What is up with all those big, blustering, bullying men with tiny, fragile egos? The good men have perfectly healthy ones not easily destroyed by one rebuff, it seems.) So no wonder they are nervous around gay men, if they think they are in for the same thing.
Now I have known gay men to JOKE about "converting" an attractive straight man, but it's all in good fun in my experience. And the straight men I know who are secure enough to laugh about it are more flattered than worried. Heck, most women I know have joked about "converting" attractive gay men because they can be a lot easier to talk to and be with than so-called straight men who can't treat a woman like a real person. Sad but true!
[Yeah, now that you mention it it makes sense that gay men might be more fun to hang out with because they don't feel any need at all to "convert" you to... liking men so that you'll sleep with them. (Instead of just letting you like men because you *like men!*) Also excellent point about homophobes not liking women either. One more thing that I ought to explore one of these days is the problem of how easy it is for *closeted* or "ex-gay" gay men (think Ted Haggard) to mesh and even evangelize the "women shouldn't want sex with men" meme. Out gay men never seem to have that problem, but then, of course, they don't need to pretend they prefer women. Thanks, Flora. --fl]