So Senator Larry Craig has insisted for years, and continues to say “I am not gay!”. This despite evidence that he’s up on what seems to be well established and fairly sophisticated “cruising” behavior.
As a thought experiment let’s give Craig, and millions of other in-denial men, the benefit of the doubt. Back in the late 1980s, when HIV/AIDS research was really beginning to hit its stride, I remember reading about a minor outbreak among married Latina women in, I think, southern California. Research showed that population slice had the lowest opportunity for outside sexual contact, due in part to a very high “macho” culture among their husbands. So the question was where were they getting it. And the answer, according to the study, was that their husbands picking up the infection from one-the-way-home sex with anal-receptive-only transvestite men, who their macho-culture partners referred to with contempt as maricóns.
Now I happen to think there were some problems with assumptions in that study but I was really taken with a point the researchers brought up: that in macho culture you’re not considered “gay” unless you engage in receptive sex from another penis.
In other words for a lot of men putting your penis inside another guy doesn’t make you gay!
I think the logic (such as it is) is that since penis insertion is a traditional heterosexual male role, as long as you’re the one doing the inserting you’re home free. And by extension since penis reception is the traditional heterosexual female role then allowing penile penetration is what makes men gay.
Anyway, I’m guessing that Senator Craig has been telling himself that since he (generally?) only sticks his penis in other men’s mouths or anuses he’s really not “gay” because he’s not engaging the “homosexual” a.k.a. receptive a.k.a. feminine role.
Now. Can we just take a moment to digest how heteronormatively insane that is?
I actually don’t see how (or why!!!) you’d want to weasel-word your way into a claim that “sex with other men” isn’t “homosexual sex.” And therefore I don’t see how, or why, you’d want to claim that only one side of the equation was homosexual while the other wasn’t.
But I especially don’t see how, let alone why, you could pretend you’re not homosexual if you’re the one who wants to stick your penis and ejaculate somewhere inside another man’s body!
Call me a clueless heterosexual here but who wants to “get off” with you isn’t nearly as significant as who you want to “get off” with.
Anyway, I think this is a pretty important distinction to get across to folks here because I think it comes up a lot in the whole anxious “does [this that or the other] make me gay” business men subject themselves and others to.
- “Bending over” for your girlfriend? Um, since she’s your girlfriend that’s not gay.
- Soliciting a blowjob from a man in a Minnesota restroom on a trip to visit your wife? Um, since he’s a man that’s gay.
- Being solicited in a Georgetown men’s room? Doesn’t make you gay. (And therefore really doesn’t justify going back with a friend to assault the solicitor.)
- Molesting custodial minor boys even though you’re married? semantics not withstanding, whatever the heteronormative-roles justification, you should stop lying to yourself and have sex with men your own age instead.
- Carrying your wife’s purse when her hands are full? Um, dude, she’s your wife!
- Sexually attracted to both men and women, or maybe attracted only to men but still married, as Senator Craig is? That would be either bisexual or homosexual, but not heterosexual.
Finally here’s why I think this whole thing is such a joke. What the fuck would be wrong with being any of those things — lesbian, gay, straight, bi-, trans-, inter-, or asexual anyway? [Eek! Any of the above except, of course, molestation since “consenting adults” really is categorically binding! Sheesh! Teach me to post everything without proofreading! —fl]
—-
Hmm. Actually this might also be a strict generational thing. I remember someone asking his elderly mom about an uncle who was supposed to be gay and the mom said, rather heatedly, “No he was not gay! Your uncle was bisexual!”




Submitted by 1579 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-08-31 16:46.
View like that, could it be a real stupid macho thought such as "making" the other guy gay? Very twisted...
[*Exactly!* You wanting to stick *your* penis in a guy makes *him* gay? Or if he agrees to let you that makes *him* gay but not *you?* Ffffshhhyeah right. And, of course, such parsings are necessary if and only if you assign different values to different orientations in the first place. Thanks, SeaRabbit. --fl]
Submitted by 1579 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-08-30 15:28.
i'm guessing that it's a politician thing more than a personal confusion/denial of his sexuality.
being gay and a politician gets you the gay vote, and pretty much nothing else. i mean look at how much of a big deal the media is making of obama's blackness and hilary's gender. never mind that the more i listen to them answering the public's question, the more i dislike them both and just want to throw up.
[I'm sure it's an issue for politicians but I *know* it's an issue for too many *non* politicians for it to be *just* expediency. So I'm sticking with denial and plausible (self) deniability. Of course when it comes to political or social leaders they can do more *damage* while trying to pass for normal (where "normal" means non-closeted homo, hetero, etc.) Thanks, Kermit. --fl]
Submitted by 1579 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-08-31 18:14.
Um, I'd say there definitely is something wrong with molesting minor custodial boys... I know that's not what you meant, but it sort of reads that way. Otherwise, keep up the good work! (You'd probably make a good sex therapist, if you ever want a career change.)
[Yikes! Definitely not intended at all. I've added a correction. Otherwise (as you say) thanks for your kind words! Wow. Thanks, Sharon. --fl]
Submitted by 1579 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-01-01 22:24.
I actually don't see how (or why!!!) you'd want to weasel-word your way into a claim that "sex with other men" isn't "homosexual sex." And therefore I don't see how, or why, you'd want to claim that only one side of the equation was homosexual while the other wasn't.
But in a sense, isn't this kind of weasel-wording utilizing the same logic that allowed Bill Clinton to get away with saying that there was no sexual contact between him and Monica Lewinsky while she couldn't legally make the same assertion?
Lame. Double Lame.
I can't remember what scholarly text it was where I saw it written that this is exactly the same kind of heteronormativity that has found its way through history through, at the earliest, Gladitorial-era Rome. It was just as lame then, too, I suspect.
[Agreed, it's the same logic when used by Gingrich/Clinton-style heterosexuals. And equally weasel-wordingly lame. Thanks, Jerry. --fl]