Comments

2
Is this what we're talking about? ;>
https://youtu.be/xY_Kb5Qkj-4
3
I haven't heard him state it for a while but I always liked Dan's sexuality test that says "it's who you fall in love with". Ward's assertion seems compatible with it.
4
And... if I may just ask... what the hell does 'whiteness' have to do with this?! I understand wanting to explore this dimension of men's sexuality, but ascribing it specifically to white men seems so odd...
5
@2
Interesting clip. I'm on my first DH Lawrence novel. Digging it.
6
@ 2 - Thank you so much. I fantasized so much about both Alan Bates and Oliver Reed as a teenager, this is heaven for me.

@ 4 - Indeed. It's not like there aren't any men of other races doing exactly the same thing. Isn't that precisely what the concept of the DL is for so many men?
7
@4 because it's prevelence in the black community is already well documented. Look up "on the down low".
8
White men do it on the DL too. Don't forget there are Asians, native Americans, Hispanics and multicolored ppl too. Being white should have no relevance here.
9
@4 expressions of sexuality get mediated by culture, and if your sample size is mostly white, it's good practice to not claim that your conclusions can be immediately extrapolated into other populations.
11
Thank you for calling out bi erasure, Dan. It means a lot to some of us. <3
12
" Ward illustrates that sex between straight white men allows them to leverage whiteness and masculinity to authenticate their heterosexuality in the context of sex with men. By understanding their same-sex sexual practice as meaningless, accidental, or even necessary, straight white men can perform homosexual contact in heterosexual ways. These sex acts are not slippages into a queer way of being or expressions of a desired but unarticulated gay identity. Instead, Ward argues, they reveal the fluidity and complexity that characterizes all human sexual desire."

I just had to quote that whole paragraph of waffle to make sure I wasn't dreaming or hallucinating.

WHAT UTTER DRIVEL!

I'm fine with guys identifying as straight and having sex with men. Sticking fingers up butts in frats is mainly horseplay and occasional circle jerks can be regarded as exploratory.
If you are routinely fucking other guys (top or bottom) then that is well into bisexual territory what ever you decide to call it.

When you start using "leverage" you are already in trouble, when you use it to justify enacting homosexual behaviour as a means to validate heterosexuality you have outed yourself as an imbecile.

What she is really trying to say is that some guys are most comfortable identifying as straight and they don't want that status removed just because they like a bit of cock - because even being bi or a little bit gay is understandably unacceptable. Ugh!
13
Wait, is there some advantage to being perceived as straight? Could that have something to do with it?

Also, I'm using my standing outside in the rain to leverage my dad bodness to authenticate my not being wet.
14
@13 - LOL, for real. As in, I'm really glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read your post.

This book sounds like a lot of common-sense observations dressed up in academese. I had quite enough of that in grad school, thank you very much. Some guys are basically straight - are genuinely attracted to women, usually don't think about men sexually and only have sex with guys for a) occasional variety or b) convenience. This is news? As Dan says, he's identified this phenomenon repeatedly.

I suppose I should read the book before jumping to conclusions about it being pointless. But I won't. Maybe Dan will surprise us with a positive review.
15
It's a huge double standard.
17
The term fluidity does everyone a disservice. It's time we started talking about sexual complexity and then go to work accurately describing the many ways people are getting off.
18
Hypocrisy isn't 'fluid.' Drunk straight girls objectifying themselves to pass for 'cool' isn't 'fluid' either.

Until people who feel same-sex interest aren't risking their status, or lives, by admitting it, we're going to go on waffling about 'fluidity' and 'non-binary'-dom as we tapdance down the road to oblivion.
19
This brings new meaning to the "one drop rule."
20
It doesn't seem that uncommon to me these days for straight men to try a gay sex act at least once and admit it pretty openly without fear of being "a cocksucker forever". But maybe I just run with a more open crowd.
22
I think it is awesome that our culture has evolved enough that the one cock rule doesn't apply as much these days. Anyone who is being honest knows that many straight men have had some exploratory, or situational homosexual experiences [as many homosexuals have had heterosexual experiences]. And maybe someday soon blowing your buddy that one time for a lark won't brand a straight man as gay, and won't be a deep dark secret, but will just be one of those things most people do. [In fact, I think everyone should try SS once, just to see.]

Nevertheless, I think we are risking ridiculousness when we don't distinguish between sexual contact that is essentially social [if you want to join our group you have to do X], and behavior that is about desire [I want to do X because it satisfies an internal drive].

Anyone can identify however they wish, but I don't have to take them seriously. A person who experiences a more or less stable desire to engage in sex with a person of the same gender is either homosexual or bisexual--by definition. [An exception is made for a "forced gay" paraphilia, but then the desire is not for the sex qua sex, but for the transgression.]

And anyone who fits that same-sex, experiential/behavioral pattern that identifies as straight is either deluded or lying. The closet still exists, and that is what it looks like.
23
The ABS's are full of guys whose wives at least think they are straight.
24
@3: True enough. Having sex with a dude doesn't mean you want to marry one (although I am gay identified and have absolutely no interest in marrying anyone, regardless of gender, so make of that what you will).
25
This is one post that would have had far more standing being made by Mr Miller.
26
@4, @12 exactly. The problem for the author is that everyone except straight white men has minority status of some kind. If she included men of color in her thesis, or defined the men she's describing as bi, queer, etc., she wouldn't be writing a critique of the patriarchy, would she?

The omission is for the same reason why articles about street harassment focus on white male perpetrators, e.g. 'frat boys.' Or why activists attacking 'rape culture' focus on white guys on college campuses--the richer, whiter, and fratier the better. Patriarchy theory, with linear view of power, oppression, and virtue, requires that straight white males (at the top) be abusing everyone beneath them. Inconvenient truths--like that only a vanishingly small percentage of rapes are white on black--are, well, inconvenient.

A book about sexual hypocrisy by straight white men points the finger at the right people. A book about the multivariate sexual behavior of bi, queer, and otherwise sexually non-conforming men of all races...well, that would be a book about the oppressed, wouldn't it? And so compassion would be expected. And so we get a book asserting that sex between 'straight' white men is not only Not Gay, but heterosexuality--and patriarchy--affirming. Thank god, we don't have to accord those men minority status and can carry on with vilifying them.
27
Bleh Dan.. Calling people out as being closeted bi is so 1995. If these men identify as straight then they ARE straight. Self identification is key regardless of behavior or even attraction. Sexual trichromy 101
28
Dllygn @27, if a cis-male, who has no intention of presenting himself to the world as anything other than male, and exclusively has sex with and falls in love with cis-men, identifies himself to you as a lesbian, you'd roll with that? You'd introduce him to others as your lesbian friend Rick?

I'm all for extending respect and acceptance to all of us, from all parts of the gender/orientation spectrum, but beyond a certain point one steps into the absurd if self-ID is the end all and only thing to be considered. Words do have basic denotations.

Hey, if they're not stepping on my toes, it's not really for me to make an issue. But, as a bisexual man, I do have a stake in bisexuals [especially bi men] being out and proud. Men who have sex with men, because they want to have sex with men, as a stable part of their experience and behavior can call themselves straight, but it does not make it so. That is called being in the closet.

Show me the man who openly fucks and/or loves other men, yet who identifies as a Kinsey 0, and I guess I'll shake his hand and call him straight if he wants me to...because he is not in the closet. He just needs a dictionary.
29
@3: I can't imagine such an overly simplistic and inaccurate definition of sexual orientation being propounded by a sex expert like Dan Savage. What about asexuals? They often fall in love. What about people who are physically attracted to more than one gender but primarily emotionally attracted to only one gender? What about people who have sexual desires but never "fall in love"? There is so much more here than "who you fall in love with" or "have you ever sucked a cock."

Agree with the commenter who was perplexed at why this book was limited to only white men, and will chime in with my thanks from the bisexuals for pointing out our obvious existence.
30
it's only gay if you kiss, make excessive eye-contact or tuck-in each other's shirts when you're done.
31
I am not well versed in the language of sexual politics, so please allow me some leeway; hopefully the spirit of what I'm trying to say transcends any obvious gaffs. I'm a cis-male and my sexual life involves cis-women around 87% of the time. I am not in the slightest attracted to men as men though I do enjoy the company of a femine presenting and dressed men or transwomen. As such, I do encounter and play with The Cock. They don't turn me on per se and I consider myself a top. However I'm well aware of the orgasmic nature of having my ass played with, whether that be with toys, tongue, or fingers, and would gladly take a cock up there if only I could let go of control. I've tried it, but alas no. Anyway, no grand conclusion.
32
Uhh most straight white guys suck the dicks of thai ladyboys or feminine asians. Its the gay white guys thst want the straight white guys not vise versa...this study is silly
33
@26: Spot on, that's the only reason I can think of as to why race is (purported to be) relevant here.

oh wait, that's just what an implicit supporter of the patriarchy would say. u shuld check ur white male privilege.
34
I haven't read the book but I would guess that the reason it is limited to white males is because she limited her study to their specific particular cultures.
There is no doubt that men of color do the DL thing but it probably doesn't happen in frat houses (not that there aren't some black frats/frat brothers).
There are probably specific ways that the Down Low plays out in African American cultures that are completely different than in white male culture and it would be a simplification to lump them all together if you hadn't studied each individual culture. (Again I'm not an expert and haven't read the book, just a guess.)
Or you know, it's all a big Anti-Patriarchy Conspiracy.
35
White male heterosexuality is designed to be fragile because societies tend to have zero-sum game assumptions built-in, so if you've power from that identity you've incentive to expel as many other holders of that power from that group...fewer threats, maybe more power for you. (...maybe not in reality, but at least in the social/territorial brain educated to think so.)

@28:
I want to be tolerant of other people's meanings, but I want words to mean things by consensus, otherwise money and force alone will dominate all theses. I think the problem is the verb 'to be'. I can buy anyone self-identifying as anything as a statement of their opinion, but if 'is' is to have any meaning...well maybe it doesn't beyond simple logical statements. Descriptions of what people believe and what they do may be all wr have.

Or, as the frozen Captain said to the man trying to talk a bomb out of exploding, 'Talk phenomenology.'.
36
Dunno, this book sounds a bit too academically contrived for my taste. Some bizzo white male breeder pride, huh? Imo, either you are bi or simply have opportunistic sex with men. Seminars and prisons are full of 100% straight dudes who circumstancially have sex with other men. I know two such guys. One an ex-priest who openly admitted that when he was a young 19 y.o seminarian, the atmosphere there fostered male on male relationships because they were stricly forbidden to engage with women on the outside and you could get thrown out for speaking to a woman in a caffee. More guys were kicked out for silly offences like that than for being caught with another seminarian. They were spied on during walks in the city, denounced etc therefore during those 6 long years of peak male sexuality (19-25), many straight men often developed a bond of mutual trust with another straight male that in many cases went a step further. He said those types of relationships were more emotional than sexual and they seemed natural to him at that time. Another person I know had a purely sexual opportunistic sex with other men. Young, shy, only one serious gf ever, had a drunken, mutual handjob session with his straight buddy on DL. And once again, with his gay roomie, a one way bj while drunk. Then he fell in love with a girl and has been happily married for 22 years. He always identified straight and has no shame about these two homo encounters.
37
@ 34 - In my own abundant experience with supposedly straight men of colour, they have sex with men for all the same reasons described in the quote about this book. The race issue is only relevant if the author chose to study only the white sub-population, but the exact same thesis would probably apply to any other racial sub-population if studied individually.

I think it would be way more interesting to focus on why self-identified straight men who have sex with other men, no matter their skin colour, insist that they're still straight or, alternatively, why race appears to be an important issue for them when they have sex with men (if that part wasn't just made up by the author), whereas it seems to me that they should be more concerned with why they're not having sex with women.
38
@34 Fair enough. To be honest, I suppose I didn't think about it sufficiently. I guess I was thrown off by the "convenience" of only including white males: Yes, she chose to limit her study to them, which conveniently fits into the narrative @26 alluded to. It certainly could just be coincidence/ choosing them for a different reason.

That being said, calling this sentiment a "conspiracy" is a stretch. Are you implying that it's not popular these days to write something negative--often justifiably--regarding straight, white males?
39
Mr. Fnord @35, "...I want words to mean things by consensus..."

The meanings of all words are ultimately determined by usage. Language is inherently crowd sourced, and any descriptive dictionary [as opposed to prescriptive] is based on that fact. It is pretty much my thesis here that men who desire sex with men, but insist that they are straight, are abusing the language.

"I think the problem is the verb 'to be'."

Yeah, I can't follow you down that rabbit hole.
40
@37: You obviously know way more about this than I (or the author) ever could so I totally take your word for it. Humans are humans and their motivations tend to be pretty similar, only the cultural milieu is different. Still, that's just the way academics do things. Sociologists or anthropologists consider themselves scientists and usually try to go about things in a systematic way. (Again, haven't read the book, not even sure how academic it is.)

@38: I was really just tweaking #26 with that line, as he spent all last week refusing to believe that any of us could possibly be telling the truth when we said we thought a fat lady looked beautiful on her wedding day. It was all just a PC Feminist Conspiracy we were perpetrating on him. I don't dispute that white males are an easy target these days, but some people just see Librul Conspiracy everywhere. Part of the Internet Outrage Olympics, I guess.
41
@ 40 - I am aware that this is how academics do their work, but when you study just one sub-population, there's a difference between saying that behaviour X happens in this group, and going as far as stating that "sex between straight white men allows them to leverage whiteness and masculinity to authenticate their heterosexuality in the context of sex with men." What the fuck does that actually mean? How do you leverage "whiteness" to authenticate your heterosexuality?

If it wasn't for that, I'd be interested in what the book as to say. So often have I heard variations on the "I'm not really like that, we're just two (or more) guys having "guy fun" as all guys do when there are no women around, it doesn't mean anything" nonsense (as if all straight guys did this!) that I can't help but prick up my ears whenever someone proposes an explanation. But the fact remains that I've heard that line from Arabs, Asians, Latins, Blacks and Whites of every major religion and every age group from pretty much all over the world.
42
Someone's lying to themselves.
43
@40: The military and fraternity "hazing" she describes is clearly sexual assault and bullying, not anything empowering to the victims. The fact that she is trying to rationalize sexual assault as something beneficial to the victims, provided the victims are straight white males, says nothing good about her.
44
I'm with Ricardo @ 41 wondering what the hell "sex between straight white men allows them to leverage whiteness and masculinity to authenticate their heterosexuality in the context of sex with men." means. What do these guys say to themselves? I'm a straight white dude, and I'm going to go fuck another straight white dude to prove it?
45
@40 Ah, I see. Yes, there are those on both sides of the fence who are over the top.
46
@1 I tend to agree with you. There are a few people who really are 100% straight or gay, meaning they've only even fantasized about one gender, but I think that is a small minority. We should just call most other people bisexual and be done with it.
47
The more I think about it, the more I think letting "mostly straight" guys who occasionally get oral from other men or whatever call themselves straight is doing is disservice to other bisexuals. They want to keep straight privilege when really they are bisexuals who are just leaning in a heterosexual direction. So shouldn't they be standing with their bisexual brethren instead of trying to "pass"? Social acceptance movements are easier when your group is bigger, after all.

I have no dog in this fight, though, as I am a (100%) straight woman. I just think that since gay people are open about being gay maybe we should encourage bisexual people, even ones leaning strongly one way or another, to be open about being bisexual.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.