Sunday, August 17, 2008

The Gay Male Quest for Democratic, Mutual, Reciprocal Sex (Part 2)

Following is a second and final excerpt from Gay Men and Anal Eroticism: Tops, Bottoms, and Versatiles by Steven G. Underwood.

(For Part 1, click here.)

_________________


The notion that tops and bottoms are socially and morally unequal creatures has been the overriding assumption about male fucking throughout history. That version of homosexuality was accepted in ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt. It was condemned, but still prevalent in Europe through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Age of Enlightenment. Even as late as early twentieth-century New York, gay men operated underground as either the limp-wristed fairies or the masculine “trade” that the fairies pursued.

Today, in a predominately Islamic but westernized country such as Turkey, men who are “active” in homosexual encounters are often not considered homosexual at all. Instead, their domination of passive men is considered evidence of their hyper-masculinity. In El Salvador . . . being fucked is considered a “kind of degeneration,” while the top is “just being a man.” Bottoms are still stigmatized all over the world, including isolated pockets in the West (such as prisons), while tops are viewed as exercising their male prerogative.


The Western view about role separation in male fucking began to shift in the middle of the last century, in the 1960s and 1970s. The seeds of that change were planted several decades earlier, by a few turn-of-the-century authors – Karl Ulrichs, John Addington Symonds, Edward Carpenter, and Havelock Ellis – who were the first to launch a movement toward the “normalization” of homosexuality. These writers portrayed gay men as ordinary, normal citizens (not prisoners or inmates in an asylum), no different from everyone else except for their attraction to their own sex. Havelock Ellis’s Sexual Inversion began the first heated discussion over sexuality in a society that was just emerging from the morally oppressive Victorian era.

This effort was thwarted by the followers of Freud who, by emphasizing early childhood traumas as its explanation, categorized homosexuality as a clinical abnormality. Normalization was brought to the forefront once again in 1948 by Alfred Kinsey and his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Kinsey’s assertion that homosexuality was common and that it should not be considered a crime against nature was met with great resistance in the scientific community. Thirty more years would pass before the American Psychiatric Association would finally remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

By this time a gay liberation movement was under way and the existence of homosexuals was taken for granted. Gay men began to regard the separation of top and bottom roles as a mimicry of heterosexual functions and a form of self-oppression. In his essay, published in 1970, “Refugees from Amerika: A Gay Manifesto,” Carl Wittman listed four statements he considers anti-gay perversions:

- I like to make it with straight guys.
- I’m not gay but I like to be “done.”
- I like to fuck but I don’t want to be fucked.
- I don’t like to be touched above the neck.

“This,” wrote Wittman, “is role playing at its worst; we must transcend these roles. We strive for democratic, mutual, reciprocal sex.” In a radical reinvention of their own image, large numbers of gay men abandoned the stereotype of the limp-wristed fairy as a relic of an oppressive past. They began to have sex with each other instead of trade. They effectively transformed themselves to become the masculine men they’d always desired to have sex with.

More than three decades after Wittman’s declaration, the effort to understand the meaning of “democratic, mutual, reciprocal sex” continues.

– Excerpted from Gay Men and Anal Eroticism: Tops, Bottoms, and Versatiles by Steven G. Underwood ( Routledge, 2003).


Opening image: “Relationship” by Raphael Perez.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Grace and Athleticism

“March Hare” by Anthony Vanderzweep.

“I have, over the years, developed a preference for sculpting animals. Their natural grace and athleticism make them an easy subject for me,” says Vanderzweep. “Rather than just producing a study of nature, I seek to accentuate in a sculpture an animal’s strength or charm, often choosing to elongate limbs or exaggerate the body volume, for the purpose of making a work of art, of beauty, that will be valued for life.”

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Celebrating the Joy of Gay Sex

Earlier this year, Brian W. Fairbanks wrote an appreciation of the book, The Joy of Gay Sex, for the Gay and Lesbian Review.

Following are excerpts from Fairbank’s appreciation.

______________


Most people probably remember 1977 as the year of Star Wars, the Son of Sam slayings, and the death of Elvis, but for many gay men the year’s most notable event was the October publication of The Joy of Gay Sex, by Charles Silverstein and Edmund White. It was the first book from a mainstream publisher that dared to examine the “how” of homosexuality rather than the “why” approach of both psychologists and priests. The book’s explicit descriptions of gay sex practices, fully and beautifully illustrated, rendered it quite controversial: many bookstores in the U.S. kept it hidden under the counter, forcing customers to come out of the closet when asking for it by name.

Subtitled “An intimate guide for gay men to the pleasures of a gay lifestyle,” the book’s contents were forthrightly erotic, but for me the biggest turn-on was the blurb on the back cover proclaiming The Joy of Gay Sex to be “America’s best selling guide to gay lovemaking.” Yes, lovemaking! How often, even in gay circles, has sex between men been acknowledged with such a romantic and respectable word?

With its superb illustrations and positive approach to carnal matters, The Joy of Gay Sex was inspired by Alex Comfort’s 1972 best seller, The Joy of Sex, which celebrated heterosexual relations. But for some gay men, Silverstein and White’s book may have also served as an unofficial response to Dr. David Reuben’s phenomenally successful Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask). Published in 1969, the year of the Stonewall riots, Reuben’s book gave the general (heterosexual) public a sensational and one-sided account of homosexual behavior that reinforced the image of gay men as perverts. In Reuben’s world, gay men were still nelly queens forever looking for sex with strangers in parks and public toilets. The “fairies” that populated the best-selling fiction of Jacqueline Susann and other popular straight authors were equally soulless.

Many homosexual men did cruise for sex in tea rooms (some still do), but such behavior, which certainly has its equivalents in the straight world, is scarcely the defining feature of being gay. In contrast to this coldly impersonal image of gay life, Silverstein and White focused on the act of making love – tenderly, passionately, and joyously.

By the 1980’s, when the AIDS epidemic made homosexual acts more controversial than ever, Silverstein and White’s landmark volume went out of print. As one of the titles most often stolen from public libraries, even extant copies were hard to come by. In 1992, Silverstein, in collaboration with Felice Picano, updated the classic as The New Joy of Gay Sex, which included information on safer sex. And recently a “fully revised and expanded 3rd edition” has been published by HarperCollins under the original title.

. . . Provocative title aside, the new edition draws our attention to more than matters of sex. There are chapters on homophobia, loneliness, spirituality, friendship, politics, and even celibacy, an option for those seeking a “lack of pressure and stress in their life.” It’s a well-rounded, encyclopedic guide to gay life in general and undoubtedly a useful tool for gay men taking those first, tentative steps out of the closet.

Above all, The Joy of Gay Sex is an enjoyable, guilt-free journey through the wonderful world of gay love. Dr. Reuben stressed that homosexuals were limited in what they could do sexually, but the 1977 book set him straight on that. Other than the absence of entries under the letters Q, X, Y, and Z, both the original book and its recent incarnation provide a remarkably thorough examination of the variety of sexual experiences that two (or more) men can have together.

Brian W. Fairbanks
Gay and Lesbian Review
January-February 2008

Friday, August 8, 2008

Hare's Breath


“Hare’s Breath” by BoblyP.

Says BoblyP: “Hare appeared out of nowhere as if by magic and its eye just caught inadvertently [my camera’s] flash.”

Thursday, August 7, 2008

The Gay Male Quest for Democratic, Mutual, Reciprocal Sex (Part 1)

The following is excerpted from Gay Men and Anal Eroticism: Tops, Bottoms, and Versatiles by Steven G. Underwood.

__________________


The reciprocal scenario [or set of meanings that gay men assign to fucking], where both men take turns fucking each other, is often exercised as a celebration of equality. What sets this scenario apart from others [such as the purely physical scenario, the intimate scenario, and the power scenario] is the versatility of the men involved. Versatility is a unique and important feature of male anal sex. Some men consider it liberating; they enjoy the freedom the male body offers to alternatively fuck and get fucked. Versatility to them is akin to speaking two different languages. It requires a special kind of playfulness, creativity, curiosity, and coordination.


. . . History tells us that versatility in male fucking has always been, at least until recently, a rare, if at all, notable phenomenon. Starting with the ancient Greeks, from whom we get our first accounts of male anal sex, men fucked men according to status and age stratification.

The Greeks thought that the love between an older man and a younger one was honorable and pure as long as the older man was the top. In fact, such a relationship was considered essential to a young man’s growth and education. It was also acceptable for a guy from a higher class to fuck a slave or a man with lower status, but if a wealthy and powerful adult male was found out to have been fucked, he’d be the subject of scandal and be in danger of losing his social position. What made a sexual act acceptable for the Greeks was not the sex of the partners involved, but rather whether they performed the roles determined by the power balance between them.

The Greeks were intolerant of effeminacy and passivity in men. Boys who behaved effeminately or who continued to get fucked as they aged were suspected and shunned. “Most discussion of appropriate sexual conduct in ancient texts,” writes Byrne Fone, “had as its subtext the seemingly unbridgeable distance between masculinity and effeminacy, between being sexually active and sexually passive, not the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.”

– Excerpted from Gay Men and Anal Eroticism: Tops, Bottoms, and Versatiles by Steven G. Underwood ( Routledge, 2003).


NEXT: Part 2


Image 1: Peter Foss.
Image 2: Fred Goudon.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Escape


“Escape by a Hare” by Bev Doolittle.

Writes Doolittle: “This painting was practically constructed right outside my window. It’s a painting of the desert, where I live. The prickly-pear cactus, bunch grass and sand take on the long shadows of the early morning and evening — active times of the day for most desert animals. The black-tailed jack rabbits and red-tailed hawks are common sights.

“This is a painting of intense drama. I felt it would be even more intense by not actually showing the hawk, but rather only showing its shadow flowing over the ground and the running hare.”

Friday, July 25, 2008

Morning Light X

Subject: Unknown.
Photographer: Unknown.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Be Like Hare . . . Awaiting Opportunity


“Hare is crouching silently. If you want to avoid being seen, learn from Hare’s special strengths. Taking flight in the center is Raven, whispering by the tiny chipmunk. Fox is peering out of Hare’s thoughts keeping her always alert. The courageous and curious Raccoon invites a kiss from Butterfly. Also hidden in the deep woods is Green Wolf, transforming to sprouting foliage. Be like Hare, and enjoy the stillness in the greenery of nature as she awaits opportunity. Ladybug in flight brings happiness and good luck!”

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Gay Consciousness, Sex, and the Evolution of Religion


The following excerpt is from Gay Spirituality: The Role of Gay Identity in the Transformation of Human Consciousness by Toby Johnson.

______________________________


A gay spirituality is necessarily concerned about sex – and is necessarily sex-positive. People who choose to identify themselves openly as gay are more sexually motivated and more sexually aware than others. If their sexual and affectional urges were insignificant to them, they would never have come out in the first place. Because gay people have experienced their sexual desire as so intense and consuming that it sets them on a different course from their peers, they are more motivated to find deeper levels of meaning for sex and to discover more variety in ways of experiencing it.


Of course, there are highly sexualized straight people. But they do not have a great need to tease out new meaning for sexuality. It comes to them. This is not to deny that for everybody, straight and gay, discovering sex can be difficult or that straight people cannot find new meanings for their sexuality on their own. But the culture supports heterosexuals with a ready explanation of what sex is for, though usually relegating it to a simply biological, reproductive role. As gay people we have to create our own explanations, our own myths, our own visions of why “God” created us this way and what it means to be homosexual. We often have to do this on a person-to-person basis with little help from either mainstream or gay culture.


When we seek spiritual answers as gay people, we are necessarily looking for sex-positive and gay-positive answers. This puts us in a special place in the evolution of religion.

Gay consciousness gives insights into sex by demanding that it be viewed from the perspective of the exceptions, not the norm. What forces a theory – or a theology – to expand and rise to a higher perspective are not the findings that fit the theory, but those that do not. The accumulation of knowledge is founded on seeking explanations for what does not meet expectations and assumptions.


Sex is a state of heightened awareness of consciousness incarnated in flesh, an altered state of consciousness in which individuality is momentarily transcended and consciousness merges with the collective. It is consciousness delighting in its own evolution into human bodies that can feel pleasure and joy.


The most important function of sex in human evolution has been reproduction. You could even say the purpose of sex is to produce babies. A lot of people do say that. Unfortunately, they often go on to say, looking from their own limited perspective, that reproduction is the only purpose of sex, and if sex cannot lead to reproduction then it should not be allowed. They do not see things from a high enough perspective. That there are self-aware and self-identifying gay people tells us that there is more to sex than reproduction. The issue is not what some sort of creator/biodesigner had in mind. The issue is what is real. Homosexuality is real. Therefore, it is part of the design.

It is the homosexuals’ responsibility to create an understanding of functions for ourselves. And we have. This is a major part of our contribution to evolution. As consciousness has evolved, new layers of reality of sex have developed. Certainly, human beings have sex in a much more complex way, more rich, more prolonged than other animals. In addition to a biological process, in human beings sex has evolved into a psychological process.

Modern gay-sensitive research demonstrates broader functions of sex in refuting the notion that homosexuality does not exist among animals. Giving evidence of homosexual activity in more than 450 species, for example, biologist Bruce Bagemihl offers a new paradigm of “biological exuberance.” Nature is driven as much by abundance and excess as it is by limitation and practicality. The conventional model of evolution based in Darwin’s experience of nineteenth century British capitalism presumed scarcity and competition with a winner-take-all mentality called “survival of the fittest.” In fact, perhaps, nature simply delights in variety. Efficiency and cost effectiveness are modern economic ideas. Biological exuberance many be “God’s” idea. And gay people represent the exuberance for fun and pleasure.

– Excerpted from Gay Spirituality: The Role of Gay Identity in the Transformation of Human Consciousness by Toby Johnson.


Monday, July 14, 2008

Hare at Twilight


This is where the shadows come to play
‘twixt the day and night;
Dancing and skipping
along a chink of light.

Somewhere in between
the waxing and the waning wave.
Somewhere in between
what the song and the silence say.
Somewhere in between
the ticking and the tocking clock.
Somewhere in a dream between
sleep and waking up.
Somewhere in between
breathing out and breathing in;
Like twilight is neither night nor morning.

“Somewhere in Between”
Kate Bush
(From the 2005 album, Aerial)


Image: “Hare” by Steve Gantlett.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Morning Light IX


Subject: Levi Poulter.
Photographer: Jason Rowan.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Hare o’ the Tabor


“. . . Meanwhile the company talk, and one relates that he has already seen in the Fair, the eagle; the black wolf; the bull with five legs, which ‘was a calf at Uxbridge Fair two years agone;’ the dogs that dance the morrice; and ‘the hare o’ the taber.’”

Bartholomew Fair in 1614


Ben Jonson’s mention of the hare that beat the tabor at Bartholomew Fair in his time, is noticed by the indefatigable and accurate Strutt; who gives the [above] representation of the feat itself, which he affirms, when he copied it from a drawing in the Harleian collection, to have been upwards of four hundred years old.”

– William Hone, Hone’s Everyday Book (1826)