A different look at heterosexualy the twenty-first century A straight whe girl n kiss a girl, like , and still ll herself straight-her boyiend may even enurage her. But n straight whe guys experience the same easy sexual fluidy, or would kissg a guy jt mean that they are really gay? Not Gay thsts ep to a world where straight guy-on-guy actn is not a myth but a realy: there's aterny and ary hazg ruals, where new recs are ma to grab each other's penis and stick fgers up their fellow members' an; onle personal ads, where straight men seek other straight men to masturbate wh; and, last but not least, the long and clanste history of straight men equentg public rtrooms for sexual enunters wh other men. For Jane Ward, the sexual practic reveal a unique social space where straight whe men n-and do-have sex wh other straight whe men; fact, she argu, to do so reaffirms rather than challeng their genr and racial inty. Ward illtrat that sex between straight whe men allows them to leverage whens and masculy to thentite their heterosexualy the ntext of sex wh men. By unrstandg their same-sex sexual practice as meangls, accintal, or even necsary, straight whe men n perform homosexual ntact heterosexual ways. The sex acts are not slippag to a queer way of beg or exprsns of a sired but unarticulated gay inty. Instead, Ward argu, they reveal the fluidy and plexy that characteriz all human sexual sire. In the end, Ward's analysis offers a new way to thk about heterosexualy-not as the oppose or absence of homosexualy, but as s own unique mo of engagg homosexual sex, a mo characterized by pretense, dis-intifitn and racial and heterosexual privilege. Darg, sightful, and brimmg wh w, Not Gay is a fascatg new take on the plexi of heterosexualy the morn era.
Contents:
- NOT GAY: SEX BETWEEN STRAIGHT WHE MEN
- THAT’S NOT HOW DICKS WORK: ON NOT GAY AND "STRAIGHT" MEN WHO HAVE GAY SEX
- NOT GAY: SEX BETWEEN STRAIGHT WHE MEN (SEXUAL CULTUR #19)
- NOT GAY: SEX BETWEEN STRAIGHT WHE MEN (SEXUAL CULTUR) (2015)
- NOT GAY
- NOT GAY: SEX BETWEEN STRAIGHT WHE MEN (UNABRIDGED)
NOT GAY: SEX BETWEEN STRAIGHT WHE MEN
* not gay: sex between straight white men *
Not Gay: Sex between Straight Whe Men.
THAT’S NOT HOW DICKS WORK: ON NOT GAY AND "STRAIGHT" MEN WHO HAVE GAY SEX
By unrstandg their same-sex sexual practice as meangls, accintal, or even necsary, straight whe men n perform homosexual ntact heterosexual ways. The sex acts are not slippag to a queer way of beg or exprsns of a sired but unarticulated gay inty.
The book's analysis offers a new way to thk about heterosexualy, not as the oppose or absence of homosexualy, but as s own unique mo of engagg homosexual sex, a mo characterized by pretense, dis-intifitn and racial and heterosexual privilege.
NOT GAY: SEX BETWEEN STRAIGHT WHE MEN (SEXUAL CULTUR #19)
Nowhere whout It: The Homosexual Ingredient the Makg of Straight Whe Men.
Bars, Bikers, and Bathrooms: A Century of Not-Gay Sex. Here’s How You Know You’re Not Gay: The Popular Science of Heterosexual Fluidy.
Average Dus, Casual Enunters: Whe Homosocialy and Heterosexual Authenticy. Agast Gay Love: This One Go Out to the Queers. Not Gay: Sex between Straight Whe Men on JSTOR.
NOT GAY: SEX BETWEEN STRAIGHT WHE MEN (SEXUAL CULTUR) (2015)
Ward’s book Not Gay: Sex Between Straight Whe Men, published last month by NYU Prs, got tons of pickup, cludg an enormoly popular Science of Us terview. Greater unrstandg of any cultural phenomenon is only a good thg for the several of Ward’s claims serve the same level of scty that she affords to supposedly “straight” men who have, or e close to havg, gay sex. )“I am not ncerned wh whether the men I scribe this book are ‘really’ straight or gay, and I am not argug that they (or that all men) are really homosexual or bisexual their orientatn, ” wr Ward.
NOT GAY
“Instead what I am argug is that homosexual sex plays a remarkably central role the stutns and ruals that produce heterosexual subjectivy, as well as the broar culture’s imagatn of what means for ‘boys to be boys. ’”While Ward reasonably monstrat the send sentence this statement (though “remarkably central” is a stretch), why isn’t she ncerned about whether the men scribed are really gay or straight? Given the cultural centiv that rema for a straight-seemg gay, given the long-road to self-acceptance that mak many feel pable or fearful of hontly answerg qutns about inty—which would undoubtedly alter the often vague data that provi the basis for Ward’s arguments— seems that one should re about the wi nyon between what men claim they are and what they actually are.
Obleratg the inty boundari between circumstance and sire while discsg the ia hardwirg, Ward go as far as to claim:No amount of homosexual sex or sire n change nature’s heterosexual sign. If one knows one is not born gay, then one’s homosexual sir and behavrs simply nnot be gay, regardls of their ntent or equency…To be very clear, I agree wh the ntentn that when straight-intified people participate homosexual behavr, they are still bt unrstood as straight. “…When a heterosexual need or impulse is a man’s primary alibi for homosexual sex, he is/be heterosexual, ” wr Ward.
NOT GAY: SEX BETWEEN STRAIGHT WHE MEN (UNABRIDGED)
Gay men, ntrast, are men who have sex wh men whout an alibi. ” Are the terms “gay” and “straight” siar to the word “femist, ” which is to say that they have a eful and scriptive functn but bee of baggage attached to them (by eher society, history, or self-creatn) pose problems to many would-be adopters?