I think we need to pause and seriously consider the proliferation of "natural" all over gay sex websites. There are many different connotations to this word that need to be dissected:
1) The most obvious -- bareback. What does it mean that "natural" is being equated with sex without condoms? Particularly in the face of a religious rhetoric that pits anal sex between men as "unnatural"? Is this a point of resistance? To whom? Public Health? Fundies? In either case, men are proclaiming not just a desire for sex without condoms, but using this framing to justify unprotected sex as fundamentally BETTER than sex with condoms -- and framing sex with condoms as pathetic / unnatural / gross / less desirable / boring / etc. We need to seriously take stock here.
2) Concurrent with the sex without condoms framing has been a rise of "natural" used by men to refer to their masculinity. Actually, to be more precise I think it's most often in reference to their amount of body hair (and lack of trimming practices) -- but it also may reference their lack of general "primping". No cologne, no deodorant, etc. The claim is often made that by not engaging in these practices, they present a kind of masculinity that is "natural." What makes me uncomfortable about this claim is not just that these guys have different kinds of self-styling practices. That's wonderful and I totally support that. But many guys who present this kind of self aren't just claiming that their practices are sexy -- but that "natural" masculinity is BETTER than / the RIGHT way to be a man. And they're of course setting it against the backdrop of the clean-shaven, twink faggot. Indeed, many times MAN is in all-caps in these ads, suggesting that a person with a penis is not sufficient -- you must meet their qualifications for an all-caps MAN. I think this is disgustingly masculinist and something we need to not just resist, but outright attack. After all, what they're really up to here is denigrating sissy guys and telling us faggots who shave that we're not good enough for their manly cocks. They're doing to us what straight guys did in high school: making us feel less valuable, unworthy, and "unnatural." Being hairy and not wearing deodorant is great, guys. But please, that doesn't make you more of a man or a better person. Understanding that is critical.
Just a few thoughts for the day!
All interesting points Trevor. I too was a bit taken aback by the deflection that its "natural", therefor meaning that's the way it ought to be done.
I don't think it so much of a sign of resistance to outside groups, but primarily an internal debate within the queer community.
I don't know why not wearing deodorant would ever be considered a good thing. I keep an extra one in my office just in case.
I find this push for uber masculinity in the queer community really interesting, because so much seems like a repeat of what gay people faced with straight people in the mainstream. It's weird to say the least.
Age-old naturalistic fallacy. Seems to be a rehash of keeping people within tired conservative "straight-acting" scripts more than anything else. Since--you know--gay men are gay men because they love men, anything less and they would have gotten a woman!
:O
Because femininity is automatically reducible to women's bits. Ugh. This is outright sexism bordering on misogyny. When will these gay men learn that propping patriarchy hurts no one more than themselves?