If you've every spent any significant amount of time on gay hookup websites, you've by now become accustomed to seeing every other profile professing a desire to meet "other masculine men" (which of course presumes their own masculinity). This of course often takes the form of the "looking for straightacting guys." But whatever the verbage, it translates into a systematic valuation of masculinity at a presumed gay femininity's expense. The message is clear: I want you to act like men are supposed to act, not like gay men are supposed to act.
As a bit of a mockery and as a direct challenge to this kind of entrenched sissyphobia, a few years ago I added to my profile the simply sarcastic statement: "Oh, and I'm totally gay acting". This is my way of warding off guys who might contact me and ask that I play into their masculinity game. I got sick of that game a long time ago, mostly because I always tend to lose. Many words could be used to describe me, but I can't imagine "masculine" to ever be on such a list.
But occasionally I get contacted by someone whose profile reads "Looking for masculine guys" or something to that effect. How to explain this? Today was a perfect example. I got a message from someone whose profile said just that, and we had a rather humorous (for me, I doubt he found it similarly amusing) exchange. I thought I would republish it here for dissection, but sadly he deleted his sent message before I could get around to it (I didn't even realize you could do that after someone had read it -- but clearly he could and suspected me, see the exchange below). But here's the basic tenor:
Him: So if we hook up, do I get inside information about your sex studies?
Me: lol. Well I doubt I qualify under your stated requirements for hooking up. But you can get access to my findings whether or not we have sex. Check out my blog: www.trevorhoppe.com [Note: I'm a shameless publicity whore]
Him: lol well I read the "gay acting" thing and I contacted you anyways ;)
Me: Well I can't help but ask why you contact me if you read that part of my profile?
Him: omg I'm going to be next blog entry aren't I? [Note: yes, you are] Maybe you should have asked about my ideas about masculinity, rather than going straight to the stereotype.
Me: I disidentify with the category of masculinity, mostly because it tends to exclude and do violence against me. In other words, I have no interest in being included under your expanded masculine umbrella.
Him: It's no longer about being included.
Me: Clearly.
Okay, so maybe I was a little too sassy. But I really get tired of seeing all this masculinity-loving crap in people's profiles when their actions demonstrate that it isn't true at all. Clearly, his profile's stated interest in masculine guys wasn't actually an empirical reflection for his exclusive desire for masculine gay men.
I won't speculate about this individual's true intentions, but I have some theories about how these things function generally. I tend to think that -- rather than related to what they desire in others -- stating that you are into masculine men is a way to shore up your own desirability vis-a-vis claiming an ability to exclude feminine men from your sex pool. It is an effort to shore up your own normalcy by saying that you are into masculine (read: normal) men. I can count on one hand the number of profiles I have seen expressing a desire for feminine men, in part I think because declaring such a desire would in fact be claiming a kind of queer desire that is not valued and actively discouraged.
This is my theory: By claiming a desire for (or aversion to) ___________ men, you are not just making a claim about the people you're interested in meeting -- you are making a claim about what kind of person you are to desire such things. I think that this is true not just for masculine/feminine, but also other politicized categories like race, age, etc. I'm reminded here of friends whose profiles say "not into Black men" -- but who in public express how attracted they are to, gosh!, a Black man standing across the room. Saying you don't have sex with Black men, I believe, is about more than just race: it is saying that you are able to make such an exclusion and still get laid; it is saying that you don't have sex with the group of queer men at highest risk for HIV; and it is saying that you wouldn't dirty yourself by sleeping with a denigrated group of people.
This may all be a bit dramatic, but I think these are the undercurrents of online profiles that we need to be exploring hypercritically -- because beneath the surface, there is a rich depth of meaning and politics operating that does not readily meet the eye.
Hey Trevor,
And you wonder why I like reading your stuff? This is in a similar vein to where I was going with queer aesthetics in my essay that you were kind enough to publish - narratives are political, and so are attractions. Personally, I think queer men should do a better job at bringing the underlying factors of attraction to consciousness - and yes, I own that I'm a disabled man who's trying to dismantle the privilege of attraction seeming natural, apolitical, or automatic. [Love/attraction isn't rational, so they say. May I call bullshit, please?]
You get on with your sassy self! :D
I've often had the conversation about personal ads that state: No [insert racial group here] men please. Often this comes along with the explanation: I can't help what turns me on. I find it so interesting that guys will use their erections as Gieger counters to excuse their racialized prejudice.
I'd say that someone not having sex with Black men is not just about objectifying the race of their partner because it clearly reveals their own White sexual privilege or at least the perpetuating of dominant (White) sexual hierarchy.
I see the result of this hierarchy when guys message me online and speak of their race almost as an apology. No European guy is going to ask: "Is it OK that I'm White?"
And don't even get me started on self-described Rice Queens...
@ Robert: Well I'm not sure I would venture to say that is in fact rational, and it's not automatically clear how easy it is to change our desires once we become aware of them. We can apply this to things like race, but also even things like condom use. If I have a penchant for sex without condoms, if I fantasize about it and want it so badly that I cannot watch porn with condoms, how do I go about rectifying that fantasy / desire if I want to begin using condoms? Similarly, if I as a white man have a penchant for Asian guys, and I fantasize about having sex with and can't imagine having sex with anyone else, but I recognize that this desire is constructed within a framework of racism and perhaps wish to change this, is the best solution to this issue to discontinue having sex with Asian men? Would that not then simply play into the more dominant racist tendency to NOT have sex with Asian men? In other words, I'm not so sure that we can change these things as easily as you suggest -- and I'm not so sure that changing them is really the project we want to invest ourselves in.
@ Marcus: Well I'm trying to point out the ways in which a stated aversion to having sex with, say, Black men may in fact not be wholly related to race at all -- at least not as directly or clearly as we might imagine it. What I'm saying is that it may be a performative gesture for some users to say, "Hey, I don't have sex with the group of men with the highest HIV prevalence" or "Hey, look I can make categorical exclusions about who I sleep with and still manage to get laid successfully." This is obviously still mediated by race, but I do not believe that these statements are purely literal in the sense that, "I am not attracted to men with Black skin" -- I think it's much more complicated and involves a complex nexus of variables like risk, masculinity, class, and a desire for normalcy.
Also, and I guess this addresses both of your comments, your comment "And don't even get me started on self-described Rice Queens" makes me wonder: Is being a Rice Queen bad? If so, why? I don't think the answer is as easy as you might think it to be. It's not like the Asian guys they date aren't clued into their partner's desiring of them based on their race. And it's not like many Asian guys don't also explicitly state a desire for those very white men! Now, clearly this is all happening in a racist culture that mediates desires and constructs both White and Asian through a lens of race. But it's not automatically clear that we'd want to then move to say that people who desire others based on race are inherently bad people. That is to say, if we want to change the rules of the game, don't blame the players for operating under those sets of rules. Rather, work to change the context in which they're playing. I'm not trying to make light of the fact that racialized desire can be humiliating or denigrating to men of color (although I also think it can potentially be upsetting for white men who are also fetishized for their skin color), but rather I'm trying to say that we should avoid trying to problematize desire at an individual level because I think we will inevitably find ourselves scapegoating many of our friends and potentially even ourselves. After all, you could extend this logic to say that it is problematic to be exclusively interested in just one gender -- MEN -- and that to undo gender as a social construction we would need to explode our desires to all genders. I don't get the sense that either of you are trying to promote such a project.
I'm interested to see that paradox cropping up in your work, because I've used it in mine to suggest "No Asians" is a social convention and desire itself is far less obedient and logical. On a personal level, the "straight acting" and "masculine" stuff just sounds the alarm bells for me that this is someone who is afraid of transgression and is probably going to say "Oh I don't suck cock or rim because I'm bi". *gag*
This is well-expressed, I must say. I think the tone is very much appropriate for an issue (that has many angles). The question of what is meant by "masculine" is an issue. It can't just mean "normal" because there are many types of straight men. I am "physically" attracted to just about any guy, whom I believe is attractive. However, there is a certain perspective that isn't very negative. Everyone associates certain words with certain thoughts that are based on their experiences and observations. "Masculine" for some people could be a way of saying that they are not very attracted to flamboyant guys. For example, I find "some" jocks to be extremely attractive. IF that were the only kind of guy in whom I was interested, how would I describe the such?" Language is limited. Sometimes people just simply cannot think of a better way to describe certain characteristics. Just as a disclaimer, I'm not only interested in "masculine" men, but people who say that they are, may not necessarily mean it in the way that you interpret it. As I said before, language is limited. Suffice to say, "masculine" for you i.e., your associations with the word, may not necessarily be their associations with the word. While I do agree with everything you've written above, I'm just suggesting another angle that doesn't seem to have been considered. Also as far as "not into black men", that also isn't always very negative. Though I'll admit, every time that I see that, I hate that I'm not even given the chance. I'll use the example of Asians. I tend not to be attracted to Asians. Not that I am not open-minded to the idea. If I were to see an Asian to whom I was sexually attracted, then I would go for it. However, it tends to be a trend that I am not. It's not that I'm excluding them, though I think it's accurate to say that in general, I'm not into Asians. Why? Well, despite the thousands I've probably seen in my life, I've only been "sexually" attracted to many 3. It's important to note however, that as stated above, I'm not closed to the idea, just making a comment on a general trend within myself, that I cannot help but to notice. Just tossing this out there. Despite what I've just written, I can say that I would probably not write "not into Asians" on a profile, seeing that I am open to the idea, despite the contrary trend. This is just to say that when people say that they are "not into black men", it may not be that they actually are closed to the idea, despite the fact that their words say otherwise. Sorry, if this isn't quite coherent, hehe. It's late. Just to clarify, this isn't to disagree with you, just to add to what you've said. :D By the way, I also don't fall in the masculine category and I’m excluded by the "not into black men" category. Guess that's a double whammy on me, haha.
@ Renaudo: I think you've missed the point of what I'm trying to say here. I think that saying you're "Looking for masculinie" is in fact NOT a reflection of the kind of guy you're looking for. So yes of course masculinity is a moving target with a multiplicity of definitions and connotations. But what I'm arguing instead is that saying on your profile "Looking for masculine" is instead an act of performing / professing / claiming the normalcy of your desires (and thus your self) to others on the website. I believe it has much more to do about the person posting the profile than it does the kind of person they'd like to meet. Does that make more sense?
As for the "Not into Black men" think, you seem to be saying the same thing I was: Saying you're not into black men may in fact have nothing to do with an actually exclusionary desire that would prohibit your being sexually attracted to Black men. I believe it is more likely about performing normal desire, and as Daniel Reeders has offered above, about participating in a "social convention" about white gay masculinity. Again, I'm not arguing here that people who put "Not into Black men" are racist. I think this is a problematic and divisive move that doesn't encourage anyone to rethink their sexualities, nor do I think it's an accurate reflection of these men's lives.
Yes, the clarification makes more sense, haha. Now that I reread what you wrote, it's actually pretty clear. I simply shouldn't read things so late at night.
As far as the "not into black men" topic, I was aware that you weren't saying that is was racist. I was in fact, agreeing with you. So yes, we were saying the same thing.
My friend Karen posted this comment on Facebook to this note, so I thought I would add it here:
And I replied:
Trevor & fellow commenters,
Just catching up and getting out of the cave for a bit. Sorry I missed you in SF ;( , but will see you in Chi-town soon. Love this one, the online chat used to illustrate this topic is unfortunately all too common online and elsewhere. Your sassy-ness, thankfully, is as irrevocable as your sissy-ness. Thanks ALL for the analysis and exploration, your combined eloquence is always inspiring and hopeful for all of our futures . . . much love.