Striking a Sexual Chord
Straight sexual roles are generally, um, straightforward. In the hetero world the men are expected to be dominant: they make the first move, they have the cock, they do the fucking. In short, men are aggressive, masc, dom tops. Straight women are usually more passive: they wait for the first move to be made, they have a hole and they get fucked. In short, straight women are passive, femme, sub bottoms. Pretty simple. Of course there are exceptions, but I'd guess that most modern straight people still follow those general roles. And they do so because they're expected to by their peers. How many straight guys would brag to his bros about getting pegged by his girlfriend? I imagine that a straight guy would probably even be hesitant to disclose that he let his girl "ride cowgirl" for fear of seeming a passive.
Straight gender roles tend to come in rigid sets of attributes, loosely defined by the gender of the participant. One person plays the "man" while the other plays the "woman." The problem is when people out there in straight world think that we homos play by the same rules. I can't tell you how many times someone has asked me whether I'm "the bitch or the butch" in a relationship, and how simply impossible it is to answer that question.
Why is that question so hard? The gay world of sex tosses those rigid roles aside. Top/vers/bottom, butch/masc/femme, passive/aggressive, dom/sub, they all exist on a spectrum from which we can choose what fits us best. Because there are no specific gender roles to be played in gay sexual relationships, we get to pick and choose which of the above "tones" to apply to ourselves during courtship and sex. And because these tones aren't necessarily affixed to our gender expression, or perhaps because we have to move beyond traditional gender expression in order to have gay sex, we can embrace different tones at different times under different circumstances. How aggressive or passive one is during sex might depend on the partner's level of aggressiveness. Or one may find oneself more aggressive or passive at different times of the day.
And what's so interesting is that we homos get to mix and match between those tones of sexual timbre to create combinations, or chords if you will, of sexual presence that may seem incompatible. Imagine if you will the butch passive top lesbian, or the femme dominant bottom boy. No wonder gay relationships are so hard to negotiate: you need to see someone's gay card to find out if you're even sexually compatible. And when there is compatibility, when your chord of sexual presence resonates with someone else's, well, that's when the fireworks go off.
This potential lack of compatibility might to explain why so many hook-ups never go any further. I imagine that lot of people are out there feeling each other out, so to speak, looking to see if the sexual chemistry adds up. Listening for the resonance of two chords of sexual presence. If they don't hear it, they move on. No wonder the dating world is so tough!
What about you? Do the tones that make up your sexual expression match up with your gender identity? Do either of them match up with your chromosomes? Are you locked hard and fast into one chord, or is your sex life an every-changing harmonic symphony?
16 comments:
As a straight woman who reads your blog, I think your assessment of "straight" sex is very ignorant. I ride top more often than bottom and the men that I've ridden have ALWAYS preferred girl on top. It seems to me that your assessment of straight sex is drawn from a lack of experience (obviously) and popular culture. Just as I attempt NOT to draw my understandings of gay sex from the media, opting for educating myself about gay sex by reading blogs like this or actually talking to people who I know are gay, I'd hope that someone who writes for this blog would do the same.
-a girl who loves riding straight cock
Anon, there's a slight difference between the positional variations of girl-on-top/boy-on-top and what I think Michael was getting at when he says "pegging" which usually means the girl straps one on and puts it in the only hole the boy has - drastically reversing the roles.
Thanks for the clarification, anon #2. I added a link on the words "getting pegged" to the wikipedia entry on "pegging (sexual practice)"
question, if we are lucky to be able to adapt to many molds, how do we explain the preponderance of bottoms in gay society? they do seem to outnumber the tops, though this could be only anecdotal.
All this talk about pegging has me seeing my my favorite Steely Dan song
in a new light...
I now understand better about what you were trying to get at, and have an understanding of what the term “pegging” means (as well as a link to a great Wikipedia article complete with an unbeatable graphic). My last criticism would be that it is important not to make blanket statements about a group of people, such as “And they do so because they're expected to by their peers.” I don’t think straight people are the only group that are susceptible to peer and social pressure. An essential attribute of humans is their social tendencies, and so saying that only straight people’s sexual practices are (at times) guided by social and peer pressure is pretty one-sided. I would guess that there exists as much social/sexual pressure in the gay community as there does in the straight community to engage in and talk about certain types of sex, and then not talk about others. Again drawing from my experiences, I have been asked by two “straight” men to put dildos/vibrators in their assholes. Granted, I would venture a guess (and ONLY a guess because I am not one) a straight male would be far less inclined to talk about this than, say, a gay man, I think it is dangerous and polarizing to make blanket statements about either group. I do appreciate your blog and the perspective it gives me on gay sex, though, I just don’t like the depiction of straight people as being boring, one-dimensional and predictable. Until you’ve had “straight” sex (and a lot of it) you really can’t say that for sure.
while i was reading this i thought "well that's too easy an assessment of straight sex." then anonymous came along and said it for me. maybe it's just that i've been reading savage love since i was 13, but i'm pretty sure straight people's sexuality is, on average, just as complicated and mutable as the gays' (or maybe i mean just as predictable and static).
Didn't he write that "there are exceptions?" If you're the exception, what's the problem? Give yourself a cookie. Or a pair of cowboy boots.
It may only be 51%, but as a general assesment, I'd say Michael's thoughts here accurately reflect the behavior of the heterosexual majority. At least the heterosexuals I've spoken with.
Ben - Reflexively speaking, I don't think a gay person would appreciate a generalization about their, individual or community, sexual diversity from a heterosexual. The "From the _____ friends I know" angle is rarely effective or relevant in discussions about human beings, and specifically irrelevant when we're considering marginalized groups.
I agree with Anon #1. I don't claim to be an expert on gay sex because I am gay, have a lot of gay friends, have watched gay porn, had gay sexual experiences, etc., and it makes sense that you wouldn't espouse expertise about straight sex either. It continues a cycle of polarizing the gay and straight communities and breaks down any attempts to build human capital between both. We must think past the stereotypes and honor and respect both cultures.
if gay folks are deducing what most straight folks are into based on how many straight folks perceive most gays, we've got ourselves a serious problem.
to flesh out anonymous' concerns with the tone of this post and the suppositions in it, i'd say this:
straight people come with gear for traditional penis-in-vag sex, and that's the default setting for what we've all learned "sex" is: the kind that makes babies. if the straight folks go beyond that, via pegging or otherwise, perhaps gender roles are blurred.
but, when first introduced to the idea of same-sex sex, the question is, how? because if the default setting is penis-in-vag, i would venture to say many straight people, especially those who think they don't know any gay people, presume someone is playing the role of the penis, and someone is playing the role of the vagina, because that's just how it is.
only it's not. it's not always that way for straight people, and it's obviously not for gay people. and the "exceptions" glibly noted and linked to don't quite cut it. especially when they're all savage love links.
i think something worth inserting (heh) into the discussion is the correlation of gay boys who save their anal virginity for "the one" and straight girls who save their vaginal virginity for "the one." and then there are those straight girls who think they're virgins even though they've had anal sex.
see? there are no rules here. and that's the point that i think anonymous was trying to make.
Meaghan-fair enough. Maybe straights don't want analysis of their sexuality from the gay peanut gallery, however, they're often right about us, as many outside observers often are (and are not). Frankly, I'm pro-opinion, regardless of sexuality. Meaning that I'm glad people have them and are willing to share them, like you.
Generalizations do get people in trouble, but my issue with "no rules," as miss mess thoughtfully pointed out in her comment, is that is denies the realities of patterned behavior. Am I to believe that the puritan ethic that gave us the missionary position and established gender roles has somehow been displaced overnight because you took a gender studies course? I have no horse in this race ,so I really don't care how straight people fuck. I would actually prefer they have more sex, and in a variety of improbable and/or fantastic ways. However, this is a big country, and some roles die hard. My point is that in spite of the fascinating machinations one might read on "savage love," I don't think we're seeing the heterosexual majority represented there, in terms of traditional sex roles. However, I believe they are making fabulous progress.
Regardless, you have a sharp mind and I've had two glasses of wine, so I hope I've provided an acceptable rebuttal. Hope to see some submissions from you on TNG.
look, i really don't think that straight people's sex lives are simple as michael seems to believe either, but we don't have to get all "honor and respect" and hand-holdy drum circle about it. no offense anon.
I don't think that gay relationships inherently transgress gender norms. I think the more interesting distinction is between sex that queers binary roles and sex that conforms to heteronormativity and patriarchy. I know a lot of straight people who "toss those rigid roles aside" much more so than other gay people I know. So, the distinction should be less between a concept of "straight" that means "straightforward" and "gay" that "moves beyond traditional gender expression" and should instead be between queers and non-queers (or heteronormative and non-heternormative, etc.)
Ben - I appreciate opinions as much as the next person, but I also don't necessarily view them as a monolithic beast incapable of being rebutted or proved false...or even offensive. I also think that it's within our respectable purview as queers to only make sweeping generalizations about our own, if we desire to make generalizations at all.
Separately, while I'm flattered that you feel my opinions and perspectives are derived from some 300-level gender studies course, I must admit that I don't even have a bachelor's degree. Educational elitism is not something I'm privileged with, at least as far as that good ol' piece of paper is concerned.
"...gay world of sex tosses those rigid roles aside..."?
In my experience Gay men are extremely rigid in the roles they perceive for themselves and other men. It is arguably the majority that obsesses about gender and fetishizes masculinity into an abstraction that is mistaken for a "...move beyond traditional gender expression...".
I agree, heterosexuals may be limited by their biology and their attitudes but I'd hesitate to equate those attitudes with sexual positions or acts. Equating "aggressive" with insertive and "passive" with receptive betrays acceptance of the very sexual system we seek to expand...or transcend. Ironically, it is with "Gay" men I have experienced this dynamic.
Most things I read about sexuality in a "Gay" space ignore biology in favor of cultural and behavioral adaptation. It'd be cool to have a discussion about how (and to what degree) biology (i.e. hormones) actually determines what we are and how we have sex. Testosterone makes men naturally more aggressive. I know this has determined and configured my sexual expression regardless of the (biological) sex of my partner.
In answer to your closing questions, yes: my sexual expression, gender identity and chromosomes all match.
Anyway, nice post.
Post a Comment