Post-Gay (Amended and Updated)

I've been moving closer and closer to this position for a while, and it's nice to see someone as prominent as John Aravosis picking up the torch.

It's getting harder to tell who's gay and who's straight, and it's getting harder for kids themselves to define themselves as straight or gay. I think that's because everyone is on a spectrum of sexuality (my theory), a la Kinsey, from straight to gay.

Some years ago I read Frank Browning's A Queer Geography, and one thing that stuck out was his discomfort with younger men who simply didn't care, or rejected the definition of "gay" as irrelevant. I've contended for a long time that "gay" is in large part a cultural identity that grew out of the establishment of what we think of as gay culture in the 1970s and '80s, when "gay" replaced "homosexual" as the term of choice for men who love men. We redfined ourselves -- and that's the critical point -- we defined ourselves. Like many other men of my generation, I have an emotional investment in that definition, and I accept that it is in large part a cultural identity. I came of age in that culture, and it's hard to leave it behind me. However, I refuse to stop growing just because I've reached a certain age.

Andrew Sullivan has gone on periodically about what he calls "post-gay culture," but I think we're operating from very different bases. He seems to see it as meaning simply that gays will be assimilated into mainstream culture and our own culture and its institutions will have fallen by the wayside, while people themselves are still either gay or straight. This last is inference on my part, since I don't recall ever finding a specific statement to that effect, although it is a natural assumption based on the rest of his comments in this area. I don't know that he's examined this very closely, or in the psychological/sociological terms that I tend to use. (I should also note that it seems Sullivan is doing nothing so much as devoutly hoping for the demise of so-called "identity politics," since he is out of sympathy with the idea that discernible groups other than white, middle-aged males merit specific attention from the law, no matter their historical exclusion from its benefits, or that said groups can legitimately band together to exert more influence than would be the case if they were merely working as individuals -- in the way that, say, major corporations do. The shortfall in that attitude should be obvious.) I see it as meaning simply that we are moving past those definitions into a more realistic view of human sexuality, and maybe even a more realistic way of constructing gender. Do I need to point out that the "traditional" idea of masculinity short-changes men as much as it victimizes women? (Oddly enough, the less I've concerned myself with my "masculinity," and the more I've moved toward operating as the psychological androgyne that I am, the more people tend to see me as "masculine," although I certainly don't fit that stereotype at all. I suspect it's largely a function of the fact that as I stop concerning myself with imposed definitions, my comfort with myself, and consequently my self-assurance, both increase.)

Aravosis and his commenters refer to Kinsey's work, which I've always taken as a benchmark. "Sexual orientation" is as fluid as any other human characteristic, and no less culturally defined, and the value of Kinsey's work on male sexual behavior was simply that it was an empirical study based on what men actually did, not what they professed to do or the ways in which they defined themselves. My reading of the comments at Aravosis' post about being on a Navy ship at sea for four months is not that men will take what release they can get (although I can't dismiss that entirely), but more that men under those pressures will relax attitudes that are not that good a fit to begin with.

It's instructive to look at Japanese boys love manga and anime for a reflection of an attitude that is much more grounded in reality than ours. (It's also very interesting to note that this is work coming out of Japan, not, these days, a country that's particularly accepting of homosexuality.) The most frequent scenario is that "sexual orientation" is irrelevant. There are several works in which boys quite specifically are not gay, but happen to have fallen in love with another guy. The one that comes first to mind is Yaya Sakuragi's Tea for Two, in which Tokumaru says point-blank that if he weren't in love with Hasune, he wouldn't be going out with a guy at all. There's also an illuminating scene in Yuko Kuwabara's Blue Sky in which one of Yoshimi's rejected suitors says "I love who I love, you know -- I can't help it. And just denying that feeling is painful. Nothing constructive can come from that. . . ." It's an attitude repeated over and over throughout this genre: love and sex are tied together and hinge not on the "attraction of opposites," but come from the chemistry between two individuals, regardless of sex. And of course, the key component here is the understanding that very few people are really 100% one or the other. (Take it as a given that I'm ready to junk "bisexual" as a definition as well. It's just another box to try to fit people into, and the numbers of open bisexuals are undoubtedly far outweighed by the numbers of functional bisexuals, which probably include most of humanity. That's another term that, it seems to me, has far outlived its usefulness, if, indeed, it ever had any to begin with.)

Think about friendships between men and how profound they can be. Take away the social/cultural taboos surrounding homosexual behavior, and how many of them do you think would turn into love affairs? (I've come damned close to that myself, too many times to chalk it up to happenstance.) I think it's even more likely when we consider the role of sex as a bonding mechanism -- and it does have that function, among others. I'm not saying that the love would be eternal, or even that the sexual relationship would be more than transitory -- that, again, is something that's going to vary depending on the two individuals involved. (And, contrary to the received wisdom, my own take is that it's men who are hormonally driven; it's just that we've been taught from infancy to suppress our emotions. You really don't want to be around me during the three days of the full moon: talk about hair-trigger!)

At any rate, I for one am very happy to see younger people dispensing with useless definitions -- although for someone like me, a veritable Kinsey 6, I'm not sure if that makes it easier or not. At least when gay bars were inhabited by gay men, you had a good idea where to look for a date.

It's an interesting topic, and of course, I'd be interested to hear any thoughts you might have. And please note that the comments above were written from the viewpoint of a man who loves men (hell, I adore them!), since that's what I know. There are women in the blogosphere who can illuminate their point of view much better than I can, although if any women happen to read this and feel like opening up the conversation, feel free.