Both essays stress the concept of men acting outside of what their expected behavior as a male is being indicative or symptomatic of being homosexual. Though there are obviously many faults with this concept already, what I thought was intriguing is the way that both essays insinuate that there is therefore a rightful manner for men or women to act in. It totally removed the reality of homosexuality from the actual sex act and redefined it in terms of a lifestyle choice or way of existence. I feel as though my friend perhaps unknowingly did this too, disregarding the fact that there is a correlation in being a male that is penetrated to women in that they both generally share the experience of being penetrated. By placing character traits and habits into the conversation, I feel as though you only work to perpetuate the gender stereotyping which a man like my friend clearly desires to escape. If one could only wear lipstick and love manhwa girls and just be Joon or whoever they may be instead of falling suddenly into a new realm of what they are as a person, perhaps the world would never have to know "How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay."
-Jheanelle G.
Good point. It's important that we know, as perhaps you suggest (or your friend might), that there is not necessary pre-determined relationship between gender performance (feminine/masculine) and object-choice (desire a woman's or a man's body), let alone specific sexual acts (such as being a bottom or a top, or versatile). There certainly are hyper-masculine males who desire to be penetrated (by women, by men, by feminine boys, by drag queens, by crossdressers, etc), as well as hyper-feminine sissy boys who desire to "top", and every other permutation that we can and cannot imagine.
ReplyDelete