Bi-Furious Faggots! (My favourite people in the world)

Posted: August 23, 2011 in Identity, Masculinities
Tags: , ,

http://nattysoltesz.com/

Natty Soltesz writes erotic stories about men. He writes particularly evocatively about what happens when ‘straight’ men allow themselves to express homo-desire. His latest book is called ‘Str8 but curious’ and this is how it begins:

‘I’ve had my share of straight guys. Maybe I’ve had my fill.

I bagged the majority during my college years, that magical time when sexual identity is as addled and messy as a frat boy after his third keg stand. One straight drunk buddy made out with me at a party then invited me to his bedroom to trade blowjobs. Another got so horny looking at straight porn he whacked me off and let me return the favor.

And I’ve had others since then. Dalliances in secluded park paths and in the backrooms of adult bookstores, those playgrounds of the minivan-and-wedding-band set. Hookups with masc, discreet Internet-personals advertisers who need to be fucked quick before the gf gets home.’

But according to some ‘sexologist’ ‘scientists’, accounts like Natty’s are not to be trusted, because bisexual men don’t exist.  Except of course they do. And now, even the scientists have had to admit it. As MS, who also knows a thing or two about ‘male bi-curiousness’ has written:

‘Those kinky penile plethysmograph fetishists at Northwestern University just can’t get enough cock.

Dr JM Bailey and his chums have been strapping a fresh batch of penises into their sex-lie detector machines again, showing them porn and feverishly twiddling their knobs. But this time – hold the front page! – their ‘scientific’ findings very kindly allow men who like cock and pussy to actually exist’.

Which might not in the real world seem such a major finding – but it is a major flip flop for this outfit. Six years ago, using the same cranky equipment, they claimed they had demonstrated that male bisexuality didn’t exist. That their data suggested that bisexual men were in fact ‘really’ homosexual.

A ‘finding’ that was trumpeted around the world. Because of course it told people, straight and gay, what they wanted to hear, and what common sense tells them to be the case. Gays have always wanted bisexual men to join their team. While straights don’t want the dirty dogs on theirs. However liberal they might be. Especially in the devoutly monosexual USA. ‘Straight, gay or lying?’ was the infamous, shameful headline in the New York Times which greeted the 2005 paper from Bailey ‘proving’ male bisexuality doesn’t exist.

Just as all women are ‘really bisexual’, no men really are. Since virility is directly related to a man’s ability to perform compulsory heterosexuality, any man who is aroused by cock can’t be virile. He is, by definition, emasculated. Impotent. A fag. Or ‘gay’ if you’re liberal. No wonder the vast majority of men attracted to other men don’t advertise the fact.

All this despite of course the way hardcore ‘straight’ porn watched by most men when they’re not strapped to a plethysmograph in Northwestern University features pussies AND cock. Usually lots and lots of ENORMOUS cocks – and a sorely-tested pussy or two. By way of contrast, I’d point out that I’ve never seen a single pussy in gay porn. (Except once in the art-house porn of Bruce La Bruce – who was anyway only doing it to wind up The Gays.)

In my own private ‘researches’ I’ve come across – and over – scores of straight/bi-curious/bisexual men who want to re-enact the straight hardcore porn they’ve been watching. With them as the ‘greedy slut’. They tell me they decided that it looked like a LOT of fun. And besides, they thought they could do a better job. (Probably correctly, since the ‘slut’ fantasy of straight porn is of course a largely male construction.)

But Bailey’s yen to strap penises into sex-lie detectors is of course much more respectable than my private perving.’

Simpson is evidently taking a stand for the value of experience when it comes to our knowledge and understanding of sex/ualities. Something that scientists seem to have very little idea about. I guess they have spent too much time wiring themselves up to kinky machines to get out much.  Of course, social science has taken note of and recorded people’s experiences.  Though I do think there has recently been a backwards shift in social science and the world at large, in favour of ‘science’ and ‘statistics’ when examining people’s sexual identities. Dan Savage for example, rates Bailey’s penis research, because it is ‘scientific’ and it shores up all Savage’s own prejudices and I might even say hatred of bisexuality, because bisexuals won’t join his big gay ‘team’?

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/16/9534403-case-closed-bisexual-men-exist

But Mark Simpson does not just have valuable personal experience of ‘bi-curious’ men, some of which he has written about beautifully in various contexts and books. He also is to my eyes, the leading contemporary  ‘social scientist’  in the study of masculinity and men’s sexual identities. His research is evidence-based, including detailed media-analysis that any academic should be proud of and should respect. That his work isn’t respected, once again, says more about the state of ‘academia’, and also about people’s anxieties around the fact that men of all orientations like cock, than it does about the ‘rigour’ of Simpson’s methodology.

Remember, the inimitable Freud, too, has been dismissed as ‘unscientific’ and not ‘rigorous’. Freud!!

I remain,  an ardent Simpsonista.

And Bailey and his Bitches can  suck my bi-furious dick.

Comments
  1. groomingguru says:

    Kindly remember that ‘Simpsonista’ is a registered trademark! lol

    • I have amended it to put a link in to your invention.

      But you will have to excuse the fact I find it a bit kinky that I, as an ‘ardent Simpsonista’ am now an original Grooming Guru product… Maybe I’ll get my own face lube range one day.

  2. elissa says:

    My own faux research (ha!), splits apart the cock-sexual types (don’t know of a better suited term of differentiation) from the broader “bisexual” mass. A quick retell of an ad I was once shown – and paraphrasing a tad:

    “Man looking for another man who will piss and cum on me. More if we click.”

    More if we click?

    Cock-sexual types don’t want the “more if we click”. They just want cock from time to time to time. An acquaintance of mine tells me he can have a lineup around the corner of married men who want their cock sucked. He can tell handily how cock-sexual they are if they ask for the evidential “stats” or the more “masculine” traits that gay men seek. If they don’t really care about either, they’re usually married men who want a blow job in a car or park. The more advanced also want to suck cock, but draw strict limits at kissing, making out, and other more intimate markers of man sex.

    I have always been envious of the love affair men have with their own cocks and the cocks of others. But – liking cock is a necessary but not sufficient component of bisexuality. We need a new social bucket. They don’t mix well together. They tell different stories.

    • LOL I think *all* men are ‘cock sexual’ elissa.

      I am happy with keeping the boundaries blurred to be honest. As Mark said in his post (not quoted this bit here) – now bisexual men have been ‘identified’ – ‘scientific’ sex researchers might just define, limit and pathologise them as they have done with gay men.

      I think ‘bisexual’ is a concept that challenges people so much already, that it may never really be an ‘accepted’ identity. Because, as you indicate, it throws ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ completely into question

      • Jim says:

        “I am happy with keeping the boundaries blurred to be honest. ”

        Sometimes too much precision gets in the way of real accuracy.

    • Matthew says:

      I think if you apply Lacan to this the penis/phallus is not merely symbolic but the essential element of male identity and “ego”. So in ALL porn gay or straight the cock becomes a sort of protaganist that goes on all sorts of adventures. And seeing another penis ejactulate is in direct relationship with ones own orgasm. That’s why straight porn will have all the cum scenes and men can’t wait to get that scene.

      But I jabbered a lot in Mark Simpsons blog about men’s groups. The reality is men of all orientations want a lot of love. They want closeness and intimacy with other men period. They just don’t know how to get there and have to do the big homophobic dance of I want to be loved and I don’t want to be gay. “More if we click” is always a wish and hope for this deeper intimacy men want with other but ward of at all cost.

    • Jim says:

      “They just want cock from time to time to time.”

      Thus the huge popularity of intersex peolle, both in the flesh and in porn. Dead right, Elissa.

      As for the minivan-and-wedding-ring set, ther eis a real split betwen the ones who concentrate all thier attention donw there and those who like some stubble and a muscled arm. Everyone has at least a few stories of drilling some guy who didn’t want to be touched above the waist. Or looked at.

  3. paul says:

    Gah! I can’t even stand “bisexual” as a label, and use it as little as possible. A linguist acquaintance of mine said she has started using the linguistic term “free variation” to describe herself, which I kinda like. Much of the time I use “equal opportunity,” which of course I tend to have to explain…

    Also, not enough people seem to realize how culturally imperialistic we have become in this regard. I’m thinking of–to take merely one example–the research trying to conceptualize male sexuality in mediterranean, latin american, and middle eastern cultures, in which apparently sexuality is certainly still gendered but in a completely different way, stigmatizing not so much male-male sex in itself but rather the more “receptive” partner. The fuckee I guess. Whereby the fuckER retains his full “masculinity,” and in fact tends to be mostly “straight” in practice. It would absurd for Bailey and Co. to claim those men as “really” gay, but unproblematically reducing them to simply “straight” reveals the absurdity of our entire paradigm…

    • haha I call myself an ‘equal opportunity pervert’ sometimes Paul. I don’t think it needs any explanation!

      Yes in different cultures ‘gay’ is not such an established identity. also in Africa. It is not always a good thing. I know someone who works on HIV programmes in Africa especially, and the ‘denial’ of some men who have sex with men is not great in terms of prevention.

    • Jim says:

      “Also, not enough people seem to realize how culturally imperialistic we have become in this regard.”

      It’s not culturally imperialistic to analyze or even define our own culture. It is culturally imperialistic to assume our definitions have to describe or accomodate all cultures, that we have some responsibility to be unversalist.

      • paul says:

        Jim, but I would say the problem is that Science is a totalizing language. This type of “study” isn’t Science of course, but it indeed purports to be, as do all such attempts to prove the existence of discrete sexual “species” grounded simply and entirely in an object-choice of gender. Not even gender, but ultimately genitals.

        Science is many things and operates on a number of different levels obviously, but it seems that one of these can approach a kind of religious discourse. As befits that quality, Science at times becomes as rigidly ideological as it likes. Gender and sexuality seem to be the areas par excellence where we can see this happening.

  4. Matthew says:

    Having been very open about my sexuality for about 20 years it is strange how one article had so changed public opinion that it was actually making it difficult to exist. I am glad the new study came out just so I can post it on facebook. I continue to be very wary of these studies and what exactly the intention of them are. The effects are clear though there are certain types of sex that are legitmate for certain types of people. If gay men of hetero sex it is not legitimate, or straight men having gay sex, etc.

    For me this recent bisexual controversy has serious messed up my dating life. Because suddenly I was a sexual outlaw and no sex was legitimate. But now what do I do? carry a copy of the article around just to prove to someone that I can now have legitimate sex with them?

    Well the result was dating a straight woman and being under constant scrutiny and survelliance, a gay man who though very sweet was terrified of the fact that I liked women, and ultimately another sexual outlaw the bisexual woman.

    • Hi Matthew

      I find it a bit terrifying what ‘real life’ impact these kind of studies can have. I think Mark ignored that a bit, and I think it was probably as he was so keen to despatch with the idea that this ‘science’ was ever considered credible in the first place.

      But as I referred to in my post, if people like Dan Savage are taking the results of the new study and twisting them to fit Bailey’s original agenda, in a popular publication like The Stranger, this will have an impact on people’s perceptions.

      I find these subjects complex. My own experience of being involved with a bisexual man in the UK to me, seemed to have less to do with ‘social norms’ or ‘science’ in some ways and more to do with just how life is hard! It felt confusing because it is confusing negotiating those complexities of sex/gender/desire/jealousy etc.

      The social norms impacted at the level of trying to be a ‘couple’ in public and failing dismally. We were ‘sexual outlaws’ socially.

      I don’t know. I think even if I lived in a ‘liberated’ world I’d still find relationships damned difficult! BUt people like Bailey and Savage sure don’t help matters.

      • Jim says:

        “…..in a popular publication like The Stranger,….”

        It amazes me that a very non-mainstream publication, one that is basically an advertizer, and one published in such a marginal place, gets this much attention.

      • Matthew says:

        The even weirder impact was not in my dating life, BUT amoung my gay collegues. For example I was caste as the lead in a play and the director said it was impossible for me to be bisexual “you are either straight and fucking around or gay and in the closet”. I told him he was “either a complete moran or just a stupid bigot” and then said I will not work with the director and the producer/writer had to step in. A similar thing happened at another job on the job by the owner I was called “a liar and a coward”. And I can count at least five other instances in professional contexts. I mean really! It became socially acceptable biggotry in liberal circles.

        • That’s why I included Savage’s article because he was using the ‘science’ study to reinforce biphobia amongst gay people in my view.

          Mark S ignored Savage because he hates him so much I think, and because he may have wished to underplay the ‘negative’ aspects of the discourse around this research. But I think it is important for bisexual people’s actual lives.

        • paul says:

          I’m in a parallel place Matthew, and really sympathize.

          • paul says:

            And it just hit me how funny that director’s comment was, because at the end of the day what is “straight and fucking around” but a form of … bisexuality! If someone were truly “straight” they wouldn’t “fuck around,” not even in all-male environments.

          • You’re right – the ‘straight and fucking around’ comment is very odd. But then, as Mark Simpson has pointed out in a number of contexts, there are quite a lot of ‘get out’ clauses for straight men to ‘fuck around’ without becoming ‘gay’ or even ‘bi’. But gay men don’t have that luxury – i think that’s what the director’s comments illuminate. That the ‘gay’ identity is more rigid than the ‘straight’ one. Which pisses gay men off which is one reason they hate ‘bi’ men (some of them).

  5. Matthew says:

    Relationships are always complex in negotiating jeleousy commitment monogomy or non-monogomy, but I think the reality is the opposite is just dishonesty and repression. I must add through this process another straight friend has “come out” does he really want to go there? I told him to talk to his girlfriend (also bi and I have known her longer than he). If he did not know me what would be the situation? Would this have been neatly repressed for him til his old age? This is the real reason “gay” and “straight” need to be so seperated.

    But I have a nefarious plan to make everyone bisexual. It may take a lot of Viagra in the gay community, women in drag, and possibly other drugs but I think I can do it. As far as straight that’s too easy.

    • Haha. I don’t know if viagra will do it Matthew I think that is quite a ‘gay’ drug.

      My mission to make gay men ‘bi’ uses different methods. I just grind them down with my relentless big dicked femme persona until they squeal like girls.

  6. Matthew says:

    “Straight and Fucking Around” the director was directly referencing the Bailey study. I did not even know about it until this moment in 2008 and looked it up. The result was there were men who had no response, hetero response, and homo response. The issue is that researchers are looking for “sexual orientation” not behavior, or even preference. The real shocking issue in all of this is “science” is dictating what human authenticity is. Sexual orientation now as an institution that has a tyrannical effect on people it is not liberation. Judith Butler wrote that certain gender/orientations can not exist (but do) with in a gay straight paradigm. After meeting a lot of “bisexuals” I realized that my preferences have been for women have been broader but liked a nice rack and a certain independent spirit, but with men it was specifically the feme queers twink boyish types – and they almost seem a completely different gender alltogether. In a way we really are not asking the right questions at all on this issue.

  7. paul says:

    “The real shocking issue in all of this is ‘science’ is dictating what human authenticity is.” Right on! Couldn’t agree more.

    “Bisexuality” does not escape the problem at all, of course… The category “bisexuality” still capitulates to the paradigm that reduces our sexuality not even to two dimensions but even actually down to ONE, ie a point, ie this set of genitals or that one!–to the reification of Gender. But I can think of at least 10 or 15 other central aspects to sexuality right off the top of my head. Like specific forms, scenarios, props, stimulations, durations, fantasies connected to sexual release, all of which cut across homo / hetero lines and are endlessly varied. Like our relationship to touch more generally (eg for some people tenderness is crucial, for others irrelevant; some like to kiss for ages, others not at all) and affection. Like: all the very specific sequences of thought and feeling that go through our mind when engaged in sex, which correlate in endlessly different ways with the physical pathways of energy our sexuality (in the big, true sense) follows. Like, as Mark pointed out: what about the rest of our bodies, ie all those other parts that male and female actually share? (I’ll never forget the time this purely straight-identified guy plunged his tongue into my mouth as, I think, a self-dare, then said, with a certain amount of amazement, “wow, it’s exactly like kissing a woman.” ! Like is it even *possible* to express heterosexuality without an equally prominent homosexual component? And for that matter vice versa? (As I understand him, Freud said no.) Like what is the homo / hetero status of masturbation actually? (seems fundamentally homo to me). Like what’s going on with threesomes, which are a very common desire, or exhibitionism etc etc… And what do people *not* express about their sexuality? It would seem that most of us are not public about quite a lot regarding our sexual desires as a whole. I liked your comment above Matthew about men’s need for closeness with each other and their inability to find ways of bringing that about, having to locate and balance on the razor’s edge between the acceptably homosocial and the taboo of queerness. I lost count somewhere–around 20 or 25 or so–of the men I’ve known, each thoroughly, purely “straight” in the eyes of the world, who felt comfortable talking with me about decidedly “unstraight” desires, each in their own individual way. I’ve come to learn that so, so, so much is hidden.

    Sorry, don’t know what got into me! … But basically, yes, when you say “we really are not asking the right questions at all on this issue, I absolutely agree. Our sexual discourse is so hopelessly primitive and crude, it seems to me. And given the centrality of sexuality and more generally relationship in the broadest sense in our lives, its inseparability from “human authenticity,” I feel we need to wrest control of this realm from “science,” which doesn’t belong here. There are enormously too many variables, none of them helpfully isolatable, most of them unquantifiable. How do we quantify feelings, all the shades and nuances of desire? What is the square root of craving, sadness, heartbreak, hope?

    Yikes, I’ll stop now [feeling a little abashed!]

  8. Matthew says:

    How can we blow it up? At least in a camp sort of way. Perhaps we need to go back to Ludwig Von Krafft Ebbing, even though he pathologizes sexualities he also creates a diversity in Psychopathia Sexualis, a diversity that is not on the radar screen of popular culture.

    Quiet Riot Girl definately has an independent spirit but I wonder if she has a nice rack.

  9. [...] Riot Girl has convinced me, I too am an Ardent Simpsonista. I think that anyone interested in Male Femininity in the 2000′s should familiarize [...]

  10. Mark says:

    The best response I’ve found is that I”m gender neutral. The persons gender isn’t what attracts me to them anymore than any other physical characteristic. Most seem to understand the concept of gender not being my main focus as opposed to the term bisexual. Same thing in my head and I’m guessing from the thread the term “bisexual” has a negative connotation in most ppl’s minds; which might explain why the term “gender neutral” is pretty easily accepted. My dark side thinks it’s because it has the word “sex” in it. :-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s