Looking straight through the queer window

A differently-masculine perspective on the masculinity

The window

Harry Hay, an omnipresent figure in a century that transitioned through the modern LGBT liberation, one of the most challenging characters in queer pantheon, one of the co-founders of Radical Faeries, used to describe gay and straight people akin to different nations, tribes or even species. Subject-object and subject-subject relationships were just one of the forms of distinction. He recognized different predispositions – gifts - in each one of them. Unique nature of queer folk conditions them to look at the world through "gay window". A perspective, that our straight peers are rarely capable of. Offering it, we may help them, while contributing to the benefit of the whole society.

There is too many erudite analysts and convinced ideologues that "see the light" … and the darkness around it, pointing a finger to the single source of evil in this world. For some it is human waywardness and sin, for the other it is the lack of free will. Some would say it is the money, for the others it is the poverty. Maybe it is the ego, or the pretense that there is none. The religion, particularly its dogmatic interpretations and zealous followers would be the target of rationalists and atheists. Them, people of no morals-coming-from-above, would be accused by the god-fearing folks. Is it the fear or lack of fear? Absolutism of totalitarians, or the chaos of the democracy? Capitalism or socialism? Liberalism or fascism? The evil patriarchy, or the subversive feminism? Temptation of femininity, or the aggressive masculinity? The gender stereotypes, or the confusion of sexes? Many an old-school straight man would point out gay folks as the symptom of decay, so I will dare to present straight tendencies as the source of all violence that the history of this Earth experienced.

Gay people and particularly radical faeries among them – see themselves as the modern two-spirits, standing in between sexes, segregated spaces, times of history and fashions, material and spiritual world, or other warring camps. The gay window feels aligned with Taoist perspective at the world. Not choosing sides but seeing the value and the unevaluated interaction of both. The natural occurrence of both aspects. Light is needed for the life to thrive, night is needed to rest. Both are needed to achieve the balance of right temperature, rhythm of cycles. Each one is defined in opposite to the other. The straight story – often recounted by male minds - seem to be built upon the eternal battles. The good and evil, the east and west, this king and that emperor, such god and such book, the men and women. Only one side can win, be on top, rule. There’s a need of perspective – and gay folk appear as the impartial observers of these epic straight battles.

The discourse: Nature/nurture - essentialism/non-essentialism

After the millennia of cultural clashes and sectarian wars, after the battle between religious superstitions and rationalist enlightenment, even the science presented its "amusing" matches. In sociology and anthropology a debate of "nature versus nurture" entertained the crowds for a long time. Are we humans as we are because it is in our genes, our animal nature, our biological predisposition – or everything we feel, think and do is an artificial program imprinted through the upbringing, education, culture? Obviously, both are phenomena shaping our reality – how do they collide, interact, co-influence?

Even later, a question of identities was brought up. Are they discrete or continuous? Are there men and women, straight and gay, people in between, or just a spectrum of humans somewhere among the extreme? Are those identities fixed, or change? What does influence them? Are there any male traits and female characteristics (essentialism) or is it all blurred and changing (non-essentialism). The latter has become popular in post-modern times, while the essentialist perspectives resurface occasionally. In the same spirit – are there straight and gay predispositions? I don’t see a harm in sketching this essentialist idea, taking into account the unresolved nature/culture debate. The latest sociology studies show that men and women are the same, on average, while they differ significantly in the extremes.

* Men are more aggressive. That does not show on the average, but in extreme cases – overwhelming majority of convicts in prisons are men.

* Men prefer things to people. Students of technical schools usually fancy things – and therefore the technical universities are filled with men, despite the social engineering quotas.

* Some do not like to hear this, but men are said to be more practical, logic-focused, machine-like - women more emotional, sensitive, humanist.

It is not my intention to resolve the essentialist debate. Finding the winner sounds cheap – and too masculine, considering we are trying to take perspective on masculinity. The male and female traits – even if generalizing – as any cliché label arise from a seed of truth. They may be valid for large part of society, the majority, the average. Describing them does not state judgment on their origin – if they are natural to the sexes, or if they are imprinted and perpetuated though cultural stereotype. How much do we try to act proper men – and how much we express as men because it is natural to us? Regardless of the answer, it is useful to see them, to grasp them and see how they shape the reality we live in.

Dogs among wolves

As a popular phrase goes: "let’s not seek differences, but find what we have in common" - many cisgender lesbian, gay and bisexual folks in the assimilationist mainstream make an effort throughout all their life to prove how similar they are to their straight mates, in an attempt to gain approval, tolerance and protection. They study and become professionals, befriend straight peers and join their sport teams, they compete and win, collect medals and recognition in straight domains, they enact correct masculine or feminine roles, they marry and have children, they build their families on time-proven heteronormative models.

Being a gay man who grew up and survived in the overwhelmingly straight world – designed by heterosexuals, tailored to heterosexuals, the culture infused and saturated with their biological and philosophical references – I observe their vicious circles, from a distance to their one-sided perspectives, detached from their battles. Deaf to the popular non-essentialist doctrine, I recognize epic difference and characteristic features of the sexes and also sexualities, whether they are natural, or created through social imperatives, peer pressure, following and copying, fear and laziness. Here I will try to recollect my memories of interacting with these distinct species and identify the iconic patterns that most of gay man experienced and noticed.

While the adolescent men discover their sexuality, recognize an attraction towards girls, start to joke about their own bodies, compare, compete, boast – they adopt thinking patterns that strictly divide erotic as feminine and name masculine in terms of strength and performance - young gay guys realize that they find their peer’s bodies beautiful and desirable. The rough teasing that jocks use to humiliate and provoke each other in "manly" conversations seem inadequate. The more they engage in tussles, the more gay soul craves for kindness, care, sensitivity, emotional support, wholesome interest. Through this experience we learn to recognize straight men immediately – by the blank look (not only lacking sexual or erotic interest, but any emotional involvement – it is source of masculine to suppress it), functional and quantitative approach to their bodies (higher, faster, more muscular), the inaccessibility in all the possible meanings.

Ironically, walking in male bodies we may pass and move around the male world undercover, we are granted the sight of their full nude glory (showers, locker rooms) that we may never come intimately close to. A bitter pleasure. We listen to their conversations, the way how they talk in front of their mate – and how that differs from the artificially "sensitive" talk around girls. This may be the first source of subconscious discomfort that straight men may feel toward gays. The same-sex attraction is often realized as a need for deep and intimate friendship, roughness replaced with gentleness, dreaming of cuddles with those who usually hand out fists. Taming the beast - the contrast is a source of fantasy. Sadly, the visual access to their intimate spaces compensates brutally with the archetypal bullying of those perceived weak, different, unfitting. We desire those who quite often lynch us.

We pass by these faces looking like cold walls – and we wonder – how much is it their nature? How much the compulsory act? How much they suffer by all that self-control, self-restraint, emotion suppression? How heavy is that armor? How much human being is inside those heavy machines? That iconic look has allowed us to evolve gaydar – recognizing each-other relatively safely. Straight men are vexed by the interest or curiosity. First they are impermeable ("I don’t see you.") Their world is of objects who are either desirable, useful or standing in the way. We are passed by like the things. Than they consider having forgotten who we are ("do I know him, should I greet him?"). Quite often they respond with acted up disgust, angry face or even an aggression – that betrays compulsory self-protective act, seeing themselves as being seen by the others ("will they think I am gay, if that gay idiot looks at me?") - so uncomfortable in their masculine pose.

Luckily, queer have co-evolved around the straight danger – while our peers heckle each other to "man-up" as the toughness is needed for survival in the jungle and in the social web of male groups – straight-acting has multiple meaning in the queer world. First it was an anxious camouflage strategy. In the same time it has become a cargo cult – a matter of standing within the judgmental community, positive label, a way to acquire social approval. At the end, straight-acting is a fetish game, a mask that we wear to appear attractive to other gay men (as in-between femininity and masculinity as we are), the dark side of gay the identity (having to mate among each-other) where straight men are off limits.

Comically enough, straight men tend to recognize gayness only within the boundaries of cliché that they have constructed themselves – reflecting all the silent prejudice they hold against less-than-100% masculinity (weakness, bothering, feminine appearance and interests, lack of aggression, fear of combat). Often they just don’t see us, our really gay and obvious traits, rather focused on a caricature that rarely exists. Sometimes it’s just their cock-sure self-importance – they do not expect anything different (challenging their act) to exist, to occur around them. Their ways and take on the world is the only one.

As if in continuation or imitation of animal world – impress the female, fight with the rivals, further ones own genes, protect ones territory and pack, kill the other children – masculine world is based on competition. The archetypally opposite approach and interaction with other men – with us – than we would wish for. Whether it is a response to disagreement (will you consider the perspective of your challenger, find if the truth might be partially on his side, seek the middle ground – or just obliterate him as the foe?), acting around colleagues at work, organizing into companies and corporations, resolving international conflicts – it all is a permanent competition, verbal, economical or physical war. The tools differ, the concept remains. It is even considered desirable, positive – as it brings better solutions, innovations, progress. Destruction before creation. Destruction of someone else’s creation. Destruction to appropriate someone else’s creation.

Gay man does not understand why the straight guy wants to pick a fight with him at the village disco – and how is that supposed to impress the giggling or terrified girls. The need to establish the hierarchy of jocks over nerds at school – that are worshiped, exploit the week, show dominance by bullying. Wolfpack is always organized in hierarchy – whether it is boys club, business or a state – the constant contest to get higher. The worship – the dynamics of leaders and followers – reappears in the religion or politics. It’s not an affair of bettering the humankind – the point is vain power and punishing the dissent. The boys always choose sides, wear different colors of dress, fight to win the fragile – envious – resentful – popularity. They cooperate within the team, compete against the other teams – sometimes as the mindless drones unable to help themselves. Whether it is sports or a debate – with straight folk around it does not take long until camps form. The point of the battle is to beat the enemy, even if he might be right. It’s always getting on top – because winning is good and being a loser is a shame. The social survival struggle.

Gay mind is born into a weird indifference. We don’t strive or care who is on top, who is the alpha, we do not find joy, bliss or meaning in this. We are reluctant to compete, we prefer cooperation. We see different abilities and skills that can co-create a mutually-beneficial result. We do not worship, we see everyone as complex beings with exquisite talents and weak-spots, faults and prone to err. Our ego does not feel humiliation by saying "I was wrong, I made a mistake". It is not a challenge to admit: "he has a better solution, he is right". If we see any use in competition, it is to find better outcome, not to win at any cost because being seen by other man as loser is worse than death. "You have won, so what? You are the best, and…? You got on top – and you expect me to applaud you? How does that help anyone? How did you contribute to the wealth or well-being of the whole?"

That’s why at school, we are those targets of laughter and bullying – we are indeed not that skilled in sports that require (for straight men natural) aggression. Not always (straight-acting, heteroimitation) but often choosing the occupations that are focused on communication, creativity, soft-skills, connecting people, reflecting and opening up perspectives – rather than competition, brute force, physical strength, winning over the others, ruling for the sake of power, proving who’s right or playing with the macho toys (technical experts). Even as adults we choose the individual sports where one does not need to fight and win over someone else, but overcome and better oneself. Sports that are individual, rather safe than dangerous, aesthetic in some way.

If we observe our straight mates running berserk over the turns in football match, we find the mixture of aggression, excitement, engagement – embarrassing and a bit threatening. Nation appropriating a victory of a dozen of less-intellectual men in an artificial game, or despairing over the same – makes us feel being indeed from Ur-anus or elsewhere. Those emotions seem quite real for unemotional stone-heart-ed robots, but not any more comprehensible. Are we trapped in a world of victory-junkies? It doesn’t even matter if the victory is mediated through weird tribal association (flag, anthem, "our guys"). We don’t care who wins, we watch those sweaty men playing – and to be honest, being a bit too serious about it – in a sexy gear, that we would like to sniff, then strip them off, worship the beauty of their bodies. The scenes from locker rooms and showers are the best.

The iconic wrestling – tight singlets approximating nudity in the anxious times – is a great example of the opposite perspective. A referee position, anyone? The ritual fight resembles love-making way too much. The extremely ritual way how men allow themselves mutual physical contact. Girls are to be kissed, boys are to be beaten – even if the physical dimension of the contact is enjoy in both cases. Perceiving them as beautiful, instead of strong and agile and winning, is probably the most disconcerting aspect about gay men next to their straight mates. The insistence of being seen as performing (because this is what they train for and have under control) and not aesthetic (because this is something they don’t master). It pins them down, in quite embarrassing position.

If gay men imitating straight occupation or sports induce laughter … we feel same awkwardness when straight men enter our soft domains. Whether it is a dance, a massage, or talk – where openness, being comfortable in one’s body, being balanced in ones sexuality without needing to prove it or feeling challenged in one’s forced act, a sensitivity, gentleness or care is required – straight guys appear incredibly stiff. Their bodies and their selves are suddenly evaluated from different perspective that they are used to. Beauty. Grace. Softness. How to touch or be touched by other man, when aggression is completely inappropriate?

Those "lucky" alphas who’s physical talents evolved on behalf of brightness and sensitivity – try to apply the same in the interactions with their girlfriends and wives. The epic misunderstanding is inevitable: "Why does she need to talk so much, why so much emotional drama? Do you want or not? Do you come or not?" Men disassemble problems analytically and technically, calculate, evaluate, sum up – while the women dig into the emotions, intuition, feelings. Chronic "doers", "machines" in flesh and blood - meet sentient beings. Even the more endowed ones find cohabitation with women-folk close to impossible. They never get a female-bodied (i.e. sexually attractive) adventure buddy, war fellow, equally desensitized, practical, minimalist, non-whimpering fighting mate.

The gay way of existence may appear to be an ideal world for this traumatized male self. Fun, work, sex – all covered within one practical package. Dealing with the identically wired minds only. Minus all the indulging in discomfort, danger, constant action – since those are usually not on the menu of queer men. Therefore they are not even missing. Aggression, competition, possession, territoriality, dominating, hierarchy, status, reputation or approval – are not on the list either. We don’t need buddies to talk about sports, girls, cars, technical gadgets, professional achievements – to argue, to boast, with a minimalist vocabulary and maximalist ego.

However, the negligible benefits of same-with-same interactions are quite overshadowed by the residue of the masculine essence. Whether it is a strenuous heteroimitation or genuine biological (or cultural) trappings of male body and mind, gay men may display surprising rate of insensitivity even in their self-invented communal and private environment. The muscular inflation cult of the gyms. (It is individual, non-competitive, aesthetics-focused sport – but the masculine mind compels to grow bigger and bigger.) The ridiculously hyper-masculine fashion and movement on the dance-floor. (Think Tom of Finland.) The clumsy, minimalist, non-communicative, practical and mechanical interactions on the cruising ground and in the other sex spaces. (A look. Yes or no? Strip, insert, hold, pump, finish. No drama please – just go.)

The detachment of the virtual world of apps perfected and denuded (flayed to raw muscles) these mechanical tendencies. Choosing and rejecting, being rough or even rude, without having to face the face. Communication in the most practical and minimalist rendition: "Hey! Hey! Sup? Good. You? Good. Lookinfor? Sex. Now? Sure. Top/Bottom? When?" - devoid of "bullshit" (understand "extensive" conversation), drama (understand "unnecessary" feelings), attachments (understand "too intimate" kiss, cuddle or verbal exchange after getting off). Just straight to the point. Pun intended. A mechanical sex – no story, no foreplay, no passion. The need. The release. Doing it.

Is this the hetero(imitating) thing? Is this the toxic(masculinity) trait? Is it our nature? Is it the copying? Is it the cultural imperative? Is it the convenience, laziness, degeneration? In the same time, the queer world has initiated a transformation of the millennia-old patters, reinvention of masculinity. This serves the gay men themselves, but also the straight guys who slowly rediscover the aesthetic dimension of their bodies, the need to groom, dress, wear perfumes. They spoil and pamper themselves, they open up to feel the pleasure. A bit by bit they acquire perspective on the pose, role, performance that they thought they were expected to act.

On one hand we gay men have an insight into their masculine psyche, while our perception of the world, our fundamental approach, way we relate, our needs and desires are essentially different, often opposite. Of course, this is a fixed conceptualization – many a queer mind would find this challenging, if not infuriating or offending. Perhaps it describes the gay average, gay mainstream. Or perhaps the difference is most apparent in the extremes. Maybe this is not everyone’s reality – but a potential – that some may seem as handicap, inadequacy, inferiority – that they need to resist and overcome ... while some other may see it as a gift, different wiring, tendencies – that may be followed to achieve comfort in one’s uniqueness.