Reddit Reddit reviews Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men (Sexual Cultures (19))

We found 7 Reddit comments about Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men (Sexual Cultures (19)). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Health, Fitness & Dieting
Books
Psychology & Counseling
Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men (Sexual Cultures (19))
New York University Press
Check price on Amazon

7 Reddit comments about Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men (Sexual Cultures (19)):

u/djb_thirteen · 4 pointsr/bisexual

Cruz makes three good points and one bad point in this piece.

> Consistently there have been LGBT publications that promote content of men who have sex with men but adamantly refuse a queer labeling.

Recently there have been a spate of articles about straight MSWMs (men who have sex with women and men). It's annoying that there have been so fucking many articles about 'Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men' that deign to mention bisexuality. It's actually an interesting cultural pathology that the book and it's reviews so utterly avoid the topic that these men might not be gay, and yet could still incorporate their male attraction into their identity.

That's a problem because it's an obvious hook on which discuss bisexuality, but publications take great pains to avoid doing so.

> It’s particularly upsetting to see “straight men who sleep with men” receive more respect than bi men do inside our own queer community.

Cruz is right on the money here. This is shitty. We should protest it.

> what we can do as a community is... begin to deconstruct the biphobic systems that keeps people from claiming their bisexuality.

Yup. Agree 100%. If I could agree 110%, I would.

> Stop Calling “Straight” Men Who Have Sex With Men Straight

This is Cruz's bad point.

Many people on this thread have said that there's a right to define your own identity. I agree, as does Cruz.

He acknowledges that there's a right to self-definition of your sexuality. Cruz suggests that it ends when it hurts others. This is Mill's Harm principle: a basic tenet of liberal thought. In this case, Mill's Harm principle says, "We believe in the principle of your right to self-identify, but only up until the point at which it causes a harm to others".

Firstly, Cruz says calling these men 'straight' erases them. It's unclear to me how you can erase an identity that doesn't exist ('if a tree falls in a forest'). But that's not really the point. The problem with erasure is that it begets a lack of visibility. Calling these men as a class bi, won't result in them being any more visible. Unless they individually claim the bi label and are open about their relationships, they'll still be invisible. I would propose that esstablishing a conflictual relationship and invading their right to self-identity is going to push them away from eventually claiming a bi identity.

Then Cruz says that straight MSWM's refusal to claim bisexuality whilst claimining masculinity, links bisexuality with feminity. My response to this is, "Yeah, I guess". It probably does that a bit, but it's definitely not the biggest factor that links male-male attraction to femininity. The harm caused to any bi person by this pales in comparison to whole industries that sell the idea that male-male attraction equates to feminity.

So, I don't think Cruz's argument stacks up. Straight MSWMs just aren't creating sufficient harm to justify withdrawing their right to self-identification.

u/aedvocate · 2 pointsr/gaybros

> "straight men" who want to fuck men exist (they don't)

I really disagree with you here - the source of our disagreement might get into the weeds on what 'being gay' means, but if you'd like to consider an alternate angle, I have a book recommendation for you: Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men (Sexual Cultures) by Jane Ward.

She covers a variety of situations where men - particularly white men - may engage in same-sex activities without identifying as 'gay' - it's a bit like a look at what would happen if 'no homo' was less of a joke, and more of a serious agreement between men.

It boils down to: in some situations, men who might in all other cases be perfectly straight (in terms of their own actions, thoughts, and feelings) may participate in and even seek out and enjoy same-sex activities. These men do so while still considering themselves straight, and while in most cases continuing to sexually pursue women to the exclusion of men throughout the rest of their lives. She argues that these acts don't mean that they are 'really' gay or bi - but that these terms (gay and straight) ought to be flexible enough to allow for occasional abnormal acts - the exceptions that prove the rule.

u/funnybillypro · 1 pointr/sex

Check out this book. Talks specifically about all of this.

u/BeniRiamba · 1 pointr/TotallyStraight

I'd love to hear what this community thinks of this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Not-Gay-between-Straight-Cultures/dp/1479825174

u/pursenboots · 1 pointr/AskGaybrosOver30

it's a same-sex act, but if you want to get real particular about definitions, it's fair to not call it a 'homosexual' act, as no one involved identifies as homosexual, and having a same-sex encounter does not mean that you're gay, or make you gay.

If you're not trolling, and really just having trouble wrapping your head around the way that this realm of sexuality is being discussed these days, I have a book recommendation for you: Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men.

Jane Ward tries to comprehensively examine the range of situations where straight men have same-sex encounters, the implications of that experience for them in the rest of their lives, and how that gets even more interesting when you throw race into the equation. It's actually a pretty good read, and it might help you understand how 'kids these days' are talking about sexuality.