This month’s Details magazine carries a letter (which Details strangely neglected to show to me) by veteran gay writer John Rechy, author of the cult 60s hustler novels City of Night and Numbers, and the 70s plea for homo tolerance The Sexual Outlaw (books I enjoyed as teenager in the 80s). He takes issue with my recent story on the gay porn scandal involving the 82nd Airborne.
After agreeing that it was wrong for the young, enlisted paratroopers to be punished so severely by the mighty US Army for what they did in their own time and with their own bodies – literally out of uniform – he gets to the main business of his letter:
‘…Simpson is entirely naive when he upholds the absurdity that “straight” men who perform – for pay or otherwise – consensual gay sex are still straight, despite being aroused to the point of orgasm. This is strictly a lure by the cunning operators of these sites to their gullible clients who want to believe the fantasy. Those seven paratroopers should not have been prosecuted, but they should not claim to be “straight” either. By doing so, they compound the dishonesty of the whole situation.’
In other words, they shouldn’t be punished for appearing in a gay video – but they deserve to be horsewhipped in the letters pages for their ‘dishonesty’.
I’m grateful to Rechy for clarifying matters. For years I’ve laboured under the naive and absurd delusion that I was homo because I preferred males. Now I realise my dishonesty: how can I be homo? I’ve had sex with women! ‘To the point of orgasm’! And I wasn’t filmed. Or even paid.
It is perhaps too easy to make fun of his argument. Lots of people have difficulty today accepting the idea that when two males have sex with another this does not necessarily mean that, before the spilled semen has even had time to cool, they must book their own float at Pride. Once upon a Kinseyian time, probably most male-on-male sex involved men who were otherwise heterosexual. In the 1940s Dr Sex famously found that 37% of his interviewees admitted to sex ‘to orgasm’ with other males. (Though he was of course attacked for this finding by those who claimed he was entirely naive and hadn’t interviewed enough ‘normal’ men.)
As recently as the 1960s, a panicked British Navy called off an investigation into homosexuality on Her Majesty’s ships because it was found that at least ‘50% of the fleet have sinned homosexually.’ Understandably, the authorities hastily decided they would rather have a fleet than kick out every man who had ever engaged in spot of sodomy, with or without the lash.
Though some gays seem unwilling to be as pragmatic or tolerant as the 1960s Royal Navy. They seem, like Rechy, to want to press-gang any man who touches another man’s penis into the gay identity. Or, as a fall-back position: ‘bisexual’ – in the sense of ‘nearly-gay’.
Obviously, a proportion of ActiveDuty models must be gay or bisexual. After all, I appeared in an ActiveDuty video – and in fact not all of them are presented as straight. And of course a certain amount of scepticism is understandable, advisable even. As I reported, Mr Active Duty himself told me that he thought that quite a few of his models were probably ‘bi-curious’, and that ironically, appearing in his videos for cash was for them a ‘safe’ way of exploring this.
But what is remarkable is just how religiously certain Rechy et al are that these chaps can’t be straight. None of them.
My sense however, as someone who has actually met some of them – and er, performed with them – is that many of them are probably otherwise heterosexual. I can’t of course prove this, and perhaps it really is my gullible fantasy – but then neither can Rechy prove they’re not. And the onus of proof is with the prosecution. Besides, if you really do think that having sex with another male means you de facto can’t be straight, then you are effectively saying that any and all male-on-male sex automatically consigns you into a separate, abnormal species of male.
Alas, male-on-male sex is not some magical, irresistible ju-ju that robs hetero men of their preference for pussy should they ever experience it. Even when it’s me they have sex with (I like to think my dick is magical, but nonetheless…). For quite a few straight men, especially those who aren’t schooled in bourgeois niceties, like the country boys who become paratroopers, ‘cock fun’ is much less of a deal than it is for many gays. It’s just a naughty giggle. Or a quick way of earning some cash. Something Rechy should know from his hustler novels – though as I recall they were usually about hustlers who thought they were straight but eventually realised that they were actually John Rechy.
I suspect that part of the reason so many homos want to see straight guys having sex with one another – and will pay good money for it – is the paradoxical appeal of seeing innocence ‘corrupted’, and corruption rendered ‘innocent’. Straight gay porn, when it’s done right, looks like a fulfilment of the fantasy of much of gay porn: a carefree, smiling, laughing, rascalish discovery of masculine erotic pleasure – free of shame and pride, free in fact of ‘sexuality’. Tom of Finland drawings, pre 1970s, brought to life. Ironically, straight guys are sometimes better able to embody the gay ideal than gays.
Speculation aside, the ‘bottom’, slightly counter-intuitive line here is that the fact that someone appeared in a gay porn video, even with an outsized membrum virile in one or both of his orifices, doesn’t tell you what his sexual preference is. All it tells you is that he appeared in a gay porn video. And perhaps that he can take it like a trooper.
As one of the paratrooper models replied when confronted, post-scandal, by a shell-shocked Fayetteville waitress who’d recognised him on the ActiveDuty site, demanding to know how he could have done such a thing:
‘It was no big deal,’ he replied laconically. ‘And besides, I got paid.’
A perfect response to the military, to offended/confused straights and gays alike. And to explanations in general. Foucault would have approved – even if it does somewhat undermine the need for three volumes of A History of Sexuality.
UPDATE
You can read the uncircumcised, uncensored version of my Details feature here.
Salon vs Details: James Collard of The London Times speaks to Salon.com editor Kerry Lauerman about his decision to spike Simpson’s original piece because it was deemed ‘too risque’ for Salon – two years before the Active Duty scandal became a major international story – and a major feature in Details magazine. [link removed as page no longer active.]
Hi,
A couple of points come to mind,
a) The apparent insistence on labeling all sexual beings in shades of black/white with no gray areas. Allied to that is the inability to accept sexuality as fluid and/or a continuum, and the conviction that sex acts are definitive of sexuality. Many cultures (Asian, Latino, Arab) condone males’ sexual activities with placebos like, “An erection is king” . As long as the man in question is the active partner in the encounter, he is (culturally, at least) off the hook .
I have personal experience in this area, I was raised in South Asia which was (sexually) wonderful as long as I was young. The moment I identified myself as gay, the proverbial shit hit the fan. I have good reason to believe a lot of my encounters were enlisted men and not one person raised an eyebrow about their actions. The censure came when the world around us discovered I was over 21, at which point all hell broke loose.
2) Second, when a straight man needs sex and isn’t able to find a woman, he may turn to another man to fulfill his needs. It’s called situational homosexuality – practised by enlisted men & cons in jail among others. Everybody (and that includes some readers here – ShivaLives, PaulQ & Mr. X) wants to put things safely away by calling it something (anything) … It seems to make them feel safe. Happily, gentlemen, everything in this wonderful world is fluid, changeable, temporary, ad hoc….. why not enjoy the world as it is, leaving off trying to reshape it to suit the needs of the time? But, if that were possible, there wouldn’t be comments on blogs like this and everybody would have to find something else to do… They could go out and have sex with the first living being they see. Wouldn’t that make everybody’s day?
Here is the real lowdown on Active Duty:
A marine friend of mine has done videos for both Active Duty and Buzz West. He self-describes himself as straight. However, I know that he has had sex with men outside of doing gay porn. Like many horny marines, if there are no women available, they will let a guy suck their dick. For my friend, on a good day, he might describe himself as “mostly straight.”
In many of these “gay-for-pay” types minds, bisexuality is some who is equally attracted to men and women. Many of the gay 4 pay guys are sexually attracted to women, but enjoy sex with men too. It might not be 50/50, it could be 90/10. However, that is still bisexuality.
My marine friend who did porn told me after his shoot with Active Duty when he was picking up his money, the 5 models he just had sex with were asking him to hang around at Dinks place. He basically said to me that after getting paid, those guys continued to party and have sex with each other. On Buzz West, he has gone over Buzz’s place to get head from Buzz even when he’s not doing videos.
A few weeks ago, I had sex with another marine who was cool enough to self-describe himself as bi-sexual. He was basically like every other guy on Active Duty, Sean Cody, etc. We actually talked in detail about it: he finds himself enjoying sex with men, but he’s emotionally and romantically interested in women. When we had sex, he didn’t want to kiss probably cause he associated that with being in love.
PaulQ-I’m Indian and I’m a queer Hindu, so that is why I call myself Shiva as a name on here.
I can call someone faggy, stop trying to be all PC on me and tell me that I somehow can’t or that it’s homophobic or wrong, and lighten the fuck up.
Only gay men are delusional enough to believe in gay4pay or that the men in Gay4Pay porn are really “straight”.
I don’t care how nice an interview Kurt Wild is or the guys from ActiveDuty are, they are not straight and they never are or have been since they are having sex with men.
Have you ever actually seen the Active Duty porn that Mark Simpson wrote about?
I have and it’s obvious that the men in it are bisexual. Hell, even the title references how the actors are bisexual!
Taking directions does not mean anything in porn. You somehow think that this makes the people in all male porn “straight” and this just shows how foolish you are.
The men who do porn with companies like Sean Cody, Active Duty, or Corbin Fischer are all small time porn stars and do not make nearly any money at all and even if you are with a bigger
studio you still do not make lots of cash.
Also the studio heads just want to use their performers like meat to make money, and could care less about their well being as human beings.
What is sad is the aftermath of what happens to some of the actors within a relatively short period of time. Most are “old” after the fourth or fifth video scene and told to move on.
However the days of being a celebrity/star in the porn industry are over and long gone. This isn’t the 1970s.
I’ve known plenty of men who have kids. Biological kids. Don’t try to tell me
that gay porn is the only way these obviously intelliegent men can make money. That’s just silly.
Kurt should be ashamed of himself for exposing himself on TV like that.
What’s going to happen in a few years when his kids grow up and some classmates start passing his dad’s films and the Tyra Banks interview around for all to see?
Kurt Wild and all other men who do gay/all male porn work in gay porn because they enjoy sex with men. Don’t take my word for it.
Go to their blogs, watch their interviews, and they will tell you the same thing. They write about it constantly.
IF you enjoy sex with men even if you do porn or are a whore, and you are a man then you are by definition not straight. Bi or gay yes, but not straight.
If they are having sex bombed on alcohol with sober people, no matter what their sexual orientation is, you realize that’s rape right?
Shit, why not just show people abusing crystal meth since apparently a lot of young urban gay men are big into this nowadays? (sarcasm) Also A LOT of “gay” for pay porn is bareback and this is wrong.
I bet if the performers on ActiveDuty and other sites were swishy and effeminate you guys wouldn’t believe them when they said they were straight.
I have seen sites where the performers are honest about how they are bisexual and gay and not all the men in the porn are masculine and many are feminine and this is really refreshing.
What “gay” for pay actually means is “bisexual.” Conventional wisdom on what makes a male performer gay for pay is that he’s straight-identified in his mind but “works” in gay porn. In both gay and straight porn, the definition and categories of bisexuality are handled confusingly at best, insultingly at worst. Not that so-called gay-for-pay performers would even be comfortable with the label “bisexual” — a look at the openly homophobic, biphobic, and sometimes hostile and even (recently) murderous history of gay-for-pay performers tells us a lot about the taboos of true bisexuality in porn.
All gay for pay is, is a resurgence of ‘bisexual.’ Bisexuality has gone in and out of
fashion throughout history — the last time it was fashionable was in the 1970s. Now it’s not. Porn marketers think gay for pay is sexier and more sellable than calling it bisexual.
The question raised here is who’s really getting the shaft (pun intended) with the gay-for-pay label? Is it the performers who feel that being called gay for pay is their safest option? Is it a porn industry with bi-phobia, perpetuating sexual-orientation conflicts with marketing labels? Is it the viewers, who might think that gay for pay is really a sexual orientation? Is it the pressure to be either “straight” or “gay”
in a world where we all need to be reminded that the Kinsey scale puts most of us somewhere nearer the middle than on one side or the other?
I blame a homophobic and biphobic society, in and out of porn, that stigmatizes the word bisexual.
“Anyone who believes for one minute that these men are “straight”, is a straight up MORON. These men and the studios that promote them are selling a fantasy to self loathing gay men, who are obsessed with “masculinity”.”
I don’t think it has as much to do with self-loathing as it does with the more obvious facts that straight guys are generally better looking and sexier than gay guys. I don’t know about you but I like guys because they’re, well, guys. The problem is that most ‘proud gay men’ are too caught up in their own fabulousness to be much good at just being guys — much less catch a football!
First, it is very difficult to respond to someone who calls himself ‘Shiva’. I mean I’m not even supposed to look you in the eye, correct?
“No straight man willfully sucks cock, no straight man gets fucked or fucks a guy.”
So much for that green stuff . . .
You are gay or bi, claim to be defending ‘gay pride’, yet borrow with impunity from the vocabulary of homophobia in describing a young man who really does happen to be the father of three (or maybe four by now) as ‘the faggiest thing I’ve ever seen’. Yes, gay porn is how little Kurt, blessed with boyish good looks and a disproportionate membrum virile, puts food on the table for his increasing brood.
“However, that only describes a minor portion of bisexual people. Some bi men are romantically involved with women, but will have sexual relations with a man on occassion. This man may be 96% geared toward women, but that 4% still enjoys sex with men.”
I’m curious to in know where you obtained these interesting statistics!
“I’d love to see the alternative discussion about the huge number of “straight for pay” (openly) gay men doing straight porn. Oops! That actually doesn’t exist.”
Oh, if there were any money in it it would!
“Straight men don’t have repeated or one time sex on camera with other men for a few hundred dollars a scene.”
It’s a lot more than a few hundred dollars.
“The real reason why these guys won’t identify as bi or gay is . . . ”
Because they’re straight. They really are.
I believe Chi Chi La Rue has said that he likes working with straight models because ‘they take direction better, do what they’re told, BECAUSE THE ACTS ARE MEANINGLESS TO THEM’ It’s just a job. Another $500 if I eat his load? Make it an even grand and we’ve got a deal!
The genius of ‘Active Duty’, and why it may be the best of all these sites, is that Dink Flamingo appreciates that most of his boys are doing stuff that is profoundly distasteful to them. He also knows that in Paratroopers and Marines he is dealing with a ‘no fear’ cohort of guys who will routinely do things like eat worms to prove how tough they are. So he turns his videos in to a big game, ‘I dare you to!’ session, and the guys actually end up having rowdy fun — more fun than I’ve seen in any mainstream gay porn movie. “Arch your back!” isn’t exactly pillow-talk. I’m sure they’re all tanked, too.
“Gay porn work doesn’t pay much. It carries the certainty of lifetime stigma. Also, it can be psychologically damaging. Why would a straight guy think to endure all these hardships just for the opportunity to make a measly few grand? It
doesn’t add up, no, it just doesn’t.”
The men in that documentary you sited above were washed up performers in an business, mainstream gay porn, that had already become a dinosaur thanks to the internet, Active Duty, etc. And while most performers on these amateur sites aren’t in a position to quit their day jobs, the stars — the Lucases, Aaron Jameses, Coles, Kadens — do very well for themselves.
And you seem to be unaware of the well-known fact that gay porn is significantly more remunerative for men than straight porn. There’s no money for men in straight porn — unless you’re a freak like Ron Jeremy.
“As far as straight porn goes the Girl on Girl scene is not always the climax. I know lots of women who are both bisexual and straight who happen to love straight porn and buy it.”
The vast majority of straight porn is made for, and marketed too, straight men. Women make up a meager portion of the market, at best. Straight women are if anything more apt to watch gay porn: the men are better looking. The men in straight porn usually aren’t lookers, lest they deprive guys watching of the fantasy that they, too could be screwing that hot babe. And I have yet to see a straight porn movie (and I’ve seen many) that does not include a lesbian sequence
“Most repeat “gay for pay” performers are at least bisexual.”
Whatever you say, pal . . . Woody’s still getting lots of pussy.
The fact that you need them to be bisexual doesn’t mean they are.
Talking to you is like talking to a wall, isn’t it?
Why can’t you appreciate that people can, and very often do, things they find distasteful to them simply for economic gain? A month of flipping burgers verses sucking dick for fifteen minutes? ‘You know what you gotta do now, cowboy!’ as Joe Buck said.
I’m almost embarrassed as a gay man that so many gay men are so incredibly, painfully moronic to buy the gay-for-pay crap. No straight man willfully sucks cock, no straight man gets fucked or fucks a guy. Those women on Tyra Banks’ show looked shocked not because they were homophobic, they were shocked to see so much bullcrap piled together. The first guy (the one ‘married with 3 kids’ who was on the Tyra Banks show)is the faggiest thing I’ve ever seen, he stumbled trying to come up with an answer to how he got aroused and said some bull about his fans that no one bought. If you’re bi that’s fine, own to it.
Sexual orientations are not labels, they’re part of what we are, it’s just that some of us have the balls to own to it and others don’t.
Straight men don’t have repeated or one time sex on camera with other men for a few hundred dollars a scene.
Anyone who believes for one minute that these men are “straight”, is a straight up MORON. These men and the studios that promote them are selling a fantasy to self loathing gay men, who are obsessed with “masculinity”.
In all of these gay for pay wars, bisexuality is never discussed as a logical explanation for the behavior of these men. They can self identify as whatever they want, but that doesn’t trump logic and reason with most sane people. Taking it up the ass and sucking cock in dozens of videos is not an upwardly mobile career, especially if you’re still working at SUBWAY. Get fucking real.
I’d love to see the alternative discussion about the huge number of “straight for pay” (openly) gay men doing straight porn. Oops! That actually doesn’t exist.
The problem is that some of these “gay4pay” guys can’t accurately define bisexuality. If you ask them, they define it as someone equally attracted to men as to women.
However, that only describes a minor portion of bisexual people. Some bi men are romantically involved with women, but will have sexual relations with a man on occassion. This man may be 96% geared toward women, but that 4% still enjoys sex with men.
The real reason why these guys won’t identify as bi or gay is: 1) embarrassment of their life choices that led to porn; 2) misconceptions of what being bi or gay is; 3) they know that if you identify as straight, you will get paid more on a film (or as an escort); 4) they are scared to death; 5) they can justify their actions and deny who they are; 6) they don’t want to suffer any harrassment for being bi or gay.
We have all seen the supposed “gay for pay” porn stars who now identify as bi or gay: Barrett Long, Mason Wyler, Peter North, Corbin Fischer’s Dawson, Caeser and the list goes on.
I’m sure there are plenty of former gay porn stars that once identified as straight that are married to women, but still have sex with men or at least think about it.
Many of them have sexual/emotional issues themselves. How many gay porn stars have been arrested for murder, rape and robbery recently?
Sisu-It’s your life, but you might as well try doing a MMF/MFM 3 way and seeing if you like it if you love to watch it so much in porn and read about it in erotic fiction.
Paul-I never said those men are all completely gay or homosexual.
Try actually reading my posts before you put words into my mouth.
Granted yes many of them are gay men but the rest are at least bisexual. They are certainly not straight or heterosexual.
Most repeat “gay for pay” performers are at least bisexual.
The reason I suspect “gay for pay” performers are bisexual/gay is that it just doesn’t make sense that gay porn would occur — much less appeal! — to hetero/straight men as a career choice or even something to do for money.
Gay porn work doesn’t pay much. It carries the certainty of lifetime stigma. Also, it can be psychologically damaging. Why would a straight guy think to endure all these hardships just for the opportunity to make a measly few grand? It
doesn’t add up, no, it just doesn’t.
It’s easier to imagine a gay or bisexual guy accepting this trade. He’s probably seen his fair share of gay porn. He probably enjoys watching it. He probably has a degree of curiosity about the industry. And he’d probably be quite flattered and excited to have thousands of other men viewing him as a sex object.
As far as straight porn goes the Girl on Girl scene is not always the climax. I know lots of women who are both bisexual and straight who happen to love straight porn and buy it.
Furthermore if you actually do want to see real heterosexual/straight men having sex watch a straight porn. In “gay” for pay porn the men are obviously not heterosexual or straight even though they are marketed as being heterosexual.
They almost always ALL follow the same tired pattern too: The new guy marketed as “straight” does solo jack off scene, the guy then gets sucked off by another guy, then in the next installment he sucks the guy off or they 69, then in the next segment he fucks a guy, and then in the next segment he gets fucked.
Nope, I’m not attracted to the twinks like Dawson from Corbin Fischer or the guys on Sean Cody. Those guys look way too young and look like hairless kittens and your typical gay porn clones.
Of course the models on those sites are going to tell you that they are “straight” when you ask! You are a paying customer and they are telling you exactly what you want to hear and what they are marketed as even though they are anything but straight/heterosexual.
Personally, I think most of those “gay-for-pay” guys are as straight as Larry Craig and have serious troubles coming to terms with their sexuality. They are probably gay, or most likely bi, and in complete denial about it. They use money as a legitimate excuse to make themselves feel less guilty or “gay”. And many of these porn stars probably come from small and conservative towns where they have warped views on both hetero and homosexuality. And it probably doesn’t help that many of these porn directors/producers constantly repeat to these boys how straight they are in order for them to perform. “Oh don’t worry, hon. That dick in your mouth or in someone else’s mouth don’t make you gay!” *wink wink*
The reason why there are sites that market straight guys having gay sex is because there are gay men who pay for it.”
It really is that simple. If gay and bisexual men had no desire to watch this crap, it wouldn’t be here. Self-loathing plays a part it. I think that in a predominately straight society, it does bring out the message that straight is still better than being gay or bisexual, and that the “ideal” or “real” man is hetero.
That’s not true, but that’s the message that reaches not only to other straight men, but to gay and bisexual men as well. So it’s not entirely gay and bisexual men’s fault for this. If we lived in a different world where gays and bisexuals were treated the same as straights, we probably wouldn’t have this straight worship crap.
As a man you cannot continuously have sex with another man and be straight. You are at the very least bisexual. Even Dean Coxx’s so called girlfriend got that one. Gay and bisexual men have this obsession with straight men. It’s the old “you want what you can’t have.” Trust me that if you have the man, he aint straight. And you didn’t turn him. He already had it embedded in his mind.
I think there is a lot of denial on the part of any man who regularly has sex with men and claims to be 100% straight. If being a dad were a hetero seal of approval, there would be a great deal less queers roaming the earth.
“If you need to believe that these guys are straight in order to fantasize and get off that’s your own personal choice but you are just buying into the consumerism of it all and supporting biphobic and outdated attitudes about porn and male sexuality.”
No, I don’t need to think they’re straight. In fact, I find the idea of a guy performing a sex act he really isn’t into is kind of a turn off. You need to think they’re gay BECAUSE THEY’RE SO DAMNED HOT!
Seriously, why would a guy want to get paid $5,000 for doing a gay scene when he could be getting paid $200 (if that) for being the stunt-cock in a straight scene?
“I like reading (but not watching) porn where 2 guys double-fuck a woman. It is always guaranteed to get me off. But there is no way I would ever touch a ‘giny.”
Sisu you should try it sometime. It’s not as bad as you might imagine. Muff-diving can be oodles of fun 🙂
“If someone does Hetero porn no matter if they are male or female, why should all of the money go to the woman?”
Well, for the obvious reason that the vast majority of people who purchase heterosexual porn are men. They want to see attractive women have sex and could give a rat’s ass about who’s doing the fucking. The ‘climax’ of just about every ‘straight’ porno is a girl on girl scene.
“I also know people who have done porn too, and the whole “gay” for pay thing is just a consumerist marketing ploy and it looks like you have fallen for it.”
Boy, you like to toss around big words, don’t you. ‘Consumerist marketing ploy’: sounds like a lot of cant to me.
I would so like to believe that ‘Aaron James’, ‘Cole’, ‘Chaz’ or ‘Kasey’ is gay, but they’re not: some people are capable of tuning out what they’re doing, especially if the price is right. As one of the more popular ones said to me (who also happened to have a bun in the oven) ‘it’s just my job . . . ‘
Consider this: you’re a twenty year old high school drop out. You’ve knocked-up your girl-friend. Sean Cody or Corbin Fisher is offering you 5 grand if you suck dick, 10 if you take it up the butt. Suddenly you’re looking at an extra mouth to feed and the night shift at Subway ain’t gonna cut it. You really don’t have much of a choice. And nobody’s gonna blame you: there are extenuating circumstances.
“Then again gay men will buy anything these days.”
You seem to be one of those fellows who subscribe to the ‘suck one dick’ school of ‘gay-identity’, the fact that that these guys are making what they’d normally make in a couple of months in an hour notwithstanding. Economics are . . . immaterial: they MUST BE GAY! They’ve always wanted to suck cock and have just been looking for an excuse! Wrap them up in a rainbow flag and stick them on a pride float next to . . . DUSTIN LANCE BLACK — who would rather fancy that arrangement as he seems to have a thing for straight guys himself (as well as a latex allergy).
Ever watch some of these guys perform? It’s pretty obvious that most of them are not into having sex with guys. Take a Corbin Fisher’s Dawson, who may be the paradigmatic gay4pay model: he’s a magnificent piece of eye-candy. He’s a sharp kid. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, has apparently done extremely well for himself, and does his damnedest to put on a good show: Dawson’s a pro. But you can tell he’s someplace else. The poor guy must have blisters on his dick trying to keep it up.
I like reading (but not watching) porn where 2 guys double-fuck a woman. It is always guaranteed to get me off. But there is no way I would ever touch a ‘giny.
By your reasoning though, dear Mr X, I am at least bisexual if not straight-and-in-denial.
My parents will be so happy.
Paul-
Actually yes if you do porn, even if it is straight porn you do get paid for it even if you are a male performer. You do realize the various payment contracts that get set up and various legal hurdles that people have to go through to even appear on camera in porn right?
If someone does Hetero porn no matter if they are male or female, why should all of the money go to the woman? Sorry but performers/actors in porn no matter what their gender is, make very little money compared to the people who actually make, produce, market, and sell the porn.
Doing only porn itself is not enough to live on. Even if you do bisexual or gay porn you still do not make enough money to live on.
I also know people who have done porn too, and the whole “gay” for pay thing is just a consumerist marketing ploy and it looks like you have fallen for it. Then again gay men will buy anything these days. Those guys are no more “straight” than you yourself are. They can call themselves “straight” or be marketed as “straight” to appeal to gay men but this does not mean that they are straight or heterosexual since they are having sex with men.
In today’s world of instant internet porn I can understand why people who make porn are mad at free amateur porn sites like Xtube, Redtube, etc. since people would rather just go join those sites instead of paying for porn.
There’s a good documentary about the homo porn industry called “Cycles of Porn” and it shows you how little money top performers make and how a lot of them have major issues and are into prostitution, barebacking (unprotected anal sex), spreading multiple strains of HIV from barebacking, and abusing crystal meth.
“They could just as easily do heterosexual porn.”
Do you honestly think that straight porn actually pays guys for the privilege of getting to fuck some hot babe? All the money goes to the women, as it ought. In fact, studios like ‘Vivid’ will put up ‘casting call’ signs on Fraternity Row at USC. The guys will line up, their ‘payment’ being the remote possibility that they might get to fuck Jenna Jamison.
Actually Jenna Jamison’s retired: the only porn millionaire (and I don’t deny her a dime of it!)
“No matter what type of porn people do bi, gay, or straight performing sex on film does not pay a lot of money at all which is why most pornstars are into prostitution and some sell their bodies in other ways such as Jeff Stryker with his dildo.”
I’ve chatted with a few of the guys who are ‘regulars’ on some of the more popular websites. They do very well for themselves and they’re all pretty straight. The internet really opened up the revenue stream: guys like 24/7’s ‘Aaron James’ or Corbin Fisher’s ‘Dawson’ make money that old-school stars like Stryker couldn’t even begin to imagine.
As far as what was shown on the Tyra Banks show, that was just a thinly disguised advertisement for online porn and I have seen the guy that was on there on other sites like Sean Cody and he’s rather versatile.
Almost every gay porn site on the net plays off the “straight guy does it for cash and/or because they are so horny that a hole is just a hole” ruse. It’s all a ruse kids.
Paul-I never said that all hot models must be gay or that all men somehow deep down inside want sex with other men, so stop putting words in my mouth or claiming that I wrote things that I did not.
If they are so straight/heterosexual, why are they appearing in gay porn and having sex with men, or let alone putting it online for the entire world to see?
They could just as easily do heterosexual porn. In fact some of the bisexual guys in “gay” for pay porn do both gay and hetero porn as you can see on various sites. A lot of the men on these sites are gay and it’s fairly obvious even if they are marketed as being straight.
There’s no shortage of people for hetero porn as that is what most porn is and most people are heterosexual.
No matter what type of porn people do bi, gay, or straight performing sex on film does not pay a lot of money at all which is why most pornstars are into prostitution and some sell their bodies in other ways such as Jeff Stryker with his dildo.
It’s just marketing folks. These guys aren’t straight.
I really don’t understand what the issue is with these sort of discussion? My guess is that people don’t realize that there is a difference between the definition of the word “straight” and the fact that people identify themselves as “straight”.
“Straight”, as applies to men, means that a man is only interested in sexual activity with women. Period. No matter what. It doesn’t matter if he’s horny, gets paid a small amount of money, desperate to get his rocks off, etc, etc. a guy who is truly straight man wants to engage in sexual activity only with women.
Now, there are plenty of guys out there who call themselves “straight” and justify their pleasurable (to them) sexual encounters with men as it being “once in awhile” or “out of desperation” or something like that. Just because they try to rationalize it doesn’t mean that they’re straight. They’re not. If you enjoy men sucking you cock you may be a lot of things but “straight” isn’t one of them.
If you need to believe that these guys are straight in order to fantasize and get off that’s your own personal choice but you are just buying into the consumerism of it all and supporting biphobic and outdated attitudes about porn and male sexuality.
“These guys are bisexual but just closeted and marketed as being heterosexual.”
Mr. X: since you seem to be given to sweeping statements and won’t brook disagreement (Sisu, Mark, and I are ‘foolish’ for thinking most of these guys are basically straight), allow me to suggest that the basic homosexuality which I fail to see is a function of the models’ ‘hotness’, and further that all ‘hot’ men must be gay, only they haven’t figured it out yet.
These guys take some viagra, get a little drunk, watch some pussy porn, perform homosexual acts, and get paid an awful lot of money. I fail to see why this concept is so difficult to grasp?
Sisu-These guys are bisexual but just closeted and marketed as being heterosexual. Did anyone actually foolishly believe that they were ever heterosexual yet somehow magically appearing in gay porn? No I did not say that ALL the men in “gay” for pay porn are gay, but a lot of them are and are just marketed as being “straight”. Also I never said that they were all gay. I find that a lot of gay men fantasize about the unobtainable “straight” guy but then again some straight women do fantasize about bedding the unobtainable “gay” guy. “Gay” for pay and “Straight” for pay are just other terms for being bisexual and it does not matter what the performers are marketed as or even if they think that they are heterosexual yet have sex with men.
“The idea that “gay” for pay performers are really straight is nothing but complete biphobia and homophobia. These men are not straight or heterosexual at all and they are clearly bisexual and gay.”
None, the model with the two kids who I mentioned above was to be featured on a recent Tyra Banks show on the whole gay4pay phenomenon. His interview was cut because it went something like this:
Tyra: you have sex with men. You’re gay or at least bi!
Model: call it whatever you want lady, I’m still getting lots of pussy.
Tyra: I don’t believe you.
Model: well lets hook up after the show and I’ll show you how gay I am.
None: I mentioned the Fratmen/Donahoe incident only to dispute Mr. X’s contention that these models are paid ‘measly’ sums. There’s big money in internet porn. And as Mark pointed out, being dare-devils by nature soldiers are more likely to ‘cross the line’ — provided the price is right.
Mark has also pointed out that those who doubt the basic straightness of ‘gay4pay’ models wouldn’t be so quick to claim them for the tribe if they were not so ‘hot’. Indeed, some of these boys would trade Barney Frank’s brains for Mitt Romney’s coif!
Goodness me, have the official Gay Police finally arrived? About 2 years too late in this case, but better late than never I suppose.
Ironic that there are people that must stamp the Official Gay Orthodoxy on this issue… of course a man who has sex with another man is Gay! And all he wants is another man to marry and settle down with! Even those with girlfriends or wives. I mean THEY HAVE SEX WITH MEN! They must be gay!
But then, the Gay Orthodoxy don’t do irony. I don’t think they even read Mark’s original article.
PaulQ-FratMen is all about solo masturbation porn. There is not usually any man on man sex on any of their videos and when male2male sex does happen the performers are bisexual or gay.
What people are saying is that if it’s a solo jack off scene then yes a guy can be straight but if ANY male2male sex goes on in the porn then the guys are bisexual or gay even if they are marketed as being heterosexual.
The idea that “gay” for pay performers are really straight is nothing but complete biphobia and homophobia. These men are not straight or heterosexual at all and they are clearly bisexual and gay.
” . . . if they were really straight or heterosexual they would not be having sex with the same gender and not for a measley sum of cash as we all know that being in porn as a performer does not pay well at all.” —
Do we now? Paul Donahoe, the University of Nebraska wrestler who was exposed as FratmenTVs ‘Nash’, was paid $3,000 in addition to an all-expense paid long weekend in Palm Springs simply for rubbing out a couple of loads for the camera. When commenting on the scandal, the Fratmen webmaster remarked ‘we pay ’em a lot more than beer money’.
I’m sure Dink Flamingo pays at least as well, especially when his boys agree to do ‘stuff’. While there are probably a few bi or even gay ones among them, the attraction the work has for most of the ‘Active Duty’ models is strictly limited to having more money for drinking and whoring before they get shipped off to Afghanistan. The ‘measly’ adjective would not be misapplied to the stipend they receive from their parsimonious Uncle Sam.
No I think gay4pay genuinely exists, and that absent financial incentive these guys don’t give dick a second thought. The ‘Active Duty’ models are soldiers and do what they’re told. As Mark has pointed out, for them sucking dick and puttin’ it where the sun don’t shine is like jumping out of a plane — just a big dare.
As one model from another popular site told me ‘I’m a high school drop out with two kids to support. Where else I could make this kind of money?’
As far as the Kinsey scale goes all that says is that you can either be Heterosexual at one end or Homosexual at the other polar end and that everything else inbetween the two points is bisexuality.
I much prefer the Klein Grid for human sexuality: http://www.bisexual.org/kleingrid.html
Bruce Benderson is bisexual as he has talked about rather candidly in various interviews and his memoir.
These men on ActiveDuty.com and other sites can claim to be “straight” or be marketed as “straight” but if they were really straight or heterosexual they would not be having sex with the same gender and not for a measley sum of cash as we all know that being in porn as a performer does not pay well at all.
There are a whole shit load of latent bisexuals masquerading around as gay men because they are ignorant of the fact that bisexual doesn’t only mean an equal attraction to both genders or they’re too scared to admit it because they’ve invested so much of their time and energy cultivating a gay identity.
The dirty little secret that never gets addressed in the so called gay world is the fact that many gay men do go through a second coming out and re-identify as bisexual. These men may still overwhelmingly prefer men, but their orientation and identity are not exclusively towards men. And how their attraction to both sexes manifests differently as well.
It’s the same for men who are closeted and are really bisexual but call themselves “straight” when they are anything but heterosexual even if they do have some sexual attraction towards men but prefer women, and do not want a relationship with a man like they do with women.
“Gay” for pay is just simply marketing and it’s just another word for someone being bisexual. Sometimes the guys who are marketed as “gay” for pay really are homosexual. Let’s not kid ourselves here, if you pay attention to amateur/professional porn you’ll see these men pop up constantly on other sites and when they do interviews after the sex some of them are flaming camp queens.
This is all based on the fantasy that lots of bisexual and homosexual men have about “converting” a heterosexual man or giving him a taste of homosexual sex or the homoerotic with another man. Sometimes it’s all based on the old highschool mentality and the models look like the hot jock that every gay man wanted yet could never have. It’s just all based on a fantasy as men who are actually heterosexual or straight do not have sex with other men at all.
I don’t know any straight or heterosexual men who actually have or want sex with men. I have met lots of closet cases who are really bisexual and gay men who call themselves “straight” but let’s be real they only think that they are heterosexual and it’s easy for everyone to tell that they are anything but that.
“Straight” men have fun fucking men and come to orgasm because they don’t take it seriously (most of the “straight” men that I’ve been with don’t ever hold back).
Unlike “Gay” men who think that thats who they are. They’ve conceptualized all the fun right out of it.
But that’s like thinking you are your moments of defecating and taking that activity to be you.
Then again, I guess modern man does take a good shit very seriously.
?????? ??????????, ?????, ? ??? ?????? ??????????, ????? ??????? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ??????.
Some of you make it sound as if homosexuality is like alcoholism. If I drink all the time then I have a problem. If I do it ocassionally then its acceptable to society. Sorry but gay sex is not an addiction. I’m OK with the bisexual label because you like what you like. But dont give me that straight crap. If thats the case if I go collect money from every male/female I ever slept with would I be considered asexual?
While not very subtile, Dr. Sex’s 1-6 scale is a useful starting point, and highly insightful to the extent that it was the first acknowledgement of the pleiomorphic nature of human sexuality, just like the phenotypical variations he spent decades observing in gall wasps.
Freud and Kinsey are to the study sexuality what Plato and Aristotle are to Philosophy. While you can disagree with them, you have to acknowledge that they got the ball rolling.
I hate the current sexuality labels. For a while, shrinks, sex therapist ect, made the blanket pronouncement that everybody was intrinsically bisexual. I think they backed off, probably because it was bad for business. However, it was spot on to the extent that it acknowledged what I believe is the ‘situational’ nature of sexuality.
The most dramatic examples of ‘situational’ sexuality are ‘prison fairies’. These are guys who go in straight and not only engage in homosexual acts on the inside, but assume feminine/submissive roles and behavior, too. And the truly interesting thing is that this phenomenon has little to do with ‘the pecking order’, but rather appears to be a passive-aggessive power stategem: some of these ‘bitches’ come to rule their cell blocks. Once they are released, they are again totally straight: it’s as if prison never happened.
To me, this phenomenon says two things about the masculine varient of human nature: 1) most men need/crave ‘feminine’ company, and 2) men need to dominate other men, and will even become ‘women’ in order to do so. On the other side of the fence, Shakespeare was well aware of the extent to which women are capable of becoming ‘men’ in order to dominate them (Rosiland, Viola, Imogen, and more subtilely Lady Macbeth, Cleopatra and Beatrice — who also happen to be his greatest charaters.)
I think the real semantic arguement isn’t between gay, bi, and straight, but rather between gay and homosexual. If one were to draw a Venn diagram, ‘gay’ would be a smaller circle within the greater cohort of homosexuals, and it may be a significantly smaller circle. Nor do I discount the possibility that a small fragment of the gay circle may be outside the homosexual circle to account for the small cohort of ‘gay-acting’ straight men.
I have my own problems with the 1-3% figure. I believe that in this, the 4th decade after the Stonewall Riots, there yet remains a significant ‘homosexual underground’ composed of masculine-identifted homosexuals for whom the ‘fabulous ‘extra-sexual associations of ‘gayness’ (and associdation with ‘Cluster B’ histrionics of the like of ‘Andrew’) are anathema. If anything, the Gay Liberation movement has only served to push these men deeper into their closets. In fact, I may go so far as to (controversially) suggest that all the Gay movement accomplished was to legitimize sodomy among the ‘usual suspects’: hair sylist, interior designers, retail sales help, etc — which is to say nothing at all. To be a homosexual engaged in traditionally male-identified pursuits or professions (military, police, sports, etc) if anything holds an even greater stigma today than it did in the years prior to ‘Gay Liberation’.
It appears I’m not alone in this opinion. Gore Vidal believes there were a higher incidence of men engaging in homosexual acts in the years prior to Gay liberation (yet another reason to call the fifties ‘fabulous’, i suppose.)
I would like to conclude by commenting that the principal reason why Andrew and his like are so quick to wrap the Active Duty lads in a rainbow flag parade them down Market Street on a Pride float is that they’re hot. Incredibly hot. Hotter than most gay men could ever hope to be, in fact. I’m certain that he would not be so quick to claim them for his own were they trolls. Gay men are funny that way.
Seriously Andrew, do you have any idea what goes on during the filming of those movies? How many hours of footage are requried to film an hour scene? Do you have any idea what kind of fluffing likely goes on? Do you think Dink has that pussy porn playing in the background because he thinks it will make the scene ‘hotter’.
That said, I honestly think that they don’t dislike the work, and even enjoy it. It’s just that they’d much rather be doing it with a woman. That, to my thinking, makes them hetero.
The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in an essay on homosexuality nearly two centuries ago suggested that men had homosexual tendencies in adolescence and again towards old age, while being heterosexual in between, the period when biologically they need to father children. His biographer Bryan Magee suggested that Schopenhauer was really talking about his own life. Whether Magee (whom I know only very slightly indeed) is also being subjective, I would not like to say. I would guess that quite a few men are bisexual, meaning they have an interest (but not necessarily by any means nearly an equal interest) in both men and women, and that this may fluctuate over time and according to their experiences. It will only be when people feel it safe to speak really openly and candidly that we will know what the percentages really are.
Many men have girlfriends or wives to conceal their homosexuality. They have sex with them to point of orgasm – some even have the offspring to prove this – but secretly they prefer a sexual/emotional connection with another man. Most of these men who later come of the closet, identify not as bisexual but as gay, despite having engaging in sex with women for years. Many will even admit that to some extent they found sex with women to be pleasurable, but it was not their genuine preference.
So if we accept that closeted men can be married and have sex with their wives to the point of orgasm, all while sexually preferring another man, why is it difficult to accept that a man can be gay for pay “on camera” and sexually prefer women in his “off camera” life?
Where does it say that it cannot work in reverse? There is no science to the contrary. It is just the opinion of some, which I suspect will change over time as homosexuality becomes more mainstream.
I agree with Andrew.
These guys are either just closeted or it’s all marketing since guys who really are heterosexual/straight, and not closeted gay and bisexual men simply don’t have or desire sex with other men, even if it is for payment.
In response to DAKrolak’s comment where it was theorised that only 1-3% of people were gay: while at one time this would have seemed quite believable to me, I’ve become very skeptical indeed about such a low figure in more recent times for the following reasons:
1) Out of the 180 or so people who were in my year at high school, seven or eight have since come out as gay or are reported to be (and it wouldn’t surprise me if there are others besides these I am not presently aware of), when the law of averages would have had the total number as one comprising rather fewer individuals than this if it were true that gays and lesbians only make up 1-3% of the population.
2) Most of the places I’ve worked at to date have had an average of 1-2 openly gay people there or (if it was a bigger company) in my particular department – again suggesting that homosexuality could easily be as common as left-handedness, and perhaps even slightly more so.
3) I frequently hear accounts from others who have likewise experienced finding out that friends, relatives, colleagues and acquaintances of theirs are gay/lesbian, which I wouldn’t expect to hear nearly so often if homosexuality were as unusual as some statistics make it out to be.
I’m also somewhat doubtful that sexuality is as fluid as it’s sometimes claimed to be if only because a) sexual behaviour and sexual preference don’t always match (as what goes on in prisons etc demonstrates quite well I think), and b) if it were that easy to change our orientation (as opposed to just our outward behaviour), there wouldn’t be so many cases of people leaving their opposite-sex partner whom they had been with for years, and whom they were always conscious of the fact that they had gone with in the hope that it would “cure” them of their homosexuality, for someone of the same sex.
you know something your absolutely correct. I really am a STRAIGHT guy and im not joking. I thought that just because I like to do everything sexually with dudes i must be gay or bi, but I realize now that almost all guys who have and enjoy sex with other guys are straight as can be and yes I now understand that sex is not the same as sexuality. Only I can define my own sexuality and no one else has that right, I am my own person and others cannot know my true feelings. So thanks for straightening(no pun) me out! I am really happy now that I know im just a normal straight dude who loves getting off with other dudes
Andrew:
Are you aware of the extent to which your comments are strident to the point of being unreadable?
Do you have any idea how inappropriate these diatribes are to the collegial discourse usually encountered on this blog? We exchange ideas, occasionally disagree, and perhaps then agree to disagree. We do not throw mud at each other; call each other ‘full of shit’, etc.
It is a testament to Mark’s patience that he has not deleted your comments. It would behoove you to keep in mind that you are only allowed a voice here at his sufferance.
sex is not sexuality? not necessarily, but in the case of males having fervent sex with males and totally enjoying it , then in this case… the case of all the active duty porn guys, then yes the sex they are having IS a total reflection of their sexuality!!!… gay OR bisexual.
i never said they were necessarily gay i DID say they are definately and OBVIOUSLY not straight either. what your thick skulls fail to acknowlege or deliberatley avoid is the term BISEXUAL which means sexually responding and liking BOTH males and females. they are either gay or BISEXUAL and thats FACT due to their sexually responding to other males. erode the barriers of masculinity by trying homosexuality??? DAK equates homosexuality with femininity??? homosexuality has nothing to do with femininity, buttwipe!!!
Oh & one of many more things…
Boy andrew, you are one angry gay man, your real summation is that you are straight? That might explain everything, are you sure you’re not a evangelical as well? (Last time I heard such logic – it was comeing froma born-again) Somehow you got it into your nimble mind that I have some sort of hard & fast rule about gay/straight/etc… those of your imaginiation’s making. It doesn’t matter to me what you and your boyfriend call yourself, or what consenting adults do, however, when it comes to rank speculation about people you don’t know – I argue for giving that person/people’s a chance to choose their own identity not making one out of thin air that doesn’t necessarily suit them.
I, prefering a more nuanced, and humanistic – Kinsey-esque approach to sex study. What the zoologist turned sex expert was really trying to show us is that sex in the human animal is far more varied & broader than a simple definition. He was not trying to create statistics to validate Gay Sexual Identity, but show that homosexual habits ARE exhibited by otherwise Heterosexual men. Creating of course a necessity to create a zoological classification for the ambiguity- Bi-sexual. Funny did he find any Asexual ones?
You rant & rave here on a site – in response to a man – Mark Simpson who is pointing out the way in which male vanity+consumerism is causing all males to appear Gay, or at least primp like one. That should be a boon for you & your boyfriend, or friends as you are knee deep in a wading pool of people whose sexuality is not apparent from the outside & they all seem to want to be viewed/cruised/admired – won’t it get a little confusing in the gay mating processes to figure out which ones will let you and which ones won’t – is the outcome increased gay-bashing from mistaken come-ons, or is it that more & more it will seep in through the moisturizing products, that men may erode the barriers of masculinity and find out what homosexual sex is like. Of course once all of them do that, you will brand them and then they can proclaim their Gay-ness, what will be left – it will turn into one incredible Circuit Party, won’t it?
Look outside of whatever gay ghetto you live in (you did say you experienced 40% right), mingle with and talk with people you think are straight, about their sex lives, and then perhaps your anecdotal evidence will lead you to think in a different direction, one approaching the true findings of Kinsey (the one beyond the statistical bullshit you espouse). Of course if your interviewing tactics are anything like your comments here – I don’t expect you will find out much unless you soften your approach. But I can dream, can’t I?
It’s been fun, and thank you for playing Andy – but honestly who do you think would come to this outpost of the far flung web, to listen to you ramble on? I’ve done my best Mother Teresa impression, next you can seek out a really nice support group somewhere to channel your hostilities into, cause I’m going to concern myself with “REAL” issues: like AIDS in America – were you aware that in some AMERICAN cities here that the infection rate is the same as some sub-saharan African nations? Doesn’t that alarm you that years ago we could throw up arms, march in protests while GWM’s were dying & in need of treatments, but now that the people dying are more politically disenfranchised, or of course are of color – we are blind to it and have nothing to say.
Perhaps you should channel your REAL rage into some worthy cause like that. Besides if the orginal article was so upsetting to you – why didn’t you go to Fort Bragg to protest – it was an obvious miscarriage of justice & complete crapping on the provisional ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy for these guys to punished, fined, and dishonorably discharged – they are GAY according to you aren’t they – where was the big GAY RIGHTS uproar. Didn’t think so…again you must label them that – but they don’t get a float in this years parade, aren’t they getting the shaft (again).
Cheers,
D*
PS -How can you honestly quote Dink Flamingo as FACT? Next time you are quoting – try some quotation marks, and a mention…not an afterthought – then we really know it is hear-say. BTW – I won’t be checking back here for any follow up comments so why don’t you send them instead to dontgiveafuck@gmail.com
oh and one more thing… dink flamingo goes into graphic detail explaining in his text describing the videos stating how much into the sex the pron stars are and HE stated that they are into the sex and are as happy as pigs in shit not me.
oh one more thing… the sex in the active duty videos is REAL SEX NOT ACTING so get a reality check.
the real summation of mine is that your definition of gay means living the gay lifestyle and if you fuck dudes with abandon then you are not gay or even bi because you live the “heterosexual” lifestyle i.e. CLOSETED or DOWN LOW. well according to that I guess me and my boyfriend and all my friends are in fact STRAIGHT just like you said so there you go I’m straight.
having a wife family kids whatever and leading “normal” heterosexual lives is a farce. part of leading a “normal” “heterosexual” life does not include secretly sneaking off to have sex with other men behind your wives or gf’s back now does it??? I never said they were gay i merely stated like Rechy did that they are NOT straight and thus atleast bisexual which is STILL a term that you all are completely ignoring. what “modern scientific” conclusion are you talking about when you state that only 1-3% of the population is gay? how are you defining gay? I suspect you define gay only as someone who is OPENLY admitting they are gay in a survery and who are so obviously flaming that hellen keller can see they are gay and also you are defining gay as the 1-3% of men who have never had a heterosexual experience when in fact you even admit most gay men have had heterosexual experiences so yes, the 10% figure that Kinsey had come up with is VERY true from my experience and another 30% are “straight” or REAL bisexuals, so that makes kinsey’s 40% estimate very accurate to ny own personal experience. that 1-3% figure barely covers the “queen” part of the male population so obviously you think that all gays are effeminate rare freaks like the fundamentalist christians good going… with only your “scientific” 1-3% figure you only believe that the only “real” gays are the rare flaming queens you find in san fran or nyc!!! so I guess then I’M really straight and all the other masculine and totally undetectable gays and bisexuals are really straight too?
*correction to last definitions i am so infuriated i cant think clearly anymore …
homoSEXual means sexually ATTRACTED meaning REAPONDING i.e. AROUSAL and ORGASM when in engaging in same sex acts.
heteroSEX means sexually ATTRACTED meaning RESPONDING i.e. AROUSAL and ORGASM when in engaging in opposite sex acts.
biSEXual means sexually ATTRACTED meaning RESPONDING i.e. AROUSAL and ORGASM when in engaging in opposite AND same sex acts.
seems to me you queens are DELIBERATELY denying that there are bisexual people and the fact of bisexuality and thus see sexuality aa gay OR straight, black OR white when obviously to any sane person this is not true. If your definition of gay means your “sexuality” is 100% for males then the defintion of straight likewise means your “sexuality” is 100% for females.
To say conclusively that in all cases “sex is the same as sexuality” would be FALSE. HOWEVER, what they mean by that is instances of being raped and NON CONSENSUAL sex acts with the “wrong” gender and also gay men who ATTEMPT to have sex with women because of societal pressure NOT because they enjoyed the experience, but obviously since “straight” men are having and enjoying sex with other men against society then OBVIOUSLY they are IN FACT not straight at all but gay or bisexual according to SOCIETIES DEFINTION. So REAL straight guys will defend me 100% that men who have sex with men are not straight.
Oh Andrew,
You had me at ‘deluded’, odd that most of your supporting material, like Kinsey has been well debunked because of his spurious scientific methods. Not that he is irrelevant, but for you to put words in Mr. Kinsey’s mouth like: “full of shit” and direct them at P.Williams & Mr. Simpson seems beyond absurd. If Kinsey was addressing anyone it would have been the sexual morays of a nation during the decade of delusion (50s). It’s all about context. You must cite where it is said that only 40% of people in Prison have m-2-m sex. What about the female population – they have it in much more alarming numbers, and last I checked most of the data is empirical. It isn’t a gay-straight thing, its a human dichotomy. Sexuality is fluid, not static. Anecdotal evidence is about the best evidence we have when it comes to issues of sex. The hardest of all things to quantify or qualify is human desire.
As one of the original contributors to this post & someone who has read and been incensed by Mr. Rechy’s letter – I ask what are you mad at? These guys are gay, and you seem fairly certain of this, what’s the problem? I also read the article that Mr. Simpson wrote, and loved it. I’ve also seen the ActiveDuty movie he was in. I’ve seen many of the movies Dink produces. Personally I don’t care whether they are straight or gay, nor do I think does the public at large. Many of the men I had sex with both for money & pleasure have wives, families, and normal heterosexual lives. Am I to assume because they seemed to enjoy it at the time – that they are gay? I prefer the modern scientific conclusion that 1-3% of the population is gay over the conflated 10% used previously.
Here is the fundamental thing: Active Duty movies, and all pornography while we are generalizing, are about fantasy. Pure & simple, not reality, no matter how much they pioneered the “reality-based” concept that finds its way into all media from Prime-Time lineup to YouTube. As such it is pretty hard to distinguish the truth from the final product. It’s a folly. I’ve rented & sold porn to people, have porn star friends, met many in the business and even been on porn sets like Mr. Simpson. His viewpoint and mine are much alike having unmasked the Wizard and seen that most of it is smoke & mirrors. In fact it would probably surprise you to no end how many well known gay pornstars lead heterosexual lifestyles. What is even more interesting is that our experience of the porn is subjective, your characterizations of the ActiveDuty films & participants was not my experience of it at all. In fact you make them sound so piggish that if they were – I’d watch them exclusively to see gay guys pretending to be straight guys who enjoy gay sex like pigs. The merry-go-round dizziness would make my personal beliefs moot.
You start your first post with a question – why would you respond to such “Insanity & Absurdity” – really, isn’t that the question here? Why you would vest such efforts into converting the unconvertible? I can tell you the old adage about vinegar & honey is still true. I think the moderators of this Blog & Mr. Simpson have shown you a great latitude, when they could have easily silenced it with a tap of the delete key. Your nonsensical & concentrical rants are given equal time in the wonderfully democratic world of the web. So I say aren’t you tired of all this piss & vinegar, do I have to agree with everything that comes out of your mouth in order to be considered a true gay like you? The gay/lesbian/bi/trans world will never be in concert and agree on anything. They are way too diverse, and far too divisive, I can tell you this firsthand from my involvement in ACTUP & fighting a battle over AIDS, that even under a good cause the world divides into like minds and infighting. Isn’t there room for some discussion or dissension here in the world of sexual desire?
Can’t we all just get along, and leave the other’s fantasies alone. Who cares honestly if these guys are gay or straight? The issue is they were condemed, and dishonorably dishcharged for sticking their penises into other men, the Military & you are both on the same side: You think they are gay and want to punish them for it. Congratulations your side won, these poor souls can now be welcomed into a Gay world where they will be indoctrinated and made to tow the line – the military just warmed them up for that.
Really isn’t it all the same old stuff, unless of course you are being court marshalled?
cheers-DAKrolak
John Rechny NEVER said that the guys doing consensual gay sex for pay or otherwise are gay. He simply stated that any man who has ” consensual gay sex for pay or otherwise who get aroused to the point of orgasm are not straight ” he DID NOT say they were gay either did he? NO what he was trying to imply is that these men if not gay ARE IN FACT not straight and are thus…GASP! BISEXUAL. Seems to me in simpson’s cute little “straight” boy fantasy that NOT ONCE has he mentioned BISEXUALITY and that these men could and in fact may very well be bisexual if not gay. Normal people in society define straight as being ONLY having sex with the opposite sex and gay as being ONLY having sex with the same sex, that is why there is also the term BISEXUAL to cover your so called “straight” boys. If to be truly gay you have to be only having and liking sex with men then in fact to be truly straight you have to be only having and liking sex with women. and oh the cute comment sue geroge said that “it’s no big deal” well I say its no big deal until they GET CAUGHT in the act then their closeted nature will then be exposed so these people are on the down low. I don’t see men everywhere bragging that they have sex with men and enjoy it, on the contrary these “straight” guys you talk about keep the same sex acts VERY secret which implies not no, straight men to have sex with men is NOT what defines straight and thus these guys are closeted bi or gay because they dont talk about openly having sex with men to other REAL straight men in public. And the fact that most men are in fact incapable of responding sexually to the same sex reflects the fact that yes most men are straight and not “straight”. I will say it again …
homoSEXual means sexually ATTRACTED meaning RESPONDING i.e. AROUSAL and ORGASM when in engaging in same sex acts.
heteroSEX means sexually ATTRACTED meaning RESPONDING i.e. AROUSAL and ORGASM when in engaging in same sex acts.
biSEXual means sexually ATTRACTED meaning RESPONDING i.e. AROUSAL and ORGASM when in engaging in same sex acts.
oh one more thing… 18-20 year old gays are oversexed too i dont see them having sex with women anytime soon, and LOTS of gay guys get hit on and propositioned by girls for sex and to be “converted” so if they too are “just horny” why arent they having sex with women when dudes arent around? answer THAT one wiseass, oh and since you think all gays take meth means YOU are a stereotypical flaming queen who normal gays like me and the active duty guys would never have sex with because we like MEN not women with penises like you and simpson who are closeted transgender.
If what your saying is true that in your paragraph that they are straight and “just oversexed 18-20 year olds” then why don’t the VAST majority of young guys NEVER have sex with other guys even when women arent available(prison and military) but use their hands instead? THIS IS FACT and its fact that never more on average thn 40% of the male population have sex with men even when women arent around…I guess A Kinsey was wrong when he said “NOT ALL THINGS ARE BLACK NOR WHITE THE WORLD CANNOT BE DIVIDED INTO SHEEP AND GOATS, NOT EVERYONE IS EITHER HOMOSEXUAL OR HETEROSEXUAL, and Kinsey EXPLICITLY stated that sexuality is a continnum, and implied a broad range of BISEXUALITY. Kinsey also said that exclusive gays like you and simpson seem to think that “any man who is less experienced or less exclusively homosexual is not really homosexual”… even Kinsey said your full of shit and oh… I believe Kinsey found only approx 40% of males have engaged in gay sex, so your delusion that every guy is gay is YOUR delusion not mine. I hope you run into a REAL straight guy and solicite HIM for sex and see what he does to you.I guess since you had to take the metro into nyc just to have sex with men you probably think the only guys who are gay are freaky queens like you who live in gay ghettos and there are no gays in new jersey lmao. good luck denying the existence of bisexuality, mainstream society thinks your insane and side with me because im sane not like you and simpson with your deluded belief that totally straight guys can LOVE cock but as long as it’s on camera for money it doesnt count LMAO
like I said P.Williams gets off on the deluded fantasy that supposedly real 100% straight guys love having sex with men “for the cameras only”, as if sex on camera isn’t “real” sex, LMAO.I am 100% certain that these guys are WAY experienced in gay sex because they know EXACTLY what they are doing with men and are pros. I bet Williams truly believes its these guys first time lol what a JOKE. Most guys are not like me BUT ALL the guys who do that gay porn site are gay OR BISEXUAL and might even prefer women but a female PREFERANCE still means you are BISEXUAL not straight. and oh, sex sure does define sexuality… sexuality is defined as what arouses you and gets you off, so sorry to say your boys on active duty CLEARLY to be groveling in male to male sex like pigs in shit, and if they like the sex with dudes THAT much they are in fact atleast bisexual if not gay, so sorry to ruin yours and simpsons fantasy. seems to me your completely denying the FACT that there are bisexual people and there is different degrees of bisexuality also. oh…I’m sure if you asked REAL straight guys (not guys who suck dick on film) if the active duty guys are fags they will answer in the affirmative and DEFEND MY RESPONSE 100%.
Andrew,
The only things that come through in you rather confused ramblings is you desire, you need (or pehaps neediness) for these guys to be gay like you, and your anger at Mark Simpson for challenging what is doubtless a cherished belief (or delusion) of yours. I’m sorry to tell you that I agree with Mark: when the cameras aren’t rolling ‘Dean’ probably prefers pussy, and doesn’t give dick a second thought.
Sex does not define sexuality.
An editorial note: subject-verb agreement, grammatically complete sentences, paragraphs — these are all good things. They allow one to be understood. That you seem unable to satisfy the simple requirements of expository writing is only an indication of the extent to which your own thoughts on this subject are muddled.
Lastly, probably not a good idea to type with meth on board.
i dont even know why im bothering to answer this ABSURDITY and INSANITY, but here I go… guess you nuts dont understand what a bisexual or a guy in the closet and in self denial is. being oversexed and young doesnt make you go out and have sex with something your not attracted to, if that were the case ALL guys would have done guys…( and dont say its because they are “scared” because if its “no big deal” they would readily have done it already, and dont say how do i know they havent? get a reality check most men couldnt have and no less enjoy(arousal to orgasm) sex with another male thats what STRAIGHT means… you only get aroused by WOMEN, if you like both your BISEXUAL, not gay not straight but BISEXUAL. So I guess if im oversexed i could easily have sex with a farm animal and really love it too then LMAO. So according to simpson, since I’m(now) gay previously “straight” myself mind you, I know ALL rationalizations to myself to delude myself as well, I as a 100% gay man should “Ironically to be better able to embody the straight ideal than true straight guys by outperfoming them in having sex with women”… In other words since I’m gay I should according to simpson’s theory(and for pay on film) or otherwise, “get into” straight sex far better than straight guys!!! yeah… OK As far as the dudes on active duty porn you can tell they are mostly gay just by the way how gay they really look… it’s called “gay face” and their face looks REAL gay. None of them look straight, most look like closeted young gay men who have not come out yet do you know the CLOSET means??? And the fact they are enjoying the sex with other dudes and they are happier than a pig in shit doing so, obviously a sane person would come to the IMMEDIATE conclusion that they are GAY not even bisexual for the most part. even if some are bi these dudes are WAY too into it to even have a preference for women they are bi but a gay preferance at BEST, since sexuality is not gay or straight necessarily. I suppose if you paid a true vegetarian and peta person enough cash they would happily pig out on burgers for a mcdonalds comemercial? i DON’T think so, so get real and stop your stupid “straight” guy fantasies. Any guy who sucks cock and guzzles cum like they were dying of thirst in the desert is OBVIOUSLY not straight by any sense of the word, yeah he can still love pussy and be bi but he sure as hell aint straight by the dictionaries definition. Oh, and if your defining straight as masculine, forget it, most gay and bi men ARE normally masculine in every sense just like the GAY AND BISEXUAL men who appear on active duty groveling in male on male sex like it was their last meal on earth the active duty guys just have “gay face”. Virtually all gays LOOK gay or if bi look gay to some extent so yes we DO have it tatted on our foreheads.It’s only the freaky effeminate queens who inist that if a guy CLAIMS to be “straight” and is masculine and has a gf then they are according to the queens because the queens are in denial themselves… that they are REALLY TRANSEXUAL, and should have been born female.Anyway the dudes in active duty films are BEYOND into it sexually with other guys I have no words to explain the extensive joy and sexual response they have with the other dudes. And don’t say they are “acting” it’s REAL sexual performance you cant act that. They are in deep denial just like I was I was through ALL the denials myself and yes I was an amateur hustler and no I wouldnt have sex with “anything or anyone” for money or otherwise. according to the definition in the dictionary and society, as far as I know the definition of a STRAIGHT man does not include sex with other MEN but WOMEN, and if they are into both thats bi. So seek therapy for your delusions and come back to reality, and oh figures someone like simpson would come up with the “metrosexual” thing which now also evidently includes guys who are “straight” and not only look like genuine fags but also love it up the ass too now, GET REAL.
First, I have a problem with our cultural obsession with labels like gay, bi or straight. I think that at baseline people are just sexual. One needn’t look any further than prison (or, for that matter, the military) to assess the extent to which sexuality is capable of adapting itself to the prevailing social milieu.
Personally, I am one of those people who knew they were same sex oriented from early adolescence. I always assumed that it was the same for everybody else. Nothing could be further from the truth. I used to think that the guys on these ‘amateur-fratboy’ had to be at least bi: there’s no way in hell that guys who do EVERYTHING could possibly be straight!
I now understand that this opinion was likely a function of my own wish fulfillment. These guys are just oversexed 18-20 year olds. For some, their sexuality is not yet written in stone; and if somebody offers them a nice piece of change to mess around with another guy, why not? Hell, it beats flipping burgers for 8 hours.
I’m sure there’s a subset of models who are at least curious about homosexuality, only they come from repressive or rural backgrounds where ‘exploring’ isn’t simply a case of taking the Metro North into New York, as it was for me. So they are drawn to these sites, and the paycheck provides them with a rationalization. However, I’m sure most are straight as advertised, and when not getting paid for it, rarely think about doing it with a guy.
DAKrolak’s mention of Jim Crow laws reminds me of something I’ve always associated with gay attitudes toward male bisexuality: the “one-drop rule,” a tenant of the old south’s anti-miscegenation laws. This was the rule that a person should be deemed black (and forbidden from marrying a white) if they had even “one drop” of black blood in their ancestry. The one drop, then, was considered to be a contaminant; and it seems perfectly analogous to me that when gays consider an isolated or atypical gay experience in a man’s life to render him gay, they’re also considering homosexuality, their own “proud” condition, as a contaminant. I suppose this is simply because any group is so desperate to expand its numbers and thereby increase its power (a fairly indisputable idea that causes eyes to roll when applied to some groups, yet causes heads to vigorously nod when applied to others) that it will use even the bigotry against itself as a tool to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_drop_rule
BTW – Mr Rechy calling you naive is simply ludicrous & anyone who has read you – surely knows that you are many things, but NAIVE is not one of them!
Speculation aside, and no pun intended, Mr. Simpson has gotten to the ‘bottom’ line here. I’m also glad to see that the comments have already pointed out the things that spring directly to mind when I consider reactions like Rechy’s, to the use of the word straight.
Being gay is a political choice, it is one of the least defining choices one has to make. Unless of course we are discussing your human rights. In this context it simply designates what type of sex you prefer to have. As someone already pointed out – when women have same-sex encounters in a porno no one jumps to protest their characterization as straight. When strangely – plenty will identify as lesbian. Why the double standard exists, and would be upheld by a gay person is beyond me. Indeed it draws to mind a perfectly understandable Male heterosexual response to it.
Mr. Rechy is siding pretty much with a completely narrow interpertation that would befit any self-respecting conservative christian. In what feels a bit like a Jim Crow law, apparently if you have an orgasm in the presence of another man – PRESTO – you’ve earned your pink card. Of course having sex with women has not turned all the closeted men in the world into heterosexuals, or all the confused people in gay-conversion camps the evangelicals open. So apparently this is a one way street. Once you go Gay-for-Pay apparently there is no way out.
Of course what perplexes me beyond belief is someone who wrote a thinly veiled biography – and admittedly had sex & did other things for money. How hard is it for him to believe that people will do a lot of things for that cold hard cash? Even things diametrically opposed to their most base nature. If this weren’t so true – we wouldn’t be experiencing an explosion in ‘reality TV’ and seeing our fellow human beings in all their glory & debasement.
I am going to keep my eyes peeled next Pride for that float from Active Duty, and while I’m at it, perhaps all the straight men I’ve been with will be on the one right behind it!
I have to agree with Mark Simpson, and not Mr. Rechy, on this issue. As much as I admire John Rechy’s work, I’d be willing to bet that down deep he knows that sexual identity is not quite so pat. Why does everyone use the formula for gay identity only in one direction? About the Puerto Rican hustlers I used to bed in Olde Times Square, my liberal friends would comment: If he’s doing that for a living, he must be gay but too guilt-ridden to admit it. These were the same friends who said about my 30 or so sexual adventures with women: “You’re gay, stop trying to prove that you’re not.” Usually, this liberal, rigid one-way formula is reserved only for the male. When two women have sex in a porn film, they are considered to be straight women trying to titillate men. No one even bothers asking them if they liked the experience. As many of the readers of my memoir, “The Romanian,” are aware, I had sex with a Romanian for years, who did it for financial gain and to win my attention and friendship. But he truly preferred women. Let’s just say that he was desperate for both money and support, but not for dick, so he wasn’t “gay,” whatever that means. In discussions of this sort, we should always elicit the spectrum, rather than the polarity, for defining sexual identity. I actually enjoyed the sex I had with women, but I’d say that about 80% of the spectrum of my libidinal energy is directed toward men, which I suppose defines me as “gay.” It’s quite likely that the soldiers discussed by Simpson were the opposite, with the majority of their libido directed toward women on the spectrum of desire. Only they have the right to define their identity, and challenging their claims is just as oppressive as the actions of those who once said it was an abomination to have homosexual feelings. Mr. Rechy, you should know better, and I think you do.
“It was no big deal, and I got paid”.
Yup, lots of men are like that, and women too. They are basically straight but have same-sex sex and get up again the next morning, or zip their trousers, and think nothing more of it. No trauma, no dark nights of the soul, no coming out to anyone. It’s just sex, sex is fun, and where IS the big deal?
I suppose THAT comes in where “love” or at least overpowering desire gets involved. And for many people, it never does.
The fact that people can and do have sex in this way this seems self-evident to me. Just because queer people define them/ourselves by sexuality, and make it one of the biggest things in their/our lives doesn’t mean that everyone can or should.
Comments are closed.