Homoeroticism among straight men

[Ganymede]

Lately, in my off-line life (you know, the life I live outside of the Internet) I've noticed a lot of homoeroticism among straight men. It's an interesting thing, because while there may be exceptions, it seems that most straight men have an awareness of the beauty and erotic nature of other men, but that's about as far as it goes -- no desire to go any further than to notice and perhaps, in a way, admire it.

 

[invisibleman]

Lately, in my off-line life (you know, the life I live outside of the Internet) I've noticed a lot of homoeroticism among straight men. It's an interesting thing, because while there may be exceptions, it seems that most straight men have an awareness of the beauty and erotic nature of other men, but that's about as far as it goes -- no desire to go any further than to notice and perhaps, in a way, admire it.

I am uncertain what you mean by homoeroticism. What is homoerotic to you in regard to these straight guys? I know some straight guys. They aren't very homoerotic. Some are very attractive...homoerotic, no.

Wrestling is an homoerotic sport. Two guys in singlets mounting each other. Writhing in each others arms. Rubbing on each other. Trying to pin their opponent on the mat. Some wrestlers get boners in those singlets. Those are homoerotic images. This is what makes wrestling an homoerotic sport.

 

[chicagosam]

Lately, in my off-line life (you know, the life I live outside of the Internet) I've noticed a lot of homoeroticism among straight men. It's an interesting thing, because while there may be exceptions, it seems that most straight men have an awareness of the beauty and erotic nature of other men, but that's about as far as it goes -- no desire to go any further than to notice and perhaps, in a way, admire it.

Yes, and it also needs to be noted that it's amazing how far some of these men will go in their pursuit of homoeroticism and in cyber sexual or real life sexual encounters with other men, how they will use people for sex and then discard them in an effort to disclaim their cyber and possible real life gayness, and yet will adamantly proclaim how straight they are and get quite angry when questioned on it or outed for it. The denial in these men is as amazing as their voracious appetites for the sexual encounters they aggressively initiate with other men, and the lack of accountability for their actions is always self-serving and callous in covering their sexual identity and in how they treat the people that they engage to satisfy their needs. They are never gay in their mind, nor do they see themselves as the aggressor: it is always the partner that they use that is at fault. The ethics of this type of man are sadly lacking as they will unconscionably lie to their girlfriends, friends, and anyone else who they feel they must cover their secret lives from. Fortunately, these sociopaths are in the minority. It also needs to be noted that there are a lot of great men in the world who accept who they are, what they are, and are morally responsible toward the people that they are involved with.

 

[Ganymede]

I'm talking about a kind of homoeroticism that seems to be very neglected or overlooked on this forum. It's a type of homoeroticism between straight males where one straight male gets turned on by watching another straight male take part in heterosexual activity.

For example, I read a book about author Henry Miller (Henry Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) that said that his favorite form of sex was to have sex in a gangbang, that is, to have sex with a woman while other men watched and waited for their turn, or to wait for his turn while he watched the other men have sex with the woman. The author said that if Henry Miller had to have sex with a woman by himself, not in a gangbang setting, then he always had to find another man afterwards to share the information with, to talk to about the sexual encounter.

The author said that all of this was very "homoerotic" on Henry Miller's part. That was the label she herself put on it. But she wrote that Henry Miller himself never referred to it as homoerotic, but considered it the height of heterosexual manliness.

A while ago, a clip came out of a group of footballers from England having sex with a girl. Some people said that it was very "gay" of them to have sex with a girl in front of one another. But some said that it wasn't gay at all because, after all, the men were not having sex with one another. They were having sex with a woman, but merely being watched by other men while doing so; or they were watching other men do so. How can it be gay of they are having sex with a woman?

So, the type of homoeroticism I'm talking about here is a very nuanced form of homoeroticism. It's a type of homoeroticism where a straight man gets an erotic payoff by seeing other straight men act out the rituals of being straight men. And, the older I get, the more I see that I think all straight men are this way.

Is any of this making any sense to anyone?

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Well, I don't know how one would ever be able to make a case that ALL straight men are this way. However, a case might be made that men are social animals, and SOME may carry their social needs over into their sexual activities.

I would also suggest that gang-banging and similar activities tend to show little respect for the women involved. Call it homoeroticism or male chauvinism, it clearly does not include women as equal partners in a relationship.

 

[Ganymede]

Interesting points. Maybe the social aspect does carry over into sexuality. That's a very interesting distinction.

About gangbangs, there are actually some women who enjoy them. There are some women who like being the attention of many men.

On the other hand, is it possible that there could be a link between homoeroticism and male chauvinism? On a thread about traveling (http://www.lpsg.org/underwear-clothing-and-appearance-issues/41399-airport-bathrooms-5.html) I mention a gay friend of mine who told me that, oddly, in many of the chauvinist countries where women are not equal citizens and where gays have no rights, the straight men get away with a lot of behavior that in the US would be labeled as gay. For example, in Muslim countries it's common for close male friends to hold hands and kiss. That would never happen in the US.

There seems to be some odd connection between male chauvinism and homoeroticism/homosexuality. Fascinating topic.

Anyway, thanks for the response!

EDIT: Also, I didn't mean to imply that all straight men enjoy gangbangs. But as evidenced by the fact that most straight porn videos depict a man having sex with a woman, I think it's relatively obvious that most straight men get some sort of sexual payoff by seeing other men enact heterosexual male activity.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

One of the things I keep learning is that things seldom exist in isolation: everything is linked.

Thought provoking thread, Gany. Thanks for starting it.

 

[Ganymede]

Thank you for giving interesting answers. I'd never thought of it that way before, that in some ways this "straight homoeroticism" may just be the social animal in straight males carrying over into sexuality.

I am now wondering how connected this topic is to the concerns this straight man raises in this thread: http://www.lpsg.org/relationships-d...ousy/42780-straight-guys-looking-at-cock.html In this thread, this straight man says his girlfriend has caught him looking at this site and has suggested that maybe he likes penises more than she does. The guy didn't say so, but I got the feeling that he felt he needed reassurance that this is normal.

(Yet another) EDIT: Yes, all things are interconnected, but for some reason the idea that heterosexuality in a male is interconnected to the heterosexuality in other males, confuses people. People seem to think that any interconnectedness between males on a sexual level ultimately means homosexuality.

(Yet one more) EDIT: I just remembered something else interesting. Years ago, maybe back in 2000, Tommy Lee made an appearance on the Howard Stern Show. Howard Stern asked Tommy Lee if he has ever had a man ask him to have sex with his wife while he watched. Tommy Lee said yes, and that he's done it. That is, a straight man got his rocks off by watching Tommy Lee have sex with his wife. Some might say that this is sort of "gay," but then bottom line is that the sexual contact was still between a male and a female and was therefore entirely heterosexual.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

People seem to think that any interconnectedness between males on a sexual level ultimately means homosexuality.

Yes, this is similar to the simplistic characterization of one who has any African ancestry as African-American. Why should 1/32 of that ancestry be considered of more significance than the other 31/32 that might include Asian, Native American, or European (or even Australian) ancestry? In the past of course, it was a basis for discrimination: only someone claiming pure European ancestry (and preferably White Anglo-Saxon Protestant ancestry at that) was considered suitable for full membership in our society.

Similarly, we have looked for black and white, all or nothing, this or that, ways to label sexual orientation: someone is straight or gay. ANY sexually connected interest in members of one's own gender has been a basis for being labeled "gay."

Not surprisingly, such failure to accomodate the infinite possibilities (shades of gray) between one or the other has led to people trying to "pass" for the preferred label.

 

[Ganymede]

Well, that's a level to all of this, that ultimately labels don't matter.

Back to the issue of straight male homoeroticism, I suppose what I was also trying to say was that there is a sexual energy between straight men, though that sexual energy isn't necessarily directed toward one another.

Despite my misleading username (I need to change it, I know), I am a self-identified straight male. Yet I find nothing more erotic than the thought of having sex with a woman while another man watches, or watching while a couple has sex. Some might say this is "gay," but technically it really isn't. But I can't deny that there's a homoerotic aspect to it, or at the very least an erotic aspect to it. (Just writing out the above paragraph gave me a boner!)

 

[patro78]

This is a thought-provoking thread, all the more so because the thoughts are developing by being questioned and qualified, thereby becoming progressively (and collaboratively) more persuasive. Can I offer my own tentative contribution? Let us propose a distinction between the (a) homosexual, the (b) homoerotic, and the (c) homosocial. Applying this distinction to the scenario under consideration (multiple male, single female), a male involved in the scenario who inclined towards (a) would explicitly desire to have sexual relations only with the other male who is having sex with the female (ie the desire would be explicitly formed in his mind, even if he does not to admit to it). He would become aroused solely by the image of the other man or men engaging in sexual activity. This much seems clear enough. A man would all the more conclusively be described as (a) if he desired that the man or men to whom is sexual attention is directed would have sex with each other (ie entirely to the exclusion of the woman), though I would not suggest that this desire is a necessary condition for such a man to be so described, since accumulated and perhaps ineradicable feelings of shame and self-hatred may require the presence of the woman to act as kind of "normalising" influence on or catalyst for the expression of such a desire. A man who experiences and is motivated by the desire indicated by (b) would be sexually aroused by the image (or thought) of another man having sex (ie: his arousal is occassioned directly by the image of another man having sex, and not obliquely by the image of another man having sex with a woman) but this arousal would not issue in the desire to have sex with this other man. The adequate and sole object of this subsequent desire would be the woman. Now, the sexual or erotic thoughts and actions of a man which are best described as (c) seem to fall into two kinds: those which arise from or are occassioned directly by (1) another male and those which arise from or are occassioned by (2) himself. To be clearer: in respect of (c)(1): the man would certainly be aroused by the presence and image of other men having sex but I suggest that his arousal would be oblique - ie arise because the other men are having sex with a woman, and not because the other men are having sex simpliciter (as would be the case with ). With respect to (c)(2) the man is not aroused either directly or obliquely because some other man, conceived as an object or person distinct from his self, is having sex. Rather, he is aroused because he identifies his self with this other man: they share an identity in respect of the masculinity and heterosexuality they have in common. This process of identification acts in effect as a duplication and extension of his own sexual desire, which is directed for its fulfilment towards the woman. It is a means - perhaps a primal means - of multiplying the scope of sexual desire and thereby intensifying it. Furthermore, homosocial activity of either kind may serve the purpose of overcoming or relieving the sense of "shame" or "secrecy" which surrounds sexual activity: it is a laisse aller of the inclination to conceal one's sexual self, an inclination supported and encouraged by social convention. It is perhaps at once expressive of an impulse to be fully known and also of a desire for self-transendence through communal identification.


Now all the above is just off the cuff and requires elaboration and qualification. Certianly the categorical nature of the analysis is not absolute. A single man may tend on different occassions towards the homosocial or homoerotic, or may express aspects of each on the one occassion. The analysis does, however, seem to show that (a) is not a category of which both (b) and (c) are less intensely expressed or indirectly fulfilled subcategories: both (b) and (c) presuppose an ultimate orientation of sexual attention towards the woman, and such an orientation is excluded by definition from (a).

With respect to Henry Miller's erotic habits: these do seem to me less indicative of chauvanism or egoism (though those attributes are there) than symptomatic of an adolescent inhibition towards or even recoil from the feminine. His erotic identity is stunted and seeks refuge in the world of the adolescent boy. He has failed to develop a mature relation to and recognition of the woman as a fully sexual being (something which his hero DH Lawrence constantly struggled towards). If you're interested in this process as explored by literary art, I would recommend you discard your Miller and turn to Lawrence, in comparison to whom Miller is exposed as something of a vulgar and misleading charlatan, whose writings are full of special-pleading and manufactured convictions.

 

[invisibleman]

Homoeroticism should be based on focus and intention. If the intention is to be aroused by homosexual feelings of love, lust or both--it is homoerotic. If the focus is more on the man, what he does, what he doesn't do, and that inspires the intention of lust, longing, or love for a man in an homosexual--it is homoerotic.

Again, I don't think that straight men are homoerotic. Some straight men can be sexy though. :smile:

 

[dudepiston]

Can I just say "wow" to Patrol's response? Makes me wonder if he's a sexologist, or sociologist? His response is one of the most intelligent ones I've seen on this board, or any board, and I may have to print it out to fully understand what you're saying. To a degree,what he's postulating (if I understand him correctly) could be seen as a sociological answer to the question - "why are some men or women gay?" That is, the 'primal reason' you put forth is that perhaps there are occasions when 'straight' males 'see' this type of behavior (i.e., homosexual behavior) that it might intensify their OWN desires for *women*, thus causing the species to be procreated, at least in theory. Statistically, the male that is viewing the homosexual behavior might then masturbate, but what if there is a woman present or available? He might have sex with her, thus creating a child. What you're postulating, taken a step further, is that our sexualities may not always, in all circumstances exist for *our own purposes*, but rather might, to a degree, exist for the pleasure/excitment of OTHER humans, which might then in turn lead to sexual activity which furthers the species in some form. In ancient societies there was almost certainly much less of a taboo regarding having sex with others present, allowing others in the cave or hut to hear the sounds and see the visuals of sex taking place. This almost assuredly excited the others in the dwelling to then feel sexual tension which would then of course need some form of release.

 

[dudepiston]

I'm not sure this is entirely true, man. "Intention" is very hard to quantify or calculate. It's nearly impossible to measure, in other words. Often times we humans rationalize our intentions based upon societal decrees even before our full mind has had a chance to process the information. I think we have to look higher, to "what does this behavior *mean*" not just "what does this behavior mean to US." =)

Homoeroticism should be based on focus and intention. If the intention is to be aroused by homosexual feelings of love, lust or both--it is homoerotic. If the focus is more on the man, what he does, what he doesn't do, and that inspires the intention of lust, longing, or love for a man in an homosexual--it is homoerotic.

Again, I don't think that straight men are homoerotic. Some straight men can be sexy though. :smile:

 

[playainda336]

I think homoeroticism is a hogwash label people want to put on natural human behavior.

Women like to talk to other women about how big the man was or how good he was and how it felt. And men like to talk other men about how she couldn't take it or how she screamed, etc. In the gangbang/group setting then it heightens that natural behavior to its plateau.

I also don't see anything wrong with a man looking at another man or a woman looking at another woman. When it becomes the object of desire, only then does that becomes the tendency of homosexuality. I think people as a whole just need to be more comfortable with naked bodies though. Then people wouldn't be worried so much about "touching other people" or "seeing someone naked".

 

[patro78]

Invisible, your analysis amounts either to the suggestion that the word "homoeroticism" is redundant because it is lexically identical to "homosexuality" or that "homoeroticism" is simply a descption of how homosexuals express themselves sexually. Are you suggesting that there is NO real and relevant (as opposed to merely verbal) difference between the two words, in either degree or kind?

 

[invisibleman]

I'm talking about a kind of homoeroticism that seems to be very neglected or overlooked on this forum. It's a type of homoeroticism between straight males where one straight male gets turned on by watching another straight male take part in heterosexual activity.

Well, it is still unclear though. I do not know whether the husband is turned on by his wife being fucked by another male. That is heterosexual arousal.Or, if the husband is turned on by the man himself even though, the man is fucking the wife. Then, that could be homoerotic.


I don't consider Henry Miller's gangbang a homoerotic act. No other male had sex with Miller. If it were an orgy where there were more homosexual
activity going on. Then, yeah, that could be homoerotic.

 

[invisibleman]

Invisible, your analysis amounts either to the suggestion that the word "homoeroticism" is redundant because it is lexically identical to "homosexuality" or that "homoeroticism" is simply a descption of how homosexuals express themselves sexually. Are you suggesting that there is NO real and relevant (as opposed to merely verbal) difference between the two words, in either degree or kind?

I don't believe that homoeroticism is redundant. My point is this:
Some straight men are sexy to me but not necessarily homoerotic.

Homoeroticism does have an underlying current of homosexual appeal. The voyeur is homosexually identified. The ones objectified are men that appeals to the voyeur either by their look, their actions, their inactions and wherever else that inspires stimuli to the voyeur.

Because a straight man is fucking another man's wife doesn't make it homoerotic. Fucking in gangbangs where a woman is being done by a lot of men one at a time is not homoerotic. Now, if it were a gay orgy and a few bisexual men bringing two ladies with them and a heterosexual couple--that could be homoerotic.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I had always thought that homoerotic meant something as simple as "sexualized, but not necessarily sexual, male behavior" such as the instance of wrestling. The concept of becoming aroused by watching other have sex is more accurately "voyeurism."

 

[patro78]

I'm not sure this is entirely true, man. "Intention" is very hard to quantify or calculate. It's nearly impossible to measure, in other words. Often times we humans rationalize our intentions based upon societal decrees even before our full mind has had a chance to process the information. I think we have to look higher, to "what does this behavior *mean*" not just "what does this behavior mean to US." =)

Actually, on this point I think Invisible is entirely correct. Intention is an indispensable concept for the understanding of human action. The capacity for intentional action, to have goals or ends to which we direct our actions purposefully, is crucially a part of what makes us human, rather than mere automatons. How are we to describe the action of giving a gift, for instance, if not for the identification of an intention to give? Without that intention, the action must be descirbed in an external and behavioural fashion as the mere transferance of an object from one hand to another.

The fact that an intention cannot be measured (assuming it cannot) in no way means it cannot be recognised as existing - we act in response to other people's intentions all the time; I notice or infer that someone's action indicates an intention to hit me in the face, and I promptly get out of the way. Courts of law constantly make judgments which rely on the assertainment of the intentional element necessary for the committal of a crime (did the accused intend to kill, or merely wound, the deceased victim? If the latter, than the accused may have committed manslaughter, but if the former than he has committed murder).

I think, in your final point, that you are conflating subjectivity or subjective attestation with intention. You are right to point out the fact that just because someone attests that he did so-and-so with such and such an intention, or for such-and-such a reason, it does not follow that in fact he did so-and-so with the intention or for the reason he adduces. Subjective attestation is not conclusive though often it will be persuasive. It is true that many people will rationalise their motivations or intentions deceptively so as to cause their actions to be viewed in comformity to what is expected of them. But this simply demonstrates that a rationalisation will not count as a cause of their actions, but rather as an obfuscation of the true cause of their actions (one that is, by the way, generally intended to obfuscate, though I concede that there are surely unconscious rationalisations adduced as reasons as well). It does not show that a real intention is not identifiable objectively inspite of the rationalisation. So by emphasising that "intention" should be the focus of the inquiry, Invisible is not committed to the proposition that the meaning of my action is to be conclusively ascertained by reference to what it "means to me".

Thanks for the compliment in your reply to my first post, by the way! Very flattered though I can't claim to be the kind of professional that you speculate I might be. Just a law student whose first degree was in literature. I think you can learn a lot about the analysis of human action and emotion from closely reading literature.