THE REAL GAY SEXUALITY

About gay sexuality there are a lot of urban legends based on things that with gay sexuality have really nothing to do, such as pornography or improbable analogies with straight sexual behavior, as if gay sexuality were somehow similar to hetero sexuality.

Hetero sexuality is a sexuality that is complementary, there are acts (vaginal penetration) without which the sexual intercourse is not even an actual intercourse, the distinction between preliminaries and sexual act itself has a biological significance in terms of procreation, the gender roles are essential because a man and a woman are sexually differentiated.

In a relationship between two guys, i.e. in a homosexual relationship, a guy doesn’t seek complementarity, on the contrary he loves his partner because sees that guy precisely as another guy, male from all points of view. A gay guy doesn’t’ see at all his partner as a replacement of a woman, it makes no sense to talk about gender roles in gay relationships and even in gay sexual relationships and it makes no sense to think that there is a behavior without which gay sexual intercourse is not an actual gay sexual intercourse.

Pornography carries traditional concepts very different from those just expressed. Let’s ask ourselves why. Between the definition of “gay as a guy who falls in love with guys,” which is what we take for right definition here in the Project and I think justifiably, and the definition of “gay as a guy who has sex with guys”, which is the common definition of a gay guy, there is an abyss.

These are two very different concepts and there are a lot of guys who have sex with guys without even falling in love with them, most of pornography is dedicated to them, they are often people who also have a straight sexual life and consider sex with a guy as a diversion, of course, these people tend to bring in a relationship with a guy behavior patterns typically straight as the idea that the essence of sexuality is the penetration or the idea of gender roles that is very far from spontaneous sexuality of guys who fall in love with other guys.

When I talk about gay sexuality I’m not referring to pornography or to what people believe to be gay but typically to what most guys who fall in love with guys (i.e. gay in this sense) live and desire. This “real” gay sexuality has nothing to do with rampant pornography, to the point that a gay guy (in our sense) in a porn video tends to see especially the first part and leaves the video when the affective dimension disappears at all, but I would add that the most popular videos among the guys who really love guys, are videos of pampering and sexual tenderness, things that generally to consumers of pornography, who have sex with guys but doesn’t love them, appear to be free of the essential content and almost trivial. In a dimension of true gay sexuality as a form of affection are just the affectionate gestures that have huge value, including sexual, yes, but a value of deeply affective sexuality.

Let me explain with an example, looking at each other and exchanging a warm smile during a physical contact with another guy, while caressing each other, even intimately, is something that has a huge significance in terms of emotional exchange. The sexual togetherness, traveling on the same wavelength is also the sign of an affective togetherness which is the basis of that sexuality. And then there’s a fundamental thing: it does not matter what you do, but with whom you do it. Those looking for sex (so-called gay) in a chat to go straight to the point are interested in “what” not in “with whom”. I would say that these people are not gay but are just guys who have sex with guys.

The red circle represents the set of guys who have sex with guys, the common definition of gay guys, the blue circle represents the guys who fall in love with guys, our definition of gay guys, these two circles have in common the area 2 where sexuality is linked to falling in love. The area 1 represents sexuality lacking a true affective component, and the area 3 represents guys who fall in love with guys but do not have sex with them. People commonly defined as gay sexuality that of the red circle, but the real gay sexuality is that of the area 2 and is a typical affective sexuality.

_______
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:
Advertisements

4 thoughts on “THE REAL GAY SEXUALITY

  1. Dear Gay Project,

    By this classification, where should the person be who falls in love with guys, and craves them sexually, but chooses not to have sex: for religious, or other reasons?

    Thanks.

    • I sincerely think that consider chastity as a simple abstinence from sex means to reduce and even change a bit its significance. Within a couple relationship the choice to abstain from sex for religious reasons made by only one of the two guys can be not really shared and therefore, in this case, is substantially imposed to the another. It would be like trying to fast for religious reasons by imposing fasting also to other people. Add that there are situations where shared sexuality has a so large affective value in determining the well-being of the other that refraining from sex for religious reasons ends up identifying with a lack of love towards those who really can need it. I mean that sexuality is far from being just selfish and avoid it sometimes may be more a gesture of pride than an act of love. I will try to publish a post today about the meaning of the prohibitions on religious grounds, given according to a secular perspective and I’ll try to consider two concepts: 1) The sense of guilt and 2) How far obedience is a virtue and not a delegation of responsibility.

      • Thanks for the response. How about in cases where the person is not in a relationship. They desire sex, love, and commitment–but refrain from all of those things. Where would they fall on your diagram?

  2. I tell you honestly what I think. Good and evil have nothing to do with having sex or not. I cannot refrain from considering that all that is good comes from love and all that is bad comes from the refusal to love and hardness of heart. Loving our neighbor as well as loving your boyfriend is a very important thing that has nothing to do with having sex or not, there are situations in which sex is bad because it is a form of violence and a lack of respect, but there are also situations in which abstaining from sex is a way to make another person suffer. Only your conscience and no external rule or authority can tell what is right or wrong. The exercise of freedom is difficult because it is not formal, it takes you to make choices and you know you can be wrong but it makes you responsible, because understanding what is right depends on you. I do not understand why we should withhold love, what seems to me frankly always wrong, as it seems wrong to refrain from emotional involvement. As for the sex, if that is really a way to love, I do not see why you should hold back. I ask you a question that I would like you to answer as honestly and after thinking about it carefully: the fact of refrain from love, from the emotional involvement and from sex makes you “really” happy? If it’s so, I find it very hard to understand, but if it’s not why should we set aside happiness? Because of guilt? Love is a sin? Falling in love is a sin? Living even sexually our feeling is a sin? The purpose of religion is not the repression of sexuality but the love of neighbor. Love can never be considered a sin!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s