The Production of White Male Heterosexuality

Abstract

The Production of White Male Heterosexuality Jane Ward's Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men, New York: NYU Press, 2015Why do straight white men find so many opportunities to have sex with each other? In Jane Ward's analysis, real question is, don't they do it more? Ward's fundamental assertion in Not Gay is that sex between straight white men is a productive act, and specifically that it constitutes production of for these men and for their larger social worlds. It is logical to approach this book with a lot of skepticism: Aren't these men really gay? Aren't straight men really being exploited? Aren't straight ones who are not exploited really just bisexual? Ward addresses those concerns head on. She doesn't rule out that those explanations could be relevant some of time, but she also refuses to assume that they are final word on these sexual interactions. In other words, she is not as quick to explain away sexual component of these sexual interactions as rest of us tend to be.Not Gay takes readers on a tour of a wide range of settings in which straight white men have sex with other men, usually also straight and white, but not always. In chapter 2, she uses George Chauncey's work to introduce us to queer urban spaces of early twentieth century, spaces that afforded straight men opportunities for sex with other men. She uses Hunter S. Thompson's work to introduce us to man-on-man sexuality of Hells Angels in 1960s. Laud Humphrey's research then provides a lens into public bathroom sex of straight men. Finally, we are reminded of many religious and political leaders in late twentieth century who survived scandals following same-sex encounters, and continued to live their lives as straight men.One reaction to stories like this is to insist that these men are really gay. Ward essentially asks her readers to interrogate what we mean by word really. What is true meaning of sexual identity, and what agency do we have to define our own sexualities? Ward rejects born this ideology that has become de facto explanation of sexuality for LGBTQ folks and their allies in twenty-first century. Born this has been embraced as a powerful political strategy because it implies that our sexual orientation is programmed into us, irreversible and untamable, and must therefore be tolerated as something beyond our control. When debating sexuality with a conservative religious person, born this has added benefit of suggesting that our sexuality is a gift from God, and part of way that we are created. Ward critiques born this ideology throughout book, but most definitively in chapter 3, where she explores the popular science of sexual fluidity.Ward disputes long-term value of embracing an explanation of sexuality simply for its momentary strategic value. In a different culture, born this could just as easily provide justification for queer genocide-not at all far-fetched when we think of persecution and killing of homosexuals under Nazi reign. Why not embrace our agency and demand freedom to define our sexualities on our own terms? For Ward, is not an original or normal condition, though she does discuss how it operates as such, and it is not a classification of someone's behaviors or desires. Rather, is defined by . . . investment in heterosexuality (116). By extension, homosexuality is defined by investment in homosexuality and not simply by sexual behavior or desire. And same goes for bisexuality. Straight men are straight because they are invested in heterosexuality, even when they have sex with men-or perhaps precisely because they have sex with men.Ward is particularly fascinated by intricate rules around these male sexual practices that help to make sex with men very clearly not gay and therefore heterosexual. …