It's all in how you take it... It doesn't have to hurt!

I have heard words like 'faggot' and 'queer' countless times (ironically not usually directed at me, even when walking on the street holding hands with my bear) and I am hardly surprised or offended. In fact, I have come to terms with most terms and have no problems with them.

A long time ago, when my sister was around 13 or 14, she came home crying one day and said she was very angry 'cause in her school someone said I was a homo... I looked her in the eye, smiled and said: "Well, I am. And you have known that for a while too." I will never forget the expression on her face when she realised it was true and said "oh, right!" - she didn't have any more problems since then.

Funny how this works, huh? I think that, although most of these terms are intended as an offense, it depends on how we take them. When someone says stuff like "pillow-biter" or it's opposite, I just think "well, yeah! Sometimes. So?". I can't help but picture myself calling a heterosexual man something like "pussy-lover!" - they would probably smile and say "hell yeah!".

Why can't we be proud of our own sexuality and start learning to accept it ourselves? I think it's quite ironic that we complain about people rejecting and judging us when the real problem is in how we take things... Most gay men know that if it hurts, you're most likely doing it wrong! 

Masculinity (part 2) - The passive side of our sexuality

I was reading today about sexuality and the many factors which make it such a complex issue. One of the most fascinating things I revised was the dichotomy of its supposed 'passive' and 'active' sides.

First, I must clarify something: in Spanish -Mexican Spanish, that is- instead of classifying the two 'opposite' sexual roles in top and bottom, we call them active and passive respectively... This makes a lot of sense... Right? Well, no, I actually do not think so.

I commented in a previous entry that some people claim they are "100% passive" which, to them, means that they just lay there and wait for someone else to do all the work.

Now, this book about gender studies and sexuality had a very interesting discussion on this topic. It said that all things feminine are usually associated with passivity, such as tenderness, being sexually receptive, virginity and chastity; this, in turn, is related to decency and high morals - a woman should not initiate the sexual relationship and must be receptive to her man's desires and pleasing. On the other hand, men are conceptualised as being 'active'; in fact, a man's virginity is not at all desirable, being mocked and ridiculised - there was a phrase I found quite accurate and went something like this "in bed, like in all sports, dominating and being the strongest is what counts".  This also means that men who refuse to have sex are seen as mediocre or incapable, which puts a lot of pressure on their performance and generates the idea that their value lies in their ability to comply.

Thus, most of us (men) see our bodies as merely a tool, an instrument through which to achieve our goals; our success is measured by financial stability and independence, a very active sex life or pure domination of others. This can be seen in that most men in our culture refer to their bodies as "the body" and not "my body"...

From this, an even more complicated topic arises: very rarely does nature actually have 'opposites', rather we humans classify the things we see in such categories to make it easier for our understanding (a dog is IN NO WAY the opposite of a cat, yet it is the first thing that comes to mind)... So, when we see male and female (biological sex) we see them as opposites and, when translated into the socially acquired 'gender', we see masculine as whatever is NOT feminine.

What happens then to those men who become 'passive'?

I have seen that they tend to put themselves in a fully-feminine stereotype finding it impossible to balance both parts. This becomes intricate in a community where men are supposed to be 'masculine-looking' (whatever that means); doesn't this become a paradox in itself? How can a man stay in the 'masculine' active stereotype and still play a feminine role?

My answer is quite simple: these two concepts are misused, abused and, in short, just plain useless. I think it is time we stop trying to follow old stereotypes that don't really fit us. Accepting that we are men (and I specify this because of the demographic I am referring to, but it of course applies to women) with individual features that may or may not meet the requirements of a specific gender. I think being 'active', assertive, energetic and passionate in bed is completely unrelated to being a top or a bottom.

Any thoughts on this?