"UNDERTOW"
Director: Javier Fuentes-León
Trevor's Rating: 4.5 / 5 Stars

Shot on the stunningly beautiful Cabo Blanco coast of Peru, Contracorriente ("Undertow") is a quirky and tumultuous love story between a stranger and a small town local who struggle to keep their relationship a secret. You think you've heard it all before, but there's a bit of a twist: The stranger dies while swimming along the coast and his ghost is now haunting his lover. The acting is solid, with wonderful performances by both male leads. But it is the steady direction by Fuentes-León that truly shines here, made all the more impressive by the fact that this is his feature directorial debut. We were lucky enough to have him at this screening, and he is incredibly charming

I really wanted to love this film, and I think it is pretty incredible. But it just never really hit me in the gut, where you would expect such an intense and dramatic love story to hit. I guess I should have identified with the stranger in town, who wants his married-with-child lover to run away with him. He is certainly the more readily identifiable as gay of the two. But I felt little interest in him nor his closeted lover. Perhaps it is the two men's masculinity that makes me feel distant. Their's is the kind of even-keeled, easy-going masculine way of being that has always intimidated me.

Nevertheless, I can certainly recognize the beauty of this film. It's definitely worth checking out.

So I was interviewed two summers ago for a documentary on gay masculinity, Christopher Hines' The Butch Factor. It's debuting this Saturday on LOGO at 8 PM! Check out the preview below:

I see champagne and hot dogs in my future!

Live from Acapulco! Well, not quite live - but we did film this past weekend on our beautiful balcony during our Spring Break vacation in Mexico. Me and Maxime have quite a great episode in store for you, complete with frank discussions on being a femme bottom, having sex without fear of HIV, cruising, vacationing with straight friends, and having straight friends in general. Fasten your seatbelts, girls, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

Enjoy! And as always, e-mail us your questions!

And the result is nothing short of amazing:

I Facebook-status'ed the question last night, worth repeating here: Is GLEE evidence that modern conceptions of masculinity are overcoming what have historically been deep-seated fears of sissies? Some folks responded that straight men don't watch -- but I saw several straight male friends of mine celebrate their love for the show in their Facebook statuses. Granted, their in my Facebook network -- but still. Something's going on here.

There was a lot of buzz yesterday in my email inbox about the article I posted about gay masculinities. It's worth clarifying a few points:

1) I said that ToF is "highly stylized" -- but this is somewhat confusing in meaning. What I mean to say here is that it is more obvious as a performance of gender because it involves such elaborate costumes and "queer" rituals that to a hetero-eye are obvious signs of performance / difference / etc. This does NOT mean that A&F masculinity is any LESS stylized, it just means that A&F masculinity is able to present itself as more "natural" because it relies on a symbolic order that is highly hetero. Thus, guys taking it up are more able to believe it to be "the way they were born" -- even though it takes just as much effort to achieve. As I said yesterday: "Rather than the gruff, exaggerated masculinity stylized by Tom of Finland, this version was "All American" and seemed as natural and sensible as Apple Pie. Instead of collars and harnesses, it fetishized football gear and Aryan features. Indeed, it relied on a symbolic order that was not special to gay men's communities. The "sexy" found in "Abercrombie and Fitch" is just as hot to gay men as it is to heterosexuals."

2) The A&F moment is over. What I was trying to trace was a move from the 1970s to the 1990s. I would say that we need a new lens to understand why a kind of bear culture-informed masculinity has taken over as the dominant mode of gay masculinity. Bear culture was chewed up and spit out as something that looks very similar to the muscle-queen, but with added facial and body hair (and perhaps a bit more fat -- but not too much!). Now I want to note here that bear culture as it actually exists and the way bear culture has informed gay masculinity are two separate beasts. I think the fact that so many gay men have beards today is a reflection of bear culture's impact -- even though the guys with beards may not necessarily identify as such.

Hope that helps clarify quesions! THANKS for all your beautiful input over email, on Facebook, and here!

xoxoxo

Trevor

I want to propose a rather radical and highly contestable theory about Western gay men's communities. My idea is simple -- let me boil down what I'm going to say here to four main points:

1) AIDS was a cultural phenomenon and collective traumatic injury for gay men in the West;

2) AIDS emboldened the need to develop a political movement structured around an "equal rights" agenda. This agenda is founded on the idea that gays and lesbians were "born that way," and thus deserved sympathy and equality;

3) This political argument conflicted directly with 1970s versions of gay masculinity that were highly stylized, as embodied in Tom of Finland's art;

4) Thus, gay men increasingly turned to "naturalized" versions of masculinity, as embodied in the "Abercrombie and Fitch" catalogue

This is biting off more than I can chew in a blog entry -- but I wanted to get this idea into circulation for people to gnaw on for a bit. Let's begin with the obvious: Hasn't masculinity ALWAYS been a source of value in gay men's communities? The clear answer is yes, but I think this requires further examination. Let's begin with Exhibit A -- the masculinity so heralded in 1970s gay communities -- Tom of Finland (click to enlarge):

[ Image redacted - see here ]

Tom of Finland created a cartoonish version of masculinity. It's blatantly ridiculous, and yet highly erotic. This is what made Tom of Finland's art so fantastic: It was both clearly hilarious in its outrageous spectacle, and at the same time extremely sexy for the way it exacerbated what gay men love about masculinity in men. It makes you both want to laugh and jerk off when you look at it.

Others have argued as I have here, that gay masculinity in the 1970s was more self-consciously performative in the way that I see masculinity being performed today. Today it is deadly serious. Manhunt'ers take their masculinity very seriously, thank you very much, and there's little reflexivity in the way that this gets performed. Sadly, there's no clip of it readily available online, but in the documentary Gay Sex in the 70s, there's a wonderful story from a gay man recounting a story from his bathhouse days of yore. He describes two men a few booths down from his loudly performing a kind of daddy-boy scene. I can't remember the specifics, but the dialogue went something like this:

Daddy: You wanna suck this dick, boy?

Boy: Yes!

Daddy: Yes, what?!?

Boy: Yes, mary!!!!!

He uses this example to argue similarly that masculinity in the 70s was regarded by gay men as highly performative, and full of humor. Today, I don't see that humor infused into the kind of Abercrombie-jock masculinity being circulated. Rather than being exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness, it is emulated as if it is "normal," "natural," and the opposite of "performative." We can imagine this by employing the word "butch," which is archaic today because I think it connotes a kind of cartoonish and exaggerated performance of masculinity.

Thus, rather than Tom of Finland, today I see Abercrombie as the symbolic representation of gay masculinity:

Now I want to be clear: Just because this brand of masculinity presents itself as "natural" does not mean that it is fact any less performative than the Tom of Finland version. Gender -- as I understand it -- is always performative in that we are reflexively socialized into it as a system of meaning-making. Let me take a moment to explain what I mean here:

1) I think it is uncontroversial to say that there are systems of social norms that pre-date our existence as individuals -- that the kinds of options for gender that exist are largely not up to us. I didn't choose to live in an era of Abercrombie and Fitch, for instance, nor could I magically erase that as a culturally central site of masculinity-production by way of will power.

2) Second, I think it is uncontroversial to also say that we are given throughout our lives instruction about what the appropriate uptake of these norms and practices is for us as men. This varies, without a doubt, by culture / class / etc., but the lifelong socialization process (something like indoctrination, but more diffuse) is I think largely a universal experience. This doesn't end when we turn 18 -- indeed, when we come out as gay men we begin to learn a whole different system of gender that operates within gay men's socio-sexual communities.

3) Finally, but while there are social structures that limit our options, of course we are individuals that have the ability to consciously resist, co-opt, or identify with these norms and practices. This is what sociologists call "agency."

So now that I have my theory of gender better explained, let's get back to my main argument: AIDS has deeply impacted the shift I have sketched from "Tom of Finland" to "Abercrombie and Fitch." I think that gay men pre-AIDS were more self-reflexive about issues like masculinity, power, and sex. I think these men were often more aware that the kind of leatherman masculinity so heralded in this time was clearly a performance that one worked hard to achieve.

It is precisely this sense of self-conscious performance that I think left this masculinity vulnerable in the face of the AIDS epidemic. What we saw in the era of AIDS was an effort to politically mobilize by arguing that gay men were born gay -- a naturalized argument for why gays and lesbians should be given equality. I don't think it was a coincidence that this argument rose to fame at the same time as AIDS. We needed heterosexuals to believe that we did not choose our sexual predilections, because if we did then AIDS was our punishment. But if being gay was the result of some biological origin, then perhaps we deserved legal equality and some protection under the law. At least this is how the logic functions. We couldn't help it, so please help fund prevention and treatment for this terrible disease that's killing us in droves.

Because of its self-reflexive performativity, leather "Tom of Finland" masculinity conflicts clearly here with this political agenda. It is full of costumes, exaggerated sexual scripts, and something more like performance art than biological destiny. Thus, gay men needed to turn to versions of masculinity that were "just like" heterosexuals -- that were styled to obscure the effort involved in creating and living them. "Abercrombie and Fitch" proved to be just such an image. Rather than the gruff, exaggerated masculinity stylized by Tom of Finland, this version was "All American" and seemed as natural and sensible as Apple Pie. Instead of collars and harnesses, it fetishized football gear and Aryan features. Indeed, it relied on a symbolic order that was not special to gay men's communities. The "sexy" found in "Abercrombie and Fitch" is just as hot to gay men as it is to heterosexuals.

This is hopefully someone's future dissertation, so please take this blog entry as an attempt to vocalize a series of *extremely* rough ideas. I'm curious to hear if others think this theory is as plausible as I do. Are there holes here that need filling? :)

"STRAIGHTLACED: HOW GENDER GOT US ALL TIED UP"
Director: Debra Chasnoff
Trevor's Rating: 5 / 5 Stars

I have a confession: I broke down crying in the middle of this screening. This wonderful new feature documentary from Academy Award winning director Debra Chasnoff (from It's Elementary fame) features a variety of youth's perspectives on the impact of gender roles on men, women, and everyone in between.

Radical / separatist feminists have for far too long refused to incorporate an analysis of men's lives into their analysis and politics. Men, they would say, are studied in every other department on campus. Why give their lives any more attention than it already has? I believe that their brand of feminism ultimately ended up becoming the butt of jokes because of this refusal -- because men were made out to be the enemy, and because a feminist analysis gave men few tools to understand how their own gender impeded their ability to live life fully. Old school feminism made it seem like it was always easy to be a man and always difficult to be a woman. This was never true.

Straightlaced presents a new kind of analysis of gender that drops the insistence that it is women who only matter when we talk about gender. In this fabulous piece, we hear from all kinds of young people with a variety of gender presentations -- and a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds (which, as we all know, work with gender to produce variations on similar themes). It takes young people's voices and experiences seriously, which is certainly where it draws its strength. It avoids jargon. It's matter of fact. And it's incredibly powerful.

As I mentioned at the start, I had a mini-breakdown halfway through the film when they tell the story of a flamboyant young boy who committed suicide. His friends and neighbors were interviewed while planting a memorial garden, and they had colorfully painted picnic tables with messages of tolerance and acceptance. When they panned to a table painted "Hate Free Zone" with a heart around it, the waterworks started coming. I couldn't hold back. The pain of growing up as a sissy boy in an intolerant culture flooded me with emotion. In different circumstances, would that have been my story?

The tears didn't stop there. Hearing so many young people speak openly and frankly about the way that gender restricts their actions, emotions, friendships, and sexualities kept my cheeks damp for most of the film. I can't recommend this film more -- particularly for educators who can use this film as a resource in the classroom. Once released on DVD, Groundspark (the film's producers) will I believe make available a set of classroom resources -- which would be a wonderful asset to educators.

This is 21st century feminism, folks. In fact, we need a new word for this kind of analysis. Feminism doesn't cut it. (Gender studies, perhaps, though it's a bit bland I think.) But whatever the terminology, this is the direction we need to moving in collectively as folks invested in reworking and expanding cultural constructions of gender and sexuality.

Here's the trailer:

A spirited defense of gay anger from San Francisco's National Sexuality Resource Center's Christopher White. Here's a taste:

As we all know, there was a brutal campaign to support Proposition 8 in California over the past year. We had to sit and watch as advertisement after advertisement scared voters by telling them that their children would have to be taught about us in their schools and that churches would lose their tax-exempt status for discriminating against us. And we had to defend ourselves by saying that wasn't true and that those were just lies and scare tactics. (Instead of saying "HELL, YES!" you have to teach about us and our struggles in schools and that churches need to pay taxes if they are promoting discrimination and/or engaging in political activism.) We even had to watch our own anti-Prop 8 campaigns make statements about how it was okay to not think that same-sex marriage was okay but "you don't want to take away anyone's rights, right?" Fuck you.

This hurts us. It slashes into our souls and makes us hemorrhage. We are left wounded, defeated, and sometimes feel like lying down to die. Straight people - I ask you to think about what it must feel like to have your life, your very existence discussed and debated in an open forum. Forget about the negative, hateful rhetoric for a second. Just think about strangers talking about your life and debating your rights on television. Think about the public being allowed to vote on how you live or what rights you have. This alone is enough to make you feel as though you weren't as good as everyone else. Now add the vitriol and hate - sulfuric acid thrown into an open wound. Think about being told that you are worthless, sick, disgusting, horrible, sinful, nasty, and not even worthy of living. Now think of this happening every single day of your life. You might start to feel just a little angry.

When I hear stories of black transgender women being murdered and the media failing to pick up the story and the white leaders of the LGBT movement failing to speak out against this horrible crime, I feel sick and angry. When I hear stories of a lesbian dying alone in a hospital room with her partner of twenty years and biological children being denied the right to be by her side, I feel sick and angry. When I read a story about a child killing himself because he was ridiculed as suspect of being gay, I cry, and I feel sick and angry.

I get asked why I'm so angry. Now, you know. Please don't ask me to stop screaming and yelling when I hear someone call someone (usually me) faggot or dyke. I know it's not always safe to speak out, but I have to do so. Please understand that if I get pissed because my queer space is invaded by straight people it's because I need, we need sanctuary. And please, please, please don't just give lip service to gay rights and don't just show up at a march. I need for you to get pissed off. We need for you to get pissed off. When you see me start acting crazy and ready to riot, don't tell me to calm down. Pick up a stick. Start screaming like an insane person. And let's scare the hell out of them.

Speak on it, gurl. I feel you.

Read the rest here!

If you've every spent any significant amount of time on gay hookup websites, you've by now become accustomed to seeing every other profile professing a desire to meet "other masculine men" (which of course presumes their own masculinity). This of course often takes the form of the "looking for straightacting guys." But whatever the verbage, it translates into a systematic valuation of masculinity at a presumed gay femininity's expense. The message is clear: I want you to act like men are supposed to act, not like gay men are supposed to act.

As a bit of a mockery and as a direct challenge to this kind of entrenched sissyphobia, a few years ago I added to my profile the simply sarcastic statement: "Oh, and I'm totally gay acting". This is my way of warding off guys who might contact me and ask that I play into their masculinity game. I got sick of that game a long time ago, mostly because I always tend to lose. Many words could be used to describe me, but I can't imagine "masculine" to ever be on such a list.

But occasionally I get contacted by someone whose profile reads "Looking for masculine guys" or something to that effect. How to explain this? Today was a perfect example. I got a message from someone whose profile said just that, and we had a rather humorous (for me, I doubt he found it similarly amusing) exchange. I thought I would republish it here for dissection, but sadly he deleted his sent message before I could get around to it (I didn't even realize you could do that after someone had read it -- but clearly he could and suspected me, see the exchange below). But here's the basic tenor:

Him: So if we hook up, do I get inside information about your sex studies?

Me: lol. Well I doubt I qualify under your stated requirements for hooking up. But you can get access to my findings whether or not we have sex. Check out my blog: www.trevorhoppe.com [Note: I'm a shameless publicity whore]

Him: lol well I read the "gay acting" thing and I contacted you anyways ;)

Me: Well I can't help but ask why you contact me if you read that part of my profile?

Him: omg I'm going to be next blog entry aren't I? [Note: yes, you are] Maybe you should have asked about my ideas about masculinity, rather than going straight to the stereotype.

Me: I disidentify with the category of masculinity, mostly because it tends to exclude and do violence against me. In other words, I have no interest in being included under your expanded masculine umbrella.

Him: It's no longer about being included.

Me: Clearly.

Okay, so maybe I was a little too sassy. But I really get tired of seeing all this masculinity-loving crap in people's profiles when their actions demonstrate that it isn't true at all. Clearly, his profile's stated interest in masculine guys wasn't actually an empirical reflection for his exclusive desire for masculine gay men.

I won't speculate about this individual's true intentions, but I have some theories about how these things function generally. I tend to think that -- rather than related to what they desire in others -- stating that you are into masculine men is a way to shore up your own desirability vis-a-vis claiming an ability to exclude feminine men from your sex pool. It is an effort to shore up your own normalcy by saying that you are into masculine (read: normal) men. I can count on one hand the number of profiles I have seen expressing a desire for feminine men, in part I think because declaring such a desire would in fact be claiming a kind of queer desire that is not valued and actively discouraged.

This is my theory: By claiming a desire for (or aversion to) ___________ men, you are not just making a claim about the people you're interested in meeting -- you are making a claim about what kind of person you are to desire such things. I think that this is true not just for masculine/feminine, but also other politicized categories like race, age, etc. I'm reminded here of friends whose profiles say "not into Black men" -- but who in public express how attracted they are to, gosh!, a Black man standing across the room. Saying you don't have sex with Black men, I believe, is about more than just race: it is saying that you are able to make such an exclusion and still get laid; it is saying that you don't have sex with the group of queer men at highest risk for HIV; and it is saying that you wouldn't dirty yourself by sleeping with a denigrated group of people.

This may all be a bit dramatic, but I think these are the undercurrents of online profiles that we need to be exploring hypercritically -- because beneath the surface, there is a rich depth of meaning and politics operating that does not readily meet the eye.

I think we need to pause and seriously consider the proliferation of "natural" all over gay sex websites. There are many different connotations to this word that need to be dissected:

1) The most obvious -- bareback. What does it mean that "natural" is being equated with sex without condoms? Particularly in the face of a religious rhetoric that pits anal sex between men as "unnatural"? Is this a point of resistance? To whom? Public Health? Fundies? In either case, men are proclaiming not just a desire for sex without condoms, but using this framing to justify unprotected sex as fundamentally BETTER than sex with condoms -- and framing sex with condoms as pathetic / unnatural / gross / less desirable / boring / etc. We need to seriously take stock here.

2) Concurrent with the sex without condoms framing has been a rise of "natural" used by men to refer to their masculinity. Actually, to be more precise I think it's most often in reference to their amount of body hair (and lack of trimming practices) -- but it also may reference their lack of general "primping". No cologne, no deodorant, etc. The claim is often made that by not engaging in these practices, they present a kind of masculinity that is "natural." What makes me uncomfortable about this claim is not just that these guys have different kinds of self-styling practices. That's wonderful and I totally support that. But many guys who present this kind of self aren't just claiming that their practices are sexy -- but that "natural" masculinity is BETTER than / the RIGHT way to be a man. And they're of course setting it against the backdrop of the clean-shaven, twink faggot. Indeed, many times MAN is in all-caps in these ads, suggesting that a person with a penis is not sufficient -- you must meet their qualifications for an all-caps MAN. I think this is disgustingly masculinist and something we need to not just resist, but outright attack. After all, what they're really up to here is denigrating sissy guys and telling us faggots who shave that we're not good enough for their manly cocks. They're doing to us what straight guys did in high school: making us feel less valuable, unworthy, and "unnatural." Being hairy and not wearing deodorant is great, guys. But please, that doesn't make you more of a man or a better person. Understanding that is critical.

Just a few thoughts for the day!

Atlanta's gay rag, Southern Voice, has an article on bottom stigma! Well how fabulous! It's an interesting (if fairly short) piece that brings up a number of important issue. I like that they begin with a femme top's story who get's assumed to be a bottom because of his sissy gender performance, and interestingly a versatile guy who identifies as vers to avoid the stigma associated with bottoms:

Even in a city with a gay population as large as Atlanta’s, so many aspects of gay sexuality continue to be marginalized or derided. And although many gay men in Atlanta enjoy being penetrated during sex, the term “bottom” is often used as a slur the same way that “gay” is used on school playgrounds.

“They think you’re soft, or femme, or you don’t know how to use your dick,” said a 31-year-old Atlanta resident who asked to be identified as “Greg.”

“I know that’s not what all bottoms are, but that’s what people think,” said Greg, who is usually the receptive partner during anal sex, but doesn’t identify as a bottom. “I am versatile, and I do know how to use my dick, so I’m not lying. But saying I’m versatile might keep people from assuming all these other things about me, just because I like to get fucked.”

They also talk about intersections with race, and in particular how stigma around bottoming in African-American culture is particularly acute. It's provocative stuff! Read it!

(Via LifeLube)

I love this little quote from a fellow Ann Arborite:

Posting a faceless photo of yourself with a headline like, "Just looking for chat and friends" is like walking into a bank waving a gun yelling, " I'm here to make a deposit!" I also love the ever so famous profiles that declare, Don't talk to me if you're FAT, FEM or FUGLY I just stopped talking to myself

Gaymen!

Actually this isn't *technically* a quote from someone's online profile -- but a copy of a very lovely e-mail I just got from a total stranger on Manhunt. People have gone out of their way to send me notes thanking me for putting "Totally Gay Acting. UB2" in my profile. In part because it's an admittance and proud proclamation of my gayness, and in part because of its inherent critique of the "Straight Acting" pseudo-gay culture. So I got a big smile when I got this note just now from an older fellow in upstate Michigan with the subject line "You Rock!!":

Let me just say. I'm a little older than you're looking for, but I just have to tell you how nice it is to see a young man proud to say "totally gay acting" I love you all. I'm very butch and masculine, men like you represent something I only wish I could be. hugs

Aww, thanks! So sweet!

A new study out of England and Germany points to another genetic variation that may predispose some to baldness. The common trope has for years been to check your mother's father and see if he's bald. If not, you're in good shape. But this has never actually been 100% accurate. The new link they've found is actually not on the X chromosome (where the previously discovered one was) -- but on chromosome 20, which everyone has two copies of (one from mum, one from pop):

New genetic links to male pattern baldness have been discovered by researchers in England and Germany.

It's the second genetic connection to the kind of hair loss that many men -- and women -- experience as they grow older, said Felix F. Brockschmidt, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bonn and one of the authors of a report published online Oct. 12 in the journal Nature Genetics.

"The first gene known until now is on the X chromosome," Brockschmidt said. "It is the most important for alopecia [hair loss]. We are sure that this new locus we found is the second most important."

The discovery could open the way for genetic tests to single out men most likely to lose hair as they age, Brockschmidt said. "Screening for the X chromosome locus and also for this new one can possibly show the risk of male pattern baldness," he said.

[snip]

That test looks at variants of a gene governing receptors for androgens, which are male hormones. That gene location, on the X chromosome, was identified only a few years ago. A man has only one copy of the X chromosome, inherited from his mother. The new gene locus is on chromosome 20. Men and women alike have two copies of chromosome 20, inherited from both father and mother.

[snip]

"If you don't have the genes, there is a negative predictive value of 96 percent," he said. "If you do have the genes, there is a positive predictive value of about 14 percent."

This is my GREATEST. FEAR. EVER. I mean, don't get me wrong. Some guys look hot bald. But I've shaved my head before. It's.... lumpy. Ugh. And mole-y! Eek!!! My mom's dad has a full head of great thick silver hair. I've got my fingers crossed!

Parents are in town -- so busy keeping them busy. But I couldn't help but to post this video montage of emo boys making out. God bless angsty skinny boys with chopped up dark hair. Oof. Where's the porn genre to follow?

(Click to Enlarge)

I wish I was going to be in San Francisco next Wednesday! UCSF's Center for Gender Equity will be presenting a night of spoken word, monologues, music, dance, and discussion under the banner of the "Men's Story Project." The flyer (above) says that it will be a:

A powerful night of men's true stories examining social ideas about masculinity. Topics include sexuality, identity, friendship, family, culture, HIV/AIDS, violence, rites of passage, transformations, and more

If anyone goes, bring a copy of Beyond Masculinity to share!

This hot little twinkazoid is obviously very concerned with his masculinity:

I'm a very str8 acting dude. I"m str8 acting and looking for someone whos good looking and in shape... and is also str8 acting. Not sure what i'm actually looking for nothing lol ... just here bc i'm bored!

Not just once. Not twice. But three times he invokes the phrase! Oy vey! I got tired of this shit years ago and started putting in my profile "Totally Gay Acting Here. UB2."

I love that gay men can unironically select those two boxes. Not that the two are necessarily contradictory, I suppose, but I mean the root of bitchy -- "bitch" -- is at root a gendered female noun. I think what's actually going on here is that sissies aren't willing to self-categorize as "Feminine," and instead I'd imagine the vast majority of Gay.com users ID as "Masculine / Butch." It's no fault of their own, really, but rather a gay culture that privileges masculinity on high while scrambling to conceal / cloak / disown femininity.

When guys ask me if I'm masculine in the first few minutes of an online conversation, I say goodbye. Because there's only one right answer -- no matter how much of a fag you are in real life. I'm not willing to play that game anymore.

Sigh.

My dear friend Bonnie Zylbergold interviewed me recently for her webcast titled, "Getting it on with Bonnie" as part of her work worth with the National Sexuality Resource Center's "American Sexuality Magazine." Our interview is really quite funny and fabulous. We chat about my "Beyond Masculinity" project; my life growing up queer; masculinity and gay men; and the gays in general. Ch-Ch-Check it out!

I was honored to be hired by the eminent sociologist Dr. Michael Kimmel to design the website for his new book, "Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men." I do web design from time to time to bring in some extra cashflow, but this was an amazing opportunity to work with someone I admire so much!

The book looks to be quite excellent, with Gloria Steinam saying ""Michael Kimmel's Guyland could save the humanity of many young men—and the sanity of their friends and parents—by explaining the forces behind a newly extended adolescence. With accuracy and empathy, he names the problem and offers compassionate bridges to adulthood."

It's in stores next week! Check it out!