Abstract
American culture, both gay and straight, has a long history of believing that orientation is hardwired for males. By extension we find the belief that, except in a limited number of circumstances, a single same-sex event signals that the man is gay even if they have a long history of heterosexual relationships. For sexually conservative straight culture, this hardwired sexuality assumption effectively discourages experimentation with same-sex behavior; for gay culture the assumption that orientation is unavoidable (hardwired) makes a range of political and emotional issues easier, particularly for refuting the charge that gays recruit. Despite its usefulness, the universality of the assumption is questionable, and that’s the task Ward has taken on.
Using historical and contemporary evidence, Ward shows how the few “same-sex but not gay” exceptions are used in the culture to obscure clear evidence that sexual behavior is not hardwired to sexual identity. The exceptions she addresses are sex in same-sex institutions (e.g., prison, military, single-sex schools), sexual exploring by teenagers and young adults, sex in male hazing situations, and Internet postings for same-sex activities by straight-identified men. Using these, Ward illustrates that same-sex activity can be a part of being straight for males, thus providing a valuable challenge to the hardwired sex/identity assumption. There are, however, components of the book that raise methodological concerns and thus may warrant extra attention when using the book. The remainder of this review focuses on those components and on the broader implications of the analysis.
Author/data boundaries
One component of the book that draws attention is Ward’s revelations about her relationship to the topic. Whether authors should incorporate their own personal involvement in a topic is an ongoing debate in the social sciences, particularly in very culturally sensitive topics. In same-sex sexuality research, reporting as if the author were uninvolved (the opposite of Ward’s approach) has disguised biased research (both anti-gay and pro-gay) and/or has resulted in publication of ill-informed or insensitive and thus problematic research. Thus knowing the author’s relationship to the subject of the research is helpful in assessing the likely biases that have influenced their interpretation. However, given the just-noted history of researchers misrepresenting same-sex sexuality, it is understandable that some have questioned the relevance of a female researcher’s experience to understanding male same-sex sexuality. Since male researchers run similar risks of misinterpreting male sexuality, and since Ward’s research fits with the findings of other researchers (including myself), my assessment is that Ward has achieved a good combination of 1) showing her personal connection to the issues, 2) being sufficiently distant from the issues to be authoritative and generalizable, and 3) providing the transparency that allows readers to make their own assessments. Considering the sensitivity of these issues, pedagogical users of the book may want to expand further on issues of the author’s position in research.
Whiteness
In countries where there is a strong distinction between identity and behavior, the general population typically only applies the label “gay” to white men, not to same-sex active minority men. Since Ward’s analysis focuses on the appropriateness of the application of the label “gay” to straight-identified men who have sex with other men, she appropriately limits her focus to men from the white male population where the label is usually applied. Though it was not necessary for Ward’s analysis, users of the book may want to note that the cultural assumptions of “gay=white” tend to exclude not only non-whites, but also same-sex active men who are working class, rural, or who are (inappropriately) assumed to be not sexually active due to age.
Bisexuality
In the early days of the post-Stonewall sexual movement, the L, G, and B of LGB often referred simply to sexual behavior, and thus those who were straight-identified and having same-sex activity would have been labeled bisexually active. However, as Ward emphasizes, over time the LGB came to refer to identities. Thus, to convey the fluidity of sex, Ward avoids the constraints of using the identity-based label of “bisexual.”
Group sexual hazing
Ward uses group same-sex sexual-hazing rituals as evidence of the ability to engage in same-sex sexuality while maintaining an identity as straight. While she addresses the serious concerns about consent and rape in hazing, she carefully traces the similarities between group sexual hazing and consensual S&M. As is the case with consensual S&M, the veneer of power dynamics in sexual hazing provides an opportunity for implicitly consented and personally desired, but socially stigmatized, sexuality. Her argument fits with the experiences of those involved in S&M and of the literature on it, but considering the increasing acknowledgment of coerced male-on-male sexuality in discourse on rape, users of the book are likely to need to incorporate additional material on power, power as play in S&M, sexual ritual versus partner violence, rape culture, and assumptions of consent.
Craigslist data
Concerns may arise regarding Ward’s use of Craigslist postings as illustrations of straight male scenarios for seeking sex with other straight men. Given the inability to independently ascertain the orientation of the men posting as straight, it is reasonable to expect that some posts may be by gay men who are portraying themselves as straight. Though I did find questionable a few of Ward’s assumptions about the posters’ orientation, the majority of her analyses fit with existing research and my own discussions with straight men who are sexually active with other males. Since the Craigslist analysis is only a portion of the book, and since it provides a contemporary context, its weak external validity is not particularly problematic. Unfortunately, some of the post-publication marketing of the book has placed too much emphasis on the Craigslist analysis, leading to the impression that it is central to the book.
Concluding commentary
The clear consequence of Ward’s work is a questioning of the role of choice in sexual behavior and orientation. The reality that many men have very difficult struggles with coming to a gay identity, while others are comfortably straight-identified while interacting sexually with other men, raises the question of whether some same-sex active men are hardwired (without choice) to an orientation while others aren’t. As Ward suggests, the myriad ways that sex is experienced combined with the very strong social and religious dynamics for secrecy about sexuality make it quite hazardous to try to arrive at a succinct explanation for sexual expression. Due to the problems with identifying explanations, maybe the best approach is to shift focus away from attempts to explain sexuality to a focus on the consequences of sexuality.
Regarding consequences, Ward addresses the long-standing tension in sexual politics that has resulted in a shift since the 1980s away from the protection of behavior to a focus on an identity-based protection of the class of people, but she does not provide guidance as to how to bring back a concern about behavioral rights. Behavioral rights are important since, from a legal and physical risk perspective, being discovered as engaging in same-sex behavior, regardless of stated orientation or identity, can be used as the basis for job, housing, and other forms of discrimination, for entrapment, or for possibly deadly hate crimes. Unfortunately, since same-sex sexuality politics has foregrounded identity, how to return to advocacy for behavioral rights remains a challenge.