KarMel Scholarship 2005
|
“Shhh…It’s Top Secret” By
Steve Du Bois |
Desciption of Submission: “MDC submission discussing the ways in
which relationship
roles differ for homosexuals than for heterosexuals.” - Steve
I can say without
reservation that gender roles in heterosexual relationships are more clearly
defined than those in homosexual ones.
Certainly heterosexual relationship roles are less distinctly
male/female than they once were; but an inherent gender distinction and its
accompanying implications still exist.
And this distinction simply isn’t present in homosexual
relationships. There is no one person to
approach another, to court another, to make the first move, etc. This makes for an occasionally confusing,
often obscured, and what I think to be fairly fun relationship dynamic that
homosexuals can claim for their own.
Let’s ponder
together, shall we, some of the relationship givens, or so-called givens, in
heterosexual relationships that are not-so-given in homosexual
relationships. Firstly, who asks whom on
a date in a homosexual relationship? And
what implications does this request have?
Does the asker necessarily pay for dinner, or do the two go Dutch and
split the bill? Whereas the male might
be expected to initiate and pay for the first date, homosexuals can claim no
such expectations. The lack of a
dominant figure breeds confusion.
Next, how far
does a simple, dominant act like paying for dinner go? That is, once one homosexual does something
typically male or female, how wed is he/she to such dominant
or passive relationship behaviors? If I lead
my boyfriend (via gyrating hips) while dancing, do I lead my boyfriend (also
via gyrating hips) in bed? If he buys
the condoms and enforces contraception, am I exempt from future, similar acts
because that’s the role he fills in the relationship? Again, because of a lack of gender
distinctions, there is confusion in the actions and behaviors of each person in
the relationship. But…this confusion
isn’t always a bad thing…
There is much to
be said for having no gender constraints on actions within a relationship. I feel damn good about falling asleep in my
boyfriend’s arms…sometimes. Other times,
I want to hold him until he dozes off.
Sometimes I want to initiate and direct physical contact,
while others I want nothing more than to be complacent. This mixing up of relationship roles makes
for a lively and interesting dynamic.
To mix things up is to avoid falling into
typical relationship roles. Perhaps one
partner asks another on a date initially, and because it is only fair, he/she
pays. The next date, however, is
organized and funded by the other partner.
Ideally there is a fair exchange of phone calls and niceties between the
two so that no one feels typified. Surely,
these are things that are striven for in all relationships. Perhaps, however, they are easier to attain
in homosexual ones because of the inherent gender equivalence.
So…let’s fast
forward in a hypothetical gay relationship, specifically a male one (because
those are the ones I’m good at), to the fun part…when it gets sexual. Who the hell puts what where? Does the one, if one exists, who has been
taking the dominant relationship and social roles automatically become the
top? And if one is the top, does this
necessarily make the other guy the bottom?
Allow me to pause
and add an addendum to clarify for those who are confused by my gay jargon (and
because I’ve always wanted to explain the logistics of gay sex in a public
forum): the top, as we say, plays the
active, insertive role during sex. AKA
he does the poking. Usually (and
stereotypically), we associate this role with dominance and thus with the
partner who plays the more masculine role in the relationship. The bottom,
conversely, plays the sexually passive, receptive role during sex. AKA he takes it up the butt. The stereotypical associations with bottoms
include being effeminate and…well…more gay
than the top.
So, in
heterosexual relationships, there is obviously one insertive and one receptive
sexual partner (unless there is some funky shit going on there, which is cool
with me). But what
about homosexual-sexual relationships?
Is the ideal to have established sexual roles? Or is it more fun to, again, mix things up a
little? (Incidentally, one who mixes
things up sexually, who practices both topping and bottoming, is called versatile.)
The danger in
establishing specific sexual roles is that they might pervade - intrude upon - other
aspects of the relationship. If I were
the top in a relationship, I might form a masculinity complex, whereas if I
were a bottom, I might assume a more emotionally passive role...such things
that happen in heterosexual relationships.
There isn’t anything inherently wrong with such role assumptions,
sexually or otherwise. But adopting such
roles in homosexual relationships does lend itself
toward adopting further homosexually stereotypical behaviors, which lends
itself toward the perpetuation of homosexual stereotypes generally. For example, your used-to-be-straight friend
who came out to you and then became ultra-gay…he’s probably discovered the joys
of bottoming and has thus adopted the stereotypical personality traits of a
bottom – effeminate, flamboyant, overdramatic, and the like.
Homosexual
relationships, then, differ from heterosexual ones both interpersonally and
sexually. I make this claim generally,
as surely there are heterosexual relationships that aren’t as genderized as I’m
making sound, just as there are homosexual relationships that are completely
genderized. But…though neither type of
relationship has to be genderized, heterosexual ones are more often just
that. Conversely, homosexual
relationships, because of the inherent lack of genderization, allow for more
openness in relationship role interpretation.
And while this is sometimes confusing, it is more fun than anything.
And that’s the
bottom’s line.
|
|