The Format of this blog seems to stump many people. The template was created by Josh Peterson and tweeked by me, it is a 2 column blog where the right column is also split into 2 columns. It aslo has a single column at the bottom with additional 2 columns below that. Every thing in these columns are links to other pages or sites as well as the links we add in the post themselves. If you wish to leave a comment you must do so on the individual post which can be found under the Blot Archive.

This is only the Blog for the website SavageTalonsMedia. Please feel free to look around and let us know what you think.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Pito Savage - Wash That Ass...

Few scene shots from soon to be released flick.

Rick Talons - Showing My Ass Again!

LOL, No it's not what you think - Pito loves to take pictures of me while I'm asleep.  Not sure if it's because I look good laying there or if it's because I'm quiet.  LOL

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Searching for the Gay Masculinity

Searching for the gay masculinity may seem, on the surface, like a fruitless journey.

Our society, through the use of ubiquitous stereotypes and attempts at humor, depicts the
homosexual man as completely lacking masculine characteristics. R. W. Connell notes that
our “[p]atriarchal culture has a simple interpretation of gay men: they lack masculinity.”

However, it is by searching for the possibility of gay masculinity that we will break down
these gender stereotypes, allowing for an unbiased, more complete understanding of gender.
In the attempt to find this supposedly ‘subordinate,’ gay masculinity, we must first explore
the given definitions of masculinity. This task of defining masculinity can be quite difficult.
On a basic level, masculinity is understood to be one part of a dualistic gender structure.

However, even when we acknowledge masculinity as part of a larger gender structure, we
still tend to view manhood as an eternal, timeless, and inherent component of every man’s
identity. The majority of laypersons still see gender from this essentialist viewpoint, that is,
that the qualities of gender are innately given. However, there has been much theory that
paints gender in a different light. This theory shows gender to be a construct of our
interactions with society. This constructionist view depicts gender, and therefore
masculinity, in a state of flux, changing with every shift in definition of our relationship with
ourselves, with others, and with the rest of society. Looking at gender through this
constructionist lends will aid in locating the gay masculinity. However, even when we
acknowledge the fluidity and constructive nature of gender, we still do not have a firm grasp
on the meaning of gender, or masculinity. This definition can be found by contrasting
different types of masculinity, namely heterosexual and homosexual masculinities.

Foremost, masculinity is inherently linked with the institution of heterosexuality.
The concept of gender implicitly refers to sexuality and the roles one assumes within that

[O]ne of the most obvious characteristics of masculinity is heterosexuality.
The definition of gender spontaneously implies sexuality, who does what and
with whom.

The sexual aspect of masculinity depicts manhood as sexually dominant, active, controlling,
and above all, as penetration. The fact that masculinity is rooted in the institution of
heterosexuality leads to specific meanings of gender. Judith Butler explores these meanings
and their relationship with heterosexuality, through what she refers to as the “heterosexual

[The heterosexual matrix is a] hegemonic discursive/epistemic model of
gender intelligibility that assumes that for bodies to cohere and make sense
there must be a stable sex expressed through a stable gender (masculine
expresses male, feminine expresses female) that is oppositionally and
hierarchically defined through the compulsory practice of heterosexuality.

Within this heterosexual matrix, gender must take a specific path; that is, a male must be
masculine and therefore attracted to the feminine (female); a female must be feminine and
therefore attracted to the masculine (male). In other words, opposites attract. When a
person is assigned a specific biological sex at birth, they are not only given a certain gener
role; they are also prescribed a particular sexual script. Not only does this gender script place
restriction on the gender roles of heterosexuals; it also creates quite a paradox for
homosexuals. This paradox is as follows; if masculinity is based on the act of penetration,
then gay men (those who are perceived as penetratrated) are inherently not masculine.

However, if gay men are attracted to each other, then there must be a gay-masculine and a
gay-feminine, a duality of oppositional gender, that results in this attraction. In other words,
one aspect of the matrix defines homosexuals as non-masculine, whereas another aspect
points directly to masculinity. R. W. Connell goes on to describe this paradox:

[O]pposites attract…If someone is attracted to the masculine, then that
person must be feminine—if not in the body, then somehow in the mind.
These beliefs are not particularly coherent (for instance, they have difficulty
with the fact that gay men are attracted to each other) but they are pervasive.
Accordingly they create a dilemma about masculinity for men who are
attracted to other men.

Not only is masculinity a dilemma for gay men, it also seems to be completely antithetical to
the homosexual’s existence, in that masculinity is seen as strictly heterosexual. In this sense,
gay men are seen as failing in the attempt of embodying masculinity. Don Conway-Longway
explores the results of this perception of failure:

[I]f a man fails or a group of men fail to live up completely to the hegemonic
rules of global and Western-defined masculinity, then and therefore he or
they have no masculinity worth studying of his or their own, nor is it
interesting even to wonder why or how he or they construct difference
within the category male/masculine. The recognition of difference ‘within’
this gendered category called masculinity and an identification of the plurality
of masculinities are the beginnings of the deconstruction of the dominant
masculine [beliefs], because the struggle among men is equally important as
the struggle for dominance over women and children.

Don Conway-Longway points out that gay men may not have failed at all, but rather, society
has failed to recognize the plurality inherent in masculinity. So that we may more fully
understand this plurality and how homosexual men may exist within the framework of
masculinity, we first must explore the dominant form of masculinity.


Hegemonic masculinity is the current, dominant form of masculinity within a society.
This type of masculinity can only exist within a patriarchal structure in which men control
the dominant position in the relation between the sexes. Connell explains:

Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender
practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the
legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the
dominant position of men and the subordination of women.
Normative Masc.)6

Also, hegemonic masculinity is a particular variety of masculinity to which other
masculinities—among them young and effeminate as well as homosexual
men’s—subordinated. In fact, only one type of man fits the definition of hegemonic
masculinity, that is a white, straight, upper middle class, college educated, gainfully employed,
Protestant, father, of good complexion, weight, and height, and a recent record in sports.
This definition does not apply to the majority of men, and thus, most men feel inadequate in
their gender identity. Michael Kimmel relates:

As a collection of dos and don’ts, the male sex role [is] a recipe for despair,
given what it [takes] to be a real man, few, if any, men could live up to the
image, and hence all men…feel like failures as men. What’s worse, the
psychological costs of trying to live up to the image…lead[s] men into lives
of isolation and despair, of repressed emotion and deferred dreams.

It is clear that the framework of hegemonic masculinity is incompatible with, and
unattainable for, most men. Unfortunately, this dominant masculinity is the ultimate goal,
and the standard by which most men measure their own sense of masculinity. Therefore,
the current structure of gender identification for males is fragile and exists as an unrealistic
framework in which men can define their self-identity.

It is not only the dominant, hegemonic form of masculinity that exists in this fragile
state. Other masculinities are also unstable as a result of how they are defined. As pointed
out above, the definition of masculinity remains quite elusive. This intangible nature of
masculinity is primarily the result of this gender identity being based on an anti-definition.

Michael Kimmel describes the relational nature of the masculinity with respect to femininity:
Masculinity and femininity are relational constructs…Although ‘male’ and
‘female’ may have some universal characteristics…one cannot understand the
social construction of either masculinity and femininity without reference to
the other.

Masculinity only exists in contrast with that which is feminine. Not only is masculinity
rooted in contrast to femininity, it is a complete renunciation of everything feminine.
Kimmel elaborates:

Masculine identity is born in the renunciation of the feminine, not in the
direct affirmation of the masculine, which leaves masculine gender identity
tenuous and fragile…This notion of anti-femininity lies at the heart of
contemporary and historical conceptions of manhood, so that masculinity is
defined more by what one is not rather than who one is.

This process of defining masculinity as that which is not feminine is impressed upon people
in our society at an early age. Ruth Hartley, a child psychologist, noted this process while
studying young children 1959:

[she] realized that a little boy defines himself primarily negatively, that males
generally learn what they must not be in order to be masculine, before
learning what they can be, that many boys define masculinity simply as what
is not feminine.

We are socialized as children and then continue to develop our self-identity in a society that
perpetuates this relation between femininity and masculinity. Through this realization we
can find the answer to Conway-Longway’s question:

Why do so many forms of masculinity seem to view their ‘maleness’ as so
fragile, so much of an attainment, so often a goal sufficiently beyond an
individual man’s reach that it keeps him struggling on for a lifetime?

It is the inherent anti-definition that affects the stability of masculine identification. This
view of masculinity as fragile is firmly based in our society’s notion that manhood is based
on anti-femininity.

In addition to this anti-definition, the need for a man to
identity is integral to our society’s view of gender. It is common for a biological male to be
told to ‘act like a man.’ Elisabeth Banditer expands on this concept:
Being a man is expressed more readily in the imperative than in the
indicative. The order so often hear—‘Be a man’—implies that it does not go
without saying that manliness may not be as natural as one would
think…Being a man implies a labor, an effort that does not seem to be
demanded of a woman. It is rare to hear the words ‘be a woman’ as a call to
order, whereas the exhortation to the little boy, the male adolescent, or the
adult male is common in most societies.
actively assert his masculine13

It is as if feminine is the default and masculinity must first be created then sustained, forces
against that which is natural.
masculinity and leaves the construct of manhood susceptible to threat. That threat must be
guarded against; this stronghold is usually built from the tenets of heterosexuality. Jeffrey
Weeks describes the threat to this tenuous fortitude:

Masculinity or the male identity is achieved by the constant process of
warding off threats to it. It is precariously achieved by the rejection of
femininity and homosexuality.
14 This opposition to nature results in the instability of15

Men are constantly grasping for their manhood, just out of reach, while fleeing from the
‘destructive’ powers of femininity. Femininity is seen as the ultimate evil, in both women
and others who are seen as feminized (e.g. homosexual men). This view is a result of the
patriarchal structure of our society, placing men in positions of power, while women are
forced into subordination. In fact, the patriarchal gender order is an uderpinning element
that shapes masculinity. R. W. Connell explains:

A culture that does not treat women and men as bearers of polarized
character types, at least in principle, does not have a concept of masculinity
in the sense of modern European/American culture.

Thus, the same dualistic gender structure that gave rise to this anti-feminine masculinity is
also the cause of its inherent fragility.

This fragility extends beyond masculinity’s anti-feminine definition into the idea that
men are most afraid of other men. Kimmel describes this fear:

Throughout American history American men have been afraid that others
will see us as less than manly, as weak, timid, frightened. And men have been
afraid of not measuring up to some vaguely defined notions of what it means
to be a man, afraid of failure.

Kimmel quotes John Steinbeck’s
the eyes of the character of Curley’s wife:

‘Funny thing,’ [Curley’s wife] said. ‘If I catch any one man, and he’s alone, I
get along fine with him. But just let two guys get together an’ you won’t talk.
Jus’ nothin’ but man.’ She dropped her fingers and put hands on her hips.
‘You’re all scared of each other, that’s what. Evr’one of you’s scared the rest
goin’ to get something on you.’
Of Mice and Men to explore this fear amongst men through18

This fear of not measuring up to the prescriptions of manhood is apparent in many aspects
of our society. From the competition in the sports and business worlds to the playgrounds
of our youth, men are in constant fear of one another. Men are constantly ‘sizing up’ the
other men around them. Looking for acceptance and fearing rejection, men demonstrate
their masculinity in order to gain approval from other men.

Rather than affirming a positive identity, men must react negatively to all that
surrounds them, the femininity of women, and the masculinity of other men, all the while
striving for an unstable masculinity. The fact that masculinity is constructed from that which
is not feminine creates an anti-identity for men. Masculinities adhering to an anti-feminity
definition compound the fragility of the hegemonic masculinity.

Gay Masc. is Found in the rubble of the Normative)

We have now realized two important concepts: masculinity is learned and
constructed, and it is tenuous and fragile in its current state. Thus, masculinity is able to
change and can be rebuilt, as if comprised of the wooden blocks from our childhood. This
process of gender identity construction points us in the direction of the elusive gay
masculinity. The simplicity of this process is only available to those who recognize the
constructed nature of masculinity in the first place. Because heterosexual men are embedded
in the gender matrix, they are blind to this constructed nature. It is as the Chine proverb
says; “the fish are the last to discover the ocean.” This point is where the inability of gay
men to exist within the heterosexual matrix of gender construction comes into play.
Because homosexuals are inherently outsiders to the structure of masculinity, they are able to
engage with gender in ways unavailable to those entrenched in the dichotomous gender
system (i.e. straight men). Gay men spend their entire lives in direct opposition to the
dominant sexual and gender paradigms. This opposition causes gay men to analyze, and
reanalyze their personal concepts of gender and masculinity. Heterosexual men are less
likely to experience, and therefore less likely to benefit from this self-reflection. Connell
explores the ramifications of the contradictions that gay men have with the dominant form
of masculinity, causing this self-reflection:

Homosexual masculinity is a contradiction for a gender order structured as
modern Western systems are…[For gay men, this] contradiction has been
realized, has even become routine. The apolitical outlook of the group itself
demonstrates the stabilization of a public alternative to hegemonic

Indeed, this contradiction with the gender order is absolutely realized and routine for gay
men. The very act of defining oneself as homosexual calls for the realization, and ultimate
rejection of the dominant gender sexual paradigms. Every subsequent expression of that
homosexuality results in the realization/rejection process once again. And thus, the
contradiction becomes routhine. This repetitive introspection leads to, as Connell says, a
stabilized, alternative masculinity.

Once gay men establish this alternative to hegemonic masculinity, they are free to
push the boundaries of the original definitions. In fact, there are times when homosexuals
are able to achieve a sense of manhood that is closer to the hegemonic definition than
straight men ever obtain. Kimmel notes the occurrence of this phenomenon at the birth fo
the Gay Liberation Movement:

The gay liberation movement posited a strong riposte to the facile equation
of homosexuality and masculine gender identity and made the counterclaim
that gay men were as much ‘real’ men as straight men. Following the
Stonewall riots of 1969, in which gay men fought back against a police raid
on a Greenwich Village bar, and the subsequent birth of the Gay Liberation
Movement, a new gay masculinity emerged in gay enclaves of America’s
major cities. In these ‘gay ghettos,’ the ‘clone,’ as he was called, dressed in
hypermasculine garb (flannel shirts, blue jeans, leather) and had short hair
(not at all androngynous) and a mustache; he was athletic, highly muscular.

In short the clone looked more like a ‘real man’ than most straight men.
The hypermasculine essence of gay manhood extends beyond mere appearances. Kimmel
goes on to describe the sexual nature of this hypermasculinity:

And the clones…enacted a hypermasculine sexuality in steamy backrooms,
bars, and bathhouses where sex was plentiful, anonymous, and very hot. No
unnecessary foreplay, romance, or postcoital awkwardness. Sex without
attachment. One might even say that given the norms of masculinity (that
men are always seeking sex, ready for sex, wanting sex), gay men were just
about the only men in America who were getting as much sex as they

Thus, it is realized that gay men, who were once locked outside of the dominant gender
paradigm, have found a way to break past those walls and capture the previously
unobtainable, sexually dominant, anti-feminine masculinity. However, at the same time, this
masculinity is realized for what it is: a constructed fa├žade. The label of ‘clone’ depicts the
realization of the costume-like nature of gender. This flannel wearing, sexually centered
masculinity is manufactured like so many Barbie® Ken dolls, a series of clones. (talk about
how the hypermasculine image has shifted over the past 20 years)


But does the realization of masculinity as manufactured lead to a stable form of
gender identification? The answer to this question can be found within the paradox that gay
men originally faced with respect to the heterosexual matrix. Within that matrix gay men
were defined as non-masculine (in that they are perceived as penetrated, the ultimate offence
to masculinity). Being seen as non-masculine, on any level, allows for a connection with
femininity. It is this connection with femininity that adds stability and offsets the above
negative aspects of gay masculinity. Kimmel explains this connection and its affects on
homosexual gender identity:

A few [sociologists] suggested that gay men had already achieved such
contact with their feminine sides, which explained what they took to be gay
men’s relative ease with intimacy, sensitivity, and emotion. Perhaps
homosexual manhood could be a model for heterosexual men, who were,
they suggested, still stifled by homophobic fears of expressing emotion or the
need for physical contact with other men.
Beyond the Gay Masculinity)22

Because of their life long opposition to heterosexual gender, gay men realize the constructive
nature of gender, as if it were a game of fluidity.

Because gay men are able to embrace their femininity, they are ultimately able to stabilize
their gender identity as a whole.

Connell, R. W. Masculinities, Berkeley, Calif. University of California Press 1995. p. 143
Badinter, Elisabeth. XY on Masculine Identity, New York. Columbia University Press 1995. p.97
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York. Routledge. 1990. p. 151
op. cit. Connell, R. W. p. 143
Conway-Longway, Don. “Ethnographies and Masculinities” In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), TheorizingThousand Oaks, Calif. SAGE Publications, Inc. 1994. p. 63
op. cit. Connell, R. W. p. 77
Goffman, Erving. Stigma, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall, 1963 p. 128
Kimmel, Michael. Manhood in America, New York. The Free Press. 1996. p. 281
Publications, Inc. 1987. p. 12
Kimmel, Michael. Changing Men, New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity, New Park, Calif. SAGE
Kimmel, Michael. “Masculinity as Homophobia” In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing Masculinities,
Thousand Oaks, Calif. SAGE Publications, Inc. 1994. p. 126-127
op. cit. Badinter, Elisabeth. p. 32
op. cit. Conway-Longway, Don. p. 62
op. cit. Banditer, Elisabeth. p. 1-2
all fetuses would develop into females.
It is interesting to note that during fetal development female is the default. Without the required androgens,
Paul. 1985. p. 190
Weeks, Jeffrey. Sexuality and its Discontents: Meanings, Myths, & Modern Sexualities, London. Routledge & Kegan
op. cit. Connell, R. W. p. 68
op. cit. Kimmel, Michael. 1996. p. 6
Steinbeck, John. Of Mice and Men, New york, Scribners, 1937. p.57
op. cit. Connell, R. W. p. 162
op. cit. Kimmel, Michael. 1996. p. 279
ibid. p. 27922 ibid p. 284