sparkindarkness | Entries tagged with sex

Sex, sex, sex, sex, let’s talk about it, because we all know the straight folk want to. Oh I know we hear over and over again from straight folks, “I don’t care what they do behind closed doors” or “I wish they wouldn’t flaunt it,” but honestly, just a glance at the haters will tell you that straight folks are thinking far more about gay sex than we ever could.

I’m sometimes amazed by this obsession. The number of hate groups who go out of their way to search for gay porn, to try and find the fetish that they find the most horrifying. I can’t imagine spending hours of my life trawling the internet for porn I find most unappealing, I can’t comprehend what would make people do this. Some of them even attend gay sex clubs and fetish meetings, so they can find things to be horrified about.

Honestly? If you have to go to this much effort to find things about us you think will horrify people, then you’re just proving the point of how ridiculous it is to object to our presence so much.

But it goes beyond that – there are so many straight people who feel a desperate need to poke their nose into our sex lives. I’ve lost count of the number of truly inappropriate questions I’ve been asked over the years – some are blatant fetishism, some to convince themselves “I don’t do that” (whatever that is) and some who seem to be trying to freak themselves out. Seriously, if you’re that desperate to know what 2 men do in bed, go hit google but I honestly can’t imagine why you’d care.

And straight people need to seriously shut up about Grindr (yes that certainly includes Paris Hilton) or gaydar, or the many dozen other places, aps and websites out there. Yes it’s a nifty little tool that gay men use to meet each other. As such, it is so completely and utterly NOT YOUR BUSINESS straighties, it really isn’t. What would make you think your opinion is wanted or remotely valid?
Oh, and the reason why things like Grindr exist, is not just convenience (though it is awfully convenient), it’s the same reason the gay cruising areas exist (and, yes, police entrapment in these areas is homophobic persecution and damn common) it’s because it’s still hard and dangerous for GBLT people to try and meet each other. Because not everywhere has a friendly GBLT neighbourhood or gay bar, because not everyone is Out and feels comfortable in those places – and guess where the violent haters go when they want to attack us? That’s right – there’s been no small amount of our blood spilled on the steps and in the car parks of gay bars and clubs. Gods, my next “Bad News List” includes 2 gay bars which have been firebombed and they’re far from the first.

And we don’t need you to lecture us about AIDS. We know it’s a problem, ye gods we do. We knew it was a problem while you lot were calling it GRIDS and completely freaking ignoring it, while we died in droves. We know we have to strike a balance between not stigmatising people with AIDS and countering the growing impression that AIDS is an easily managed chronic disease. We know about safe sex and getting tested and all the rest and there’s probably a lot we still need to talk about within the community. We don’t need or want you to lecture us, or judge us, or screech at us. I don’t speak for all gay men but I, for one, am thoroughly freaking sick of being bombarded with AIDS lectures. The clubs, the bars, the community centres, the drop ins are plastered with AIDS messages, it’s like wallpaper. My doctor wants to test me for AIDS every time I go there. There was a gay men’s health clinic recently – did it talk about suicide rates? Mental health issues? Our high rate of Anorexia? High rates of drug, alcohol and tobacco consumption? Any other health issue we could possibly have? Nope – AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS. Aaaargh give it a rest, people are tuning out now, they’ve heard it so much.

Read More

So Ted Nugent is repulsed by gay sex But he loves us and isn't homophobic and has gay friends! (gay friends excuse, really?) but he thinks man on man sex is unnatural and icky.

I often wonder when people say things like sex involving 2 men is icky. What is it that's icky? Are they going straight to anal sex? In which case, does he find man-woman anal sex or woman-woman anal sex or woman-man anal sex icky?

Or for that matter what about oral sex? There are an immense number of gay men out there who don't have anal sex. Does he find a penis in someone's mouth icky – anyone's mouth man or woman?

I doubt it. I doubt it in both cases. Because we've seen it before – gods, a brief glance at the porn industry will tell you neither anal sex nor oral sex send straight men running covering their eyes and whimpering “it's just too awful!” – it's men having sex that is inherently icky – because it's 2 men.

New post on the bloggy thing. click on the linky

Comment here there or everywhere.

This piece originally appeared at Womanist Musings where Renee has very generously allowed my random musings to appear on her excellent blog

Much of this post deals with how lesbians and bisexual women are represented in the media, though it certainly applies to gay men when it occurs as well, it occurs far less often and certainly much more rarely than in mainstream media. I am not a lesbian nor do I think merely being GBLT makes you any particular authority on the other letters under the umbrella (something I’ve argued before). It gives you an insight, but it’s still an outsider’s view. As such, I give my impressions and how I feel but I cannot speak for Lesbians and bisexual women, do not wish to do so and make no guarantees I am getting it right.

I watch representations of GBLT people in the media with a great deal of cynicism. Most of the time it’s not there at all, when it is there it is often highly problematic and even when well portrayed it often focuses so much on the negative (homophobia, AIDS, family rejection, internalised hatred, etc) that it’s not just depressing but damn near triggering to watch. So when I see GBLTs in media or literature I tend to approach cautiously and not exactly in an open and fluffy mood.

Miley Cyrus has simulated a lesbian kiss in her latest performance on Britain’s Got talent, part of her ongoing campaign to ditch the ‘nice girl‘ image.

Not too long ago Madonna and Brittany had their oh-so-dramatic lip lock on stage.

As far as I’m aware, none of these women are Lesbians or Bisexual or anything but straight (despite much gossip in each case), yet they all engaged in on-stage woman on woman kissing.

t.A.T.u is another rather infamous example. 2 female singers from Russia that became popular across much of Europe – who pretended to be lesbians both in their music and their performances. They’re not, they’re straight.

And I look at these and find them more than a little off. Not because there shouldn’t be portrayals of lesbian and bisexual women being loving, sexual and sensual on television and in music – most certainly we need more – but because I don’t think that’s what we’re seeing here. Is this done to show lesbian sexuality? To celebrate it? To protest that it should be acceptable and wonderful and respected?

Or is it done to titillate? Is it done so straight men can speculate and drool? Is it done to shock? To prove to a heterosexist world how edgy and cool they are? Is it done so people can gawk and chatter and gossip? Is it done to hit the headlines and draw attention because it’s so *gasp* outrageous?

See this is something that preys on my mind when I watch portrayals of gay people in the media and certainly when I read books in the m/m genre and slash fiction (neither of which are particularly my habit any more). I look at the portrayal and ESPECIALLY if there is sexiness going on and I ask – what is this for?

Because owning our own sexuality, being proud of it, wearing it, being open with it and being fierce with it is a whole world of difference from our sexuality being paraded so straight folks can drool or stare.

Because portraying a gay or lesbian person or a gay or lesbian couple to show their lives, their families, them as real people due respect, love and happiness is a world of difference from portraying them so they can be viewed or read with one hand, or for shock value or as a publicity stunt.

Because there’s a difference between Adam Lambert and Lady Gaga on the one side, and t.A.T.u. and Miley Cyrus on the other.

Because there’s a difference between lesbians living as themselves and 2 women getting it on for the joys of straight male viewing.

Because there’s a difference between a book that tells the story of gay men in love, and a book that treats gay men as pose-able mannequins to drool over.

And I’m not saying that from any kind of anti-porn/erotica standpoint – I’m generally pro-porn. But recognise that not all portrayals of us are about us and most certainly are not for us. Some of them are appropriating us with varying degrees of respect – and a fair few of them are downright using us and not holding in to a great deal of respect or concern in the process.

This piece originally appeared at Womanist Musings where Renee has very generously allowed my random musings to appear on her excellent blog

Apparently, I am a virgin.
Now, this rather surprised me, all things considered. I rather thought all the sex I’d had disqualified me. It most certainly surprised Beloved when I told him (though it did paralyse him with uproarious laughter for some time)

But no, to some people I am a virgin – because I am a man who has never had sex with a woman. Specifically, I have never had penis-penetrating-a-vagina sex. And this is the only sex that counts. Yes, yes it is. (Amusingly, some of these same people also believe that, as a gay man, I am also a promiscuous. This makes me a promiscuous virgin. It’s at this point that logic just said “Seriously?!” and left the room in a huff.)

I was surprised the first time and put it down to, well, extremist foolishness. After all, the homophobes have never been logical have they? And I’m sure that no belief or stance, no matter how silly or hateful, isn’t held by someone somewhere (and that he has internet access).

Except it wasn’t isolated. Several times I have come across people who decided I had never ever had sex, or never had “real” sex, because no woman was involved in the proceedings. Often they combined it the old foolishnesses of “how do you know you’re gay if you’ve never had sex with a woman?” (I was so tired of saying “and have you had sex with a man?“ that I had to mix it up a little “have you ever had sex with a lawn mower? No? Then how do you know you won’t like it!”) and “you only need to meet the right girl” (which is several kinds of annoying when I’ve already met the right guy) that I’m sure we’ve all heard and mocked before. But still, there was a surprising number of these “the only real sex is penis/vagina sex” out there.

And then I read this little linky from the Kinsey institute. That pointed me to this study. 30% of people who took the study did not consider oral sex to be sex. 20% did not consider anal sex to be sex. That’s a pretty limited definition of sex there – and one that leaves me in the category of “not had sex.” In short, 20% of people who took this study think I’m a virgin.

And suddenly “quaint, silly, little eccentricity” becomes something rather more. It says rather a lot of our attitudes towards sex. It shows we have a very heteronormative view of sex – and a very restrictive view of sex. By privileging a sex act that is seen as quintessentially heterosexual as the only ‘real’ sex then we, in turn, lessen homosexual sex. We’re not capable of ‘real’ sex, it’s lesser sex, fake sex, not ‘proper’ sex. I can’t see this attitude as anything but harmful, just as any devaluing assumption is.

I don’t think considering only acts that try to expressly exclude gay people to count as real sex is motivated by homophobia in most cases (though the motivation doesn’t change that it is harmful), let me be clear. I rather think that it’s down to obsession with one particular act coupled with a whole lot of desperate self-justification (I’m not having sex, I’m just…) and just the general weirdness that comes with humanity’s collective horror and obsession with sex. I’m rather at a loss as to explain the full silliness of it, I confess.

I don’t know the motivations, but still, to 20% of these people, I am a virgin. And I’m not sure whether to be amused or insulted.

Preface:
(I wrote this post some time ago and when I actually got round to posting it I realised the Daily Fail had just posted a huge great slut-shaming article about music videos being soft porn and how shameful all them women were being. It was replete with oh-so-wonderful subtexts of sexual woman being ‘weak’ and ‘submissive’ because no woman could ever be powerful and sexual and be in command of their own sexuality and like being sexual, right? And that women who were sexy and scantily dressed - even if they sang about and advocated strength and independence, were terrible role models. Aw hell no. Oh and Shakira is totally wrong because even though she focuses on children’s charities and education for girls she is like nearly NEKKED, ZOMG THE dirty dirty girl, so is totally WRONG *swoon* *faint* *hyperventilate*

Anyway, that article can be found here Y’know there could probably have been some good points in that article about the obsession with and focus on sex especially with children but it was generally lost in the slut-shaming and doom mongering and sounding like your granddad muttering about kids today.

In light of this article I held off posting because I didn’t want my post about sexuality in music to be related to or seen as connected with the Daily Mail’s hyperventilating panic gasping ‘please think of the children!’

And personally, I’m not fond of the preponderance of sexy images from the MUSICIANS in music videos because I think it distracts from the music to such a degree now that it’s almost impossible to be a successful pop singer, no matter how perfect your voice is, if you don’t have a sexy body as well. Which is think is a shameful waste of amazing talent. Now on with the show, as it were)

Moderately recently I saw linked one of Lady Gaga’s music videos For her song “Teeth.” I have had to review it on several occasions to collect my thoughts. Many many occasions. In fact, I feel the need to watch it again now to make sure my thoughts are clear.

There, back. Wait... one more time.

*Ahem* yes. It is hotter than a hotter thing with extra hotness (Possibly NSFW depending on how awesome your work is).

Stay with me, there is actually a point other than my drooling. Really. Anyway, while many (female or gay male) friends of mine have been joining me in their... extensive study of this video I was surprised that some gaped in horror that Lady Gaga had made a music video that was *gasp* gay porn!

(By the way, I think I deserve a small prize for not replying with “oh silly straight person, THAT’S not gay porn *LINK* is gay porn! See? You can tell by all the cock“).

And I scratched my head at this because, yes it’s certainly sexy, but porn? No more so than any number of videos that had passed by their blissfully unaware attention. I mean, these were not just people who were happy to not even blink at:

Britney Spears Toxic (embedding disabled)

But weren’t even moved to comment by:

Which, it has to be said, are rather more porny than Lady Gaga’s “Teeth.” (And yes, I do like all of the above songs. Yes, I like the cheesy, sue me).

Which, I think, is a rather classic example of heteronormative thinking. (I think it’s also a liberal helping of sexism since women are allowed to be sexual objects but not the mens! And certainly not the mens without a woman present)

They weren’t offended or angered by the gay sexiness, I hasten to add. They didn’t run from, the room screaming “my eyes have been defiled by teh gay!!!“ they weren’t noisily sick in a corner. They didn’t say things like “that’s nasty.“ But they did consider it to be more explicit than, in my opinion, the straight (or faux-lesbian) equivalent. It’s similar to the attitude we saw over the Adam Lambert kafuffle - relatively tame sexual acts are considered more explicit when done by gay men.

Which is a point. So long as gay male sexuality is considered inherently “ickier” than sexuality aimed at straight men (women, faux lesbians et al) then gay sexuality will continue to be depicted as somehow bad and wrong - which makes us bad and wrong by inference.

And I have not made this post purely because I am childishly pleased with my embedding skills. No no I haven’t.

Ok, look, this thing so many homophobes have with anal sex? It has to stop, it’s not healthy. Look, if you want to try it I’m sure there are lots of guides and help books out there that can help you on the way (because, really, this whole tunnel visioned desperate obsession seems more and more like a desperate wish to try it) – but this obsession over it is getting so ridiculous to the point of comedy.

Let’s get this clear.

Not all gays (and lesbians most certainly for that matter) practice anal sex (some of us are so good we don’t need to practice. Yes, I had to say it, it was too tempting) not by a long shot. Nor is anal sex exclusive to gay men. Hey, some heterosexual men like it when a woman anally penetrates them with a dildo (go google “pegging” for evidence of this) and I’m sure that shocks and appals the moralists.

Being gay is not about a sex act, any more than being straight is. So, while we’re on the topic, can you also stop trawling the internet for the most graphic incidents of gay porn you can find as a way to demonise us? I can guarantee you I can find straight porn that matches the gay porn in every incidence. Do you expect to be judged by the straight porn out there? No? Then why should we be on the gay porn?

Frankly the whole tactic is demonising, misleading, anti-sex and just plain stupid and it’s past tired. Get over it alread.

Kinks, oh how I love kinks :)

See, like everyone, I have my kinks, those fun ways to push all my happy buttons. Some of it are pretty obvious - I know my kinks and am very very merry about them and acknowledging them and I‘ve probably touched on them more than a few times here.

But, in addition to the ones I know and love so much, the ultimate, all powerful “push it and I’m ready baby!” kink. And that is love.

Yes love - tender kissing, loving hugs, those little touches and caresses, that longing gaze just flat does it for me.

Awwwwwwww isn’t that sweet?

Enjoy it while you can, the angst is coming now.

See, this is my ultimate kink because for a very very very very long time it was the dream - as in, completely not going to happen. Utterly impossible. Having sex with cthulu (and no, before you ask, that isn’t a kink of mine - but enjoy the mental images) was more likely to happen than having a loving partner.

When I first came to terms with being gay and stopped trying to make it go away, I was under the settled impression that there were maybe 100 gays in the whole of the UK. Yes, I didn’t only think I was the only gay in the village, I was pretty sure I was the only gay in the county (and this is Yorkshire we’re talking about here). I wasn’t going to find love, I’d be lucky if I ever came across another gay man in my entire life.

Later, I slowly dispelled that little idea and realised, yes, there were actually other gay men in the country. But they didn’t live together and love each other. That’s what heterosexuals do. Homosexuals don’t do that. We don’t even want that, right? I was weird for wanting that (well, doubly weird). Homosexuals can’t love, it is known. The best I could hope for was one night stands, nights of cruising in public toilets and “looking for badgers” in midnight parks - because that was what gay men did. We had to hide. We weren’t allowed out where real people could see us. That would be wrong.

And then I found out there were bars and clubs where we were allowed to congregate. Gays could actually exist and be open and it was ok. I fell upon them with glee. Except, of course, I knew they were only about sex and lust. Gays didn’t love. I knew that. I’d been taught that., I grew up believing that - all we felt was lust. All we did was hook up. We didn’t date. We didn’t live together. We didn’t love each other. That was a silly dream,

And then I found out gays could form partnerships and even live together. But it wasn’t about love - it was so you could have someone close to you to have sex. It wasn’t about affection. You didn’t kiss or hold hands or hug or have lovey-dovey make out sessions. You had sex. That was the point. And for a long time I believed that - and if I found myself with any kind of partner I clung to it desperately - even if I didn’t love him. Even if I didn’t even like him very much. Because that didn’t matter - it was the closest thing I’d ever get to the real deal. (My relationship history? Yeah, we won’t go there).

Because I could NEVER HAVE the real deal. Love would NEVER happen for me. It COULD NEVER happen for me. Because gay men do not love. It was known.

And then I met Beloved. He fixed a lot of my broken assumptions. He fixed me in many respects. I was lucky. Very very lucky. And I wonder how many others are not even half so lucky.

My kink is love - the impossible dream that actually happened.

Actually I’m going to expand on my last post with something I’ve been musing on a forum recently.

I do not get where some people’s morality come from. I literally cannot picture it and cannot understand it. It makes no rational sense no matter how I look at it.

And the problem I have is this idea of sex as a moral issue. Sex is sex. Sure there are immoral ways to have sex - but these usually involve coersion, violence, force or cheating and deceit - the immorality is not in the sex itself.

I do not understand how sex and sexuality can be inherently moral issues in and of themselves. I do not understand why who you are attracted to is a matter of morality. I do not understand why nudity is a matter for morality. I do not understand why the type of sex or amount of sex or the people you have sex with or the number of people you have sex with or the place you have sex are moral issues. I do not understand why the depiction of nakedness or of any sex act can be considered a moral issue. I just CANNOT understand it. I cannot understand where good and evil and morality enter the equation.

I can understand why some sexual practices are not good ideas from a common sense standpoint - in the same way I think that juggling meat cleavers is a bad idea. I don’t think it’s an EVIL idea or a MORALLY WRONG idea - I just think it’s a damn stupid idea.

Not only do I not understand why sex is a moral issue, but I further am UTTERLY baffled why sex is THE OVERRIDING MORAL ISSUE. It trumps all others! It is like the core of moral values, the pinnacle of goodness!

To quote the video I linked again "So it's OKAY to waterboard a guy OVER EIGHTY TIMES, but GOD FORBID that the guy who could understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend." AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO THINK LIKE THIS. There are people who can make excuses and reasons to justify TORTURE one of the ULTIMATE evils but will decry someone over their SEXUALITY.

I’ve just been berated about Britain’s moral decline on a forum. I am bemused! what moral decline? We care for the poorest in society more than we used to, the most vulnerable, the most needing of help. We combat prejudice and bigotry more than we used to. We have greater value and understanding of personal rights and protections in the last couple of decades than we have ever had.

But we’re in moral decline. Why? Because of the terrible, racey, sexy shows on television. Televions programmes like Shameless, Queer as Folk, Life on Mars etc show naked bodies and couples having sex. I’m sorry, but I do not understand this. The presence of sweaty, nekked sexoring completely invalidates decades of social progress?

Hey back in the 50s women may been treated as little better than property and people of colour were treated like lesser species and we were still clinging to the tail-end of an oppressive and dictatorial empire but at least there was no nekkedness or sexoring! A much more good and moral age!

I just look at the very idea of sex being such an overpowering moral issue and my head hurts. I just can’t fit the idea into my brain

I am now going to put in a nice little cutty thing to shield your tender, innocent eyes

( Read more... )

On a lighter note because I need a lighter note, Beloved has been poking me about my rather horrific taste in mancandy. Not people I'd necessarily want to let anywhere near my bed, but certainly guys I'd like to bask in the sexiness of.

I think beloved has a rather poor grasp of teh sexeh sometimes. It's not all about looks - or not all about the total looks. I can tend to focus on one feature and go "WHOA sexeh" while he blinks and orders me to a looney bin (eyes, I have a total weakness for eyes).

But he could not see how, say, Sir Ian McKellan or Christopher Lee could be sexy. (Seriously, I could listen to Christopher Lee talk allllllll day).

Then there's the most Senior of Senior partners. Now he is in his 70s, very very overweight and jowly. Not sexy? Hmmm, but think of this. The man is an OLD SCHOOL lawyer (he's a solicitor with higher rights, which we're glad of because him not speaking in a court room? Would be a crying waste), we're talking wigs, latin and rolling perferct English. His chief hobby? Amateur dramatics - Shakespearan. And not modern interpretations, we're talking perfectly enunciated monologues in a voice that can reach that back of the theatre like a tolling bell. When he is angry the walls shake and when he is happy or exultant people want to cheer.

This? Is sexy. Mind bogglingly, head splittingly sexy. I don't care what he looks like, that voice and presence can be nothing but sexy.

And then there's some that even I can't explain - like James Cosmo when he played an aging rock star in Midsomer Murders. Watching it my mind dinged sexy. My reasoned throughts (and Beloved) yell "Are you CRAZY?"

http://www.highlanderworldwide.com/images/alumni/jamescosmo.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/satellite/9476/axemancometh4a.jpg

I sometimes wonder if Beloved is offended or finds his self esteem lowered by my strange strange tastes

Ok, a brief resume of the facts as I know them (I don't claim to be wrong). Max Mosley, who is apparently vaguely important in some kind of sporty way (possibly involving cars - here ends my sporting knowledge or interest).

Anyway, it seems for his kicks and kinks he gathers together with several stern women and they engage in various forms of BDSM - the nature of which are somewhat in dispute especially whether rough German accents were used or not *eye roll*. Now it seems a the News of The World arranged for one of these women to carry a hidden camera and expose his little activities for all the world to see.

May I have a loud Whiskey Tango Foxtrot here?! Seriosuly, exactly how is it even REMOTELY the public's business if he likes to have sex with a woman in a strap on, a Hitler moustache and a large cane singing "Deustchland Uber alles"? His sexual fantasies and activities - so long as everyone involved are adult and consenting - are his own damn business and none of ours. I don't care if there was a "Nazi theme" or not - it was a BDSM scene, you can't use that as an indicator of someone's politics! I don't care if he was whipped so hard he bled - it's his own damned business.

How is this even close to acceptable journalism? How is it even close to journalism at all? It's not like he's a family values politician telling all the world how evil sex is while nipping out to the dominatrix when we're not looking (and then that's newsworthy because he's a hypocrite - NOT because of the sex). Just because the public is interested IN it doesn't mean it's in the public interest to report it

I'm into BDSM, it most certainly is one of my kinks and I'll happily discuss it quite merrily with a range of people, including what m,y Beloved calls my "broken wiring," but I definitely would draw the line at people sneaking hidden cameras into my bedroom, let alone broadcasting it for my work colleagues to see.

There is one wonderful example of eye candy that I've never quite got - Johnny Depp

See, I've always thought he's kind of cute, but smoking hot? Never really got there. No matter what film i saw him in - and certainly never in Pirates of the Cerribean. Cute, yes. Great actor, certainly. Smokin' hot? Not really.

Then I watch "From Hell"

Ok, yes, definitely hot. Definitely smoking smokin smokin hot. Yow electrified libido hot.

Isn't it amazing what hair and clothes can do for a man?

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

Spark In Darkness

Sex sex and more sex

Sex between men!

Spark of Wisdom: Gay Love for Straight Titillation

What counts as sex?

Wait? Porn?

Homophobes: this obsession with anal sex is not healthy

Love is my Kink

Sex as an overriding moral priority

Ok possibly a TMI rant: Sex, kink and fiction

My sometimes distressing taste in men

OK, am I the only one who's several kinds of outraged about this?

Ah, now I get it...

Profile

April 2015

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags