Response: "At Least I'm Not Gay" Emily Hunter

Response to Froyum’s “At Least I’m Not Gay” Emily Hunter

            Froyum’s piece on the heterosexual identity of poor black teens draws attention to the fact that black males growing up in poverty have very little to no alternative forms of defining masculinity.  For example, men cannot assert domination over women and other men based on economic or academic success when growing up in poverty, and are therefore left to resort only to the physical body and heterosexuality as forms of power.  Upon reading this article I could not help but make connections with “Guyland” in which the introduction explores men’s greatest fear: being gay.  It is obvious based on both “Guyland” and Froyum’s article that being gay is the ultimate downfall when attempting to assert masculine power.  Clearly sexuality is tied tightly to masculinity, thus explaining why gender is determined largely by sexual orientation.  Even more interesting is the fact that the policing of other peoples’ genders allows a person to show their heterosexuality and show that they themselves are not gay. This tight structure of both acting masculine by resisting feminine (or “gay”) characteristics in addition to policing others for exhibiting such characteristics creates a restrictive situation in which men have no room to explore alternate forms of masculinity and/or alternative forms of sexuality.

            What struck me most about this article was the discussion based on “choosing to be gay”.  A number of students believed that those who engage in homosexual activity openly decide to engage in such lifestyle and “go gay”.  Given I am a biology major, I am a firm believer in the fact that sexual orientation is (at least to a large extent) determined by genetics. For example, I watched an interview with two fraternal twins that grew up in identical environments and shared the same social interactions.  Even with the same nurturing experience, one brother is gay and the other is not.  Is it that one brother chose to be gay while the other chose to be heterosexual?  I do not believe so. Who would choose a lifestyle in which they would be ostracized from society and forced to continually justify their sexual preference?  Instead I feel that genetic differences between the fraternal twins results in the differences in sexual orientation.  The idea of sexual orientation being a genetic trait is backed by the fact that homosexuality is not only seen in the human populations but in many animals with higher cognitive functions such as apes and dolphins.  I would like to know how many others believe sexual orientation is determined genetically.

            Lastly, it surprised me that in these poor black communities, gender policing was not only related to determining masculinity, but was also tightly linked to determining femininity.  While the “dyke” stereotype can still be placed on women in more affluent communities, women do have more room to explore femininity.  For example, the pixie cut has recently come back into style in which many young girls are sporting very short haircuts.  Normally this would indicate a woman was a lesbian given long hair is obviously more feminine, but this stereotype is not necessarily the case.  If a girl were to sport short hair but still dressed in feminine attire or wore makeup her sexuality would not necessarily be questioned.    In poorer areas I feel the sexuality of the woman would immediately be questioned given there are not many ways for these women to define their femininity.