Warning! This discussion is about porn. Click links at your own risk. NSFW!
Here There Be Dragons!
The images and video cover art I show you on this post will not be sexually explicit to most people but any of the links may lead to pages that may not be politically correct and will most likely contain many examples of older hyper-masculine iconography and sexuality and subjects that many consider to this day taboo or forbidden. Please tread carefully with respect into these backrooms and archives of Gay Leather/BDSM and Gay Pornography and remember what the rabbit said.
It should surprise none of you that I should consider myself a gay dinosaur. I came out in San Francisco the summer of 1979 at the ass end of what could be called the golden era, the time before the crisis.
To me it was a time of the all night, all week, party in excess, of Saturday night Ritch Street Baths, of Hibernia Beach, of Sunday afternoons South of Market, of sexual debauchery and exhibition and exploration and individuality in extreme in full view every day and also of darker things. Young people like myself got their innocence stripped from them almost as a form of ritual, intelligent men fell into cycles of addiction and abuse. Gay sex as it turned out was not only liberating but also rough, raw, predatory and most likely selfish and later, for many of my friends, a death sentence. It was the wild west, and it was Disneyland, and it was at times a house of horrors. I won’t lie.
Anyway, this is not some pity party because I enjoyed myself too much. This is about what I was shown when I came out and how I view 70s gay porn and especially the rare hyper-masculine films I see as an entirely different creature than what we see for sale today. I can at times roll my eyes at the slick muscle bound hairless models and the brain dead politically conscientious “safe sex” of today’s porn because for me there is something missing.
I grew up appreciating a much more taboo and forbidden and experimental and raw form of the porn product. In fact none of these films I will refer to here I ever considered as simply run-of-the-mill porno. These porn stars and porn directors were not plastic ken dolls and their movie making pimps. These were gritty movies with real intelligent men performing with all the good and bad parts of gay sexuality being shown. They had a “fuck you” point of view, they had shocking erotic story lines, they were created by artists seeking to show you “the desert of the real” more than getting you to buy a product and get off on the pretty boys.
For further study please refer to my favorite websites.
My friend BJ’s Gay Porno-Crazed Ramblings blog
and
Jack Fritscher and his Drummer Magazine website
Scorpio Rising ~ Kenneth Anger 1963
This is 196 “fucking” 3 folks, the year I was born. Let me present to you Kenneth Anger, the granddaddy of gay Leather/BDSM movies and not a single thing in this video is sexually explicit. But it sure is hyper-masculine from beginning to end. In fact it is avant-garde much like Andy Warhol who was also doing his movie Blow Job around the same time.
You will see the same iconography used by a much more familiar artist Tom of Finland in his drawings.
Here is a picture of a 1964 San Francisco Gay Leather bar The Tool Box which can give you some idea how the gay Leather/BDSM scene was already in full swing. I could also tell you about the first gay porn movie which is Boys In The Sand ~ Wakefield Poole 1971 but that to me is just a stepping stone since it is the following year with the release of L.A. Plays Itself ~ Fred Halsted 1972 that things really get rolling.
Fred Halsted movies are hyper-masculine porn legends and are nothing if they are not raw and sleazy and nasty. They are “hardcore” if there ever was anything defined as “hardcore”. Fred Halsted distilled the first hyper-masculine porn movie, an original copy of L.A. Plays Itself is owned by MOMA, but unfortunately L.A. Plays Itself is no longer available anywhere for purchase which is too bad. Catch this if it ever shows up at an art movie house near you but be aware it is not nice or gentle or mainstream and I hope someone eventually gets this on DVD.
We are getting closer to some of my very favorite movies but let’s stop over and look at Born to Raise Hell ~ Roger Earl 1974 which is the very first full on dungeon gay S&M porn movie. This one is important because everything about this movie is about as real as you are going to get. Everyone in this thing actually was a known participant in the gay BDSM scene and they worked it here because this movie is considered “the one” all other gay BDSM movies get compared to. You can still pick this DVD up over at Bijou World who has a ton of old 70s gay porn by the way like Falconhead ~ Micheal Zen 1976 which is artsy fartsy but loved early gay BDSM movie from around the same era.
So let’s hit it, the BIG THREE taking the most prominent position on my gay porn keeper shelf.
I present to you The Joe Gage Trilogy.
Kansas City Trucking Co. 1976
El Paso Wrecking Corp. 1977
L.A. Tool & Die 1979
If this era ended with a big bang it was right here in these three movies it got summarized. Even though today they are mangled and cut up and shredded by various censors over time before they got the chance to be saved onto DVD format you can still purchase them. As long as you realize the definitive versions with all the various experimental sex scenes found too troubling for the general public need to still be recovered. These movies had all the hyper-masculine sensibilities of a Kenneth Anger art film filtered through the raw “in your face” porno sexuality of Fred Halsted all smashed together and laid out for three awesome chapters. In fact El Paso Wrecking Corp. is probably one of the few gay porn movies I have seen that included a woman watching and masturbating during one of the scenes. If Joe Gage thought it represented a hyper-masculine fetish from country western music to truck drivers you can bet it can be found in these movies.
Maybe for people to understand my view point you have to look at these movies and hopefully “get” why I think you cannot just cut out the sex from any discussion of homosexual culture be it gay or lesbian. As much as I think you cannot sensibly discuss Gay Lit and forget to add in such touchstone classics as The Leatherman’s Handbook or Mr. Benson. Those books are still being bought and read even today so they still mean something. These films and these books must have had an influence on the gay culture of their time unfortunately we may have lost the very people who could factually discuss their exact influences but I think you cannot simply sweep them under the rug because they happen to shock people or are considered dirty.
A discussion of homosexuality is to me inherently a discussion about sex. If you are discussing sex you better be ready to handle what you find in the guys porn collection.
Tags: Gay BDSM Erotica
Louise van Hine wrote,
hey Teddy – I watched “Scorpio Rising” from your link last night… I wish the video were better quality – now THAT was very interesting. I’m not brave enough to look at the other videos you linked here but it certainly is an interesting take on gay fiction, and I’m glad you shared your thoughts. I am getting a bit weary of some of the extremely politicized commentary of the more “conservative” gay men I have read elsewhere trying to claim that sex is not an important part of gay culture. Like – huh? And that sex isn’t important, blabbity blah. Oh it’s not, eh?
Link | July 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
I guess everyone can be called gay if you get rid of the requirement of men having sex with other men. Conservative gay people (Usually married republican senators and evangelical preachers) always have that issue about the sexuality being discussed in public. I guess that’s why so many of them are caught in those airport bathrooms and humping gay hookers.
Link | July 14th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Angelia Sparrow wrote,
When I think of “Conservative Gay Men” I think of Joe Salmonese of the HRC and all the “community leaders” who are about rights for white, assimilationist couples but the transfolk, leather folk and other freaks can go hang.
They are the ones saying “Good As You” and “don’t scare the het folks with gay sex displays or we’ll never get our rights.” The political position now is to de-emphasize the sex. Emphasize the committed couples, the cute families, the respectable people. Hide the bath-houses and leather bars and drag queens.
The problem is the hets will never give us our rights because to them it IS all about sex. They can’t think of gay people–or the preferred term, homoSEXual, six syllables, please–without thinking of gay sex. Every time we remind them we’re having gay sex, they freak a little more.
The closet cases Teddy mentioned aren’t talking about gay rights. They’re working against them and trying to get society to hold their closet doors shut and force every out person back into the closet.
I’ll watch the movies at a later date, like Friday when the kidlets are with their grandpa.
Link | July 14th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
I keep saying Stonewall was started by hustlers and drag queens. It was those who had nothing to lose who fought back against the police. The police people! That means radicals and lowlifes and druggies and other desperate folks tired of being beat up.
The minute we allow the conservatives to white wash our history and censor our Pride parades and Mayberry RFD our image making us all into good little “God fearing” Christian clones and PTA members and Sarah Palin voters we are fucked.
Link | July 14th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Louise van Hine wrote,
oh my god, everything you both say fits these folks to a t! they are taking up this ‘new’ ‘philosophy’ called “androphilia’ *after that book by Jack “Malebranche” Donovan – about “being masculine and blending in” because being gay means being feminized. I’d like to know when androgyny and femininity became epithets of the despised. And yes, these folks are all long-term partnered, having one gay partner means being more acceptably gay to them, and that the agitators for “the gay party” and “gay rights” are spoiling it for everyone because they are bitter and alone and can’t keep a man! *eyeroll*.
Link | July 14th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
because being gay means being feminized.
What above in that post in books and movies looks feminized?
I have talked to Jack and read his book. He’s smart and is all about the “fraternity of men” “brotherhood” etc etc etc.
Which is fine, that is what I enjoyed in the Centaur MC and in the Gay Leather community but my problem is that his argument only goes so far and is too much about conforming to a group that does not want to play and ignoring the homosexuality which is what will cause problems.
Where if you look at Gay Leather and BDSM in general and the hyper-masculinity you see in all those books and movies above they are all about fetishizing and subverting the male symbols and masculine images and even brotherhood traditions into the underlying sexuality that is expressed between two Gay Men. Not trying to be Straight Men or even fit in with them.
Gay BDSM is not so much about sex but celebrating extreme masculinity and even full on allowing masculinity’s power plays and roles and violence but also subverting it into something very different by controlling it through protocol and ritual.
Anyway, I always felt like he may have only scratched the surface image not seen the core because that code of brotherhood and fraternity does follow along with some of his ideas but he seems to miss the fact that they work for Gay Leather because to even get in the door of the club you had to be a Gay Man first and foremost.
Oh and sorry, but yes a lot of what I was apart of in Gay Leather events and clubs I attended did not allow women to be there Straight or Gay because um, it was sexual in nature and expected in the environment if you get my drift.
Link | July 14th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Angelia Sparrow wrote,
OIne question Teddy: if gay sex is essential for a queer identity where does that leave us bisexuals who haven’t had same-sex contact for years because of an opposite sex commitment? If I lost my man, I’d take a wife without a second thought, but it’s still been 20 years since I kissed a girl.
I think you can be gay or straight without actively having sex. The attraction is there first. My daughter knew she was bi at the age of 11. My other daughter knew she was straight at 5 (or maybe 3). My oldest son (14) calls himself “theoretically straight” since he’d much rather build an android son than deal with girls.
While I like the almost cartoonish hypermasculinity in these films, I do wish there were more options in m/m fiction than straight-acting butch guys. Of course, I’d like to see a REALLY butch top in one of those BDSM m/m books, instead of some gray little suit who needs to control every aspect of his life. But I’d also like to see more sissies, more drag-queens, more radical fairies.
I find it interesting that very few of the men in m/m fiction HAVE porn collections, while most of the guys I know in real life do. Most aren’t at the Mulder-esque level of using the tapes to build a coffee table, but they have several. I’d like to see more porn in m/m, especially in futuristics. What are people going to find erotic in a hundred years or a thousand? (I wrote a world jaded enough to use prison rape footage as porn. The prisons cut it into something semi-coherent and sell it for huge profits. Ah the joys of privatizing everything)
Link | July 15th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
One question? THAT’S ONE QUESTION?
What you smokin there? Share damn it!
OK review first what I said about bisexuality in my opinion…
http://www.teddypig.com/2009/03/the-politics-of-dancing/
Quick summary… Men are from Venus OR Mars and Women are from Venus AND Mars.
Women are more likely to be bisexual both emotionally and physically in my opinion from my experiences with bisexual men (Who are more likely bisexual physically in reference to the sexual act) and experiences with having friends who have kids (Physical proof of bisexuality if there ever was one) but say they are gay.
So now you want me to ponder all this OK…
My opinion.
I think all this talk of the fluidity of sexuality and a lot of bisexuality is a young person’s game. It’s the experimentation and discovery of your own sexuality that I think most people are talking about. Half the time when I start to hear these words I think YOUNG PERSON TALKING.
Why? Why do I think that?
Because I am not just defined by my sexuality but also my experience in knowing my self and who I am emotionally attracted to and what gender attracts me romantically with the most potential. That is why. I have nothing to prove to anyone else, I know I am not missing out on anything, wearing my gay label with pride.
As a young man (A child of the 70s) I know I have tried making out with women and all that, and doing their boyfriends to boot. Um yeah, never do that. In fact if you do distance yourself from the location of the event immediately. Just a small suggestion.
Anyway, I obviously can’t talk for women… but men, oh yeah, I think even if they are full on calling themselves bisexual they have a preference gender wise over all for which they will most likely fall in love with. Just from what I have seen and what was told to me when I asked.
So I say bisexuality in most men is a “sex act” not an “emotional state” so the proof would be for me in what gender they tend to have relationships with more often. If it happens to be men then you can most likely kick them into the gay pile for the most part.
So, what I gave was the easy and obvious answer earlier. Gay men all share in common by definition the sex with other men deal. That just is and you can’t argue it. A sex act with another man is gay. A love relationship with another man is gay.
The defining part I think comes into play with personal truths. I have always known I was gay, I would never once from the beginning have ever implied to a woman they had any chance with me emotionally. Once AIDS became part of the picture I stopped experimenting sexually. I felt compelled to stop taking sex lightly since sex with someone HIV+ has risk involved and honestly I wanted a much more emotional relationship than another one night stand. Maybe I got bored trying to prove things to myself. So my energy went into sex with men and the potential for more as a full blown relationship.
I also notice when I talk to guys who identify as homosexual but have five kids and an ex-wife. They generally tend to say they are GAY! Not just bisexual which seems to be obvious and provable by all those kids but GAY GAY GAY! In big letters. I think male sexuality and emotional attachments are more binary. Once they committed to following their sexual wants and leaving their wife and kids that was a defining moment for them.
So with the AIDS thing and the kids thing I think those situations create a defining moment for most people or at least a deep understanding of who you are and making a choice of what you want and so leads to a more defined self awareness. Being Gay or Lesbian is being self aware of what you want emotionally and sexually and knowing that is with the same gender.
Link | July 15th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Angelia Sparrow wrote,
Actually, it was 2 questions, but one was hypothetical (what will people find erotic in 100 to 1000 years?) The rest was commentary.
I’m 41, still identify as bi, but I’m female. I totally get the “Different for girls” thing. I’ve known a number of women who around my age, after a het life, fell in love with a female friend. I ran a panel at a con once called “Straight before Fandom” in which people, mostly women, discovered they were queer after and because of being involved in fandom.
I have a much better idea where you’re coming from now.
Link | July 15th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
I do have one question for you. Now I may be off here but I am just wondering…
OK, women have always seemed to me to be big on relationship and emotional stability right?
Men can be, but more often than not I think straight guys find the whole bisexual thing in a woman a mystery and a turn on.
So to me bisexuality would in some way seem to be a strike against you with another woman, especially say a self defined Lesbian, as having a bit more of a risk involved.
Is that the case?
Link | July 15th, 2009 at 5:51 pm