‘Gay pornography’ explores new territory

Wednesday, January 13, 1999

‘Gay pornography’ explores new territory

FILMS: Audiences may be shocked by sense of identity, sexuality
in male cinema

We Bruin cinema buffs are regularly pleased to see our fair
campus as it appears in various movies. We are all too aware,
however, that UCLA, recognizable as it is, usually plays the role
of some fictional university. Rare are the films that genuinely
take place at UCLA. I have recently discovered a certain screen gem
that does use UCLA as its setting, and it is with great joy that I
share this serendipitous find.

In the film, a young man, Chad Hunter, leaves his buddies behind
in some vanilla, middle-American hamlet to enroll at UCLA. His
major is film, but he has no patience to wait for graduation before
making his first feature. Chad’s voyeuristic tendencies and his
housemate’s penury cause him to start a cottage industry: Chad
videotapes fraternity brothers, swimmers and football players as
they enjoy each other’s bodies. Chad’s housemates wind up enjoying
the budding cinematographer’s young body for good measure.

This film, "The Pornographer," is commendable for a number of
reasons. As mentioned, it presents the real UCLA and not some
look-alike Hollywood version. Also, it has the courage to address
buggery among athletes and frat boys (the rest of us seem too
afraid). It does not take too long for us to get an inkling of why
fraternity society is known as the Greek system.

Yes, "The Pornographer" is what one might call "gay porn."

It seems as though the last few years have been quite important
for the pornography industry. Mass-marketed "heterosexual" porn is
slowly entering the mainstream.

I do not expect any flesh flicks to play at the Mann Village
this year, but the mainstreaming of porn is real. "Normal" people
now can watch non-pornographic films about the industry, hear
porn-related jokes on prime-time television, read about the
industry in "family" magazines, and watch porn stars in their
attempts to cross over into "legitimate" film and television roles.
Maybe "good" people do not watch the movies themselves, but they do
know about porn content and cliches.

Gay porn, however, remains on the outskirts of popular culture.
A gay version of "Boogie Nights" would not receive Oscar
nominations, and I shall probably be in my grave before those
clever 20-somethings on "Friends" deign to make some quip about the
likes of Ryan Idol. This may be a case of homophobia or it may
simply be bad luck, but either way it is disappointing.

I must admit that I am not much of a fan of the phrase "gay
porn." There is little objectionable in the second word of this
two-word phrase, but I have at least three reasons for objecting to
the use of "gay."

First, it is quite common for the actors in these films to be
heterosexual (many enthusiasts find this "gay for pay" syndrome
disheartening).

Second, mainstream releases by the major studios are quite
unlikely to feature many gay characters.

My third objection to using the phrase "gay porn" in discussing
the male cinema (I much prefer this phrase) is probably the most
controversial.

While I certainly realize that these films are marketed to gay
men (although many are closeted), to call the genre "gay porn"
suggests that only homosexually-inclined men find these films
palatable.

This, I think, is utterly false. Everyone can enjoy the male
cinema. Norm MacDonald made this observation on a talk show some
years ago. It was taken as a joke, but the statement remains mostly
true.

The people who could benefit most from the male cinema would be
those concerned with sexual dynamics and their representations (and
I would hope that this includes most of us). As I mentioned, many
of the characters themselves that one encounters in the mainstream
male cinema are unlikely to be identified as gay.

It is not that their proclivities go unmentioned, but they are
explicitly mentioned as hetero. Identification of "straight"
characters, mention of girlfriends, and references to
"heterosexual" pornography seem commonplace. Just as we never hear
the word "gay," however, we never see any women, either. Our
characters seem to be heterosexual men trapped in a world without
women, and given this conundrum, they must turn to the next-best
option.

The mysteries behind this strange parallel porn universe seem
impenetrable. Is there an attempt to recapture the pre-Modern, when
male-male romps could freely transpire without affecting one’s
"identity"?

Does this all just feed on a particular flavor of male fantasy?
There is quite a bit with which to wrestle here. The complex sexual
dynamics portrayed in the male cinema seem enough to launch a
thousand dissertations for would-be analysts of analysts. Even
though I think an intellectual/social interest could be helpful in
appreciating the male cinema, certain groups may react to it for
other reasons.

Straight women would enjoy the male cinema. Most heterosexual
women do not have the passion for heterosexual pornography
demonstrated by their male counterparts.

Part of the explanation for this might be that "hetero" porn
does not place much weight on the attractiveness of its men. They
are supposed to be unobtrusive and fungible. The point of the male
cinema, of course, is to look at the men, so the men we see tend to
be easy on the eyes. Cute, boyish, buff, well-endowed men abound in
the male cinema as they never would in "straight" porn. A female
admirer of the male body could really appreciate this.

Feminists would enjoy the male cinema. Many feminists object
(perhaps justifiably) to pornography because the medium objectifies
women and encourages abuse. The male cinema, however, is a great
exception, for it cannot objectify women if it does not even bother
to represent them. Of course, if ever there were an industry that
systematically excluded women, the male cinema would be it. Perhaps
I should not play up the feminist embrace of the industry.

I am not finished. Teenagers would like the male cinema because
they tend to like anything designated as "off limits."

Religious conservatives would like the male cinema because it
could give them some good fodder for upcoming jeremiads on the
decline of America’s morals.

Admirers of camp, kitsch and offbeat humor would like the male
cinema, as it gives these terribly underrepresented aspects of our
popular culture a bit more share.

Newspaper columnists like the male cinema because it gives them
an interesting topic for exploration.

Does this cover everyone? Last but not least, gay men would
enjoy the male cinema for, well, obvious reasons.

So it seems clear that if you have not seen any of these films
you are missing something. Perhaps you should head to a video store
to rent "The Tight Man’s Burden" or "Saving Ryan’s Privates" (yes,
I invented one of these titles). You will get the chance to admire
some handsome faces and hard bodies, and you can meditate on the
sex roles portrayed (or not portrayed). You might even catch a
glimpse of your frat house (or frat brothers). Remember, you do not
have to be gay to enjoy gay porn.

Patrick Friel

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]