by William S. Dean
(08/23/06)
Benoit Denizet-Lewis, a contributing writer at the New York Times Magazine, recently informed readers of Slate about the growing number of young Caucasian men usurping yet another of Black American culture's icons, the Down Low. As the sexually hip already know, the Down Low, or DL, is behavior in which masculine-oriented Black men act bi-sexually. That is, they have female girlfriends or wives, yet sneak around for male-male sex encounters. By this subterfuge, such practitioners claim they are not gay. This is perhaps a true statement. They are bi-sexual. And yet...such practices call into question what exactly we mean by bi-sexual, don't they?
We always seem to be re-defining sexuality, partly because sex education is so closely allied to social mores which are, in turn, influenced by religious standards (read personal guilt). If, by sexuality, we simply mean sexual activity, devoid of emotional attachments, that's one standard. But how are we to interpret properly, for example, the "couplings" that take place in jails and prisons for the duration of a sentence? If an imprisoned "straight man" takes a "cell-bitch" while incarcerated, has he "turned gay" or is he merely taking the route of sexual expediency? If a black man is on the DL, but (as most claim) it's only for the sex with no emotional commitment, is he gay, bi-sexual, or simply pulling the wool over his own (and his partner's) eyes about his promiscuity and exploitation?
While some enclaves of our spinning globe openly accept same sex liaisons, in others nothing has changed in millennia. Promiscuous gays still "secretly cruise" parks and public restrooms looking for anonymous sex. Or they hang out along public routes -- much like undocumented workers -- waiting for a pickup. Since there is usually no long-term emotional attachment involved in these "trysts" -- just the usual suck-fuck, thank you, Buck -- we can legitimately ask: Are they gay or just promiscuous? It's not looking for love, it's simply looking for sex, right?
Curiously, we are living in a "sluts rule" form of society, sexually speaking. Or, at least, this is the extreme form of rejection of the "virgins rule" society fostered by The Establishment. On one hand, we have abstinence promoted as the social ideal, while the other hand job is all about easy, casual sex. What a dichotomy!
As usual, the middle-ground is a muddle of confused and confusing sexual attitudes. Intelligent and thoughtful people are questioning why we even need labels and definitions. Maybe it's time to toss out all the old school ways of defining ourselves as one or another of an extreme sexual "type." Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, straight, kinky, alternative, fetishist, or what have you are only terms of convenience, but the shifting borders are demonstrating that (as we always knew) sexuality is as varied as the individuals practicing it when and if they do so.
Socially or politically, it can be valuable to identify oneself beneath a particular label, but there is also the major danger of being "locked down" into stereotypical behavior because of the label you've chosen. Or, in the case of the Down Low, are avoiding.
Black men, according to Benoit Denizet-Lewis's article in Slate, associate "gay" with effeminacy. To maintain their own sense of masculinity, the DL guys -- many of whom still use pejorative slang to identify gays -- refuse to accept a broader spectrum of what "gayness" is. Muscle-to-muscle gays, these days, are as prominent as any other form of couple, so this "black culture" attitude is very old school. It's also very exploitative when, as in most cases, the DLs are only "pitching" not "catching." As more young Caucasians join the ranks of the DLs, they're perpetuating an "I'm a real man, you're a usable freak" mythos which is hardly different from -- and perhaps even worse than -- the standard prejudicial attitudes of straight men from days gone by. What kind of denial are these DLs involved in? When the attitude is "I'm a straight man but I'll let a gay guy suck my cock because I'm horny but deny it if asked," you have to question if they aren't really confused about their own sexual behavior.
Promiscuous or "slut" behavior is the veneer over much deeper sexual issues; often a kind of mask hiding insecurity, for example. People confident in their sexual behavior and attitudes aren't gaming their partners or themselves. The DLs, however, are being dishonest, by sneaking their same-sex hookups and undermining any serious emotional commitment with either their DL partners or their heterosexual lovers.
Maybe their dishonesty and exploitation is a cover job for their own insecure sense of self. Maybe -- even probably -- they associate being a player with power. If so, they are losing out on the far more strongly empowering behavior of people who commit emotionally to their lover and make a sexual relationship work.
