0 comments/  28241 views/  5 favorites

The Mystique of Man-to-Man Sex

By: Cal Y. Pygia



In their relationships with one another, men are hierarchical. They insist upon levels of status and power. There cannot be a general without a private, nor can there be a king without a peasant. Not only does every thing have, and belong to, its properly appointed place, but every man (and woman) does as well. The same is true of sex between or among men. The nature of male communication and behavior does not change in same-sex relationships; indeed, if anything, the hierarchical character of such conduct intensifies.

For men, sex is a form of symbolic assault. It is battle, conquest, and possession; the more aggressive, dominant man comes to own his conquered competitor before the conquered man can become the conqueror's consort. Therefore, male homosexuals pair themselves according to the aggressive and the submissive and the dominant and the subordinate.

Fellatio and anal intercourse are the two chief possibilities by which homosexual men may indulge themselves sexually. Both acts are fraught with power and prestige for the man whose cock is sucked or who fucks his paramour's ass, just as both acts are burdened with powerlessness and disdain for the man who sucks or is fucked. Among men, as between men and women, intercourse--albeit, anal, rather than vaginal--is what separates "real" men from lesser men, or "bitches." To submit to being fucked is especially to surrender one's manhood, although to suck, rather than to be sucked, also humiliates and feminizes the performer of such acts.

What is sexy about same-sex sex between men is the humiliation of the humiliated and the empowerment of the empowered. Male homosexual sex is all about elevating one man to a position of power, prestige, and privilege while demoting the other to a position of powerlessness, contempt, and disfavor. Normally, such promotions and demotions are carried out, in the male hierarchy, in terms that are more symbolic than sexual: one is awarded greater responsibility, more pay, increased power and authority, more perquisites, or one is denied the same or made to forfeit even those privileges which he has been granted previously. In homoerotic literature, which, by its nature, tends to be replete with sex scenes, the elevation and subordination of man to man is literal; indeed, it is visceral, a matter of sucking and fucking.

What is more, the elevation and subordination of men by men is without pretense. In heterosexual relationships, there is the charade of courtship, of wooing, of consideration and love, and the giving of compliments and gifts by men to women. There may be the asking of the woman's hand in marriage, as, formerly, there was the paying of a dowry, representing the woman's value. In male homosexual relationships, there are typically few, if any, such pretenses. The metaphor underlying male homosexual relationships is not one of amorous pursuit--a hunt, as it were, in which the hunter himself, ultimately, is caught--but one of conquest, in which the weaker and the lesser is subjugated by the stronger and the greater. Male homosexual relationships end in ownership, not partnership.

What is intriguing about sex between or among male homosexuals is this very dueling, a contest wherein one loses one's autonomy as a man or retains it, together with even greater power, privilege, and authority than one had prior to his winning of the conquest. The game is expressed in sexual and visceral terms, as a struggle, so to speak, between rigid cocks and the spilling of semen and sperm. Both men have power, as their ability to excite one another to erection and, indeed, ejaculation, indicates, but only one will penetrate the other orally or anally. There can be but one winner. One man, in triumphing, must vanquish the other. The penetrated one is the loser; the penetrating one, the winner. Even when same-sex sex between men involves only two individuals, there must be a hierarchy.

Often, in witnessing (that is, reading about) heterosexual sex, one gets the sense that he or she is observing back-and-forth, or give-and-take, actions between partners who are different, but equal, in esteem, if not in strength, whereas, in witnessing homosexual sex between males, one senses that he or she is viewing a struggle in which one participant will retain his masculinity while the other man, the vanquished one, loses his manhood, or is unmanned. Male homosexual sex is about retaining one's manhood at the expense of the one whose manhood is forfeited or stolen. The powerful man survives as a man; the weaker man, feminized, becomes effeminate.

Same-sex sex is a sexual depiction of this process of unmanning. This is the key to understanding male homosexuality as it was practiced in ancient Greece and Rome and as it is still practiced in present-day all-male environments, such as prisons, military installations, and schools in which such behavior continues to flourish. In every case, the true man--the manly man--retains his manhood if, and only if, he is the one who penetrates. If he is penetrated, he is no longer a man; he is like a woman, weak, passive, submissive, effeminate, a "punk" or a "bitch."

In the literature of same-sex sex between or among men, readers are constantly reminded of the violence behind sexual acts. Verbs like "crammed," "jammed," and "rammed," "stuffed," "pierced," "penetrated," "invaded," "thrust," and "hammered" are used to describe anal intercourse, and the act itself is characterized as an act of war. Ejaculation, likewise, is sometimes described as a "branding" and sperm as a "brand" that shows "ownership" or "possession."

The taglines of Literotica stories involving male homosexual sex also suggest the true draw of such narratives. They are tales of discipline, punishment, instruction, training, feminization, vengeance, humiliation, submission, ravishment, conversion, seduction, deflowering, obedience, blackmailing, servicing, becoming a "bitch," cuckoldry, debauchery, corruption, conquest, spanking, being shown one's "role," abuse, dominance, becoming a "real man," being made into a "boy," being unmanned, being made into a "slut," succumbing to a "demonic master," being brought to one's knees, being made into a "slave," being "dumped," losing a bet or a dare, being taken "captive," being "kidnapped," getting "it in the ass," taking "control," wrestling, being pimped, turning tail, being "forced" to "perform in public," being unable to "resist" one's "desires" for gay sex, being "caught watching men have sex," being topped, being stalked, submitting, "pleasing a lover," being taken "by force," "worshiping cock," and being "whored out."

Alternatively, when man-to-man or all-male sex is not associated with violence, it is usually linked to having or discovering the "secret" of one's homosexual or bisexual nature, of having this secret exposed, of satisfying one's curiosity concerning gay male sex, or of discovering or exploring one's homosexuality.

The closing chapter of my "First Timer" series ("First Timer: The Aftermath"), a story of a submissive gay man's exploitation by a dominant male sadist, best sums up my own view of the sadomasochistic nature of same-sex sex in which the participants are both men. Although the sex in this series is purposefully exaggerated and is likely to be more extreme than such sex is between most men, its nature is, I believe, well explained in the final installment. This episode of the series starts by delineating a question or series of related questions which the text then answers:

"Gary had taken his clothes off in front of another man. He'd allowed another man to spank him with his hand, to paddle him, and to beat his ass with two belts. He'd let another man turn his ass from pink to red to purple. He'd drunk another man's piss. He'd sucked another man's cock and swallowed his ejaculate. He'd allowed himself to be reduced to tears, humiliated beyond belief, and physically and emotionally abused. Why? What had possessed him to acquiesce to such maltreatment? More importantly, what was the matter with him that he'd permitted such mistreatment to begin with? Where was his self-respect, his self-esteem? No man who cared about himself would do the things he'd done.

Why had Gary?"

The answers?

"He was submissive--but what did that mean? He liked to please. He hated to say no. He wanted to be popular. All his life, he'd wanted others to like and to accept him. He was acquiescent, compliant, obedient--in a word, submissive. Although these words defined him perfectly, Gary had long pretended otherwise, claiming that he was rebellious, insubordinate, resistant, and, if not dominant, assertive. His behavior today, in this motel room, with Russ, showed which of these two versions of himself was true. Gary was a wimp. He'd done everything that Russ had ordered him to do. He'd proven himself to be Russ' servant, Russ' slut, Russ' bitch. Although he'd tried to reject it, the truth was, as he'd found out, that he was a dependent personality, unable to think or feel or judge for himself. His sense of self, like his sense of self-worth, depended upon other people--people who were only too happy to use him for their own purposes and pleasures, as Russ had done and would continue to do, if Gary allowed it, which, of course, was so likely as to be a foregone conclusion.

"But there was another reason that Gary had allowed Russ to use him. Gary regarded himself as a loser. He was a nobody and a nothing. He was so worthless that he deserved to be punished, and, since he was infinitely unworthy, he deserved endless punishment, the crueler the better. Through suffering for others, he might, someday, become worthy by providing a worthwhile service, as had, for example, the whipping boys of the middle ages. It was unseemly that a prince should be spanked or beaten, for he was of royal blood. Therefore, when it was considered necessary that a wayward heir to the throne be disciplined for misbehavior, it was not his ass, but that of his stand-in, the whipping boy's, to be flogged. Gary saw himself as serving a like function for men who were, by virtue of their dominance and aggressiveness, his superiors.

"By serving and servicing Russ' needs and desires, by fulfilling his every whim, Gary would be sacrificing himself in the interest of Russ' emotional and spiritual health and happiness. As a result, by making himself useful in this manner, his own otherwise miserable existence would become worthwhile; he would, over time, perhaps thereby redeem himself. That which was unworthy might become worthy. Of course, the spankings would continue, even when he had become worthy, for they alone, along with the other services, such as fellatio and his imbibing the golden nectar of Russ' bladder, would continue to make him worthy. Russ was providing an even greater service to Gary than Gary was providing for him, for it was Russ' use and abuse of him that bestowed upon the worthless Gary whatever worthiness he was thereby given and by Russ' use and abuse of him that Gary continued to maintain such worthiness."

Sex between and among male homosexuals has long interested--and mystified--me. I have pondered the "problem" of such intimacy for many years. The "why" of such mysteries is, as anyone who has seriously considered them knows, extremely difficult to determine, and, while I may not have the definitive answer, and there may be other ideas concerning the cause and the nature of the mystery of male homosexual sex, I do believe mine to be incisive enough to deserve reading by men and women who are likewise intrigued by the matter of sex between and among men and who enjoy reading of mighty men's cocks in the mouths and rectums of lesser men. There is something arousing, to be sure, about the spectacle of man against man, whether the contest is physical, emotional, sexual, or all of the above.