"Feminine" heterosexual men: subverting heteropatriarchal sexual scripts?

Publication: The Journal of Men's Studies Publication Date: 22-MAR-06 Author: Hill, Darryl B.  COPYRIGHT 2006 Men's Studies Press More than a decade ago, Hunter (1993) proposed a way in which a heterosexual man might avoid heterosexual privilege. Writing from the perspective of a self-proclaimed "sissy"--a male (regardless of sexual orientation) who is in some way not masculine" (p. 153)--Hunter rejoiced in his "refusal to be a man" and in his "location outside of masculinity" (p. 152). As much as he seemed happy with his status, Hunter also related some of the problems of being heterosexual with a nontraditional sexual script. Feminine men may be more emotionally sensitive than their women partners, but this may pose a problem for women who may not be comfortable with emotional men. Their partners may also feel burdened by the obligation to initiate more sexual encounters and may not be too enthused. It seems that sissies might face some unique challenges in heterosexual relationships.  Hunter's speculations are intriguing yet debatable. Unfortunately, there has been little written about the erotic life of nontraditional heterosexual men. This paper is a preliminary theory of the subjective experience of feminine heterosexual men based on sexual script theory, feminist and men's studies, and social psychological research. This review suggests that these men may have difficulty establishing sexual relationships, but once in a relationship, their feminine qualities may promote healthy and intimate relationships.  "FEMININE" HETEROSEXUAL MEN?  Who are these men, and why call them by the problematic label of "feminine heterosexual men"? Academics have called these males "feminine boys" (Green, 1987) of "girly boys" (Corbett, 1999). They might have been called "sissies" or "'queer" during childhood (Corbett, 1998; Green, 1987), and some are proudly reclaiming both labels in adulthood (e.g., Heasley, 2005; Hunter, 1993; Rottnek, 1999). Others have called them simply "effeminate" men (e.g., Dansky, Knoebel, & Pitchlord, 1977) or ambiguously "nontraditional" men (Coleman, 1986). More recently, the terms "nice guys" (Herold & Milhausen, 1999) and "new men" (Miller, Bilimoria, & Pattni, 2000) have been used. The online magazine Salon called them "straight fairies" (Lloyd, 1996), though clearly the term that caught the imagination of the popular media is "metrosexual." Called metrosexuals because they live in of near a metropolis (Simpson, 2002), Chrisafis (2003) describes them as a modern dandies. These men present "feminized masculine aesthetics" (Lim, 2003) and take pride in good grooming and a stylized appearance (Hoh, 2003). Overall, they have fewer macho pretensions, more concern with style and prettiness, and a general aversion for macho masculinity (Chrisafis, 2003). They also demonstrate more traditionally "feminine" psychological qualities such as "caring" and "emotionality" (Kirsch, 2003). They are mostly straight but definitely not narrow.  Moreover, the phrase "feminine heterosexual men" best articulates how these men have been characterized in social psychological and gender research. In this research, men who score high on a femininity scale or demonstrate behaviors of traits that are stereotypically associated with femininity in our culture are often described as "feminine." Of course, the use of "feminine" here risks reifying behaviors or traits exclusively of the province of women and femininity, but this is how these characteristics have been commonly operationalized in this discourse.  GENDERING SEXUAL SCRIPTS: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK  While there are certainly many scripts in the heterosexual repertoire, feminist theorists have tried to articulate the role gender plays in the formation of normative heterosexual scripts. Radical feminist writings have occasionally characterized heterosexuality itself as the expression of male dominance and power (MacKinnon, 1994; Millet, 1969). In this discourse, it is largely believed that heteronormative sexual scripts are premised on sexual desire primarily "conceptualized in terms of attraction to difference, where gender is the key marker of differences" (Richardson, 1996, pp. 5-6). Similarly, Jackson (1996) claimed that heterosexual desire is based on "gender difference, on the sexual 'otherness' of the desired object" (p. 27). And this difference is often based on power; thus heterosexuality is "simply eroticized power" (p. 23). Even outside feminist thought, heterosexual desire is at least partly understood as grounded in gender differences between partners (Bem, 2000).  Those in men's studies have also had something to say on the matter. For instance, profeminist men in the 1970s criticized traditional heterosexual men's sexual scripts (Dansky et al., 1977; Litewka, 1977). More recently, Zilbergeld (1992) characterized heterosexual men's scripts as based on several dimensions: valuing sex for its intrinsic worth; sexualizing a wide range of situations, behaviors, and women's physical appearance; seeing sex as a run-away train to orgasm; failing to connect sex to emotional of physical closeness; and seeking variety in sexual experiences. Similarly, Morris (1997) identified a similar sexual script as the "4F Club": find them, feel them, fuck them, and forget them. In an attempt to reconstruct masculine heterosexuality, Levant (with Kopecky, 1995) also described the male heterosexual script in fairly negative terms. Heterosexual men were, he asserted, governed by the "unconnected lust syndrome" in which they separated their sexual desires from relationships. If men identified as masculine, they tried to seek intimacy only through sex, but Levant urged men to "reconnect lust with emotional intimacy" (p. 248). It appears that, as Herek (1987) asserted, heterosexual masculinity is defined by what it is not--"not feminine and not homosexual" (p. 73). Summarizing other contributions to the question, Herek explained that heterosexual masculinity is: "not being compliant, dependent, or submissive; not being effeminate (a 'sissy') in physical appearance or mannerisms; not having relationships with men that are sexual or overly intimate; and not failing in sexual relationships with women" (p. 73).  So many theorists agree that heteronormative scripts depend on two different but complementary scripts in which the man plays the active and dominant role and the female plays the passive and submissive role (Jackson, 1984; Richardson, 1996; Steedman, 1987). In the heteropatriarchal script both partners eroticize power differences. Of course, heteronormative assumptions in heterosexual scripts are easily impugned. There is evidence that women are not more passive than men in heterosexual encounters, using a wide range of active strategies in sexual encounters (Perper & Weis, 1987). Perhaps obviously, Segal (1990) observed that the enactment...