Second Servings ~ Page 7
Sometimes I look at this comic and think “have I drawn these characters *too* straight acting?” (whatever THAT means), but then I draw James like in the final panel and think “Nahhhh, we’re all good”.
Panel two shows how much I’ve come along, not just in art but storyboarding. My first draft of the panel was just them facing off profile on, but a quick change in perspective makes it far more interesting visually, creating this great looming atmosphere.
Ohhhh goddamn. I thought last Wednesday’s update was the hottest! But now, not gonna lie, John’s immediate pivot of OHSHIT concern when he thinks maybe James might be pushing himself to physical unhealth in pursuit of the game is even hotter. If I might borrow light-brain-meme format:
Dominant: hotttt
Dominant indulging his sadism: So hot, hotter
Sadistic dominant suddenly worried about his sub’s health: *brain explodes*
As for straight acting, I’ve always seen John as the best able to pass as straight, James least able, and Jefferson one to leave questions in everyone’s mind as to whether or not he is or isn’t gay, at least according to modern standards. Not sure about Victorian standards, but I *think* both John and Jefferson, as I read them, would have been able to pass as straight while James may have left questions in peoples’ minds as to his sexuality–if they didn’t just assume he was a foppish sort.
James clearly has money, he could easily be played off as “eccentric wealthy man”
But even an “eccentric wealthy man” would risk being (politely) shunned if he behaved too effeminately, whereas an outright foppish man may not necessarily be shunned. At least, as I understand from my limited knowledge of Victorian social conventions. And, considering that in one of the earlier comics James appears clad in an overcoat with (what in my opinion is) a foppishly exaggerated fur collar, I’ve always considered him a bit of a fop. Also, his behavior, demeanor, and, er, emotive character leans more towards, in my opinion, fop, not “eccentric wealthy man.”
That is the first time I’ve heard the term “straight-acting”. But as far as I’m concerned, straight-acting is the main reason straight dudes are single. Seriously, I can think of one guy I was attracted to who was probably straight (past middle school, I mean. We had no freaking clue as kids). He was considered “one of the girls”, as in we were comfortable talking about periods around him. He was probably straight, since he did have a few girlfriends throughout high school. He could be bi or poly. Who knows.
I think what Tab means by straight acting is fitting, in behavior or demeanor, notion of “proper” masculinity. Not necessarily macho, but in that the male character depicted could “pass” as straight because they act in a way that other straight men would read as straight.
But I could be wrong. That is, anyway, my definition of straight-acting.
I don’t like very much this notion, since it means that if you’re “read as” that’s because you’re “acting”…. Like it was something fake.
I disagree with that way of seeing things. Being read as straight or not isn’t necessarily the consequence of “hiding out” or “acting to pass as/be read as” or even “having interiorized the normalized-masculinity” or anything like that.
Tab, could you explain what you were meaning by that please ? Because it’s quite confusing for me. I mean, why would gay men have to be “effeminate” to “look gay” (and why would they have to “look gay” in the first place ? I don’t recall sexual orientation as something “visible”).
I’m totally for the free expression of anyone’s own definition of masculinity, femininity, etc.
But I don’t see why depicting gay men should mean depicting them “belonging to the stereotypes around homosexuality”.
Sorry if i’m not clear, i’m a bit struggling with english (not my mother language) to express my thoughts in this post lol
Ah. I’m coming at this comic from an intimate view of modern US society where there are still somewhat strictly-defined behaviors assigned to masculine and feminine behavior. It actually breaks down quite a bit when faced with LGBT society in the US, but most of my life, I associated with social groups whee, if these gender “norms” were not adhered to, the person being “abnormal” was looked at askance, even if they weren’t actually gay or lesbian. I currently live in Utah, and even here in Salt Lake City, much of straight society, due to Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) influence, adheres to the gender “norms.” My process of coming out as androgyne has included quite a bit of time where I’ve done comparison/contrasts of what I see in straight society and LGBT society, so I’ve come to a better understanding of, let’s call it gender-expression diversity, and just how the freedom of expression in the LGBT community clashes with the stricter definition of masculine and feminine roles, behaviors, and activities operates in straight society. *That* is why when I read this comic, I say John would pass, in this modern age, as straight, Jefferson would leave questions in everybody’s mind, and James would be pegged as gay. Because, unfortunately, much of straight society, especially here in Utah with the LDS religion, still thinks in gender-role stereotypes.
And as I said, I could be wrong about Tab’s definition of straight-acting. He’s in the UK, and I can’t assume that most members of Britain’s non-LGBT society are still as attached to strictly defining gender roles, behaviors, and activities as we in the US still are.
An addendum: I have known several gay men who “acted” as straight. It was their *normal* mode behavior and demeanor, not a conscious effort to appear to be straight. They simply naturally did things that a *straight cisgender man* here in the US would lead him to believe they too were straight. One of those straight “acting” gay men I knew, a dear friend who died a few years ago, enjoyed the hobbies of quilting and crocheting, two activities that are more generally considered to be feminine hobbies here in the US and, had the legitimate straight men who accepted him as straight known of these hobbies of his, would have led those straight men to question his sexuality, simply because he indulged in “feminine” hobbies. Most Utahns are *still* that attached to gender-role “norms,” and many members of straight cisgender society throughout the US would make the same assumptions.
Sorry if I seem to be attacking you. That’s not my intention. I just can’t think of a more tactful way to explain things at this moment.
HELLO FELLOW DENIZEN OF SALT LAKE!
Fair enough. By saying “as far as I’m concerned,” I meant to emphasize that I might be highly biased because I now identify as lesbian/gray-a (Though maybe I identify as lesbian because straight dudes act a certain way).
And I didn’t necessarily mean macho behavior or even the toxic behavior. Macho behavior is why a large portion of straight dudes downright annoy and frustrate me in public. I took ‘straight-acting’ as meaning smaller things, like tilting their head up instead of down, having elbows sticking out instead of tucked in, and big things like their refusal to wear dresses, or anything that makes them look sexually appealing (V-neck soft tees, skinny jeans, soft haircuts, makeup, etc). And maybe including the more subversive/toxic things, like the way they say “That’s adorable.” They don’t use it as a compliment, they make it sound like “That’s trivial.” When my girlfriend and I call each other adorable, we both know we mean it in the best way possible. (I text “squee!” to emphasize that point.) But “straight-acting” for males includes dismissing anything cute or adorable.
It’s not just in Utah. I’m in Michigan, and was in Ann Arbor a great deal. (Blue districts ftw!) Most people believe they have a ‘gaydar’ based on the little ways people act and the way they dress, and their hobbies. I never developed a ‘gaydar’ until I started asking boys out and most of them turned out to be gay. It was frustrating. It’s like, “Why can’t straight guys act like that?”
But yeah… Tab’s “whatever THAT means”, Grayce’s “notion of ‘proper’ masculinity”, and my “Straight-acting is why straight dudes are single,” all agree with your point that this notion of “straight-acting” is bs.
Straight acting in this instance is meaning ‘queer men who reject camp mannerisms’. Obviously you are who you are, but there’s been a disturbing trend in recent years for men on gay dating apps to reject effeminate or gender non conforming men, calling for ‘masc’ or ‘straight acting’ men instead.
That’s pretty sad. It makes me think these guys who want “masc” or “straight acting” men are ashamed of their own sexuality and are trying to hide it.
Hm, yeah I’m aware of the fact that inside gay communities, “effeminate” ones can be discriminated and seen as giving “a bad image” of the community…And not only on gay apps :/
I dunno how it is in your countries, but in France we call it follophobia (reject of “folles” which is a slang term (the feminine of “fou”, “crazy”) to mean “effeminate gay man”.
What wasn’t clear for me was why being not effeminate would mean that they “reject mannerism”. I didn’t have that impression by reading Buttlers’ stories.
Gayce, first : no problem, I didn’t read any “attack” in your previous replies ^^
2nd : I don’t really think it’s being ashamed of their sexuality and trying to hide it : on the contrary, it can mean they don’t want to feel as they were dating women..?
Because on the other hand, there is also that interiorization (sorry if I’m making that word up) for many gays that being gay mean they’re “not real men” and that “they have to be effeminate, and have lots of mannerisms and all”. I know guys who were constantly calling themselves “girls” and “sluts” and all, for fun you know. I couldn’t help but finding it kind of sexist in a way.. Because I think it’s actually reenforcing the idea that feminine (grammatical gender) is a way of insulting each other (even if it’s for fun.. they said whore and slut and in french those words are not commonly used for describing men..). And they’re cis men, so it’s also a bit of triggering for me, because for them, using gendered terms is a game, which, for myself, would mean misgendering me (or at least be a reminder of that)…
So, well… I understand some people can have preferences in term of gender expression, liking more or less “feminity”, even if I think those ideas of what’s feminine and masculine would gain to get destroyed and challenged and re-created…
I mean I don’t like over-femininity, just because it’s not thing, (and just like i don’t like over-“””virility”””neither lol). And I understand some can like more or less that or that kind of gender expression. It’s not like racist criteras.
But, it gets problematic when it’s use to disminish and discriminate people, meaning they’re less “men” if they have “manners” etc.
Hopefully I managed to express my feelings and ideas correctly and they won’t lead anyone to misunderstand it. I’d be glad to make it clearer if it’s not.
Thanx for the discussion anyway :)
More relevant to the comic, I like how attentive you made John. Like, as soon as James whimpers, John becomes serious and checks in. And then he goes back to being Sir as soon as he knows his Boy is alright.
same here :) I love John’s quick, are you alright? face :)
Love the first and last panels, the first for the characterization and the last for THAT POSE. Not quite sure what you mean by “straight acting”, but to be fair to the characters, the story is set in a time where they could be jailed for their orientation. It’s come up in “For Starters” and “Sins of the Father” and maybe other stories that aren’t springing to mind right now. So, if nothing else, at least there’s a good reason for it?