Queer Negotiations Between Love and Work more

Queer Negotiations Between Love and Work: A Critical Ethnographic Case Study of A Gay Porn Star 1 Introduction By exploring media depictions of a fictional character, a deeper understanding is gained of what it means to be a gay male consumer, employee and lover in gay sociocultural settings where those characters are telling depictions of hypermasculine, socioeconomic and racial structures that exist across American culture. Thus this research intends to inform and expand the scholarly discussion about pornography (and gay pornography in particular) and it’s cultural importance within the United States where it generates an estimated $10-14 billion, annually exceeding the NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball revenue combined (Media Education Foundation). Pornography takes the most intimate, and the most private spaces of our lives, our sexual experiences, our connections to other human beings at the most basic level and sells them to us. While approximately 70% of pornography’s audience are straight men watching alone, the proliferation of pornography in general has had a concomitant effect on mainstream popular culture. One need only look to music videos as an example: Gregory Dark is a director of extreme pornographic movies that has since gone on to direct music videos for pop singers Mandy Moor and Britney Spears. Also porn actors are increasingly cast as central characters or background dancers in music videos and in hip hop where artists like Snoop Dogg are even producing their own hardcore pornographic films (Media Education Foundation). However an often ignored segment of the porn industry is gay porn 2 and its extensive network of actors 3, production studios, management and audiences. This research analyzes the political economic consequences and the disciplining forces of the industry and the always tenuous balance between sex acts, fame and privacy; love; monogamy, and financial profit for actors and movie studios alike. Pornography signifies within the wider cultural framework a system of production and consumption in which 'mainstream' gay pornography has a unique and special relationship with the subculture that it caters to. And the system of production and consumption is predicated on archetypal gay pornography that has become increasingly integral to self representation for many gay men. Necessarily then this research also examines the intrapsychic construction of identity and its relation to successful creation of a commercial archetypal persona that is marketed for consumption that, like most gay pornography, promotes an "All-American ideology of hegemonic masculinity which serves to reinscribe the gender binary onto homosexual practices" (Mowlabocus 62). The importance of gay pornography to men cannot be understated not only because of its ubiquity or its financial profitability, but rather because of the "representations/validation of [gay] culture…has communicated specific discourses surrounding masculinity, body shape and sexual practices those living in the queer Diaspora", and it's a Diaspora which is comprised of gay men who do not have regular physical access to major Metropolitan gay culture 4. As Sharif Mowlabocus notes, "the recent cultural and technological convergences occurring within the porn industry mean that today there is more pornography, made more readily accessible, to an ever-increasing demographic, than ever before" (63-64). Moreover Mowlabocus concludes by noting that "gay porn is securing the parameters of gay identity, forming ever more impenetrable boundaries and validating a set of identifications and practices at the expense of all others. If the potential of homosexual pornography is to queer reality, then the reality of gay porn serves to convince homosexuality into a single overarching identity; one that does little to challenge hegemonic norms or liberate sexuality" (71). This [1] research therefore follows in the footsteps of Fiona Attwood's research that identifies a paradigmatic shift [quoting Charlotte Raven] "in a culture where sex is used to sell everything, including loaves of bread and the English National Ballet, everything becomes sexual in a very nonspecific way" (98). This research specifically attempts to answer the question of what are the material and discursive conditions in which gay pornography is produced, distributed, obtain and consumed and attempts to resolve a similar question of how gay pornography is "linked to the production of knowledge about sex and sexuality into the ways in which these are spoken about, seen and experienced in everyday life… And the ways in which sexual representations are placed within the sexual repertoires of groups and individuals" (Attwood 103). Implicit in any exploration 5 of how love, lust, sex, desire and “work” are constructed from an industry “insider”, we must first identify and explicate the complex discourses which structure individual approaches to the sex work and personal life divisions as well as their participation in the pornography/prostitution debates that surround sex work in US contemporary culture 6. I argue that our popular constructions of what “love” and affection mean are always tentatively related to our relationship with and exposure to pornography. Indeed, our popular understanding of sexual desire, lust and love are in constant states of flux and instability because of the proliferation of how sex is commodified and sold to us in a daily diet within a mediasaturated culture. I further argue that our culture, therefore both creates and reflects the consumption of sexual desire and sex acts through pornography as one method by which we meaningfully reproduce the boundaries of ideas and definitions about love, lust, sex, desire and thus imbue these concepts with value. For gay men, these definitions become constituted and cemented in the popular consciousness explicitly through the influential discourses of same sex desire and sexuality depicted in gay pornography. Thus, the focus for this discussion will analyze the personal narrative of an adult film star’s experiences as an “independent contractor” of sorts, whose “inside” knowledge can shed light on the methods by which these discourses come to fruition. Although this ethnographic study of a single performer necessarily limits the conclusions we can draw, his observations can provide a useful vehicle by which scholars, consumers and audiences can understand their role within a model of consumption of both film and the meanings embedded in them. I met my friend J.D. 7 approximately 11 years ago, in a small college town, through a mutual acquaintance. We quickly became friends and that friendship developed over the years into a close kinship primarily because we were so different. He a short, well built Caucasian guy with an open and genuinely kind and giving disposition, whereas I was a thin, myopic, intellectually arrogant young man of Latino descent with jet black hair and an attitude to match. Over the years, we both would go out to the local gay club and soon he found himself work as a dancer at a variety of venues. Over the years, he continued to work out and develop his physique while I continued my unending search in the libraries. Eventually his physical attraction became a distinct advantage; one which we both learned to capitalize upon quickly. Eventually, unbeknownst to me, J.D. entered the realm of adult film, while I moved away to pursue an advanced degree. Upon learning about his decision, I inquired about the details of his adventure which has fortunately lead us to this discussion. Background The history of gay pornographic film as a subset of pornography as a whole has been extensively chronicled by Jeffrey Escoffier's text Bigger than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore (Escoffier). Together, both Escoffier and Linda William's Porn Studies [2] lays the groundwork for the case study conducted here and the subsequent analysis is informed by queer theoretical scholarship (Jagose). Escoffier argues that the development of the moving image captured a phenomenonolgy that quickly rendered the still photo antique. Sexual verisimilitude made sex seem more “real” on film, and “as if to prove that it was really happening, subsequent generations of porn fetishized the come-shot to the point where it now provides most of the narrative interest of whatever actual feature it appears in” (Anderson). Indeed, Escoffier chronicles how porn parallels what happened to the larger gay movement during the same period, following the neoliberal formulas of marketplace productivity and profit. Linda Williams however, makes clear that her analysis of pornography grew out of negative classroom experiences that revealed self-censorship and extreme cautiousness lead to tense intolerance rather than democratic discussion. Williams research exposes the cultural labor behind porn as a genre and as a mode of capitalist production, arguing in favor of a more nuanced approach to its analysis by looking at the participants in a model of consumerism that demands attention. Conventions, Persona and Narrativity Defining what constitutes porn is itself a difficult endeavor. Indeed as Laura Kipnis the author of Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America observes, "defining pornography is a big headache. One person's pornography is another person erotica, and one person erotica can call someone else to lose his lunch. Pornography is the business-as is all our entertainment-which has attained popularity because it finds ways of articulating things its audience care about...It speaks to its audience because it's thoroughly astute about who we are underneath the social veneer, astute about the costs of cultural conformity and the discontent at the core of routinized lives and normative sexuality". One example of a convention that is almost always present is the polyamorous nature of gay porn. There are many examples of homonormative reinforcement in popular culture that revolves around expectations of relational monogamy (including acceptable rules for who can deviate from this expectation and under what circumstances). Most gay porn films explicitly avoid illusions of monogamy, and in fact directly challenge the validity of that social presumption. Private consumption of gay porn is one of the most visible contradictory examples that challenges the homonormative reinforcement of monogamy in the public realm. Until very recently, porn was indeed something regarded as socially unacceptable by most members of polite society; porn stars remained outcasts and were usually associated with prostitution, and as a consequence porn was something you watched in private but did not talk about openly. Pornincluding gay porn-has entered mainstream culture and the everyday social life of large parts of society. JC Adams the editor of The Gay Porn Times, notes that porn is an "interesting reflection of what goes on in our culture" and he goes on to diagram how the popularity of Falcon Studio’s most famous star’s physical appearance ultimately bled into a masculine ideal that photographers and advertisers used to "cast that type of men for their campaigns-the Calvin Klein underwear models of the era. And all of a sudden the straight men tried to imitate that look, which became known as metrosexual. It's a great example of how porn spilled over into mainstream culture" (Clark 33-35). J.D. has performed in 17 Films (1 scene each) with major studios and prominent directors in the gay porn industry. J.D. is a young, well built, Caucasian male who exudes a hypermasculinized appearance that many gay men might find especially attractive and appealing. Physically he resembles many gay porn stars of this era in that his body conforms to the well-muscled and [3] defined men that are actively recruited by and typically find work with commercial, mainstream gay porn studios. Describing his story, he mentions distinct criticisms with the development of his character. A prominent director mentioned how his performance had improved over time and that he “Definitely developed into [his] character and loosened up” and yet despite this fact, J.D. also has expressed frustration with the fact that "people have tried to portray me as a bottom, but that's not me ". Moreover, his popularity with audiences is traced to a very real contradiction in which he "feels so much more comfortable in the scenes where I'm the Top - it's like I'm free to be more of who I am". Sexual verisimilitude on screen becomes an all-important criterion for the longevity and professional success of a performers adopted "persona". And this persona serves as a "career script that functions as a sexual resume which establishes… The repertoire sex acts they will perform, and image they which to project at sexual performers" (Escoffier 540) but this persona also serves as a valuable intrapsychic tool that distinguishes between one's "professional" life and one's personal life. Moreover the stage name associated with this persona also serves to insulate and protect the gay adult star's privacy despite what is often a very visible public presence. For J.D., Escoffier's assertion that an actor's persona is both a marketing strategy and a personal statement about his relationship to gay pornography proves to be accurate. As it is certainly one component of an identity created to "help him do his job and acts as a 'contract' with the social expectations of his significant others" (Escoffier 545). Indeed, J.D. makes clear that performers have little say on how they are [re] presented by failing to "portraying them as multidimensional beings with interest other than sex… " (Attwood 450). This one dimensional presentation of their fictionalized selves also reveals how some costars, directors and producers ultimately fail to recognize the possibility of a life outside of the adult film industry. While some researchers like Jeffrey Escoffier argue that adult film stars possess no agency with which they can exercise any degree of independence while maintaining "professional" success within the adult film industry, the evidence in this case however, seems to contradict that conclusion. Escoffier makes the point that "all sexual conduct in the video porn industry is to one degree or another an example of situational sexuality inasmuch as the performers are often required to engage in sexual acts for monetary compensation that they would not otherwise choose to perform an with partners to whom they feel no desire" (Escoffier 534). Richard Dyer notes in his essay Male Gay Porn Coming to Terms that "homosexual desire has been constructed as perverse and unspeakable; gay porn does speak/show gay sex. Gay porn asserts homosexual desire, it turns the definition of homosexual desire on its head, that is bad is good, sick is healthy and so on. It thus defends the universal human practice of samesex physical contact (which our society constructs as homosexual)" (Dyer). Dyer asserts that "it's often said that porn movies of the genre are characterized by the absence of narrative… Gay porn however is full of narrative. Narrative is its very basis" and he goes on to illustrate how plots and indeed, the lack of plot lines still follow a narrative structure that include undressing, the exploration of the body, sexual contact a variety of positions invariably resulting in a visibly impressive orgasm. What's instructive here however is the heuristic formula that inculcates viewers into a participatory mechanism of cultural integration. Indeed it's because the goal of the pornographic narrative results in coming, or in filmic terms ejaculation, then "the emphasis on seeing orgasm is then part of the way porn (re) produces the construction of male sexuality" (Dyer). That (re)production serves as a fundamental method by which other gay male viewers subsequently consume images of same-sex desire that are depicted in very specific, narratively [4] determine ways. The statement does not suggest that images are not polysemic or that the viewers consuming these images are incapable of drawing their own conclusions or interpretations but rather, there are conventions upon which gay porn is defined as a filmic genre. The making of a porn video requires not only the performance of real sexual acts but also the simulation of a coherent sexual narrative. Real sex acts are usually performed, but the video representation of them is more coherent than the actual sexual activity being filmed. The shooting at any sexual scene is made up of an apparently simple sex act photograph from several different perspectives. In fact the actors are interrupted many times to arrange shooting angles and lighting and to allow the actors to regain their erections. For example, the cameraman calls for the actors fucking doggy style, then shoots them from above to show penetration of the ass, then from behind the active party to catch yet another penetration shot of the hard penis going in and out. Then the 'money shots' [of the actors ejaculating] of all the performers in the scene have to be choreographed, often at the end of many hours the film… Thus the 15 to 20 minutes of a sexual scene that the viewer sees is actually edited and patched together, with soundtrack added from footage shot over a six or seven hour period (Escoffier 550). The Economics of Desire J.D.s’ character’s sexual objectification is directly related to his financial profitability, centered on a single aspect of his sexual performance to the exclusion of his actual, real world sexual preferences, thereby concisely illustrating the complicated personal sacrifices that he’s had to endure as a consequence of his employment. Describing how he began his career in the gay porn industry J.D. responded that “I first started out doing it to just pay my way through medical school, and it seems that even after graduation there is still money to be had...I am considering continuing a little bit further until my new career...takes off or I find that special person in my life. Even if I decide to go back to school, porn will continue a little bit longer...” Of course J.D.’s ability to work is equally constrained by his appearance and youthfulness. As John Burger makes clear, “very few porn actors work past their mid 20’s. While on the other hand one may assume that a large amount of [gay] porn is viewed by older men who want to see younger men...typically youth is equated with beauty” (57-58) and he also notes that these films are “not immune to the deeply imbedded prejudices that this community practices” (59). J.D. describes the characteristics that he finds sexually exciting to him by stating that his “Physical attractions range from lean stud pup to gym-pumped manly muscle to hairy bellied daddy bears. Personally, I like muscular men who train their bodies hard. Although it is not an absolute requirement, a thick, muscular body is an incredible turn-on to me. Basically I like any man who is innately masculine and relaxed with himself and others no matter his build, background, ethnicity or age.” J.D. expresses a normative appreciate of dominant archetypes of masculinity in his description of sexually exciting male bodies, however the description also conspicuously includes an important caveat that spans “build, background, ethnicity or age”. Here we find that the general objectification of race that is so pervasive in the gay porn industry noticeably absent in J.D.’s personal preferences; moreover the ageism that is equally pervasive in the industry is also absent amongst the J.D.’s criteria. I interpret these observations not as evasive, self-serving statements to a researcher but as factual realities that transcend the gay porn industry standards in which he finds part-time employment. [Working] Towards Happiness? 8 John Rutherford notes that porn serves a cultural and social relevance because "many men in small towns and rural areas look to our movies as models to how gays interact sexually and they identify with them. As a producer I have always created content with this in mind: I never show [5] guns, killing, drug abuse or bare backing. It's very important to depict safer, sexy and fun sex in many different ways, so that viewers know their different strokes for different folks so to speak" (Clark 180). Of course Rutherford's assertions about the social value of gay porn notwithstanding, there is substantial research that concludes that the value associated with gay porn also comes with some complex costs for both its practitioners and consumers alike. The least of which are legal arguments which characterize and establish a hierarchy of sex acts between male sex workers that cannot be ignored or minimized by the utopic rhetoric offered by some industry management insiders. What is certain is that there exists a dialectical relationship between pornography and sex work. Indeed, the legal distinctions that define prostitution versus pornography are very real as the historic People vs. Freeman California Supreme Court case made visible in 1988. That case and subsequent case law which follow made clear that "When filmed, pornography becomes the reenactment of the type of sexual activities in which prostitutes typically engage, with 'actors' playing the roles of prostitutes. These actors are not themselves prostitutes, anymore than an actor playing the role of a lawyer on TV is really a lawyer" (Almodovar 151). Thus for the legal community in most states, whereas the goal of the prostitute is to excite their clients, the goal of the paid porn actor is to excite and give pleasure to both their costar and the consumer for whom their satisfaction is paramount thus resulting in a perverse relationship in which "the porn actor 'out prostitutes' the prostitute because the porn actor is responsible for the sexual gratification of more persons for the same pay" (Almodovar 159). The lines between sex work, prostitution, and pornography are blurry though their commonalities appear evident in so far as sex acts reap financial rewards 9. The larger question however of whether those financial benefits influence or diminish the emotional and personal lives of the individuals involved in the adult film industry has yet to be explored. What is notable about J.D.’s career is that while the financial incentive became the impetus for his interest in pornography, he also takes the time to emphasize the exchange value that is implied in the economics of making films to advance his personal educational agenda. Moreover, he cautiously advises that his continued participation in the adult film industry is equally dependent upon the availability of a long term relationship and the demands of his educational and medical career. J.D. thus makes unambiguously clear that his adult film work is situated within a highly restricted hierarchy of personal needs and preferences that is not reflective of the powerful financial incentive that brought this work to his attention initially. Contrary to Escoffier’s earlier assertions, J.D. actively exercises his own agency as an informed worker who makes decisions in his own best interest and on his own terms. Escoffier's position belies the complexity of actor’s lives in which porn professionals increasingly occupy a wide range of occupations outside of their pornography work, and for whom pornography is but one facet of their life. As Attwood makes clear, although new porn professionals have attracted a great deal of attention, relatively little interest has been paid to what they do as a form of labor. Stereotypically, porn labor has been understood in terms of a legitimate industries, exploitation, and dirty money although this view has increasingly been challenged by sex work activists who have argued that sex work should be recognized as 'a job not wholly unlike other jobs' and that the diversity of sex workers experiences and conditions are often ignored… (98). [6] And while the labor is insecure and time limited for gay porn stars, it also has work practices that are flexible, autonomous, and individually fulfilling. However the dominance of the gay porn industries highly developed infrastructure of production companies and distribution networks demand a closely controlled need for highly stylized fictional characters who are marketable to a wide audience and whose characteristics reproduce the sexual excitement that consumers come to expect in their sexual fantasies. And as one reviewer writes, "ultimately what viewers want to see is guys having sex, not actors pretending to have sex". The commonsensical belief that porn actors work can’t possibly be difficult considering that they are paid a wage to engage in sex acts (which are universally constructed as always and inevitably enjoyable) belie the truth that such sex acts are (1) performances that require diligent effort and concentration (particularly in gay male porn, that necessitates a constantly reliable erection) and that such performances (2) are not always fulfilling either emotionally or psychologically, despite all appearances to the contrary where the actor’s dialogue, facial expressions and behavior convey the very opposite message of heightened emotional desire and sexual excitement. Indeed, I would argue that this dichotomy only illustrates the highly adept abilities of the actors involved in constructing a scene of sexual excitement that may in fact be completely devoid of emotional or psychological excitement or enjoyment. The working conditions commonly found in the adult porn industry inevitably influence and affect the decisions of actors like J.D. and these off stage conditions are not as admirable as the final video products might assert. Indeed, unlike their Hollywood counterparts, these actors are not protected by unions, receive no pensions, 401k investment opportunities, health insurance benefits, or percentages of their film’s net profits; they generally do not receive any compensation from the distribution of their content in online venues and rarely reap financial rewards from marketed commodities like sex dolls, dildos or other merchandise unless covered in exclusive contracts with certain studios, that while lucrative in the short term may result in being unable to work for other entities that my offer more attractive terms later in their adult film career. Indeed, J.D.’s employment is located within an industry well known for its exploitative practices that can reduce actors to mere tools, lacking any agency, subject to the whims and desires of the directors, producers, studios and audiences that such actors are presumably responsible to. And the fungiblility of young, gay men willing to exchange sex acts for cash payments inevitably lends itself to the development of a system of oppressive tactics that negate the experience and feelings of the very demographic of gay men most likely to pursue such work. Halwani notes that, The pornographer positions his models so that they are presented as sexual objects to the viewer, but it is unclear that in doing so the pornographer actually objectifies them. he may not view them sexually at all (except for) an eye toward selling the final product. Although this may preclude some types of objectifying treatment on the part of the pornographer, such as his own personal sexual purposes, it does not preclude others such as his financial purposes (187). J.D.’s responses as a whole indicate that sexual objectification, while part and parcel of the economics of the industry can be successfully challenged through conscious and self-reflexive decisions about the costars, directors, and studios with whom one chooses to work with, the types of films in which one performs, and the messages that such performances communicate. Nevertheless, J.D.’s noteworthy record of repeated invitations for work, over a three year period [7] of time speaks volumes about his performative abilities and the respective value of his work as judged by leading industry executives. However little information about his belief system about romantic love and affections can be gleaned from his film work. In as much as an orgasm symbolically represents the visual “evidence of the mechanical ‘truth’ of bodily pleasure...as the moment to which male viewer relates and empathizes” (Williams 101) it does little to expose anything beyond the merely physiological reaction to sexual stimulation. When asked about his what his dream boyfriend would be like, he responded that “I believe in Monogamy... I am very much LTR [long term relationship] oriented. I have experienced what it's like to love fully and unconditionally and want to find and share that again.” Here J.D. unequivocally describes a preference for romantic love that Halwani defines as constituting eight crucial features of romantic love: (1) It has the desire to have sex with the beloved; (2) it is exclusive; (3) when reciprocated, it exists between only two people; (4) when reciprocated, it pushes the lovers toward marriage (legal or substantive); (5) when reciprocated over a long period of time its emotional intensity and dependence are more intense an thorough than what we find among friends and different in kind than what we find between parents and children;(6) there are social expectations that the lovers are the primary recipients’ of each other’s time, attention, energy and affection; (7) when reciprocated it limits the autonomy of the lovers; (8) it always has concern on the part of the lover for the well-being of the beloved (27-28). When asked if he would ever get married or have kids, he responded that “If I can marry, sure I would love to take an oath for the one I love... and no kids..” Here J.D. expresses an interest in taking “an oath for the one I love” thus symbolically representing a personal willingness to participate in a recognized (at least intra-psychically, if not legalistically), exclusive commitment to another person that reflects his personal values of monogamy as sexual fidelity to another through the institution of “marriage”. While this expression flies in the face of criticism by some scholars like Andrew Sullivan and Michael Warner who argue alternatively that marriage is a useful tool to domesticate gay couples (thereby legitimating their unions) or alternatively adopt a heterosexist institution as a means of homonormative assimilation, ultimately eroding their unique identity and unwittingly undermining any goals to transform dominant society (Halwani 288-289, 306-309). J.D.’s comments do not engage in this politicization; If anything, by expressing his preference for “no kids” he purposefully articulates the very queer notion of constructing a “family” that is not defined by homonormative characteristics, especially in light of J.D.’s work both within and outside of the adult film industry. Expanding on his preferences J.D. advocates a nuanced approach to distinguishing between physical and emotional attraction and personal compatibility. “Beyond the physical superficial attraction; how a man thinks of, cares for and treats others is very telling and important to me. A hot body is great but a healthy self confidence, integrity, thoughtfulness, intelligence, manners and a sense of humor/humility that make a man truly sexy in my mind. (These are qualities I strive for in myself as well). I'm looking for that man who not only inspires me, but also challenges me to be better in every way possible. With romance, compassion and an open exploration of interests, like any great relationship it's always based off trust. Ultimately, it’s an open and thinking mind that I find most stimulating about a man. I like a man who is an individual and self assured. A genuine smile and an engaged sincerity in the eyes goes miles!” [8] Here J.D. draws some important distinctions about not only the qualities that he finds attractive in a potential partner, but also how those qualities reflect his own personal value system and the hierarchy of traits that figure into that value system. Here, J.D. states “beyond the physical superficial attraction” to differentiate between the sexual and the emotional; the former of which one uses as a “professional tool” and the other qualities like “romance, compassion and an open exploration of interests” that signify for him “the personal”. This compartmentalization of J.D.’s intrapyschic schema captures how his sexual performances on film are based on sliding scale of physical sexual attraction and how his personal, off-film emotional desires are fulfilled. This negotiation between publicized sex acts on film and private emotional and sexual life is fraught with larger, complex discursive meaning about sex itself. If, as we have heard here, J.D.’s public and private life is carefully separated by complex barriers erected by professional working conditions; popularity & audience demand; and the imposition of personal decisions over private belief systems, we must also look at how sex itself works in tandem with and occasionally operates in opposition to these discourses. Conclusion While sexual desire and romantic love are related, their relationship is a dynamic one in which sexual desire can give rise to romantic love but sometimes it does not; sharing deeply intimate sexual experiences does not always give rise to romantic attraction, particularly among gay men whose sociocultural history has exercised an enormous influence towards casual sexual encounters as a results of years of social marginalization and ostracization. And while fulfilling sexual desire may cement romantic love, sexually satisfying acts through pornography does not universally equate to sexual pleasure. Gay porn films deconstruct highly privatized (and marginalized) sex acts, although on a more “metaphoric level, gay porn videos break down the public/private dichotomy through their representation of sex in...typically heterosexual spaces” and as such bring with them the potential for politicized meaning, thereby actively abetting the deconstruction of heterosexist social norms. As Rich Cante and Angelo Restivo make clear, “A complex cluster of sexual practices gets confused in heterosexual culture, with the love plot of intimacy and familialism that signifies belonging to a society in a deep and normal way. ‘Making a queer world’ on the other hand has required the development of kinds of intimacy that bear no necessary relation to domestic space, to kinship, to the couple form, to property or to the nation” (148). The study of gay pornography enables and encourages a more profound and meaningful appreciation for the myriad sexual, sociocultural, and intrapyschic actuality of gay communities, both past and present...“If it is understood and embraced that gay porn serves as popular memory, then every porn-induced queer orgasm is a political act, no matter how private. Each is a hot juicy wad metaphorically flying in the collective face of those who would attempt to further oppress the advancing gay communities” (Burger 105) and as one major gay porn studio’s mission statement says, it seeks to “enrich the lives of others by producing high quality adult entertainment safely and sanely with men who desire an opportunity to express their sexuality in a positive manner”. If the objective of this research has been to explode the stultifying categories in which love, sex, desire, money, identity, sexual pleasure, monogamy and relationship have been constructed then I believe that at least in this one example that objective has been successfully fulfilled and makes a concerted attempt at explicating how these concepts interact in a highly complex dialectic that definitely makes “Filthy Never Looked So Good”. [9] Bibliography Almodovar, Norma Jean. “Porn Stars, Radical Feminists, Cops and Outlaw Whores: The Battle Between Feminist Theory and Reality, Free Speech and Free Spirits.” Spector, Jessica. Prostitution and Pornography: Philosophical Debate About the Sex Industry. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. 149-174. Attwood, Feona. “No Money Shot? Commerce, Pornography and New Sex Taste Cultures.” Sexualities, Vol.10, No.4 (2007): 441-456. —. Porn.com: Making Sense of Online Pornography. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. —. “Reading Porn: The Paradigm Shift in Pornography Research.” Sexualities, Vol.5, No.1 (2002): 91-105. Burger, John R. One Handed Histories: The Eroto-Politics of Gay Male Video Pornography. New York: Harrington Park Press, 1995. Cante, Rich and Restivo, Angelo. “The Cultural-Aesthetic Specificities of All-male MovingImage Pornography.” Williams, Linda. Porn Studies. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004. 142-166. Clark, Kevin. PORN: From Andy Warhol to X-Tube . Bruno Gmunder, 2011. Dyer, Richard. “Male Gay Porn Coming to Terms.” Jump Cut, No.30 (1985): 27-29. Escoffier, Jeffrey. Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore. Philadelphia: Running Press, 2009. —. “Gay-for-Pay: Straight Men and the Making of Gay Pornography .” Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 26, No.4 (2003): 531-555. Foddy, William. Constructing Questions for Interviews. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Halwani, Raja. Philosophy of Love, Sex and Marriage. New York: Routledge, 2010. Hoang, Nguyen Tan. “The Resurrection of Brandon Lee: The Making of a Gay Asian American Porn Star.” Williams, Linda. Porn Studies. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004. 223-270. Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory. New York: NYU Press, 1997. Kvale, Steinar. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage, 1996. Madison, D. Soyini. Critical Ethnography: Method, Ethics and Performance. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2005. McKee, Alan. Textual Analysis: A Beginner's Guide. Sage, 2003. [10] Mowlabocus, Sharif. “Gay Men and the Pornification of Everday life.” Paasonen, Susanna. Pornification and the Education of Desire. New York: Berg Publishers, 2007. 61-72. Saukko, Paula. Doing Research and Cultural Studies: An Introduction to Classical and New Methodological Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003. The Price of Pleasure: Pornography, Sexuality & Relationships. Dir. Chyng and Picker, Miguel Sun. Media Education Foundation. 2008. Williams, Linda. Porn Studies. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004. [11] By Michael Johnson Jr., American Studies Program, Washington State University, 111 Wilson Short Hall, Pullman, WA 99164 2 For the purposes of this discussion I use the term "gay porn(ography)" interchangeably with “gay (adult) film” as a means of identifying and referring to commercial, mass distributed content produced by professional adult entertainment studios for consumption by queer men versus the emerging trends of "alt-porn" which subsumes the increasingly popular voyeuristic amateur-produced content also typically found only on the Internet. 3 For the purposes of this discussion, I use the terms “performer” and “actor” interchangeably with “porn star” and “adult film star” as colloquially meaning the same thing (although not being synonymous), without taking a position on the politicized nature of the language argued by some scholars. 4 There are, however some scholars who argue against the ghettoization of sexual minorities; See David Halperin (2003), John Binnie (2004), Andrew Gorman-Murray (2006), and Deirdre McClosky (2007) for examples. 5 Because this study aims to explore the construction of a gay adult film star's identity through a mixed methodological approach that includes ethnography and textual analysis, I employ a case study. Case studies allow a comparative approach of analyzing message content as specific examples of popular culture. While case studies are not broadly representative, they do allow for a more in-depth examination of particular circumstances. When merged with another methodology, like textual analysis, a richer reading of specific instances can be made, and can highlight culturally constructed narratives (Holy, 1987; Platt, 2007). These patterns contribute to how audiences construct their own personal narrative. 6 To access this information I employ the Patton Model that develops questions across seven discrete categories: (1) Behavior or Experience, (2) Opinion or Value, (3) Feeling, (4) Knowledge, (5) Sensory, (6) Background (Foddy). And addendum to this case study includes over 100 Patton Model questions that were conducted in a semistructured interviewing process (Kvale). I also employed interviewing strategies that minimized Gorden Model (2003) issues, which establishes a "series of socio psychological dimensions where participants generally feel threatened" (Madison 31-35). 7 The participant has been provided anonymity in exchange for their participation in this study and thus they are referenced herein as “J.D.” 8 Currently the owner and operator of Colt Studio Group and former president and director for Falcon Studios 9 This research however, does not attempt to examine these legal complexities. But these issues are mentioned only to illuminate the larger contexts through which one person’s participation in sex work/pornography/ is situated. 1 [12]