>> |
Anonymous
Let's settle this once and for all:
I argue that gayness has nothing to do with the sexual act, but rather your relation to a sex partner. To see this, just take the example of getting a handjob. Getting a handjob from a woman is definitely not gay, whereas getting a handjob from a man is definitely gay. However, there's no difference in the two acts as it pertains to you, only your relation with the other party.
Now applying the same logic to this picture, I would argue that as it is, the picture is not gay. Presumably the viewer identifies with either of the two men in the picture, and he derives sexual excitement from the fact that he's being humiliated in front of women. The act of anal insertion is only for humiliation, and obviously the men in the picture, whose perspective the viewer has taken, are not enjoying the act itself, nor imagining the wood pegs to be penises. Now if the picture was changed so that the spectators were men, then it would clearly be ultra-gay. Furthermore, if the viewer impulsively takes on the perspective of one of the women, and derives sexual enjoyment from watching a man humiliate himself sexually, I would argue that that too is undeniably gay.
The original intention of the artist was probably for the viewer to identify with the men in the picture, as evidenced by the composition of the work, the fewer number of male characters, and the simple fact that a male viewer would most likely identify with a male character.
So this picture is inherently not gay.
|