'And as for the “macho = homoerotic” thing, both in film and in general, well, let’s just chalk that up to the fact that at this moment in the history of our nation straight men have ceded everything but snarky T-shirts, Xbox 360, leet speek and the classic geek pear shape to the men of alternate sexualities. A good-looking man in text-free clothing, speaking about something other than the iPhone? Gay.'
-- John Scalzi rescues a lost LJ post from the distant mists of 2007, presumably before the advent of the [NSFW] Guys with iPhones.
I'm going to tentatively claim this one (and the Slate piece purporting to explain "How macho movies get misread as homoerotic" that he's riffing off of) as further support for my theory that we're entering into a post-homoerotic landscape. It's one thing for straight men to protest that they don't see the supposed homoeroticism in, say, Point Blank or 300, or -- as the author of the Slate article does -- take pains to reject or refute a homoerotic subtext. Those are the familiar old-school moves, based on a classic contagion model of the homoerotic. And what are the traditional ways of dealing with contagion? Quarantine and isolation. Separate the healthy and the sick; minimize exposure risk; regard potential symptoms with a high index of suspicion; develop sensitive diagnostics and, ideally, vaccinations. Because everyone's potentially susceptible.
And that's why the Slate author comes across as either old-fashioned or juvenile. Dude, chill out! When you protest, in defense of straight men taking pleasure in narcissistic identification with the "hot, sweaty men" of 300, "Shouldn't a guy be able to do such a thing without being called gay?" -- you're fighting last century's battles (and over a film set in 480 B.C., no less). I certainly wouldn't say that nobody cares anymore, but let's face it, vast swaths of culture and society have moved on. Retro, unironic avowals of heterosexuality? Not hip, not hot. Sure, "no homo" still has currency, but also inevitably oscillates between "straightforward" ritual disclaimer and ironic performativity. (Conversely, people quite earnestly and sincerely profess that when they say, "That's so gay!" they really, really don't mean that kind of gay because they're totally cool with that stuff and homophobia is, like, so lame.)
These days, no self-respecting straight man would protest the homoerotic too much -- at least, not with a straight face. Over the last decade or so -- marked at its outset by the launch of Viagra, and culminating in the ascendancy of Judd Apatow -- straight men all over the country have embraced the possibilities of a masculine heterosexual insecurity all but completely decoupled from the 20th century spectre of contagious gayness and sexual orientation misattribution.
So nowadays, the fight has shifted to cultural status. These men have learned to relax and love the gay, but that doesn't necessarily mean they support same-sex marriage or gays in the military. When Scalzi cites "the present heterosexual male abdication of anything more culturally, emotionally and intellectually resonant than 'Dick in a Box'", do we mourn, celebrate, shrug, or roll our eyes? If the global economic meltdown is accelerating the Death of Macho, will sexual orientation as well as gender determine the respective winners and losers of this world-historical process? But hey, that's politics -- in the meantime, we can all go laugh together at Brüno, right?
-- John Scalzi rescues a lost LJ post from the distant mists of 2007, presumably before the advent of the [NSFW] Guys with iPhones.
I'm going to tentatively claim this one (and the Slate piece purporting to explain "How macho movies get misread as homoerotic" that he's riffing off of) as further support for my theory that we're entering into a post-homoerotic landscape. It's one thing for straight men to protest that they don't see the supposed homoeroticism in, say, Point Blank or 300, or -- as the author of the Slate article does -- take pains to reject or refute a homoerotic subtext. Those are the familiar old-school moves, based on a classic contagion model of the homoerotic. And what are the traditional ways of dealing with contagion? Quarantine and isolation. Separate the healthy and the sick; minimize exposure risk; regard potential symptoms with a high index of suspicion; develop sensitive diagnostics and, ideally, vaccinations. Because everyone's potentially susceptible.
And that's why the Slate author comes across as either old-fashioned or juvenile. Dude, chill out! When you protest, in defense of straight men taking pleasure in narcissistic identification with the "hot, sweaty men" of 300, "Shouldn't a guy be able to do such a thing without being called gay?" -- you're fighting last century's battles (and over a film set in 480 B.C., no less). I certainly wouldn't say that nobody cares anymore, but let's face it, vast swaths of culture and society have moved on. Retro, unironic avowals of heterosexuality? Not hip, not hot. Sure, "no homo" still has currency, but also inevitably oscillates between "straightforward" ritual disclaimer and ironic performativity. (Conversely, people quite earnestly and sincerely profess that when they say, "That's so gay!" they really, really don't mean that kind of gay because they're totally cool with that stuff and homophobia is, like, so lame.)
These days, no self-respecting straight man would protest the homoerotic too much -- at least, not with a straight face. Over the last decade or so -- marked at its outset by the launch of Viagra, and culminating in the ascendancy of Judd Apatow -- straight men all over the country have embraced the possibilities of a masculine heterosexual insecurity all but completely decoupled from the 20th century spectre of contagious gayness and sexual orientation misattribution.
So nowadays, the fight has shifted to cultural status. These men have learned to relax and love the gay, but that doesn't necessarily mean they support same-sex marriage or gays in the military. When Scalzi cites "the present heterosexual male abdication of anything more culturally, emotionally and intellectually resonant than 'Dick in a Box'", do we mourn, celebrate, shrug, or roll our eyes? If the global economic meltdown is accelerating the Death of Macho, will sexual orientation as well as gender determine the respective winners and losers of this world-historical process? But hey, that's politics -- in the meantime, we can all go laugh together at Brüno, right?

Comments
If anyone has any doubts as to whether the "you must be gay, because" culture is alive and well at present, and every bit as pervasive (at least in some places and demographics) as the media would have you believe, I invite you to drop by my university, where the dearest ambition of at least half of the males of my acquaintance is to get an Apatow film made from their lives (which would perhaps meet with more success if they would stop quoting their favorite lines from their Canon [Superbad, 40-Year-Old Virgin, the Big Lebowski, Family Guy, to a certain extent South Park, I believe you get the picture] all the damn time, it's like it's the only way they know how to express fannishness). Seriously, defensive heterosexual performativity is alive, well, and busy accusing all of its friends of being gay at any and all opportunity. (I started a really amusing discussion once by observing that I knew writers of gay porn [best short description I could think of for slashers] who thought about gay sex less than this crowd of supposedly 100% straight men. Because, yeah. Someone had a cake with drizzled clearish white icing on it and all the other guys made gay jokes. I mean, what.)
I'd be curious to see some kind of interpretation of why being mistaken for gay is SOOO HORRIBLE for guys. 'Cos the Sexually Predatory Gay Guy myth comes into play whether his "targets" are presumed gay or not, and worrying about whether they could get girls if the girls all thought they weren't interested would make more sense as a reason if they defended their sexuality toward women at all, instead of completely ignoring women so they can prove they're not gay to all of their guy friends. Is it that they would be excluded from their circle of friends if they were gay? It seems to be a really high level of defensiveness compared to other Faux Pas, like self-identifying as feminist or liberal, or being P.C. thought police &c. What's the deal?
Because gay = girly and girly = bad. *sigh*
(And this comes on board at a really young age -- I had a conversation with my daughter about a year ago, when she was five, where she was mocking some boy for doing things "like a girl." "So he was doing a really good job?" I asked. "No! He was...you know, like a girl!" "Well, I'm a girl, right?" "Yeah." "And I do a good job. And you're a girl." "Yeah." "And you do a good job." "Yeah." "So why is he doing a bad job if he's doing it like a girl?" "Because he's a boy!" "Hon, if more boys did stuff like girls do, we would all be better off. Really.")
Oh yeah, I forgot. It does seem weird that they don't accuse each other of being "girly" near as often, though. Maybe they figure that since there are women around to call them on that, and no (uncloseted...) gay men around to call them on the "you're so gay!" thing, they'll have more moral ground to stand on if someone does try to call them out?--The obsession the mainstream has with gay male sex, with the "who's the wife?" and so on, really reveals more about their attitudes toward women than I think the perpetrators want to admit. (Of course, lesbians don't have sex, except in porn, where they secretly just want to do the pizza delivery guy anyway. Trufax!) As does, in an entirely different way, the "gay guys are scary because they might sexually harass or look at or assault me [, the way I do, or at least expect straight men in general to do, to women]" trope, from the opposite direction. (Apparently in Ye Olden Tymes *handwaves* the soul was often considered to be/portrayed as feminine, so that a Good Christian Man submitted to the ultramasculinity of God/Jesus the same way women were supposed to to their husbands. I cannot help but think that this must have skeeved a lot of Good Christian Men right the fuck out.)
Good on you for that conversation! The "like a girl" thing has not been something I have been fond of for a long time. I remember being offended when someone said I did something "like a girl" (I don't remember what), and at some point my reasoning went to, "wait, why am I offended, I am a girl, so that's just a stupid insult." And I took to telling people they "screamed like a boy", because I have yet to hear a girl achieve the high-pitched shrieking scream boys have (before "made you blink" and "two for flinching" and such train them out of expressing being startled or afraid). (And I tend to handle my brother's assertions of male superiority in the physical realm by offering to beat him up. ...Er, that sounds worse than it is; we mock-fight a lot--whenever he instigates it, perhaps to test whether our relatives' assertions that "when he grows up, he'll be able to beat you in a fight" are true yet--and I win every time, by which I mean he runs away. I don't actually beat him up.)
I remember when I was ten and wiping down tables in the cafeteria I came across some younger boys--third grade, maybe--discussing their favorite colors, and agreeing that they would never like pink because that's a "girl color". So I asked them what colors were boy colors, and they were like "red, and blue, and black, and brown, and--" and named everything not pink, including yellow (which even at the time was considered a girl color, witness Power Rangers) and purple (which now seems to be an acceptable color for girls, judging by television). I was not impressed, and I told them so. Colors don't have gender, wtf. (I hope that by then I'd learned the lack of history of pink = girls, blue = boys, so I really blew their minds, but I doubt it.)
It's really frustrating to see the ghetto-izing of a gender identity held by the majority of the world's population, and to see it start sooo early. It's like, when you're a kid, your parents police your gender identity, and when you're older, other kids do, and then when you're in college apparently other boys (I refuse to consider them men, especially since they refuse to refer to women as women and not as "girls") do, and it's so--people are really missing out when they restrict themselves this way.
But they won't listen even when the Ultimate Dudebro Reward--access to vaginas and boobies, natch--is offered in exchange for embracing new definitions of masculinity. Or maybe they just don't hear all the women of their acquaintance lamenting that all the attractive guys (who can groom themselves! And hold steady jobs! Imagine!) are gay, married, or both over the sound of masturbation jokes and belching contests and discussions about how gay that whole metrosexuality fad is/was. Note to guys: women do not all find dead hooker jokes and rape jokes hilarious and attractive! Nor nose and armpit hair! Nor is it particularly easy to find potential dating partners (who aren't "sluts", i.e., having sex) when you limit your opposite-sex contact to parties where the main goal is to get as drunk or high as possible as quickly as possible!
See, I totally believe that and yet I can't help but wonder if this could be a prolonged last gasp/backlash during a transitional phase or more broadly an era where the status of sexual orientations are in a profound state of cultural flux. Because even the dynamic that you describe sounds somewhat generational. At least, heterosexual performativity has always been with us, but the relative ubiquity of almost ritualized gay accusation? That feels somewhat like the kind of belated aggressive boundary patrolling that ultimately only demonstrates that the boundaries have already eroded beyond repair.