I know gay men that enjoyed sex with women, truly enjoyed it (and some still do), but knew they were gay because they wanted to have an emotional relationship with a man. They weren't interested in falling in love with a woman. They wanted to fall in love with a man and be with him for the rest of their lives.
I've also known gay men who happily have sex with men but prefer to spend the rest of their lives with women--to the extent that some live with or have married women. Their emotional involvement revolves around women whom they may or may not sleep with.
Max fucking his sister from behind has to do with the fact that once she began her period they began having anal intercourse to avoid pregnancy. That's made clear in the book. But they have vaginal intercourse when he visits her in Switzerland, otherwise there'd be no twins, and his fantasies at his sister's villa all involve vaginal intercourse, and not from behind.
Max is turned off by the idea of having sex with any other woman. His closest friends are all men, yet he won't consider having an emotional relationship with a man. He's in love with his sister both emotionally and sexually, and that relationship is a huge part of his sexuality. This man clearly isn't straight, but he's not completely gay either. He's Max. This is one big issue that so many of my gay friends and I have. These labels are fucked up and limiting.
I understand personally Max's desire to identify with his sister by being penetrated in intercourse because I've been the opposite with women. 95 - 98% of the satisfaction I get from sleeping with a woman is related to the fact that I'm experiencing what a man would experience. That I get to be a man, as it were. There's even an aspect of me that feels that if I can't HAVE the man I want, I can at least BE him. I can charm a woman off her feet the way I'd like to be charmed by a man. Yet I sleep mostly with men and consider men my sexual preference. I can imagine falling in love with a woman and I have, but the idea of being in a relationship with one fills me with despair because I would miss men's bodies horribly. There's no way I could do it without having an open relationship, and most woman who identify as lesbians wouldn't allow that. Their "identity" is too important to them.
This is why I hate the idea of sexual "identities." They're too restrictive. Most of my gay friends feel the same. They hate the whole alphabet soup LGBTQI community nonsense. They may participate in some gay events, but they hate all the rules and regulations that come with being part of a "community."
So it's more complex than with whom you prefer have sex. But Max's sexuality is not a big concern to me. What does bug the shit out of me in the book is that he isn't just in denial about the twins, but rather seems completely clueless that he's their father. I mean, you'd think that a man with that amount of self-insight (and it's not inconsiderable by a long shot) could see the obvious. That's the only aspect of the book that bothers me. Perhaps with the translation. Was he that clueless in the French original? This is not a stupid man and the statements he makes in the English versio make it quite clear that they're his. There are certain associations he makes with their birth that make it so obvious, and there's nothing in the book to convince me that he could be so clueless.
Unless, of course, he's lying. Which is always interesting in a protagonist. It's one of the aspects of Ford Madox Ford's "The Good Soldier" that I find most intriguing. The fact that we're not sure if the characters are being truthful, yet have no proof one way or another, just a nagging suspicion that tells the reader to be wary. But that's a device that's extraordinarily difficult to pull off. Not only did Ford do it, but he wasn't even working in his native tongue when he wrote the novel.
Whatever. I love "The Kindly Ones", and could spend days discussing it, sharing differing opinions, etc.!
no subject
I know gay men that enjoyed sex with women, truly enjoyed it (and some still do), but knew they were gay because they wanted to have an emotional relationship with a man. They weren't interested in falling in love with a woman. They wanted to fall in love with a man and be with him for the rest of their lives.
I've also known gay men who happily have sex with men but prefer to spend the rest of their lives with women--to the extent that some live with or have married women. Their emotional involvement revolves around women whom they may or may not sleep with.
Max fucking his sister from behind has to do with the fact that once she began her period they began having anal intercourse to avoid pregnancy. That's made clear in the book. But they have vaginal intercourse when he visits her in Switzerland, otherwise there'd be no twins, and his fantasies at his sister's villa all involve vaginal intercourse, and not from behind.
Max is turned off by the idea of having sex with any other woman. His closest friends are all men, yet he won't consider having an emotional relationship with a man. He's in love with his sister both emotionally and sexually, and that relationship is a huge part of his sexuality. This man clearly isn't straight, but he's not completely gay either. He's Max. This is one big issue that so many of my gay friends and I have. These labels are fucked up and limiting.
I understand personally Max's desire to identify with his sister by being penetrated in intercourse because I've been the opposite with women. 95 - 98% of the satisfaction I get from sleeping with a woman is related to the fact that I'm experiencing what a man would experience. That I get to be a man, as it were. There's even an aspect of me that feels that if I can't HAVE the man I want, I can at least BE him. I can charm a woman off her feet the way I'd like to be charmed by a man. Yet I sleep mostly with men and consider men my sexual preference. I can imagine falling in love with a woman and I have, but the idea of being in a relationship with one fills me with despair because I would miss men's bodies horribly. There's no way I could do it without having an open relationship, and most woman who identify as lesbians wouldn't allow that. Their "identity" is too important to them.
This is why I hate the idea of sexual "identities." They're too restrictive. Most of my gay friends feel the same. They hate the whole alphabet soup LGBTQI community nonsense. They may participate in some gay events, but they hate all the rules and regulations that come with being part of a "community."
So it's more complex than with whom you prefer have sex. But Max's sexuality is not a big concern to me. What does bug the shit out of me in the book is that he isn't just in denial about the twins, but rather seems completely clueless that he's their father. I mean, you'd think that a man with that amount of self-insight (and it's not inconsiderable by a long shot) could see the obvious. That's the only aspect of the book that bothers me. Perhaps with the translation. Was he that clueless in the French original? This is not a stupid man and the statements he makes in the English versio make it quite clear that they're his. There are certain associations he makes with their birth that make it so obvious, and there's nothing in the book to convince me that he could be so clueless.
Unless, of course, he's lying. Which is always interesting in a protagonist. It's one of the aspects of Ford Madox Ford's "The Good Soldier" that I find most intriguing. The fact that we're not sure if the characters are being truthful, yet have no proof one way or another, just a nagging suspicion that tells the reader to be wary. But that's a device that's extraordinarily difficult to pull off. Not only did Ford do it, but he wasn't even working in his native tongue when he wrote the novel.
Whatever. I love "The Kindly Ones", and could spend days discussing it, sharing differing opinions, etc.!