Bert Archer wants to sleep with all his friends. And he wants society to reconstruct itself to function according to his personal desires. In fact "Society should reconstruct itself to allow me to sleep with all my friends" would have made a much more accurate title for the book. The back cover could also read: "My insatiable virility and and history of sex with straight men endows me with masculinity and individual superiority, further evidenced by the varied historical and pop culture references I can summon in order to elaborate this intellectual masturbation. I should be exempt, therefore, of inclusion among the downtrodden and persecuted homosexual group, trapped as it is in feminine gender that I do not wish to share. But please allow me to continue having gay sex."

(1) The actual back cover of The End of Gay promises an argument promoting the demotion of sex to but one aspect of a rich tapestry of life and, with its demotion, a loosening of tensions and boundaries, and an increase in general happiness. That would have been a great book to read, but unfortunately that's not the book Archer has written. The End of Gay, rather, promotes a hyper-sexual life. Archer wants humans to have sex all the time, with everyone, everywhere like bonobo monkeys.

(2) Furthermore, Archer's purely sexual treatment of sexual orientation focuses on the varied spectrum of sexuality that people experience in real practice (old hat) and mocks those who he sees as trapped by gender. His argument is only able to do this by conveniently avoiding any serious engagement with issues of power - the field within which gender games are played, and within which homosexuality has been (and remains) politicised. Archer recognises issues of gender in passing, but his argument doesn't engage with its central role.

(3) Finally, Archer wants to wish away the prison of gay collective identity, arguing that it restricts his sexual practice: other people with whom he would like to have sex won't do so because of societal norms. But it slowly becomes clear, through what he says and doesn't say, that Archer's problem is with his inclusion among an identity group. He doesn't like the label 'gay' and hates 'queer' even more. It's not that these labels limit the opportunity for others to allow themselves to have sex with him, but that Archer does not want to have to identify as a member of an oppressed group in order for that to happen. This is a book written by an individualist, with an almost Ayn Rand-ian perspective that takes everything for the individual. In many ways, it could only be written by a person of privilege, incapable of exerting themself in a common struggle for group rights. Wouldn't it be easier if the whole mess would just go away on its own, without any effort at all? Wouldn't life be great, if it were full of privilege, without having to associate, organise and fight? ( )

You really can take "the personal is political" too far. Just because being gay has almost no meaning for the author, doesn't mean it's at an end for the rest of us. The author no attention to other work on the subject, and has only his own limited opinion to offer. Avoid. ( )

http://donutgirl.livejournal.com/207257.html ( )