The End of Gay: And the Death of Heterosexuality

by Bert Archer

At the crux of Sex Without Borders is the “Why do we persist in defining ourselves by our sexual behaviors?” Written by a young man for a new generation of readers—one with radically different formative experiences—this book will be popular and controversial for its answer, and for its commonsensical defense of polymorphous sexual desire. Featuring gay and lesbian publications, this intriguing debut from columnist and reviewer Bert Archer is a timely, fun and healthy read.

Genres: Queer, Nonfiction, Sexuality

288 pages, Paperback

First published October 19, 1999

Reviews

[Christian · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a very basic introduction to sex, sexuality, and gender and as a result I did not find it appealing and put it down after only sixty or so pages. I also found his ignorance towards the trans community offensive since he apparently went to extensive research on every other aspect of the book and seemed to have neglected looking into which terms are simply not appropriate to use.

[Darin Barry · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned that my own experience as a gay man who is surrounded by straights and gays a like, both in the work place and social circles, who genuinely respect, accept or love me, isn't unique. We are in a time where most intelligent gay people no longer allow themselves to be defined by their sexual habits. Gay culture has become tired and bloated like a classic rock band trying to hold on to it's hey day. Find out why some stagnate in a retrogressive social movement that hasn't evolved with the times and learn why progressive gay men and women enjoy their lives more being valued members of everyone’s society.

[Kim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book! These are points worth making, although I don't get the sense that anybody (besides me) is taking Bert Archer's ideas too seriously. I think these ideas need another decade to digest.

[George · Rating 1 out of 5]

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?

[Sonia · Rating 1 out of 5]

This could have been a somewhat interesting book if the writing wasn't so bad, though it is a bit dated in its approach to the realities of the LGBTQ community. The author comes across as smug and a little dim/too verbose, like a teenager trying to sound smarter than he is. Not impressed.

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite verbose (e.g. "he had a vaguely neurotic opposition to sexual passivity"), but also witty, informative and thought-provoking. I finally finished it after starting it 10 years ago and once I got around the writing style I found it enjoyable.

The author, he himself predominantly attracted to men, suggests through personal experience, history, and popular literature and culture, that the gay movement should and will become obsolete when we stop trying to label sexual identity and stop taking sex so seriously. If I'm interpreting this right, Archer argues that gay/straight is as inaccurate a dichotomy as masculine/feminine (as soon as you define it, you can find exceptions that make the definition useless at best, and down right restrictive at worst). Most intriguing is the notion that the research paper that was touted by the media as proving there is a gay gene never actually states there's a gay gene. Archer argues compellingly that sexual attraction is culturally influenced and to at least some extent within our control. We choose to fall in love, though we may have characteristics we are generally attracted to, gender being one of them). Even more thought provoking is his historical overview of the gay movement, and the view that even the language we use for same-sex became necessary only when we (society) started mixing up sex, the act, with sex, the identity. This happened with a great deal of influence from the church and, more recently in American politics, the army. Prior to this, people just had sex without putting a label on it. It really is a fascinating if verbose book about sexual identity with a little bit about gender politics.

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a good and interesting book, and one I feel that all people who assocaite themselves closely with their sexual identities (straight or gay) should read.
Just one problem with it. Bert Archer seems to think he's the first, or perhaps just the most important, person to realize that perhaps we shouldn't label or base identity on sexual preference.
He makes great points about the nature of attraction, desire and sexual pleasure. However, the author's arrogance is very...unattractive, as are his continual backhanded compliments to women and lesbians. And I personally found his immediate dismissal of bi-sexuality (as well as monogamy), as a viable form of sexuality, insulting. Particularly since his explorations of what 'attraction' entails seems to imply bi-sexuality is inherent in everyone not caving to social pressures. It's just more palatable to him to say it, "without labels."

Bottom line: Interesting take on history, and I agree with his ideas that attraction should be attraction without regard to gender and that labeling ourselves and forging identites out of sexual-preference is stupid. Just wish he wasn't so rabid about it.

[Dusty Wagner · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bert Archer's basically an assimilationist, a "why can't we all just be the same." which basically to him means straight. He starts with a good idea, that kids nowadays don't care about defining their sexuality with words and he gives a good synopsis of the development of the term 'homosexual' (this being the only reason to read this book). So he effectively explores this thing called "homosexuality" but never gets around to talking about breeders, as his subtitle suggests he might. The subtitle is the most direct engagement with Heterosexuality, and at one point he says something like "'Queers' are doing everything right, but they shouldn't call it Queer cuz that scares straight people." 'nuff said.

[The Kid · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book made me pretty mad at many points. I was taking things a little too personal. But I kept on reading, despite my anger, and sometimes, despite my sighs at his overly simplistic statements and his questionable formulations. I gave this book three stars because I found it was worth reading. However, most of the time I was thinking that there must be a better version of all these ideas somewhere else...

[andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

What did I learn? There is no such thing as straight/gay. Read this book! For real. Not at all highbrow. This guy is hilarious and (in my opinion) so correct. A good break from queer theory books.

[Diane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rigid definitions of sexual identity (gay, bi-,straight, etc.), while usually well-intentioned, are like a straightjacket -- they allay our fear, but also keep us restricted.

This book effectively articulates the limits of sexual identity politics.

[Janet Hardy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The writing isn't terrific, but the thinking is. Highly recommended for anyone who is twitching under the yoke of "born this way" orthodoxy. Here's hoping for a future where we can all follow our desires wherever they lead us, without regard to labels or politics.

[Silvia · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book when it first came out in 2004 and it helped me to understand the difference between queer and gay. A good basic read for newbies to the world of queer.

[Neil Fitzgerald · Rating 5 out of 5]

A gentle introduction into the history of sexualities and constructivist philosophy. Interesting and prescient observations in regards to contemporary sexual ambiguity and human behavioral science.

[Leila M · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have mixed thoughts on the material presented and it is somewhat conflicting at times, but overall a good read.

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

Archer could have made his argument much more concisely in an essay.