An AIM chat about a webzine to which I sent an essay on male bisexuality (they apparently decided not to use the piece):
WD: Maybe you should ask “V__________” and see whether bi is an emerging masculinity.
Ron: It's “engaging” masculinity, I think.
WD: “Engaging” is more emerging! Yeah, sexier, emerging like…like…like, kind of, unzipping, right?
Ron: Maybe more like zipping, actually.
WD: Surely not. At least it used to be “emerging” because we could never figure out what that might mean. But then, I suppose “BI” would be engaging both masculinity and femininity or something. How confusing.
Ron: I didn't quite get that, either. At one point I think they called it “emergent,” which I think I liked best.
WD: Oh, I've always like “emergent,” but it means something totally else and it would be a big mistake to have use it. Uh huh.
Ron: Uh yup.
WD: I guess you're right: old issues do seem to say “engaging.” Poop. I always thought “emerging” was so much more fun.
Ron: “Engaging” is not as engaging a subhead as “emerging.” Or as sexy.
WD: BTW, do you know how many “masculinities” there might be?
Ron: As many as there are males, I believe.
WD: At least. Perhaps also one should count the [straight] female fantasies about what they might be able to turn their man into.
Ron: There you go. but there's no reason to say that females cannot claim a masculinity all their own.
WD: None at all. Now the number doubles!
Ron: “Queer masculinities” would also include transfolk/genderqueer/drag kings/genderfuckers. Everyone expresses masculinity in some form. So there are infinite masculinities, in toto.
WD: Yes, now we just need to know what order of infinity.
Ron: The Fraternal Order of Eternity, of course.
