Not Gay Sex, Queer Erotic Worlds: An Interview with Jane Ward

Transcript

Hello and welcome to the latest
installment of Being Human from the
University of Pittsburgh.
This series is devoted to exploring
the humanities, their connections to
other disciplines, and their value
in the public world.
I'm Dan Kubis, assistant director of
the Humanities Center at Pitt.
My guest today is Jane Ward,
professor of Gender and Sexuality
Studies at the University of
California, Riverside.
Professor Ward's CV looks
unsurprising for a mid-career
academic.
It lists two books published by
university presses and dozens
of essays and articles in scholarly
journals.
Readers also get a sense for
Professor Ward's dynamic approach to
teaching through course titles like
Critical Approaches to
Heterosexuality and Freaks,
Sluts and Perverts: Sexual Others
in the U.S. Imagination.
What readers can't see on her CV is
the sensation that her last book
became when it was published in
2015.
That book, Not Gay: Sex Between
Straight White Men, was widely
discussed on the Internet, reviewed
in places like Newsweek, Forbes, and
The Guardian, and was the top seller
on Amazon's gay and lesbian
nonfiction list for a time.
I suppose it also didn't hurt that
occasional grad student James Franco
put a photo of himself holding the
book on Instagram.
The book earned Professor Ward much
praise but also criticism and even
hate mail from people who objected
to her argument that sexuality is
culturally constructed rather than
determined by bio-evolutionary
processes.
In the fall of last year, she
published a follow-up essay in which
she discussed reactions to her book
and reasserted what has been a
fundamental commitment for her
throughout her career.
That is, liberating sexual practices
from narrowly understood categories
and opening up more space for queer
ways of life.
I began by asking Professor Ward
about what she was arguing in Not
Gay, and why it made so many people
so mad.
I started thinking about this
project about 20 years ago
when I was an undergrad
at a university in Southern
California, and
a straight white male friend
of mine shared with me
about a hazing ritual that
he had witnessed called the elephant
walk.
And in this ritual, which
I describe in the book,
fraternity pledges
take off their clothes, and
they walk in a circle
like circus elephants.
But rather than connect to tail to
trunk, they have their thumb in the
anus of the guy in front of them, or
they have their hand on the penis of
the guy in front of them.
There are different iterations of
this.
And when my friend told me about
this, I was
21.
I was absolutely shocked
because I had certainly
never done anything like that with
women. And
I knew that if I had
done something like that with women,
that would be perceived as sexual.
And yet he was telling the story
to me as if
this was just
like tomfoolery.
Like it just it didn't have any
sexual content.
And so I was really struck by
the
disparity between
the kinds of intimate contact
that men can make-- that straight
men can make with one another, and
the kinds of intimate contact that
straight women can make and the
very different stories we tell
about that. And so,
fast forward to
the early 2000s, when
I started thinking about this book,
there was a lot of commentary in the
media about men of color on
the down low.
And at the same time, that
there was a bit of
a public health panic
about that or a moral panic
about black men having sex with men
and possibly spreading HIV
to their wives or girlfriends.
There was also a lot of interest
in girls kissing girls
and female celebrities doing
this and what this means.
And so, who is
absent in these
very high-profile stories
coming out in The New York Times
about these two phenomena?
White men, straight white men.
And I knew from
this past experience that straight
white men had their own version of
this kind of complicated, fluid
sexuality that no one was talking
about. So this becomes the
initial question for the book, and
I start out interested in
the kinds of loopholes that are
available to straight white men
to make sexual contact with other
men and still retain
their straightness-- their status
as heterosexual.
And so that's the driving question
of the book.
One of the central points in
it, I think, is that it does not
make sense, you argue, to
look at these acts and conclude
these are all closeted gay men.
Right.
Well, one of the misconceptions
about this book - I think
on the part of people who maybe have
read a blurb but haven't actually
read the book - is that this
is a book that
is about a particular
subset of straight
white men or some subgroup.
It's actually really about all
straight white men. It's
about hetero-masculinity in
particular or white
hetero-masculinity. And so
the reason I say that is that
the case studies that I'm looking at
are-- they're
examples of straight men
touching one another in sexual
ways as part of
the everyday life of
hegemonic masculine institutions,
fraternities, the military,
places that all men circulate
in. Of course, not all men are
in fraternities or in the
military, but we would be wrong to
say that those institutions
are populated only by closeted men.
So many
other scholars have looked at this
kind of behavior and
have called - mostly psychologists -
and they have called it situational
homosexuality or
deprivational homosexuality.
And they have all these theories
that men do this because they don't
have access to women sex
partners in prisons or in
the military.
But when you take all of that
research together, you find
that the
same logics that are at work
in the prison that
justify men touching each other
are also circulating
outside of the prison in
fraternities where men
certainly do have access to
sex with women and circulating
in public restrooms and in living
rooms. And so part
of what I do in the book is look at
all of this research that has
presumed that it was--
that makes conclusions based
on the particularities
of the specific institution
being studied.
And then raise-- when you look
at it all together, it raises some
other questions.
The main one, I think, or the most
important one, being what's going on
with straight men that every chance
they get to put their finger in each
other's anus, they basically
take it. That these opportunities
are manufactured across such a broad
range of institutional environments.
Yeah, well, one of the points that
you make in the book
was that the story
of heterosexuality in the 21st
century, you say, is about the rise
of bio-evolutionary accounts of
sexual desire. Right?
Yes.
And this is a very important point.
Why have those accounts
gained in popularity in recent
years?
Right. Right. So what we do see from
General Social Survey is that
the number of Americans who
believe that people are born with
their sexual orientation intact
or that sexual orientation is
congenital has
increased dramatically.
It started increasing in the 1950s
and has just gone up since
then.
I think the
reason for that is
that is the message
that has been promoted by
the mainstream gay and lesbian
movement. And so belief
that people are born
with a sexual constitution
and that they have no control over
that sexual constitution has
become associated with
being a good person, with being
an ally to gay-- to having
an open mind.
And so I think most people,
both gay and straight,
anyone who imagines themselves as a
straight ally, for instance, think
that that's the right thing to
believe. But interestingly,
what this biological turn
has also made
possible is for straight
people to imagine that
their heterosexuality
was also present at birth and that
it's fixed. There's nothing that
they can do about it.
And so, almost paradoxically,
what that means is that straight
people can engage in
homosexual behaviors
and think, "Well, you know,
I know I'm
biologically straight.
So that was just a circumstantial
aberration." And so part
of what I'm tracing is the way that
the the rise
of bioessentialist theories
of sexual orientation have actually
created more spaciousness
for straight people to temporarily
stray or to imagine that
they are acting
temporarily out of accordance with
their innate sexual constitution.
Yeah, but that's innate.
That's not going anywhere.
Exactly.
So there's no concern for it.
Yeah. Whereas in the past, your
homosexuality was
signaled simply
by your behavior.
So if you had-- if you had any
homosexual encounter, that meant you
were gay, whether you wanted to say
so or not. And now, we understand
most people believe that context
matters. So most people believe that
if a straight woman has a threesome
with another woman and her boyfriend
for his birthday, for instance,
that's not a sad story of her being
a closeted lesbian.
Instead, people take into
consideration all of the contextual
information, and they say, "Oh,
she's straight." Or maybe they say
she might have bisexual impulses or
something like that. But for the
most part, we provide
straight people now with many
loopholes that help to
preserve their heterosexuality even
as they make homosexual contact.
My favorite chapters in the book is
where you argue for an embrace
of queer erotic worlds.
Right? This is the thing that you
want your argument to be in service
of intimately.
And I wonder if you can say a little
bit about how your work complicating
heterosexuality here works
in service of embracing those
worlds?
I think part of what's
complicated about straight
white men's,
admittedly, kinky interactions
with one another is that,
at first blush, they do seem queer.
These are really
often very fantastical scenarios
in which men are topping other
men.
I'm often very impressed with how
elaborate these rituals are.
And I have a chapter that's about
Craigslist ads in which straight
men are seeking sex with other men,
and often these ads read
like very detailed porn.
They're just with costumery and
all that stuff.
So, again, one could
say, "Well, what's queerer than
this?" But the point
of the book is
that all of this is happening
in the service of heteronormativity.
These men are deeply, deeply
invested in being perceived as
sexually normal and
deeply invested in
living a heterosexual life.
They know that there is a queer
movement or an LGBT movement.
They want nothing to do with it.
It doesn't feel like home to them.
Being straight is where
their heart is, and it's certainly
where their politics lie.
So
for me, as a queer
person and as someone
who understands queerness
not as a
synonym for
homosexuality but as a political
orientation, a refusal of
gender and sexual normativity,
this, I think, helps to
push us.
I mean, already, we've been engaged
in this project of delinking
queerness from homosexual sex
practices.
And I think it helps to
illuminate the significance of that
even more that
there's no end
of sex practices
that can be folded into
heteronormativity or used in the
service of heteronormativity.
So what that means is that
the power of queerness-- it's
certainly about sex practices.
I'm not saying it's not, but it's
about the meaning of those sex
practices, and
what their use is, what
the context is in people's lives.
And so it's in that last chapter
that I'm reflecting on that.
Hearing you talk about this now
makes me recall the value
you put on sincerity in that
last chapter. It sounds now like
that's kind of what you're talking
about, like looking for a kind of
sincere queerness.
Yes.
Yeah. And I shocked myself
to even be saying that word
because, of course, you don't
think-- when you think queer, you
don't think sincerity.
And yet
one of the common threads for
straight men,
when they are touching other
men, is that they want it to
be made really clear that it is
meaningless and
that there's nothing--
not just nothing identitarian
happening there, like, what they're
doing should not be a reflection of
their identity, but also that
there's nothing of political
consequence happening there.
And I think queer people when
we fuck, we're pretty sincere
about the queerness and the
political nature of those
encounters. And when I'm talking
about queer, I'm not talking about
gay. I'm talking about queer.
So, yeah, I did want to
mind that
idea or that concept of
sincerity for its queer potential.
Yeah. I want to also ask you about
the reaction to the book.
There's been negative reaction to
it. You published on the negative
reaction, but also, we should say a
lot of positive reaction.
It's been nominated for awards.
It's been already translated into
German. I mean, I'd join
the people who think very highly of
it. But I want to ask you, even
before we get into kind of the
positive and the negative, I want to
ask just about the size in general.
What are your thoughts on why the
readership was so big?
Yes.
It was not unexpected for you?
It was unexpected.
I love projects
in which the main finding
of the project seems so obvious,
and yet no
one had talked about it yet.
And I think this book sort of
falls into that category that,
of course, this is happening.
It's happening all around us.
Straight men, sexual contact with
one another is everywhere and
nowhere.
And so I think it resonated on that
level of people wanting a framework
to make sense of it.
Also, it's
about sex.
And one of the
surprises for me is
that somehow
this book circulated
among gay men, nonacademic
gay male readers, with the hope
that it would be titillating,
that it would be-- that it was sort
of like gay porn.
And I think many of them were
disappointed to discover
my feminist analysis running
through this book alongside the hot
images.
It's a buzzkill as you write in your--
Yes, yes.
So yeah, I mean, I heard--
setting aside the academic
responses, which were mostly
positive and constructive, I
heard from many
gay men, who are
outside of the academy, and
straight men and
straight women.
And the nature of those
responses were all very different.
I heard from many gay men who hated
this book and who
expressed their outrage,
often in quite misogynistic
terms. And then, many
straight men who loved
this book and wrote to me with
detailed and very juicy
confessions of their
sexual encounters with other men.
And then, many straight women
who were partnered
with men that they thought might be
having sex with men
and who, for the most part, were
quite heartbroken about it.
And so,
the intensity of the feelings
around this book,
I wasn't quite prepared to deal with
it, in part because many of the
people writing to me what they
really needed was psychotherapy.
What they needed was some sort of
emotional healing.
So, yeah,
it was really fascinating.
That reminds me, you were actually
invited to go on television shows,
right? In the role of a therapist
after this.
Yes. Yes.
I don't watch TV, so when
I got these requests, I'd have to
Google and find out what on earth is
this. But one daytime talk
show called The Doctors asked me
if I would be
on the show to talk to wives
about how to relate to their
husbands or boyfriends--
how to relate to the discovery that
their husbands, their boyfriends
were having sex with men.
Of course, that is really out of my
wheelhouse.
Well, so you published an article on
the reactions in
fall of last year.
And one of the things that I found
really interesting that you did in
that piece was reflect
on your method of
writing in the book.
And you write a little bit
about the-- or you defend
the humanistic and
cultural studies approaches that you
take against approaches that
are based in biology or quantitative
social sciences.
Did you expect to do that?
Did you expect to have to defend
that method in that way because
you're trained in sociology?
I mean, how did that come about?
I did.
And I didn't expect that
sociologists would love this book
precisely because of
its cultural studies
methodology. Often
in the social sciences, truth
comes out of the mouths of people
that you interview or who fill out
your survey. This is the
presumption. And so,
you're going for reproducibility
and generalizability.
And so there's
not a lot of nuance.
It's also very difficult with
social science methods to capture
contradictions
in the way that people understand
themselves.
Because if you're relying on
self-reporting--
had I had gone out and said,
"I want to talk to
straight-identified men who have sex
with men, or I'm looking for men
having sex with men," I
would have been sitting in gay bars
with no one talking to me.
It would have been very challenging.
And so, instead, I made the decision
to look at
a number of case studies,
some historical, some
contemporary.
So the book has
a very eclectic archive.
I am looking at personal
ads and media
coverage.
I chose those methods because
it really gave me the long view
on this question: how
have a broad
range of stakeholders, not just men
themselves, engaged in these sex
practices, but how have sexologists,
psychologists, sociologists,
filmmakers, how have we
collectively
come to understand what
sexual fluidity is
and how it's different when we
are thinking about
women's sexuality and men's
sexuality, white people's sexuality
and men of color's sexuality.
And those questions
really lend themselves to
humanistic methods.
Another kind of method question that
I was interested in has to do with
your investment in post-structural
theory. Some of the negative
reactions that you got specifically
reacted to that.
Called you a minion of Judith
Butler? That example is one of the
many things you got.
Sure. I'll take it.
Yeah.
I'm wondering whether you
think at all that some of the
reaction to, especially from
gay men,
who you see as being
upset that they've been decentered
by this work in queer studies.
Is it possible to see negative
reaction to your book as part of a
broader reaction to
post-structuralism based on the fact
that if we take post-structuralism
seriously, then nobody's at the
center?
Sure, absolutely.
I mean, I think people like
accessible and legitimizing
scholarship. And
sometimes, it's white people
who want that.
Sometimes it's men who want that.
Sometimes it's gay men who want
that. I think that many people
don't understand the tenets
of post-structuralist theory,
and they don't understand the
methodology that people might
use to
work in and through a
post-structuralist frame.
And so I understand the feeling
of it being inaccessible.
Certainly, as a sociology graduate
student, I felt that way myself.
And so I actually feel
like part of my work or one of my
aims in my work is to translate
humanistic queer scholarship
for a broader audience.
And I think I
do that fairly well.
I try to do that.
So in that regard, I was actually
disappointed that people had
the reaction that they had
because I felt like I
was working
in a liminal space
between a more humanistic framework
and a social science framework.
I also think gay men, in particular,
were angry because
there's still a sense among many
gay white men that
they are entitled to the privileges
of white masculinity, and they've
been denied those privileges as
a result of being gay.
And so any framework
that will help to restore
their male privilege and
any scholarship that does that, they
would prioritize that over
scholarship that deconstructs
sexuality or deconstructs gender
or puts women or people
of color at the center.
And they basically said
as much in their responses
to me that they felt like
gay and lesbian studies had
really deteriorated
with the centering
of trans
and dyke theorizing.
Yeah. I also want to ask you about
your first book, Respectively Queer.
In the beginning of Not Gay, you
kind of look back, and maybe it has
to do with the sociology-- it's
a revision of your dissertation.
So maybe it has to do with that kind
of disciplinary background, but
you kind of look back on it and say
it didn't really feel totally like
it was yours, whereas Not
Gay does feel more like that.
You're more excited about it.
Still, I saw a pretty
clear continuity in terms of your
interest in recalling radical
impulses in queer politics
there. Do you also see it?
I mean, is that--
I do, yes.
Yeah. So that book is about the
corporatization of
queer organizations.
And I was living in L.A.
at the time, so I was looking at
three L.A.-based organizations.
But the story that I told is
a story that's happening nationally,
that as these LGBT-- what
were once grassroots organizations
populated by like a ragtag
crew of queer activists,
they've institutionalized
and now they're recruiting from
the private sector to get
their development directors and so
forth. And so you go into these
places, and they're basically gay
incorporated.
You might as well be in a bank.
And in fact, the L.A.
Gay and Lesbian Center is in the
former IRS building, and that's
precisely how it feels.
So, yeah, absolutely.
That project felt urgent
to me as a description
of the mainstreaming.
And, really, I didn't have quite the
language for this at the time, but
it's the neo-liberalization
of the queer movement that I'm
trying to document there.
And yet, because I was
a sociologist, I'm feeling
compelled to rehearse social
movement theory and organizations
theory. And I would have told that
story differently now.
One thing that book raised for
me was about you
and your existence in a university.
I assume that UC Riverside,
your home institution, like every
university, declares
diversity to be a
fundamental goal of what it wants to
promote on campus and things like
that. Have you been involved
in any of the university-level
efforts to promote diversity on
campus? Because it seems like you
would be in an interesting position
with regard to those efforts.
On the one hand, you worked so much
on diversity. On the other hand, the
particular kind of work that you do
seems like it might not fit so well
with that.
Exactly, yes.
I'm so glad you're asking me this
question.
So, UC Riverside
is a unique campus
nationally in that it's about 70%
students of color.
And I would say
an even greater percentage of
students of color take
Women and Gender Studies courses.
And so, on the one hand, it
means that a kind of
racial justice framework
is already
present in, I think, most classrooms
because the students bring it.
They come to the classroom
with a lot of critical thinking
skills around
race and socioeconomic
class.
And so the campus has no choice
but to rise
to the level of expectation, I
think, around those issues.
Queerness, on the other hand,
I've been really
fascinated and completely
depressed to observe that
the kind of queer
scholarship that the campus is
comfortable promoting
or publicizing in its development
materials and so forth
is queer scholarship that focuses
on a tragic story.
So if you
publish work about homeless
queer youth, if you publish
work about intimate
partner violence in queer
communities,
that is perceived
as not threatening because it's
rehearsing the tragedy of
queerness. But if you write about
queer pleasure, God forbid,
or
if you want to tell a story about
the kind of sex practices that queer
youth are engaged in.
In other words, if you want to talk
about how young queer people
live as opposed to how they kill
themselves, then that's going to
make your campus uncomfortable.
And I think we really need to be
calling them to task.
I know this is not specific to my
campus. And so
why this--
not just addiction, it's almost like
a fetish for queer trauma
that I think is
one manifestation of
heteronormativity that we can
see very clearly at the university.
Yeah. Well, I want to ask you about
one other focus of yours
in your work, and that is parenting.
You've written a lot about-- you've
published essays. You also have
written a lot of blogs that I really
enjoyed reading about genderqueer
parenting practices and also, in
particular, encouraging children's
right to self-determine gender.
And you work with-- you work with
other parents and talk with them
about ways that they can create
environments that allow children
to do that, too.
What are some of the things that you
talk to parents about doing to
create that kind of environment?
Yeah, so two main things.
One is gender
salience.
So I think often
there's a confusion about
whether gender is relevant in
a particular situation.
And parents, not just parents
but also teachers, can get kind
of stumped around this.
So when you need
to take your class of students and
divide them into two groups,
do you really want to be saying boys
and girls? Because part what you're
communicating when you do that is
that gender difference is
so salient, that it's so significant
in your mind as this formative adult
that it is the easiest
and first and foremost way
that you're going to differentiate
between people.
And, of course, we understand that
we would not say, "All right, kids,
separate into whites and browns."
We understand the damage
that that would do. And yet,
somehow, that's still quite
normalized around gender.
So for me,
it's important that
parents recognize that not
doing that isn't just something
that's relevant for parents with
trans or genderqueer children.
It's vitally important
for all of us because this
is where that foundation
gets laid for
boys, in particular, to feel quite
alienated from girls.
And then, by the time they get to
college, and they start raping
girls, we wonder what happened.
These were great young men.
Well, what happened is
that you started separating
and then dehumanizing or alienating
boys and girls from one another.
So distinguishing between
when it's really, really unnecessary
to gender children and then
environments in which gender
does feel more relevant.
Like when you're talking about a
child's body with the doctor, how
to do that without presuming their
gender identification if you don't.
So this is gender salience.
And I also work with parents around
genderqueer celebrations.
So that it's not
celebrating queerness, queer
history, queer
accomplishments, the beauty of
queerness is not just for queer
parents. It should be for all
parents in the same way that we
introduce children to
books and things from other
cultures. I'm an advocate
that we do that around queerness as
well.
Yeah. And one of the points that you
made on your blog that I found very
interesting is that if you're not
proactively doing this, then the
default is heteronormativity.
Exactly.
Well, so your current work is titled
The Failure of Heterosexuality: How
Sexism Doomed the World's Most
Cherished Union and Hid the
Wreckage. How's it coming?
Well, one thing I can say is
that I'm having so much fun writing
this book.
Oh that's good.
It's just been so
pleasurable.
It's coming along.
I mean, I'm in the early stages with
this book. It's again
a strange archive.
So the basic
argument in this book, it's
a bit of a rant, but it's that
despite the story we tell about
the tragedy or in contrast
with the story we tell about how
tragic and difficult it is
to be queer, that in my own
life and for many, many queer
people, we witness
the miseries, the utter miseries
of heterosexuality and feel profound
gratitude that we have escaped them.
And so this book
is about me documenting
those miseries through a
queer lens, through my own queer
lens.
And to do that, I'm
looking very closely at what I call
the heterosexual repair industry,
which is as
straightness repeatedly fails
to function or to deliver
on the promises of heteronormativity
as straight relationships fail to
deliver, we see all
of these-- an industry emerge
to help smooth that over
for straight people or to justify it
or to distract from it.
So I'm looking at doing a kind
of a 20th-century survey of
self-help books for straight
people, mostly for married people.
I also spent three years-- there's
an ethnographic component to this
book. I spent three years
inside the pick-up artist
and seduction community,
which started out as a community and
now really is an industry.
So whereas the self-help books are
often-- the target audience is
women, men now
are the consumers
of what are often called seduction
boot camps. So they'll spend a
weekend paying somewhere between
$1,500 and $3,000 to
learn how to seduce
women. I also did some
interviews with queer people
about what they
dislike about straight people
and straight culture.
And then, I kind of wrap
the book up with some reflections on
what I call deep heterosexuality
or what heterosexual
justice might look like.
Talking about writing about the
positive experiences that
you've had, being queer reminds
me of what we were talking
about on the university campus.
That's kind of like promoting those
stories or things that could help on
those campuses and in a lot of
spaces.
I know. And it's amazing.
I mean, my work has
been persistently
unfundable.
And so I'm just so struck
by how many people
seem to like my work and want to
read my work. But, certainly, my
university doesn't want to promote
my work, and no one wants to fund my
work. And so
something is going on here around
what we consider to be
urgent scholarship
and scholarship
that we should throw money behind.
And I think often the feeling is
that tragedy
is where it's at.
And so, in a way, it's almost a kind
of cheeky play on a little joke with
myself to say, "Okay, well, I'm
going to write about the tragedy of
heterosexuality because that's the
tragedy that I see."
Well, that kind of turning the
tables worked really well in Not
Gay. It's a really great book, and
I'm sure we all look forward to your
coming book as well.
Thank you.
Jane Ward, thanks so much for being
here.
It's my pleasure.
That's it for this edition of Being
Human.
This episode was produced by Matt
Moret, Undergraduate Media Fellow at
the University of Pittsburgh.
Stay tuned next time when my guest
will be Mabel Wilson, professor of
Architecture at Columbia University.
Thanks for listening.

In collections

Being Human Podcast Recordings

Order Reproduction
Title
Not Gay Sex, Queer Erotic Worlds: An Interview with Jane Ward
Contributor
University of Pittsburgh (depositor)
Ward, Elizabeth Jane (interviewee)
Kubis, Dan (interviewer)
Date
April 7, 2017
Identifier
20230127-beinghuman-0018
Description
An interview with Jane Ward, professor of gender and sexuality studies at the University of California, Riverside. The interview focuses on Professor Ward's life and career, particularly her newest book, "Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men" and the controversy it's caused since its publication in 2015.
Extent
34 minutes
Publisher
University of Pittsburgh. Department of English
Type
sound recording-nonmusical
Genre
interviews
Subject
Men--Sexual behavior
Gay men
Homosexuality
Heterosexuality
Sex--Sociological aspects
Ward, Elizabeth Jane
Source
Being Human
Language
eng
Collection
Being Human Podcast Recordings
Contributor
University of Pittsburgh
Rights Information
In Copyright. This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).. Rights Holder: University of Pittsburgh
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
Rights Holder
University of Pittsburgh

Primary tabs

Not Gay Sex, Queer Erotic Worlds: An Interview with Jane Ward

In collections