How should I write a convincing gay MC?

Work in a scene where he looks at gay porn. That way, your readers will know and understand that the concept of a man having sex with a man (or several men) is something that intrigues your MC. And be sure to describe the porn in detail: are the men hairy? Is there any hitting/spitting, or is the loving tender?

 

HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
LMFAO!!! My sides are killing me! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

"Be sure to describe the porn in detail"? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
"Are the men hairy"? HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
(I'm dying here!)

"Is there any ...HA HA! ... Is there any ... HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
(I'm dying! Into thy hands, Oh Lord, I commend my spirit!)

"Is there any hitting/spitting" HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
(You'd like that, wouldn't you, Irontrousers?)

"Or ... (HeHe!) ... is the loving tender?" HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

(You're all cordially invited to my funeral! Epitaph reads: Split his guts in a guffaw).

 

This. Also be sure to mention that he uses his hands a lot when he talks.

 

LOL or keep it simiple and just have him appreciate another man's comely features

 

I think if it's not integral to the story that he is gay then there's no reason to make a thing of it. If he was straight you probably wouldn't make a whole storyline about his sexuality, so no need to just because he is gay.

If it were me I would just throw in the hints as you'd suggested, and let it slip when it's relevant (e.g. he has a love interest).

I'm assuming here that your character knows he is gay? If not then exploring that discovery would be more relevant, though I think it's a bit cliche (JMHO).

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. As a gay man, I don't identify with the 'gay community' very much. In fact, I find myself butting heads with the way the outspoken go about trying to prove that being gay is OK. It's not as though being gay means you follow the gay culture, like being black doesn't mean you inherently understand, or show qualities of, various African cultures.

However, writing a believable gay character is really very dependent on his personality as a whole. You might have a gay character who almost never shows his sexuality simply because he doesn't consider it a defining part of him. Perhaps he doesn't show it, however, because he believes it's so defining that people won't like him.

I can't tell you how to write your character based simply on "Gay." There are too many variations of personality to believe gay is a truly defining feature.

Consider, though, that it will affect things. Unless he's perfectly stoic, he will be sneaking glances or even just looking flat out. He might have a soft spot for attractive men, or for whatever his type is. Perhaps he avoids men because he wants to avoid being gay.

Like any quality a person has, like a fear of heights, it will impact what he does and how he does it. Like a fear of heights, however, it doesn't define who he is. If there is no verifiable reason to point out that he's gay, it might simply not matter. At best, you could make it ambiguous, if he has no relationships and his sexuality is completely irrelevant to how the story plays out.

 

If you are interested you can read some of the stories I have posted here. I'll PM a link to my blog as well if you are okay with cute guy pics that appear occasionally (well, make that most of the time) with the posts.

 

Ah...that is just habit born from the early days when I first concieved of the character and his friends waaay back in '04. They do not call themselves this.

Manay, I would love that. Send me a PM

 

maybe try reading Sprout by Dale Peck and the God Box by Alex Sanchez I enjoyed both of them.

 

Look at Dumbledore in the Harry Potter stories. We would never have known he was gay if Rowling had not told us in an interview. Looking back at the stories we can see that he was single and was sensitive to the problems of being "different" -- but he could have been those things without being gay. It was just part of the complete persona that Rowling constructed. Or look at Smithers in The Simpsons, a pretty-much certain closet gay (has he ever actually come out?) which is generally shown by his devotion to the object of his unrequited affections. Most of the time, though, they're just people who get on with what the story requires.

 

I always thought Dumbledore was really camp. /was not surprised.

 

I think we must understand different things by "camp".

 

I was just thinking the same thing. Camp is typically used for "(of a man) Ostentatiously and extravagantly effeminate" is it not? It can also mean deliberately exaggerated and theatrical. Which... I suppose dumbledore could be seen as deliberately theatrical.

 

That's all there is to it, basically. Only people who severely lack personalities define themselves by their sexuality, be they straight, gay, or into some sick sh*t I won't expatiate on here.

/rant

 

I agree with both of the above. Unless it is in some way is integral to the story that everyone knows he is gay, I don't see why you need to go out of your way to talk about it in your story.

Or just have him listening to Lady Gaga in the car.

 

Like bacterial cultures? or do you mean Punk culture, or counter culture, or even culture club? Yes I believe in all of these (and more). How is it really relevant here?

 

When I brought up culture I wasn't thinking about "gay culture" but the fact that there are types of people who have diferent types of behaviors. That negates the PC "everyone is the same" comment, because everyone is not the same in how they approach situations.

People have commonalities, like most people like Pizza, but an atheist father is not going to act same as an orthodox religious father when some guy asks to marry their daughter. That's because they belong to two different cultures regarding "daughters and marriage" even if they belong to the "I like pizza" group.

As I mentioned in another post, if homo and heterosexual people were exactly the same, then there would be no such either as an "either/or" in said groups. There's differences and that's why John is attracted to girls, which is a massive thought process, not just a drive, and Fred is attracted to guys, which is also a massive thought process. If we as writers want to impart some Truth into our work we need to get differences correct to honor that they exist.

That's why I hate token minority characters. I suspect that people wish to include them because they are "cool" objects to discuss. In another thread we discussed having a "Muslim" character when the writer had no clue about the religion. I'm sure if it was twenty years ago the person wouldn't have considered such a character because Muslims weren't "edgy" then.

I think a great example is something like a "Bondage" sexual focus. In my observation it is not currently thought to be "cool" to have a sexual focus where you tie women up and beat their asses, but there's plenty of people who enjoy said behavior. I can't imagine some budding writer saying they want to invent a detective who "just happens" to enjoy beating asses in his spare time. That's because it's not popular in the media.

 

Not to offend, but it seems as though you adequately weigh the pro's and con's of every potentially attractive person. Judging up their features and deciding whether you will be aroused or interested. I find this hard to believe, as I know no single person who does this as an active task. Perhaps, as a subconscious task.

I agree with you that being heterosexual and being homosexual are not the same thing. I do have to point out, however, I do not put thought into who I'm attracted to. Why a man likes a woman is as varied as why a man likes a man. That is the root of the problem. In most cases I can tell you what I like, but not why I like it. Why do broad shoulders attract me, but too much muscle doesn't? I don't know.

The reasons for attraction are likely psychological and genetic, something usually outside the scope of a fiction. Arguing that someone writing a gay romance must inherently make it different than a straight romance is asking for trouble. Beyond the obvious difference of gender, it's all really very similar. There's attraction, emotional attachment and the like. What works for some people doesn't work for others.

You could take the basic boy/girl model and say "Flowers, candy, dinner, movie, coffee, kiss." For every girl that wants all that, there's one who'll reject the candy, the flowers, the coffee and the kiss. There's another who'll reject the flowers but not the candy, or the candy but the coffee. Why do they reject those things? Why don't all girls want flowers and candy? Dunno.

Do all gay men want flowers and candy? No. Do some? Absolutely. The truth is, labeling various activities as inherently gay, or inherently straight is problematic at best, ludicrous at worst.

If you desire to have differences between gay couples and straight couples, that's fine. Make those differences about the social pressures they each face. Gay couples having difficulty with public displays of affection, at times. Perhaps one of them isn't 'out' yet, that sort of thing. These are very REAL differences that a gay or lesbian person must contend with at some point in their lives.

I'm a bit confused by your message, though. You say that you being in the "I like pizza" group doesn't imply a common thought process beyond the like of pizza. How, then, do you decide that being in the "I like members of the same sex" group DOES imply a common through process beyond liking the same sex?

 

It is only if the novel takes place in our world. The OP mentioned modern-day, but that might not necessarily mean our world. In a world where being gay is all right, they shouldn't have different processes.

 

Really?

Then you lack insight to the extreme.

You mean to tell me that you don't have a type of guy you're attracted to? You'd be just as likely to be attracted to a 1200 pound suicidal man as you would a fitness model? You don't like certain haircuts, clothing styles, height, or any of that?

If so, then you are like an angelic being sir.

I'm sure that you aren't and that you have taste in men just as most guys have taste in the opposite sex. People can make pretty long lists, especially young people, about what they think is great and gross about potential mates. There's websites where people rate how others look. I would assume that people who post their pictures on said sites are aware of a checklist of "requirements" they've covered that make them sexy, and so on.

I'm sure I don't have to explain human sexuality in great detail.

 

In the US there's a comedy show called the Colbert Report. It's a pretend news show where the guy, Steven Colbert, pretends to be a right wing political commentator.

I don't watch the show too much but have laughed when he has a black guest on the show because he'll say at some point, "Oh, are you black? I didn't know that because when I look at people I don't see race," and he does that very seriously. That's a comment on how some people ignore race issues by pretending they aren't racist, which is actually racist!

I feel the same way about all minority and religious issues. If we get into pretending there are no differences, then we're ignoring the things that make people unique.

 

Well said. Don't ignore, but treat a subject with understanding and compassion, and you'll be fine.

 

You're implying that this checklist was predetermined consciously. I'm not saying I don't have a type, I certainly do. I'm saying I don't CHOOSE that type. While I am aware of what I like, I don't have to put thought into liking it. Liking it comes naturally.

Unless we're on the same page and we just have no idea, I'm not sure how to explain this more accurately.

It seems to me that you're saying that the author needs to point out in his story how gay men are going to think and act differently because they like men. You've further posited that part of that their thinking is different from straight because because of the kind of man they like.

Now, if you're simply saying that the author needs to be aware that his character needs to have their own, unique, desires. That's fine, in fact it's completely true. If that's the case, I severely apologize for having misread your points!

However, it doesn't seem to be the case.

To the posters above me:

While I agree that ignoring differences marginalizes a persons individual uniqueness, I'm merely arguing that being gay, in itself, does not have any unique factors beyond liking the same gender. There are no activities shared by all gay men, or potent desires shared ONLY by gay men.

If a writer were to a write a gay man who, for all intents and purposes acted like a straight man except that you switched women with man, I'd find this perfectly believable. There are plenty of gay men that aren't immediately identifiable, and that's my point. Writing a character with obviously gay traits is unnecessary unless it needs to be told. Positing that there are even gay traits, in itself, is arguable at best.

 

I don't know if you're Indian or just living there, but I've had a variety of friends who are Indian and they have very nice attitudes about diversity in life. The general idea is that everyone in the world is part of one "life force" for lack of a better word, and has positive potential.

Is that a general cultural attitude, or was I just lucky to meet nice people?

 

Taste in anything is a combo of things youve been conditioned to like by social forces and things you determine you like based on you reflections on said social forces.

Example: Several hundred years ago, men were conditioned to like very fat women. It was a sign of wealth and plenty. In the 60s very skinny women were promoted for whatever reason and now it seems to me that since the early 80s there's an increased focus on women being fit and athletic.

However, Bob might reject all of that media conditioning and he likes fat girls. Bob took all the info out there, observed women who fit the standard and found he didn't like something about them and decided to approach girls who have more bodyfat, on purpose, with strategy.

Also, most people spend a lot of time preparing themselves to look attractive and usually they hope to attract a certain type of person. Thus, constant thought and planning goes into what one likes and wants.

I don't believe that you or anyone "just likes" things like some kind of flower sprouting out of your head.

I believe that if you're going to make a character that is much different than the norm, then that difference is going to infuse the totality of the character.

Example: Some Yale grad decides they want to write about a black detective who worked his way up from the Philly ghetto. In one scene the MC jumps into the water and swims to the bad guy's yacht wrestles control of the ship and sails the craft back to port with the bad guy subdued.

When I lived in Philly there was a problem with black kids drowning because almost no one knows how to swim there, because there is nowhere to swim. In addition, a rich Yale person might know how to operate a yacht, but a guy from the ghetto wouldn't. Thus, the character is really the author and not a truthful representation of a black guy from Philly.

As in my previous example, the detective is going to be much different than the author, so the author has to really learn about his character to do real black guys from Philly justice. If he does not want to do that, then he should have the dectective be a yale grad who knows about swimming and operating yachts.

So yes, it's about creating characters who are genuine.