White’s prolific sexual career took place during the “golden age” of homosexual metropolitan promiscuity. This was a time for “tribal love”, a time for exchanging the shackles of “grim American “morality”” for shackles of more specialist kinds, a time — as White reports in one of the antique strings of camp verbal play he has hoarded from the era — for “falling heels over head in love”. Or, more prosaically: a time when one wouldn’t think twice of “taking a break from writing at two in the morning to saunter down to the piers and have sex with twenty men in a truck”.

Like most gay men of his generation, White is an unreconstructed sex-positivist, at least avant la lettre. Needless to say, in today’s ideological climate, sex positivity — the view, roughly, that the only significant evaluative constraint on sex is the consent of the parties involved — comes in for a hard time. The publicity stunts of OnlyFans camgirls such as Lilly Phillips, for example, who managed to sleep with 100 strangers in one day, rightly strike most people as grotesque for reasons that have little to do with the willing agreement of everyone taking part.

Of course, next to the body counts of Edmund White, and indeed many gay men, Lily Phillips and her colleagues are banking amateur numbers. But because it is invariably developed under a female lens, the critique of sex positivity is often implicitly treated as though it does not generalize to the gay male case. If it is not being politely ignored altogether, the gay sexual market is treated as a sui generis and lawless domain where strongly sex positive norms enjoy a kind of local legitimacy, if only because no alternative seems possible. Yet between Lily Phillips and Edmund White, it seems the more interesting question, at least psychologically, is why someone like White — an intelligent, cultivated, reflective person with a rich inner world and the apparent capacity for self-control — would live as he did.

White is, in the truest sense of an over-used term, a survivor. An anomalous immune response prevented him from developing AIDS, despite an HIV diagnosis in 1984. In consequence, he lived long enough to write dozens of novels, memoirs and plays, a gay sex manual, a literary biography of Jean Genet, and win the Pulitzer Prize. His atypical longevity has also given him free reign, in his memoirs, to preach what he so enthusiastically practiced in the original all-you-can-eat gay heyday. The result, in this case, is a memoir so sexually graphic as to be at points booby-trapped against direct quotation by reviewers in the mainstream press.

It is impossible to turn more than a few pages without being confronted by yet another “dick as big as a child’s arm”, or “as large as something that would have saved the lives of three Titanic passengers”, darting out from within another pair of “piss-stained denim jeans”. We hear of the male prostitutes White has employed all his life to meet his surplus sexual needs. This, he admits, is an “expensive hobby”, but worth it if you have a “gout exclusif” for “Nordic blonds” or “young but legal”, or, more innocently, if you happen to find yourself in New York, famously the bottom capital of the world, and quite reasonably want to hire someone who will at least agree “to impersonate a top from the outset”. The best in the business, White notes, will even “crush my head between Transformer biceps” and “obligingly ridicule my tiny penis”. Throughout the Eighties, White particularly liked holidaying at a favorite beach resort in Crete, because there “everyone was available for a price, even the mayor”.

Suggested reading

How the internet perverts desire

By Blake Smith

White’s style of self-revelation shares something of the sexual exhibitionist’s fascination with provoking his audience. That, and at the age of 85, perhaps the occasional touch of the rapt self-involvement characteristic of senile disinhibition. White and his partners, we hear, drank one another’s urine: “like seals begging for fish”. Other anecdotes are so gruesome as to make the above adventurism look quaint by comparison. One surreal story unfolds at a fisting colony in Normandy. There, an acquaintance of White’s, Robert, “pushed an entire football up a Frenchman’s rear; the man had to visit a local surgeon”. The real kicker, however, as we are informed with glee, is that the next day “a whole queue of ass-hungry men were lined up before Robert’s door at the colony. They, too, wanted to be worthy of a serious operation… greedy glutes!” Such goings on stretch, among other things, credulity.

In fact, his blasé presentation of the consequences of embracing minimalistic sex-positive norms often seem like an open invitation to call that theory’s bluff. Despite what sex positivists insist, there is more to the evaluative appraisal of sex than a thin, rigoristic condition of consent. The uncritical live-and-let-live view that sex, alone among valuable things, cannot be seriously degraded if pursued in a self-destructive way is hard to sustain, when given a moment’s thought.

Of course, one shouldn’t downplay the substantial differences of male psychology, and the physical and emotional parity of male-on-male sexual relations, that reduce the attendant dangers of allowing sex positivity to reign in the gay sexual market. Men prize sexual novelty more. They are less physically vulnerable to one another. There is more common knowledge, making the exploration of extreme practices safer. It is, at least to my mind, considerably easier to think of a woman like Lilly Phillips as straight-forwardly self-deceived than it would be her hypothetical gay male counterpart. Still, there remain serious risks, as Loves of my Life inadvertently reveals, in organizing one’s life around the satiation of a single impulse, one’s sex drive, while driving other reactions to the margins.

Sex positivists have a hard time accounting for the value of sex because they are committed to thinking that all it takes for sex to count as good is for it to be authentically willed. According to this view, one’s sexual practices are presented as at once central to one’s life and self-identity, but oddly resistant to any satisfying evaluative appraisal. White is a case in point. He writes that what has “mattered most” to him in his long life are his many thousands of often anonymous, fleeting and ungentle sexual encounters. And, yet, “in the cold polar heart of old age”, he comes to see his sexual adventures as “comical and pointless, repetitious and dishonorable”.

Though an aesthete in his artistic and intellectual life — a self-described “epicure with high standards” — White makes a marked exception when it comes to sex, where he becomes defiantly undiscriminating: a “clumsy slut” with a “pair of warm holes”. He claims to have felt “intimate and tender” love for his thousands of partners and fallen “in love ten times a day”. But it is difficult to think of this as anything other than kitsch exaggeration when elsewhere he describes his sexual life as “sequential and hyper-horny”: “one-sided, aspirational and impossible, never domestic and mutual”. This is not just a matter of catching White out; such inconsistencies reveal a deep tension in his view.

To give him credit, White clearly has enough self-knowledge to pre-empt the bleaker revelations that threaten to undercut his book’s official tone of sexual triumphalism. He invites the reader to witness his later sexual misadventures, but only on the condition that he is able to cast himself in a knowing or comic enough role: one able to absorb some of the instability that comes with having to share his self-conception as liberated, while at the same time recognizing him as helplessly degraded.

In his old age, pursuing younger men with fetishes for sadism, White feels a vivid indignity: crawling obesely across the floor, “as big and awkward as Mr Snuffleupagus in Sesame Street, a muppet so large and unwieldy that it takes two people to operate him”. Does White’s very detachment from sexual reality itself take on an erotic thrill? And with the arrival of Aids, his continuing pursuit of casual sex comes to seem to him like “Russian roulette”. Nor does old age stop him from “feeling like a starving dog at the door of a meat locker”. By this point, he attracts complaints that he is “somehow too experienced, too slutty, too quick and adept in assuming the position”.

Though it bears pointing out that many of those who lead less adventurous sex lives than Edmund White might be disappointed and unfulfilled, attempting to double-down on the opposite sexual strategy is no guarantee of securing what’s of value in life either. Helplessly caving to impulse might seem to provide a handy model for liberation. But it is an obviously fallible one. Appeasement, so often a bad strategy for avoiding conflict, works no better when deployed to keep one’s own desires at bay. Deceiving oneself about the profundity of casual sex is not a means to happiness; it is means to being overblown.

This is a company that has been awarded government funding. On Monday, it was reported that Scotland’s national arts quango is reviewing REIN’s £85,000 award, “because its hardcore content is more explicit than initially indicated”. The publicity suggests that three performers will be doing an explicit sex scene — actual, non-simulated sex. Which perhaps explains why the company is seeking applicants with “experience of porn and sex work”.

These applicants must be “Dyke identifying performers”, but the list of sub-genres is long. It is topped by trans dykes, followed by, among others: poly(amorous), stud, baby, bi, asexual, fag, daddy, and princess dykes. In fact, the site clarifies that anyone who has “a relationship to the word DYKE” can apply. That is, anyone at all.

This is pornography, postmodern style. Here, lesbian terminology is being subverted beyond all recognition. And there’s no reckoning with the thorny question at the heart of the endeavour: is it even possible for lesbians to produce “ethical pornography” for the consumption of other lesbians, when “girl on girl action” is one of the most popular genres among men?

For the libertarian, porn is about freedom; for the libertine, fulfilment; for religious conservatives, it is immoral and depraved. Many feminists, like me, see it as misogynistic propaganda. But if my 40 years of researching the industry have taught me anything, it’s that porn is just big business, one of the most profitable industries on the planet. Annual revenue has been estimated at up to $90 billion, nine times more than Hollywood’s revenue.

And unfortunately, the lesbian market is just too small to be attractive to the key players in porn. Therefore anything in the “girl on girl” genre must, if it is to generate profit, appeal to men.

More from this author

The Lesbian Project has begun

By Julie Bindel

As Robert Jensen, author of Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity, tells me: “I think the industry phrase ‘girl on girl’ is key… Porn producers I have interviewed over decades never talked about making ‘lesbian porn’.” He spells it out: “The target audience is straight men.”

“But wait”, I hear you cry, “loads of women love watching porn!” In fact, in 2017, an article published in Marie Claire claimed that women were more likely than men to watch lesbian porn. But the research was conducted by YouPorn, which is owned by the same businessman whose portfolio boasts MindGeek, Pornhub and RedTube. Another recent article claims that women are “by far” more likely to access lesbian themed porn. The source? Pornhub, which has more than 40,000 lesbian porn videos in its archives. Obviously, it’s in the site’s best interests to suggest that porn is consumed and enjoyed primarily by those most harmed by it.

It’s tempting for porn apologists to view lesbian porn as Mexican sexologist Karimme Reyes does: as “an egalitarian sexual encounter in which the enjoyment of the other person and vice versa is very much taken care of. There is no focus on the obsession for penetration and you can see an enjoyment in different forms of pleasure for all tastes.”

Suggested reading

Why women love lesbian romance

By Kathleen Stock

But this ideal doesn’t match reality. I’ve been on three different porn sets over the years, and have spoken to directors, “minders”, and on occasion performers. On one, the team was shooting entirely lesbian porn; I asked if the performers were lesbians. “Yes, of course,” came the reply. And yet, each and every performer was accompanied by a pimp describing himself as her “boyfriend”. One performer, an actual lesbian, told me she absolutely hated doing a scene involving “strap-on anal” (not the most common or popular sexual practice among lesbians). She also told me she had suffered a vaginal tear because her female co-performer, who had never had sex with a woman before, had no idea how to penetrate her.

Typical titles of “lesbian” videos on the big porn sites include: “Cheerleader seduced by teachers”; “Mummy wants her pussy eaten”; “Two hot babes, fisting”. There’s an entire “Wild scissoring” genre, and one for lesbian threesomes, lesbian squirt parties, and Japanese lesbians on heat.

It’s worth comparing these titles to those on For Her Tube, which platforms content supposedly by women, for women. There are more than 3 million videos in the lesbian section. Some titles sound tamer than others: “I think about sex with a woman,” or “Two gorgeous housewives, giving into their wild, lesbian urges”. The usual fisting and giant sex toy themes are there too, and even a naughty lesbian nun. Then there is some hardcore sadomasochism. It’s not dissimilar to what you would find in mainstream porn, which is guided by male fantasies.

Gail Dines, author of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, does not believe that lesbians are being targeted as consumers: “There are over 143,000 videos on Pornhub under the lesbian category. In 2023, according to Pornhub stats, ‘Lesbian’ was the most searched term,” she says. “We know from studies that men are the main consumers of porn so clearly these videos are made for men.”

Suggested reading

Porn will destroy you

By Sarah Ditum

It would be nice to think that lesbians could enjoy artisanal porn produced by a collective of “DYKES”, all of whom have happy experiences on set, only doing stuff that really turns them on, with regular health checks. Erika Lust, the self-described “ethical porn producer”, claims to promote the rights and fair treatment of performers: she is a big fan of the role of the intimacy coordinator — so much so that at last year’s Oscars she called for a new category: “Best Intimacy Coach in a Motion Picture”. But intimacy coordinators are used on film sets during scenes involving nudity and simulated sex; porn, of course, involves actual sex. As does the REIN production, which similarly sets a lot of store by the intimacy coordinator.

And yet, this project conspicuously ignores the fact that the vast majority of “lesbian” porn is violent, degrading or painful; like all other genres, it is defined by domination, sadism, and brutal, endless penetration. Because, to cut through in a saturated market, porn producers will objectify female bodies in every imaginable way, for the sexual pleasure of predominantly male audiences.

The inherent misogyny of porn is a key reason why so many lesbians tend not to consume it. It’s not made for us. I don’t believe that women have sex with each other wearing five-inch spike heels and brandishing three-inch sparkling false talons: this is how men fantasise about women getting it on. There is evidence, however, that lesbians watch gay male porn — perhaps because it is the only kind free from misogyny.

Does that mean it’s impossible for porn featuring women to ever be ethical? To go back to the Scottish project: what if they really did manage to just hire lesbians — who were totally comfortable with everything they were doing during the performance? And what if there were only lesbians in the audience?

It’s still exploitation. The porn industry profits from non-consensual acts and causing harm to performers. And even if the spectators are lesbians, it doesn’t make the dynamics safer. I once interviewed female strippers at a since-closed bar in Soho, and many told me how much they hated stripping in front of crowds of baying lesbians, some pushing banknotes into the dancers’ underwear. Women who seek enjoyment from the sexual debasement of other women are not dissimilar from their male counterparts. Live sex on stage is prostitution, not, as REIN might have us believe, art.