from Micha Ramakers, Dirty Pictures (2000) pp. 119-120:
Much attention has been given in recent years to the role, effects, and possible political implications of drag. Rather less critical interest has been manifested in the effects of what could be called hypermasculinity. Yet … two are intimately linked. This would seem to be borne out if one considers recent theoretical arguments about drag. John Champagne has argued that drag should be read as “nonproductive expenditure,” i.e., wasteful energy, aimed at creating a high degree of affect: “In its excessive deployment of both costuming and affect, drag displaces the disciplined, restrained, and efficient body of the modern gendered subject with an image of the body as melodrama. The modestly gendered body of the disciplinary subject is countered by one ostentatiously dressed and excessively sexualized, a body whose gestures are both extravagantly stylized and wastefully deployed.” The gay male bodybuilder is deeply involved in precisely this activity. He is creating a body, at great cost, “wastefully” deploying a maximum of energy (he is not going to use his muscles for physical labor), for no other reason than bringing about an “excessively sexualized” effect… His body distinguishes itself from that of its “disciplined” fellow men by pushing masculinity to its farthest limit: like drag, gay male bodybuilding plays with the limits of masculinity and femininity and often ends up as a parody of its gender characteristics.