• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What About the Guys Who Do Fit the 'Gay Stereotype'?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mumei

Member
I think this is a bit too long to post, but here is the first half. The link at the bottom of the post has the whole thing:

A couple weeks ago, Mark Carson, a 32-year-old gay man dressed in a tank top, cut-off shorts, and boots, was walking with his friend in the West Village when they were approached by Elliot Morales. "Look at you faggots," Morales allegedly said. "You look like gay wrestlers." Morales followed the men down the street shouting anti-gay slurs before fatally shooting Carson at point-blank range just blocks from the Stonewall Inn. Carson's murder comes at a time when anti-gay crimes in New York City are on the rise, according to the NYPD. There have been 29 reported this year, up from 14 in the same period last year, even as hate crimes overall have declined during that time by almost 30 percent.

This recent uptick in anti-gay violence also comes during the same month that three more states passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage and just weeks after NBA veteran Jason Collins revealed that he is gay—and was largely greeted with open arms by the sports world. Last week, soccer player Robbie Rogers, who had said he would leave the game when he came out back in February because he didn't "want to deal with the circus," had a change of heart. When he took the pitch in a Los Angeles Galaxy match on Sunday night, he beat Collins to the punch to become the first openly gay athlete to play in a major U.S. men's professional sport.

This moment of staggering contradictions seems like a good time to take stock of how far we have—and haven't—come in dismantling homophobia. And the hopes we pin on these pioneering athletes may offer some key lessons.

Shortly after Collins came out, Brendon Ayanbadejo, former Ravens linebacker and advocate for marriage equality, explained the importance of his announcement on Meet the Press. Of course, given the sheer number of Americans who tune in to watch professional sports, athletes have an unprecedented platform to offer positive representations of LGBT people to large swaths of the population. But Ayanbadejo got to the heart of why the importance of a figure like Jason Collins extends beyond the celebrity factor: "People think gayness has something to do with femininity when really we just need to erase that stereotype from our minds," he said. "LGBT people come in all different types and shapes and forms."

As many commentators noted, this helps explain why college basketball phenom Brittney Griner's casual "coming out" just weeks before Collins' was greeted with so little fan-fare. The belief that sports—and perhaps team sports particularly—are a masculine endeavor lingers even 40 years after Title IX ushered millions of American women into the game. And since for women, we think gayness "has something to do with" masculinity, we hold the opposing set of assumptions about female athletes: "In sports right now, there are two different stereotypes—that there are no gay male athletes, and every female athlete is a lesbian," Patrick Burke of the gay sports advocacy group You Can Play explained to the New York Times. The news that Griner, who wore a white tux on her 6-foot-8 frame at the WNBA draft, is gay didn't fundamentally challenge our notion that sexuality has something to do with gender—and it just confirmed the stereotypes we had about women who excel in sports. As Garance Franke-Ruta put it, "Female professional athletes are already gender non-conforming. Male ones are still worshiped as exemplars of traditional masculinity."

Within this context, the hope is that a high-profile gay male athlete—or, more realistically, a few of them—could finally smash the stereotype that "gay" equals "unmasculine" once and for all. And, in fact, to some, Collins and Rogers don't have enough macho mojo to do the trick. Writing at The American Prospect, Joel Anderson argued that Collins' underwhelming performance on the court has taken away from the potential power of his announcement. The New York Times's John Branch noted that Major League Soccer is probably only the nation's fifth-most popular league—and, at least in the American sports landscape, soccer players hardly have an uber-masculine image. (In fact, according to the Onion, soccer became the "world's first openly gay sport" in 2010.) The real game-changer, Anderson wrote, would be if a player in the NFL, that bastion of "a certain kind of masculinity if not outright machismo," came out. "Football players are supposed to be our manliest men," he explained. "Their acceptance of a gay man into that world could go a long way toward unpacking some of the most insidious stereotypes about gay people."

There's no doubt those are stereotypes that need unpacking. Sociologists have long noted that homophobia is a fundamental ingredient of masculinity in modern American culture. In his seminal 1994 article "Masculinity as Homophobia," sociologist Michael Kimmel, author of Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men, argued that "homophobia is a central organizing principle of our cultural definition of manhood." Since homosexuality is associated with femininity, feminizing and anti-gay comments are the primary mechanism for enforcing the boundaries of masculinity. If a guy steps ever so slightly outside of gender norms, his peers will bring him back into line by calling his heterosexuality into question (which implicitly challenges his gender). The pressure to prove and re-prove hetereosexuality is part of what it means to "be a man"—and it pushes men to embrace both homophobia and hypermasculinity. "Homophobia, the fear of being perceived as gay, as not a real man, keeps men exaggerating all the traditional rules of masculinity, including sexual predation with women," Kimmel wrote. "Homophobia and sexism go hand-in-hand."

Homophobia, then, is not simply social disapproval and discrimination against gay people, but an entire cultural structure that disqualifying all but the "most virulent repudiators of femininity" from "real manhood"—in the process upholding gender inequality and maintaining a hierarchy of men based on sexuality, race, class, ability, and so on.

It's entirely understandable, then, why Collins took pains to highlight his masculinity in his Sports Illustrated article announcing the news. "I go against the gay stereotype, which is why I think a lot of players will be shocked: That guy is gay? But I've always been an aggressive player, even in high school. Am I so physical to prove that being gay doesn't make you soft? Who knows? That's something for a psychologist to unravel."

But where does that leave the guys who do fit the "gay stereotype"?

After all, while it's certainly true that not all gay men are "soft," it's also true that some of them are. The gay guy who would rather be belting out some Barbra Streisand than shooting hoops is not just a stereotype. He exists, too. He's probably been spared the awful loneliness and anxiety of living for 34 years without being open about his sexuality to those closest to him, as Collins did, but he probably had less of a choice in the matter. The first time he had an anti-gay slur hurled at him may have happened before he even came out to himself. In fact, like 11-year-old Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, he may only be perceived as gay.

Mainstream gay rights advocates seem largely optimistic that the visibility—and acceptance—of gay male athletes like Collins and Rogers will help that guy, too. "By doing what he did, Jason Collins has extended gay kids a lifeline," Fred Sainz, VP for communications and marketing for the Human Rights Campaign, told Time. "The message to that gay kid, even if he's not involved in athletics, is reassuring. Even the jocks are gay. And there's a message to bullies: gay kids are not second-class citizens."

But it's not completely clear that showing that "even the jocks are gay" necessarily makes things better for those guys (gay or straight) who don't so readily conform to traditional masculine norms. Since gayness and femininity are still so linked, it's nearly impossible to determine what homophobia's driving factor is. As Kimmel explained to me, "As long as we think homosexuality is about effeminacy in men—as long as we think we can tell if a guy's gay if he's acting 'feminine'—then we can't tease it out." But if that link is successfully broken—say, by the growing visibility of "macho" gay athletes who challenge the stereotype—then it will be possible. "Then the effeminacy part will be about subscribing to gender norms, not revealing anything about your sexual orientation."

For now, though, it's hard to say: Is being a feminine man bad because it's considered evidence that you're gay? Or is being gay bad because it's seen as feminine? Or are both bad? And if the association between femininity and gayness is severed, what happens next?

The changes over the last two decades may provide some clues. After all, anti-gay attitudes in the United States have declined dramatically since the 1980s and '90s. As recently as ten years ago, the public was evenly divided on whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged by society. Today, 59 percent of Americans say it should be accepted, according to a Gallup poll released recently. For the past three years, more Americans support same-sex marriage than oppose it. The most recent Pew Research Center survey, conducted this past March, found 49 percent in favor, compared to 44 percent opposed—and other polls have put the level of support even higher. About two-thirds of the public thinks that gay and lesbian couples can be as good parents as heterosexual couples and that they should have the same legal rights as their straight counterparts.

Among young people, especially, anti-gay views are decidedly the exception. About three-quarters of millennials believe homosexuality should be accepted and 70 percent support same-sex marriage. And, in large part, it is young men who have been driving this trend. Ever since we've been asking about it in public opinion polls, men have been more likely than women to espouse anti-gay views—a fact that buttressed the theory that masculinity is intimately connected with homophobia, says Tristan Bridges, assistant professor of sociology at The College at Brockport, SUNY. But just recently that gender gap has begun to narrow. Among millennials, it's virtually non-existent: 69 percent of young women support same-sex marriage, compared to 65 percent of young men. Though homophobia is by no means eradicated—after all, Bridges points out, straight men especially still seem be far more comfortable with gay identity than actual gay sex—the largely supportive response to Collins and Rogers coming out would seem to reflect a real and rapid change in anti-gay attitudes, which should certainly be celebrated.

What's far less clear is whether this shift is actually changing the way homophobia is used as a weapon for maintaining traditional masculinity. "Surely, it's incontestable that the attitudes that people have about gay people have changed a lot—largely for the better." Kimmel tells me. "But the attitudes that people have toward what constitutes masculinity, and how to enact being a 'real man,' haven't changed very much at all." Consequently, the use of homophobic slurs as a "mechanism of gender policing remains relatively intact"—even if those words have become less likely to be applied to actual gay people.

That's what sociologist C.J. Pascoe found when she spent a year and a half at a California high school doing research for her 2007 book, Dude, You're a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. Homophobic slurs were tossed around constantly, but the students insisted they weren't really about sexual orientation. "When I talked to these boys about what they were teasing about, they would go out of their way to say, 'Oh no, we would never actually call a gay boy a fag. That's just mean,'" she told me. Instead, boys labeled their peers "fags" for things like dancing, being too emotional, caring about clothing, being incompetent, or not have success with girls. While actually being gay wasn't exactly accepted, Pascoe discovered that it wasn't nearly as bad as being considered an unmasculine guy. As one student told her, "Well, being gay is just a lifestyle. You can still throw a football around and be gay." Indeed, of the three out gay boys at the school, the two who were traditionally masculine weren't really bullied by their peers much at all. But the third boy, who broke both the norms of sexuality and gender, faced such severe tormenting that he eventually dropped out of school.

Some scholars see cause for optimism, though. For example, Eric Anderson, an American professor of sociology at the University of Winchester, England, argues that declining homophobia is already starting to create "inclusive masculinities." According to Anderson, homophobia only serves a weapon for enforcing gender norms in an environment of "homohysteria"—in which there is both widespread social disapproval of homosexuality and being gay is associated with femininity. As anti-gay attitudes decline and "the stigma of being called gay doesn't sting" anymore, Anderson explained to me, the boundaries of acceptable masculinity expand. "It's not to say that there are no hyper-macho men," he says. "But it is to say that those who are more feminine are perfectly acceptable, because they're not regulated by homophobia anymore." And a similar transformation would be expected to happen if the link between femininity and gayness were broken. If being feminine is no longer considered incontrovertible "evidence" that you're gay, who cares if you bend gender norms? Anderson's research backs up his theory. He's found that the male college athletes and fraternity members he studied in the U.K. and the U.S. are increasingly more accepting of their gay peers—as well as less aggressive and sexist, and more emotionally intimate and physically affectionate with their male friends.

But others aren't convinced of such a large-scale transformation. Anderson argues that since sports have historically been highly homophobic spaces, other male groups are likely to be moreinclusive than the primarily white, straight, middle-upper class college athletes he has researched. But studies suggest that, paradoxically, those are the guys who may actually have the most freedom to bend the rules of masculinity. Pascoe describes it as "jock insurance." In effect, men who have the most status have the masculine capital to be able to get away with flouting some gender norms. "Gender is at the heart of all this stuff," Pascoe explains. "It can really make up for your deviance in other ways." Bridges agrees: "I think it might be the case that gender flexibility is becoming more ok for young men today than it was in previous generations. But I would say that that is the case for a very select group of men."

And some of the older members of GayGAF might be reminded of an old discussion about gay men and effeminacy by this:

In fact, if the association between gayness and femininity is broken without more fundamentally expanding masculinity, it may even make things worse. Kimmel emphasizes that we don't really know yet how this will all play out, but it could end up creating two tiers of gay men: "the really gay guys and the macho gay guys." To some extent, that distinction already exists. Being "straight-acting" is valued—not only in the heteronormative culture at large but within gay communities, too. Gawker's Rich Juzwiak explained last year, "As a gay, you understand that while you'll always find peers who allow you to be exactly as queeny as you are, there is still a social hierarchy that puts a premium on masculinity." Kimmel notes that, if that's the direction we're headed, gender non-conforming gay guys, who used to provide a critique of the dominant masculinity, "are gonna be seen as a real problem. If even gay men can be real men, what's wrong with you? So in a funny way this could be another reassertion of the power of traditional ideas of masculinity."

The second half can be found here.

I read Dude, You're A Fag in 2007 when it came out because someone - it may have been Pascoe herself, though it's been too long for me to remember now - made a guest post on Pam's House Blend, and I read Guyland a few years ago. They are both great books, so I definitely recommend them to anyone who finds this interesting.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
You see this a lot with gay guys. My exboyfriend was really bad about it (and it's deep seeded homophobia) -- valuing the traditionally masculine aspects of life. I have the utmost respect for gay men who feel like they can be themselves while not necessarily adhering to a traditional gender norm.

I'm so sick of the terms "straight acting" as well. If you're gay, be gay! If that means liking showtunes, cool! If it means being the world's biggest Kings fan, awesome! If it means a combination of the two, even better!
 

Kurita

Member
I'm so sick of the terms "straight acting" as well. If you're gay, be gay! If that means liking showtunes, cool! If it means being the world's biggest Kings fan, awesome! If it means a combination of the two, even better!
I always wondered why liking showtunes was seen as a gay stereotype.
 
They're kinda spot on with the problem really being the way large parts of society define masculinity/feminity - as rather solid characteristics you belong to based on your gender.

You're a woman?
Be a woman, you're so emotionally attuned to others and such a caretaker.
Man?
Act like a man, damnit. Grow some balls!

That's just a big massive shame, and the problem is two-fold. First, that we have the masculine/feminine meta-categories in the first place. I honestly don't see the benefit of describing someone as masculine over whatever traits you ascribe to masculinity. At best, it becomes a way of quickly signalling a partial personality description ("He is masculine, social conventions define masculinity as the following, therefore he is the following"); but that relies on a definition that is solid - which is probably why resistance to a solid, unmalleable definition is met with specific gender-behavioural relationship reinforcement.

Sadly, in the form of violence, as these matters aren't ever thought over at length by homophobes and misognists.

Man is not acting in accordance to our pre-defined view of what a man constitute (E.g. masculinity, which in turns encompass speaking in a gruff voice, not crying, not... ), therefore let's smash his head in.

So the meta-categories makes this so much easier, because it makes labeling and enforcing so much simpler to those who don't put much thought into these matters. The second problem is why we're ascribing the constitutent characteristics of these meta-categories to groups of individuals, divided up per gender, in the first place.

Why does it benefit us to consider women, for an example, to be soft?
To be more emotional, to be more empathic, to be more sensitive?
What could we possibly gain from categorically say that half the population of this planet, 3.45 or so billion unique individuals, are this and that?

So yeah, that's me rambling a bit.
 

PowderedToast

Junior Member
You see this a lot with gay guys. My exboyfriend was really bad about it (and it's deep seeded homophobia) -- valuing the traditionally masculine aspects of life. I have the utmost respect for gay men who feel like they can be themselves while not necessarily adhering to a traditional gender norm.

I'm so sick of the terms "straight acting" as well. If you're gay, be gay! If that means liking showtunes, cool! If it means being the world's biggest Kings fan, awesome! If it means a combination of the two, even better!

it's harder than you think

i "straight acted" for 20 years. those habits and behavioral traits are difficult to just discard when i'm around certain people.
 

Mumei

Member
I always wondered why liking showtunes was seen as a gay stereotype.

Probably because of the historical relation between camp and gay life, I'd guess. Add to that the fact that showtunes have always been rather camp and there's a history of gay men being really into certain Broadway and showtunes divas (Streisand, Garland, Midler, Liza, etc.) and ... I think that's why.

Maybe someone else has a different explanation, though.
 

Wozzly

special needs, sexual needs
If I recall correctly Lance Bass when he came out said he "straight acting" and he got a lot of flak for that as well he should. It's a stupid term. It hurts the gay community that is already divided over everything it seems; race, masculinity and so forth. If you're gay you're gay. I couldn't imagine how having this "straight acting" mentality does any good.
 

Gotchaye

Member
I don't want to minimize the gender policing problem, but it seems to me very wrong to say:

article said:
However, unless we throw out the list altogether, the gender-enforcing function that homophobia currently serves—and the sexist culture it supports—will continue relatively unchanged. In such a world—to take another (extreme) example from sports—perhaps the Mike Rices of the future won't call their players "faggots" and "fairies." But if they still shout "cunt" and "pussy" as they physically abuse their athletes, that will be superficial progress indeed.

That would still be a problem. But everything that makes that awful is also in the anti-gay shouting, and the new shouting wouldn't be (straightforwardly) anti-gay.

In the past, we placed really weird value on some notion of masculinity and on having the right sexual orientation. If in the future we're only placing weird value on some notion of masculinity, that's great. Not in itself, but it's a lot better than doing both. I have a hard time seeing how only some gay men getting judged for seeming feminine could be worse than basically all gay men being judged for being feminine. How are "two tiers of gay men" worse than one really low tier of gay men?
 
i'm curious if we do have any gay people in the NFL. Just by odds alone i would think there'll be at least one or two.

All it just takes is a courageous one. But then again, it is true, in the NFL lockerroom, machoness is in the flavor

btw, this reminds me of an MTV Real World season where they had 2 gay characters. One, a white dude, , very, what you would say, stereotypical society perception of what gay guys are, and then you have another dude, who is black ,is the total opposite. works out. buff. goes against the gay stereotype gene. and he was talking about ohw hard it was for him to come out and still be himself cuz of what society thinks and expects of him

It's idiotic, and it comes from the fact that people from both sides expect you to act a certain way because of your gender and/or your sexual orientation. And it goes both ways (even if disproportionately, of course) - I've been told I'm not gay because I don't go clubbing, and it's just as idiotic.

wait, what? why would they say you're not gay cuz you odn't go clubbing? I would think it'd be the opposite, as a lot of straight dudes go clubing to pick up girls
 

RM8

Member
It's idiotic, and it comes from the fact that people from both sides expect you to act a certain way because of your gender and/or your sexual orientation. And it goes both ways (even if disproportionately, of course) - I've been told I'm not gay because I don't go clubbing, and it's just as idiotic.
 
I think true acceptance means realizing that gay men and women come in all forms, including those that may fall in line with the certain stereotypes. It sounds very cliche, but we really do need to just be ourselves.

I understand that it's very important, for gay youth especially, to have gay role models that represent all different facets of life, but it has to come with the message that no matter what persona or group you may be attributed to, they are all valid and are worthy of respect.
 

Amory

Member
i'm curious if we do have any gay people in the NFL. Just by odds alone i would think there'll be at least one or two.

All it just takes is a courageous one. But then again, it is true, in the NFL lockerroom, machoness is in the flavor

It's a virtual certainty that there are gay men in the NFL. The problem is professional football players (more than other professional athletes it seems) have been less supportive of the idea of having a gay teammate.

I think we'll see an openly gay NFL player in the next 5 or so years.
 

Moff

Member
i'm curious if we do have any gay people in the NFL. Just by odds alone i would think there'll be at least one or two.
Is there a reason to believe that there are fewer gays in the the NFL than the 5-10% in the whole of the population?
 

hateradio

The Most Dangerous Yes Man
I heard about the rise in attacks, that some had speculated that it's due to the general public's increased support of LGBT issues. However, I do think that "stereotypical" gay men or even men who are not hyper-masculine still get a negative reception for being "feminine" which stems from patriarchal norms, so feminism and queer activists need to pair up to change things a bit more.

Additionally, I heard about Bashing, which is an app that enables (European) users to report anti-gay attacks. It's aimed at raising awareness.
 

Infinite

Member
The root of the problem, I feel, is that people who do or say that don't think of gay men as real men. This goes back to gender roles I guess
 

PowderedToast

Junior Member
If I recall correctly Lance Bass when he came out said he "straight acting" and he got a lot of flak for that as well he should. It's a stupid term. It hurts the gay community that is already divided over everything it seems; race, masculinity and so forth. If you're gay you're gay. I couldn't imagine how having this "straight acting" mentality does any good.


it doesn't do any good, in the long term it's obviously a destructive thing.

but i think it can be reductionist to simply say "if you're gay, you're gay". of course that's true. but straight acting is a coping mechanism for social situations. in my experience, the traits could even manifest unconsciously - how i hold myself, where my feet fall when i'm sitting, what i do with my hands when i'm walking. etc.

only since i have fully embraced my sexuality have i realised the extent of how practiced and restricted my behaviour was. so i don't think it's fair to blame people who do it.
 
Is there a reason to believe that there are fewer gays in the the NFL than the 5-10% in the whole of the population?

well you gotta ask yourself, how many of hte gay population are the macho bruhaha type?

Let's say 25%. so 25% of 5% is 1.25%. There's about what, 53 active players per team, and how many teams? 32. so 1700. so there should be about 17 active gay nfl players.
 
The root of the problem, I feel, is that people who do or say that don't think of gay men as real men. This goes back to gender roles I guess

Yep, everything goes back to gender roles.
I'd maybe even go as far as to say that it goes back to the notion of men being superiour to women. Therefore, a male "acting like a woman" is deemed an inferiour male.
 

RM8

Member
Yep, everything goes back to gender roles.
I'd maybe even go as far as to say that it goes back to the notion of men being superiour to women. Therefore, a male "acting like a woman" is deemed an inferiour male.
Definitely. Add to this that people not acting their gender is undesirable for a TON of people, and it's the perfect recipe for discrimination.
 

Holmes

Member
It just really bugs me when it becomes a problem within the gay community. It's one thing when outsiders judge gay men for not conforming to whatever societal expectations that they believe in, but it's another when gay men do it to their own community. I often hear stories about a guy meeting another guy, but didn't pursue him because he was "too feminine", or I often hear "I'm gay, but you wouldn't know it" - as if you're supposed to know just by looks, or behavior? Unless they're chocking on a dick, I don't think I "would" know either just by looking at a guy.

It also brings up exactly what "femininity" is when it comes to gay men. I mean, I *think* I'm kind of effeminate. I have a high pitch voice, I know the woman in Kurita's avatar is Nocchi because I love Perfume to death, and I love pop divas. But I also love "dudebro" games like Gears of War, my summer job involves wearing coveralls and working alongside heavy engine mechanics, and I prefer driving pick up trucks. So I wouldn't even know how to properly define myself. I'm 6'1 and nearing 200 pounds and I'm a bottom too - which raises more stupid generalizations. As if behaviour or appearance should dictate your sexual position.
 

gerg

Member
I'm so sick of the terms "straight acting" as well. If you're gay, be gay! If that means liking showtunes, cool! If it means being the world's biggest Kings fan, awesome! If it means a combination of the two, even better!

As a gay man, I have a big problem with the whole concept of gay identity itself. To me, being gay begins and ends with being attracted to the same sex - the rest is no less arbitrary than any other supposed elements of "masculinity" or "femininity". (In fact, I feel more inclined to identify myself with the Jewish culture in which I was raised, but which I no longer adhere to, than the fact that I am gay.)

As the article suggests, this is more fundamentally a problem with gender stereotypes to begin with. Combating those at their core, without particular regard to sexuality, is necessary.
 

Wozzly

special needs, sexual needs
it doesn't do any good, in the long term it's obviously a destructive thing.

but i think it can be reductionist to simply say "if you're gay, you're gay". of course that's true. but straight acting is a coping mechanism for social situations. in my experience, the traits could even manifest unconsciously - how i hold myself, where my feet fall when i'm sitting, what i do with my hands when i'm walking. etc.

only since i have fully embraced my sexuality have i realised the extent of how practiced and restricted my behaviour was. so i don't think it's fair to blame people who do it.

I didn't mean to come across like that at all. I agree with you. I guess I never really associated it with a coping mechanism.
 
I suppose there is some "comorbidity" of transgenderism (in the universal breaking of gender-norm sense rather than feeling oneself to be in the wrong body which is more transsexualism) with homosexuality that causes some confusion. I support anyone's rights to be who they are--and their safety from discrimination and violence--no matter who they are. Both sexual orientation and gender identity can be very fluid, which is why we may see homosexual men who enjoy transvestism, or men who find themselves between gender identities while still comfortable with their sex.

While I am unfortunately only attracted to masculine men, I don't see feminine men as any lesser or sub-human, and if I did (and there have been times where I struggled with trying to understand who would find that attractive in the past), that would only be a reflection of my own insecurities.
 

RM8

Member
That's one thing I can't understand about the gay community.
What, preferences?

BTW, small pet peeve of mine: I hate the term "gay community". Is there a "straight community"? Nope, because no one expects all straight people to share any type of trait other than being attracted to people of opposite genders.
 

sqwarlock

Member
I've heard from so many people, close friends included, stuff like, "I don't mind gay people, so long as they don't act gay." It's baffling logic, and, even though I'm straight, I exhibit some of the 'gay stereotypes' and actively have to hide them; most notably my love of musical theatre. The whole modern concept of "manliness", and the movement to "re-capture" it (see: idolizing 'real men' on TV and in movies, among other things) is one of the most absurd things going on in our culture right now, IMO.
 
What, preferences?

BTW, small pet peeve of mine: I hate the term "gay community". Is there a "straight community"? Nope, because no one expects all straight people to share any type of trait other than being attracted to people of opposite genders.

Yes, preferences. They are weird and often stupid.
Hot is hot. What does it matter if someone is effeminate or masculine? It's foolish in my opinion.

I said gay community because this issue is particular to gay men, not the lgbtq community in general.
 

RM8

Member
Yes, preferences. Hot is hot. What does it matter if someone is effeminate or masculine? It's foolish in my opinion.

I said gay community because this issue is particular to gay men, not the lgbtq community in general.
"Hot is hot".

No. I don't think Ryan Gosling is hot, and a ton of people sure do. Again, preferences. There's nothing foolish about being attracted to particular traits on other people, including the way we carry ourselves. This is hardly a gay thing, by the way.
 

gerg

Member
"Hot is hot".

No. I don't think Ryan Gosling is hot, and a ton of people sure do. Again, preferences. There's nothing foolish about being attracted to particular traits on other people, including the way we carry ourselves. This is hardly a gay thing, by the way.

Ditto. Just because I'm not attracted to you doesn't mean I won't like you.

(And this isn't to say that I would never ever never date someone who was particularly camp, either, but that I might feel less attracted to them than I might otherwise.)
 

Holmes

Member
BTW, small pet peeve of mine: I hate the term "gay community". Is there a "straight community"? Nope, because no one expects all straight people to share any type of trait other than being attracted to people of opposite genders.
Isn't there? Says who? There's also the "black community", "latino communtiy", "Jewish community", hell, there's everything because they do share important traits (heritage, religion, sexual orientation), and if you want to push that away, then that's your prerogative? GayGAF is a gay community under a different name, after all.
 

RM8

Member
Well, that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see any particular importance in traits like ethnicity or sexual orientation, personally.

Also, lol, KibblesBits used the term "gay community" in EXACTLY the way I hate it being used - he attributed a trait to all of us that it's NOT being gay.
 

Trigger

Member
But others aren't convinced of such a large-scale transformation. Anderson argues that since sports have historically been highly homophobic spaces, other male groups are likely to be moreinclusive than the primarily white, straight, middle-upper class college athletes he has researched. But studies suggest that, paradoxically, those are the guys who may actually have the most freedom to bend the rules of masculinity. Pascoe describes it as "jock insurance." In effect, men who have the most status have the masculine capital to be able to get away with flouting some gender norms. "Gender is at the heart of all this stuff," Pascoe explains.

Huh, this is interesting and kinda true. It's interesting when you can compare studies and academic stuff to you every day life.

Well, that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see any particular importance in traits like ethnicity or sexual orientation, personally.

mBbQg.gif


I mean your mileage may vary to the extent, but all those things are essential to who you are and how the world perceives you.
 
That's one thing I can't understand about the gay community.

I think it is pretty easy to understand not liking certain traits in a potential mate. Most people wouldn't date Quasimodo because he is hideous, or Jeffrey Dahlmer because he is an insane psychopath. Not liking someone because of physical or personality traits isn't anything unusual.

Yes, preferences. They are weird and often stupid.

Probably because preferences aren't chosen and don't have to be rational. For example, long hair on guys doesn't get blood pumping to my penis and I cannot control that.
 
I fully understand wanting to emphasize and join others in a culture surrounding certain minority character traits - such as sexuality and race.
It becomes a way of highlighting ones own experiences, and sharing them with others belonging to the same group, rather than they being lost in the overwhelming and overpowering status quo emanating from the majority race, sexual orientation, and creed.

Even more so when the majority group characteristic contribute to the negative position of the minority one.
 
Ditto. Just because I'm not attracted to you doesn't mean I won't like you.

(And this isn't to say that I would never ever never date someone who was particularly camp, either, but that I might feel less attracted to them than I might otherwise.)

Isn't this just an excuse to not give someone a chance? I genuinely don't understand preferences. Hotness is not a checklist for me, someone is either attractive or not. It doesn't matter what color their hair is, what race they are or what their body weight may be. Hot is hot.

Probably because preferences aren't chosen and don't have to be rational. For example, long hair on guys doesn't get blood pumping to my penis and I cannot control that.

This is exactly what I don't understand. Is something wrong with your penis?
 

Holmes

Member
So everyone is just feigning outrage when people on Grindr or online hook up sites say they would reject asians, or black people, or latinos, or Jewish people, or Muslims, or anything else? But if a man is too effeminate, it's totally alright because that's a personal preference?
 

RM8

Member
I mean your mileage may vary to the extent, but all those things are essential to who you are and how the world perceives you.
Disagree. First, because my own ethnicity is all over the place and it has dictated NOTHING about me or my personality in my life. Second, because I have friends from diverse ethnic backgrounds and there's not any "essential difference" in my eyes, other than how they look. Third, BECAUSE people perceive people differently based on looks THIS problem exists. So I repeat, those are traits that are not important to me at all.

Isn't this just an excuse to not give someone a chance? I genuinely don't understand preferences. Hotness is not a checklist for me, someone is either attractive or not. It doesn't matter what color their hair is, what race they are or what their body weight may be. Hot is hot.
This is obtuse and wrong. Not everyone finds the same people hot, you know.
 

gerg

Member
mBbQg.gif


I mean your mileage may vary to the extent, but all those things are essential to who you are and how the world perceives you.

Here I would disagree also.

For example, would someone identify with being 5'6'', to the point of deciding that that was "essential" to their identity? Probably not. I don't bemoan people for whom their sexuality is a strong part of their identity, but I don't think that it should be perceived that it necessarily is to everyone. Traits are only essential to your identity if the environment in which you are brought up states that they are (and/or you accept that they are).

Isn't this just an excuse to not give someone a chance? I genuinely don't understand preferences. Hotness is not a checklist for me, someone is either attractive or not. It doesn't matter what color their hair is, what race they are or what their body weight may be. Hot is hot.

I never said that I wouldn't give them a chance. I, too, don't get it when people talk about "types", especially when it comes to what someone is like physically. I have just realised that, based on my past attractions, being camp is something I am less attracted to. It doesn't mean I could never fancy a camp person.
 
Isn't this just an excuse to not give someone a chance? I genuinely don't understand preferences. Hotness is not a checklist for me, someone is either attractive or not. It doesn't matter what color their hair is, what race they are or what their body weight may be. Hot is hot.

Congratulations, you were born with the ability to find an astonishing number of traits hot. Saying "hot is hot" does not make others share that ability of yours.

I simply do not find long hair attractive for example. I somehow find men with facial hair more attractive than men without it. I personally don't get why it is a struggle to understand that sexual preferences aren't a conscious decision.

It isn't an excuse to not give someone a chance. I do not have to give someone a chance, because people do not have the right to sleep with me simply for existing. I am allowed to be selective, and to base my choices off what personally turns me on.

So everyone is just feigning outrage when people on Grindr or online hook up sites say they would reject asians, or black people, or latinos, or Jewish people, or Muslims, or anything else? But if a man is too effeminate, it's totally alright because that's a personal preference?

Personally I do not mind if someone says they are not sexually attracted to certain races, as long as they aren't racist in aspects where it actually matters. I'd be outraged when real discrimination happens, such as if they refuse to hire someone of a certain race or work with someone of a certain race.
 

squidyj

Member
What, preferences?

BTW, small pet peeve of mine: I hate the term "gay community". Is there a "straight community"? Nope, because no one expects all straight people to share any type of trait other than being attracted to people of opposite genders.

This is just not true.
 

jb1234

Member
There is absolutely a gay community. That does not mean every gay person is part of the gay community.

I'm not. I'm a notorious loner. I've been told by countless people they'd never guess I'm gay.

(In retrospect, this might be an issue...)
 

WhyMe6

Member
As a gay man, I have a big problem with the whole concept of gay identity itself. To me, being gay begins and ends with being attracted to the same sex - the rest is no less arbitrary than any other supposed elements of "masculinity" or "femininity"

Yes, this, so many times. Sexual orientation's effect on a person's personality starts and ends at sexual attraction. Sure, there are people who seem to be very sexual creatures, so much so that sex is a huge part of their lives, including social and vocational, but that isn't defined by sexuality itself. People really need to stop judging others based on this, because it's rubbish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom