Ide, this is how you develop a master rant when jilted by a lover. :lmfao:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-moritz/what-i-learned-from-gay-sex-misogyny-and-homophobia_b_3092418.html
QuoteI am not quiet during sex. I communicate my desires and ask the same of my partners. I believe that this not only creates a safe sexual environment but makes for the most pleasurable experience for everyone. If I'm making sounds that aren't words, that more or less means I'm having a good time. People generally respond well to this type of nonverbal feedback; I've only had one person object to my use of nonverbal expression, and that was Peter.
Peter is a gay man I slept with once. I met him in a gay bar when I was living in New York, and I thought he was perfect. He worked with homeless queer youth. He had a dog. He was a little taller than average, and stocky, wearing jeans, a T-shirt and Puma high tops. He was bearded. He said things like "you're so unlike everyone your age" (he was 11 years older than I) and "I never go home with anyone the night I meet them." When he did come home with me and we were naked in my bed, he kissed my neck, and I moaned, high-pitched and breathy. He stopped, looked me in the eye and said, "Don't do that. It's faggy."
Now, this was several years ago, and I hadn't yet learned that people like Peter are to be either ignored, laughed at or taught, so I became a caricature of "not faggy": I grunted (no more moaning), I pretended that I wasn't hurt by what he said (feelings are for girls, as I recalled learning during childhood), and I tried to act as masculine as possible, because that is the opposite of faggy, the opposite of the femme gay man who gestures, speaks quickly in a high-pitched voice and says "darling." I became that silly thing because I wanted Peter to love me.
He stood me up on our next date, and I never heard from him again.
Eventually surpassing the typical "what did I do wrong?" stage of self-hatred, I asked myself, "What does it mean that Peter called me faggy for expressing pleasure?" And so I learned that people like Peter are part of a larger problem: pervasive misogyny.
Typically we say that "fag," "sissy," "nancy," "nelly" and "fairy" are homophobic words, and although they certainly are used to perpetuate homophobia, they are not homophobic in and of themselves; the usage of any of these words as slurs usually targets people with male-sexed bodies who do not act sufficiently masculine. They prize masculinity by demonizing femininity. This is probably rooted in some outdated, essentialist reading of gender where women are biologically the weaker, pathetic sex, but we know today that in addition to being totally offensive, gender essentialism is more or less bullshit, because women can vote and work and beat men into submission, and men can cook and clean and stay at home with the kids. But although it was relatively easy to deconstruct the misogyny in Peter's abuse, getting to the root of why a man, while lying naked with another man and kissing him, would call that man's expression of pleasure too gay is a more complicated subject. I would suggest that Peter calling me faggy is part of a larger queer cultural heritage.
Queer people live in a constant narrative of struggle; today we struggle for legally recognized marriage, and in 2003 we struggled for the right to have consensual sex, but 60 years ago queer role models fought for the right to exist in public or private. To gain those rights, they used an effective strategy called assimilation, which dictated that queer people look and act as much as possible like straight people. The Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis both did it intentionally in the '50s, and it was probably the most aggressive option to say "we are normal, just like you" at a time when police were encouraged to raid gay bars, arrest patrons and publish their names and faces in the newspaper the following day. However, "just like you" literally bleached queer people of color from the movement and rendered trans people invisible, because "just like you" referred to white men in power and their wives who had the sway to validate any queer identity legally. Assimilation was successful in that discrimination against LGBT people is now illegal in many forms, but it also created an "acceptable gay man," and he was white and masculine and certainly did not say "darling." It also created and validated a favorite excuse for anti-gay bigotry, "I'm fine with gay people as long as they don't flaunt it," because suddenly there were gay people who were not "normal." "Normal" gay men today ape that heterosexual excuse for bigotry by blaming "abnormal" gays for the the maltreatment of gays as a whole.
Peter is a "normal" gay man, so when my behavior started to drift outside "normal," he reprimanded me much in the same way that police officers, gym teachers or parents might have done in the '50s (and today, to be fair). And although the '50s were over 60 years ago, that attitude remains pervasive: Look at any on gay dating website or smartphone app and you'll see our twisted heritage as "preferences" based on a hierarchy of who can pass as a successful straight man: "Looking for masc, musc, no femmes, white only." Though the irony that none of us is straight does not escape me, I'd like to focus more on how regressive this is; we are literally contributing to our own oppression by upholding this bizarre heritage of misogyny created in the '50s.
So let's make life easier on all queer people and stop mimicking the worst parts of heterosexism. Who knows? We could even begin to support each other. How revolutionary.
QuotePeter is a "normal" gay man,
No, Peter is a gay man who thinks he's not gay.
Much in the same way that gay guys say they're still "experimenting" with gay sex after about the first dozen or so gay hook ups.
Or gay guys that call themselves "bi", even though they haven't been with a woman since the Clinton Administration.
Peter has issues coming to grips with his gayness.
QuoteLook at any on gay dating website or smartphone app and you'll see our twisted heritage as "preferences" based on a hierarchy of who can pass as a successful straight man: "Looking for masc, musc, no femmes, white only." Though the irony that none of us is straight does not escape me, I'd like to focus more on how regressive this is; we are literally contributing to our own oppression by upholding this bizarre heritage of misogyny created in the '50s.
Yes, well, look at any straight dating website and you'll see
our twisted heritage as "preferences" based on a hierarchy of who can pass as a successful straight man over 5'10".
So welcome to the club, Mary.
It is quite the master rant, though. :D
Interesting article.
Strix doesn't dig "faggy", either.
I think that Seedy has nailed it... well, maybe that's not the right terminology... but yeah.... Uh.. what he said.
;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 09:52:34 AM
It is quite the master rant, though. :D
Seriously, I was like, darling, a few years ago someone didn't like you and we got this bit of moaning(;))? Of course, HuffPo commenters love it.
Btw, I think I might find it hot if someone told me not to do something in bed because it was faggy. I'd also keep doing it.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 10:17:50 AM
Btw, I think I might find it hot if someone told me not to do something in bed because it was faggy. I'd also keep doing it.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 10:19:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 10:17:50 AM
Btw, I think I might find it hot if someone told me not to do something in bed because it was faggy. I'd also keep doing it.
:lol:
:goodboy:
I also really like that Peter said this: "I never go home with anyone the night I meet them." A gay man in New York that goes to gay bars? Chyeah right!
Oh yeah, I noticed that too, thinking, "I bet he says that to all the boys he goes home with the night he meets them."
Ok that guy was an asshole for saying that crap in bed. I find it sorta hilarious he is now the epitome for oppression for it.
Talk about being righteous. Let it go dude find somebody who is not a jerk.
This is silly - there is no homophobia, racism, sexism or whatever in what you find sexually attractive - it's just is. When you say on your dating profile that you don't like fats or femmes, this is simply because you do not find them sexually attractive.
Yes, dating sites now mirror the hiring process.
Congratulations - your love life is now in the hands of HR :)
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2013, 12:25:58 PM
This is silly - there is no homophobia, racism, sexism or whatever in what you find sexually attractive - it's just is. When you say on your dating profile that you don't like fats or femmes, this is simply because you do not find them sexually attractive.
I disagree. After all, if you list whites, middle eastern and latinos only - and then you've someone like me that you might put into one of those latter two categories - it gets a little odd. Similarly there isn't like a binary of femme and butch. Where's the line drawn when you say you want no femmes. (And of course same with body weight.)
I think it's rather just being really close-minded and not open to other experiences - which on some level is present in homophobia, racism and sexism.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:29:56 PM
Yes, dating sites now mirror the hiring process.
Congratulations - your love life is now in the hands of HR :)
Only if you let them / are interested in people that let themselves be run that way.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 12:31:54 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:29:56 PM
Yes, dating sites now mirror the hiring process.
Congratulations - your love life is now in the hands of HR :)
Only if you let them / are interested in people that let themselves be run that way.
Indeed. My point was that it reduces potential attraction to a set of checkboxes and performs a prescreening process that might deter you from meeting someone really neat.
How often have you said, in your dating life, "you know, I usually am not attracted to tall blondes/short brunettes/curvier people/etc but I met this girl/guy and there is just something ridiculously attractive about him/her"?
It seems an awful lot to ask, even for the proponents of equality and emancipation from the prejudices of the past, to expunge even one's private sexual preferences of anything ideologically unsound.
CdM is a noted and tireless supporter of tolerance, social equity and so on, but surely we don't ask that he stop fantasizing about choking asian women to death.
An inescapable conclusion of this kind of logic, it seems to me, is that it will be unwholesome and unreasonable to desire a frilly, feminine and "traditional" woman, as the prejudiced legacy of a society that preferred its women chained to an identity that rendered them powerless.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
Indeed. My point was that it reduces potential attraction to a set of checkboxes and performs a prescreening process that might deter you from meeting someone really neat.
How often have you said, in your dating life, "you know, I usually am not attracted to tall blondes/short brunettes/curvier people/etc but I met this girl/guy and there is just something ridiculously attractive about him/her"?
And I was saying that it can. I've used plenty of sites where you don't have to let preferences restrict who pops up.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2013, 12:36:57 PM
CdM is a noted and tireless supporter of tolerance, social equity and so on, but surely we don't ask that he stop fantasizing about choking asian women to death.
:lol:
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2013, 12:36:57 PM
It seems an awful lot to ask, even for the proponents of equality and emancipation from the prejudices of the past, to expunge even one's private sexual preferences of anything ideologically unsound.
Not really. I think there is a difference between writing "Whites only" and choosing to only respond to white suitors.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 12:37:39 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
Indeed. My point was that it reduces potential attraction to a set of checkboxes and performs a prescreening process that might deter you from meeting someone really neat.
How often have you said, in your dating life, "you know, I usually am not attracted to tall blondes/short brunettes/curvier people/etc but I met this girl/guy and there is just something ridiculously attractive about him/her"?
And I was saying that it can. I've used plenty of sites where you don't have to let preferences restrict who pops up.
Ah, cool, I've not seen those, as I haven't been dating for the last four years. Are they in the minority?
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:39:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 12:37:39 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
Indeed. My point was that it reduces potential attraction to a set of checkboxes and performs a prescreening process that might deter you from meeting someone really neat.
How often have you said, in your dating life, "you know, I usually am not attracted to tall blondes/short brunettes/curvier people/etc but I met this girl/guy and there is just something ridiculously attractive about him/her"?
And I was saying that it can. I've used plenty of sites where you don't have to let preferences restrict who pops up.
Ah, cool, I've not seen those, as I haven't been dating for the last four years. Are they in the minority?
Well I've no idea - I mean I only use gay ones. :D
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 12:38:47 PM
Not really. I think there is a difference between writing "Whites only" and choosing to only respond to white suitors.
I suppose there is, but I'd imagine the latter is reflected by "private sexual preferences"; I hadn't entertained the idea of advertising one's various tastes on a dating website, but was responding primarily to the example in the original article.
Although, insomuch as there IS a difference between writing whites only and only choosing to respond to whites, it is a matter of discretion and taste, not sentiment. Which is good- someone without the good sense to know you shouldn't come out as a supremacist is a goober and it's a nice way to allow for self-filtering, but the person who won't give Jamal Jones a chance is still a no-good very bad racist.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2013, 12:49:16 PM
I suppose there is, but I'd imagine the latter is reflected by "private sexual preferences"; I hadn't entertained the idea of advertising one's various tastes on a dating website, but was responding primarily to the example in the original article.
I don't think the OP was really like that though. After all, there are plenty of other reasons Peter could have disliked the writer's high-pitched moans that would not rely on the fact that it was faggy.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2013, 12:49:16 PM
Although, insomuch as there IS a difference between writing whites only and only choosing to respond to whites, it is a matter of discretion and taste, not sentiment. Which is good- someone without the good sense to know you shouldn't come out as a supremacist is a goober and it's a nice way to allow for self-filtering, but the person who won't give Jamal Jones a chance is still a no-good very bad racist.
Actually I think there is a big difference as there's then the change that said individual might actually find themselves interested in a non-white as non-whites wouldn't feel like that person was not to be contacted. And no, I don't think a person is racist if they find Jamal Jones unattractive. Saying it is the result of something as mutable as racial preference kind of is though.
That said, I do find some utility value in people who make such direct statements. I don't need to waste time considering them as I don't find narrow-mindedness attractive.
garbon's logic, taken to the extreme, means that any woman who is not lesbian is really misogynistic.
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2013, 12:55:53 PM
garbon's logic, taken to the extreme, means that any woman who is not lesbian is really misogynistic.
You want to unpack that for me?
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 12:46:29 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:39:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 12:37:39 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
Indeed. My point was that it reduces potential attraction to a set of checkboxes and performs a prescreening process that might deter you from meeting someone really neat.
How often have you said, in your dating life, "you know, I usually am not attracted to tall blondes/short brunettes/curvier people/etc but I met this girl/guy and there is just something ridiculously attractive about him/her"?
And I was saying that it can. I've used plenty of sites where you don't have to let preferences restrict who pops up.
Ah, cool, I've not seen those, as I haven't been dating for the last four years. Are they in the minority?
Well I've no idea - I mean I only use gay ones. :D
:D Good point.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 18, 2013, 12:36:57 PM
CdM is a noted and tireless supporter of tolerance, social equity and so on, but surely we don't ask that he stop fantasizing about choking asian women to death.
:lol:
:contract: Just one in particular.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:29:56 PM
Congratulations - your love life is now in the hands of HR :)
I have to remember to once again remind my wife that she is not allowed to die before me.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 10:33:08 AM
:goodboy:
I also really like that Peter said this: "I never go home with anyone the night I meet them." A gay man in New York that goes to gay bars? Chyeah right!
It's a shock, really. Homos are not that different from straight people when it comes to sex. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on April 18, 2013, 03:45:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 10:33:08 AM
:goodboy:
I also really like that Peter said this: "I never go home with anyone the night I meet them." A gay man in New York that goes to gay bars? Chyeah right!
It's a shock, really. Homos are not that different from straight people when it comes to sex. ;)
Maybe you meant something like sexual relations. I think the sex is probably a bit different unless most heteros engage in pegging.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2013, 12:55:53 PM
garbon's logic, taken to the extreme, means that any woman who is not lesbian is really misogynistic.
You want to unpack that for me?
I think a large sword would serve you better.
Quote from: mongers on April 18, 2013, 03:54:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2013, 12:55:53 PM
garbon's logic, taken to the extreme, means that any woman who is not lesbian is really misogynistic.
You want to unpack that for me?
I think a large sword would serve you better.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdearsquirt.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fimages-21.jpeg&hash=f07adbfff90beef3234c97ae3ffad30f9b1cb7fc)
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
Indeed. My point was that it reduces potential attraction to a set of checkboxes and performs a prescreening process that might deter you from meeting someone really neat.
How often have you said, in your dating life, "you know, I usually am not attracted to tall blondes/short brunettes/curvier people/etc but I met this girl/guy and there is just something ridiculously attractive about him/her"?
Well I think it depends on the site. At match you could check boxes but it was not like anything was prescreened, you could look at everybody and message them if you wanted and vice versa. Well ok I could only search for women seeking men for some reason which precluded me from scouting the competition if I had felt like it.
In fact I had the experience you described in the second paragraph when I read my wife's profile even though I am not sure I would have approached her if we had run into each other offline. But she sounded amazing when I got to read what she had to say about herself and the rest was history.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:29:56 PM
Yes, dating sites now mirror the hiring process.
Congratulations - your love life is now in the hands of HR :)
Eh people have always had lists of what they wanted their mate to be like. I do not really see the difference. And it was always like the hiring process. It is about presentation and rejection. Before you were just limited to going out and getting applications in person.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2013, 03:01:28 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:29:56 PM
Congratulations - your love life is now in the hands of HR :)
I have to remember to once again remind my wife that she is not allowed to die before me.
You know you do not have to do online dating. It is an option.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2013, 04:31:15 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 12:29:56 PM
Yes, dating sites now mirror the hiring process.
Congratulations - your love life is now in the hands of HR :)
Eh people have always had lists of what they wanted their mate to be like. I do not really see the difference. And it was always like the hiring process. It is about presentation and rejection. Before you were just limited to going out and getting applications in person.
That, though, allows much more opportunity for one to be pleasantly surprised.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 04:14:08 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 18, 2013, 03:54:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2013, 12:55:53 PM
garbon's logic, taken to the extreme, means that any woman who is not lesbian is really misogynistic.
You want to unpack that for me?
I think a large sword would serve you better.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdearsquirt.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fimages-21.jpeg&hash=f07adbfff90beef3234c97ae3ffad30f9b1cb7fc)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maa.org%2Fdevlin%2FGordianKnot.jpg&hash=3fce547fb971f358c3c132f40339076fe6ec887b)
Doesn't it stand to reason that if a man is interested in men he will be interested in men fit the image of what an attractive man is? This of course doesn't mean effeminette.
Of course, different people have different types, but even girls who are into more flowery and emotional sorts of guys tend to like some 'manliness'.
Quote from: Tyr on April 18, 2013, 08:41:47 PM
Doesn't it stand to reason that if a man is interested in men he will be interested in men fit the image of what an attractive man is? This of course doesn't mean effeminette.
Of course, different people have different types, but even girls who are into more flowery and emotional sorts of guys tend to like some 'manliness'.
No.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 09:36:15 AM
Ide, this is how you develop a master rant when jilted by a lover. :lmfao:
Next time, I'm totally blaming straight culture. :D
I think it makes an interesting point about pervasive misogyny, even though that's something of an aside.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I buy that there is this critical mass of gay men who demand non-femmy partners. If that were the case, how are all the shockingly twinky gay men I've met getting laid? I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 18, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
That needs to go into a sig. As many as possible.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2013, 09:29:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 18, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
That needs to go into a sig. As many as possible.
It'd be easy enough for me too since I'm 5'10". Lol.
SON OF A
Quote from: Ideologue on April 18, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I buy that there is this critical mass of gay men who demand non-femmy partners. If that were the case, how are all the shockingly twinky gay men I've met getting laid? I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
I've no idea. I don't know who goes in for twinks...though I don't think they generally are counted as femmes...
Quote from: Ideologue on April 18, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
I think it makes an interesting point about pervasive misogyny, even though that's something of an aside.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I buy that there is this critical mass of gay men who demand non-femmy partners. If that were the case, how are all the shockingly twinky gay men I've met getting laid? I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
I want to go with hot tall girls with big boobies. Doesn't mean I get them.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 18, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
I think it makes an interesting point about pervasive misogyny, even though that's something of an aside.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I buy that there is this critical mass of gay men who demand non-femmy partners. If that were the case, how are all the shockingly twinky gay men I've met getting laid? I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
If you were gay, you'd want different traits than you do now. It's kinda in the definition of gay. It's not like a straight guy who's got a gun to his head and told to fuck dudes.
However, if gays are anything like the lesbians on the L Word, you may have a point. The androgynous Shane was a mac daddy while the much hotter Jenny had more struggles. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 10:04:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 18, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I buy that there is this critical mass of gay men who demand non-femmy partners. If that were the case, how are all the shockingly twinky gay men I've met getting laid? I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
I've no idea. I don't know who goes in for twinks...though I don't think they generally are counted as femmes...
There are other kinds of twinks than full-on femme twinks, but as I understand the usage all twinks are a little femmy by definition by body structure and appearance.
As I understand the usage, twinks are overpowered and fun to play, but take no skill. :whistle:
Quote from: Tyr on April 18, 2013, 08:41:47 PM
Doesn't it stand to reason that if a man is interested in men he will be interested in men fit the image of what an attractive man is? This of course doesn't mean effeminette.
Of course, different people have different types, but even girls who are into more flowery and emotional sorts of guys tend to like some 'manliness'.
Yes.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 18, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
I think it makes an interesting point about pervasive misogyny, even though that's something of an aside.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I buy that there is this critical mass of gay men who demand non-femmy partners. If that were the case, how are all the shockingly twinky gay men I've met getting laid? I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
Twinks and fems are different things.
Twinks are masculine, but boyish/young. Bears/muscle daddies are masculine, but older. Neither are the same as effeminate.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2013, 10:10:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 18, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
I think it makes an interesting point about pervasive misogyny, even though that's something of an aside.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I buy that there is this critical mass of gay men who demand non-femmy partners. If that were the case, how are all the shockingly twinky gay men I've met getting laid? I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
If you were gay, you'd want different traits than you do now. It's kinda in the definition of gay. It's not like a straight guy who's got a gun to his head and told to fuck dudes.
However, if gays are anything like the lesbians on the L Word, you may have a point. The androgynous Shane was a mac daddy while the much hotter Jenny had more struggles. :hmm:
I think it differs from a person to a person but I always said that if I wanted to have sex with something that looks like a woman, acts like a woman and talks like a woman I'd be straight.
Wonder if there's more of a preference from bi guys for the more feminine men :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2013, 01:55:26 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2013, 10:10:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 18, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
I think it makes an interesting point about pervasive misogyny, even though that's something of an aside.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I buy that there is this critical mass of gay men who demand non-femmy partners. If that were the case, how are all the shockingly twinky gay men I've met getting laid? I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
If you were gay, you'd want different traits than you do now. It's kinda in the definition of gay. It's not like a straight guy who's got a gun to his head and told to fuck dudes.
However, if gays are anything like the lesbians on the L Word, you may have a point. The androgynous Shane was a mac daddy while the much hotter Jenny had more struggles. :hmm:
I think it differs from a person to a person but I always said that if I wanted to have sex with something that looks like a woman, acts like a woman and talks like a woman I'd be straight.
Ah so I guess you don't take issue with the homophobia as you project it everyday. :D
Quote from: fahdiz on April 18, 2013, 05:23:31 PM
That, though, allows much more opportunity for one to be pleasantly surprised.
Not really. If you have an open mind, you have an open mind. People create their own opportunities.
According the signs I see around campus we are up to LGBTQIA (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual Queer Intersex Asexual) if you are scoring at home....or even if you are by yourself. Yes fight for the right to be Asexual.
Oh, yeah. For sure- I think y'all are an older set and so out of touch with what the tumblr hambeast crowd has to say, but that's very common there, and they are largely the face of college..stuff. I know a few folks who identify as asexuals and are quite vigorous about the right to be so. (an accompanying issue is wishing there were no third person gendered pronouns, so an unjust identity could not be projected upon you.)
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 19, 2013, 08:18:52 AM
I know a few folks who identify as asexuals and are quite vigorous about the right to be so.
Interesting. What are their demands?
Quote from: Valmy on April 19, 2013, 07:45:10 AM
According the signs I see around campus we are up to LGBTQIA (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual Queer Intersex Asexual) if you are scoring at home....or even if you are by yourself.
Which is absurd. Such an umbrella really can't stand for anything or hope that it's diverse membership will really see eye to eye on issues.
1) Media and society have an over-focus on and exaltation of sexuality that is exclusionist and belittling
2) gender should be legally assigned when an individual is old enough to make the decision themselves and separate from biological sexuality
3) pronouns laden with gender roles should not be thrust upon people against their will
But a lot of it is just reaching out for "understanding" of what snowflakes they are.
Quote from: Valmy on April 19, 2013, 08:25:18 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 19, 2013, 08:18:52 AM
I know a few folks who identify as asexuals and are quite vigorous about the right to be so.
Interesting. What are their demands?
Well it has got to be problematic in relationships between and asexual and a non-asexual. There's also probably (like with bisexuality) people who don't think that category really exists.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2013, 08:33:20 AM
Well it has got to be problematic in relationships between and asexual and a non-asexual.
On the contrary, this is a rather ideal relationship. One person can virtuously submit themselves to another person's lust and be a given sacrifice, rather than two people living in wanton and debasing mutual passion. Sexuality borne for another person's sake rather than one's own gratification is much more noble :)
How often have you been virtuously submitting your pink puckered bunghole to your roommate's lust as a given sacrifice, Lettuce?
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 19, 2013, 08:33:04 AM
2) gender should be legally assigned when an individual is old enough to make the decision themselves and separate from biological sexuality
This is the only one that is really a demand...but since when has gender ever been legally assigned? It has only ever been biological sex. And I was not aware asexuality was connected to gender identity in any particular way :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2013, 08:42:05 AM
How often have you been virtuously submitting your pink puckered bunghole to your roommate's lust as a given sacrifice, Lettuce?
My roommate has no such indecent compulsions- as the flower of our generation, he is in a respectable long-term relationship with a modest, soft-spoken girl.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 19, 2013, 08:33:04 AM
1) Media and society have an over-focus on and exaltation of sexuality that is exclusionist and belittling
2) gender should be legally assigned when an individual is old enough to make the decision themselves and separate from biological sexuality
3) pronouns laden with gender roles should not be thrust upon people against their will
But a lot of it is just reaching out for "understanding" of what snowflakes they are.
I'm having a hard time believing that 2 and 3 are demands from asexuals. Those seems to fit more with transexuals/intersex.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 19, 2013, 08:36:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2013, 08:33:20 AM
Well it has got to be problematic in relationships between and asexual and a non-asexual.
On the contrary, this is a rather ideal relationship. One person can virtuously submit themselves to another person's lust and be a given sacrifice, rather than two people living in wanton and debasing mutual passion. Sexuality borne for another person's sake rather than one's own gratification is much more noble :)
Yes because I can see as an asexual person that I'd really like being used as a masturbatory aid. :rolleyes:
The is considerable overlap with asexuality and feeling your gender is misplaced- which I am reluctant to call transexual if only because they reject sexuality as well.
As for whether the asexual in question likes being used for another's desires, well, of course not! One hopes they might get intellectual satisfaction for fulfilling their role to someone they love, of course.
Can you see "as an asexual person", garbon? Do you have much context for sexuality you engage in while despising?
But anyway, this sort of thing isn't as strange as it must sound- housewives having sex when their husbands when they'd really rather not, and not enjoying it throughout, is hardly new; neither are women sleeping with men due to social pressures and expectations rather than lust.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 19, 2013, 09:25:46 AM
The is considerable overlap with asexuality and feeling your gender is misplaced- which I am reluctant to call transexual if only because they reject sexuality as well.
Still not really sure I see that. A lack of sex drive and gender identity concerns are not really the same thing.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 19, 2013, 09:25:46 AM
As for whether the asexual in question likes being used for another's desires, well, of course not! One hopes they might get intellectual satisfaction for fulfilling their role to someone they love, of course.
Can you see "as an asexual person", garbon? Do you have much context for sexuality you engage in while despising?
But anyway, this sort of thing isn't as strange as it must sound- housewives having sex when their husbands when they'd really rather not, and not enjoying it throughout, is hardly new; neither are women sleeping with men due to social pressures and expectations rather than lust.
Sure, I've had sex at times that I wasn't feel particularly sexual because my partner at the time was into it (talking in the context of a relationship). I can't imagine having a long-term relationship where we had sex and I was never feeling it. Also, I've read about asexuals noting that as something that can cause difficulties in relationships with the sexually-inclined.
As a straight guy, it just seems odd to me that the only folk who appear to favor femme types en mass are straight guys. Everyone else appears to view masculine as "more sexy".
Straight women - goes without saying;
Gay men; and
Gay women ... all appear, as a generality, to favour people who look/act stereotypically "masculine".
I think even T does not really fit with the rest of the GLBT - the nature of demands here is entirely different.
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:05:09 AM
Gay women ... all appear, as a generality, to favour people who look/act stereotypically "masculine".
I believe this is wrong - there is this whole butch/femme divide in lesbian culture.
Also, for some reason, a lot of bisexual/closeted gay guys seem to like more feminine guys.
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2013, 10:08:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:05:09 AM
Gay women ... all appear, as a generality, to favour people who look/act stereotypically "masculine".
I believe this is wrong - there is this whole butch/femme divide in lesbian culture.
I have no serious insight into lesbian culture, but anecdotally, every single lesbian I've ever known has been "butch". Of course that could be because they stand out more, but their GFs were "butch" too.
Sadly, "lipstick lesbians" appear to be more a creation of porn than a real-life thing - at least, as a generality. :(
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2013, 07:33:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2013, 01:55:26 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2013, 10:10:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 18, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
I think it makes an interesting point about pervasive misogyny, even though that's something of an aside.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure I buy that there is this critical mass of gay men who demand non-femmy partners. If that were the case, how are all the shockingly twinky gay men I've met getting laid? I mean, I can practically guarantee that if I were gay, I'd probably still want to fuck skinny people that were shorter than me.
If you were gay, you'd want different traits than you do now. It's kinda in the definition of gay. It's not like a straight guy who's got a gun to his head and told to fuck dudes.
However, if gays are anything like the lesbians on the L Word, you may have a point. The androgynous Shane was a mac daddy while the much hotter Jenny had more struggles. :hmm:
I think it differs from a person to a person but I always said that if I wanted to have sex with something that looks like a woman, acts like a woman and talks like a woman I'd be straight.
Ah so I guess you don't take issue with the homophobia as you project it everyday. :D
Why is that homophobia? Effeminate guys are simply a turn-off for me. Sure, it's not a binary situation - it's not like I only have sex/date/am attracted to macho guys - in fact my boyfriend is an otter and I do not like bears or guys who are older than me - but lisping queens with limp wrists are a turn-off.
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:11:43 AM
Sadly, "lipstick lesbians" appear to be more a creation of porn than a real-life thing - at least, as a generality. :(
Not my experience. The majority of the ones I know seem to be quite feminine.
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:11:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2013, 10:08:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:05:09 AM
Gay women ... all appear, as a generality, to favour people who look/act stereotypically "masculine".
I believe this is wrong - there is this whole butch/femme divide in lesbian culture.
I have no serious insight into lesbian culture, but anecdotally, every single lesbian I've ever known has been "butch". Of course that could be because they stand out more, but their GFs were "butch" too.
Sadly, "lipstick lesbians" appear to be more a creation of porn than a real-life thing - at least, as a generality. :(
I suspect this may be the same mechanism as with people knowing mainly effeminate gay guys - because non-effeminate ones do not stand out that much.
Press there is also peer pressure at hand here - since most lesbians spend time with other lesbians, this "look" rubs off on them to a degree and so on (same goes for gay guys).
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2013, 10:17:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:11:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2013, 10:08:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:05:09 AM
Gay women ... all appear, as a generality, to favour people who look/act stereotypically "masculine".
I believe this is wrong - there is this whole butch/femme divide in lesbian culture.
I have no serious insight into lesbian culture, but anecdotally, every single lesbian I've ever known has been "butch". Of course that could be because they stand out more, but their GFs were "butch" too.
Sadly, "lipstick lesbians" appear to be more a creation of porn than a real-life thing - at least, as a generality. :(
I suspect this may be the same mechanism as with people knowing mainly effeminate gay guys - because non-effeminate ones do not stand out that much.
Press there is also peer pressure at hand here - since most lesbians spend time with other lesbians, this "look" rubs off on them to a degree and so on (same goes for gay guys).
Yeah, it's certainly possible. I don't really know much about that community other than in passing.
Mind you, before actually talking to gay guys I thought that there was a similar split among gay guys - that "masculine" gay guys liked to look for "feminine" gay guys and vice versa (I use scare quotes here but you know what I mean). Actually talking to gay guys, it was a surprise (to me) to learn that most gay guys actually preferred "masculine" looking/acting guys, whatever their own look might be.
Maybe there is a similar-but-opposite thing in action with lesbians - even if they may look "butch" themselves, they prefer their partners to be "femme" (but will settle for "butch" if femme is not available)?
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:26:33 AM
Mind you, before actually talking to gay guys I thought that there was a similar split among gay guys - that "masculine" gay guys liked to look for "feminine" gay guys and vice versa (I use scare quotes here but you know what I mean). Actually talking to gay guys, it was a surprise (to me) to learn that most gay guys actually preferred "masculine" looking/acting guys, whatever their own look might be.
I'm not sure that it would be fair to draw such a broad generalization - either in what you previously though or now thought.
Also I would say, admittedly biased by my circles, but the axis is less along traditional male - female roles and more along boyish vs. (for lack of a better term) grown man types.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 03:47:22 PM
Maybe you meant something like sexual relations. I think the sex is probably a bit different unless most heteros engage in pegging.
When it comes to lying to your partner in the hope of engaging in a sexual relation.
That kind of thing described in the articles does happen quite often in hetero sexual relations. I've girls telling me this often. I even said so myself a few times. "I never have unprotected sex".
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2013, 10:31:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:26:33 AM
Mind you, before actually talking to gay guys I thought that there was a similar split among gay guys - that "masculine" gay guys liked to look for "feminine" gay guys and vice versa (I use scare quotes here but you know what I mean). Actually talking to gay guys, it was a surprise (to me) to learn that most gay guys actually preferred "masculine" looking/acting guys, whatever their own look might be.
I'm not sure that it would be fair to draw such a broad generalization - either in what you previously though or now thought.
Also I would say, admittedly biased by my circles, but the axis is less along traditional male - female roles and more along boyish vs. (for lack of a better term) grown man types.
The generalization is just based on what I'm told, talking to people, I freely admit. For a broader and more accurate picture, one would need more of a sociological survey.
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:36:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2013, 10:31:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:26:33 AM
Mind you, before actually talking to gay guys I thought that there was a similar split among gay guys - that "masculine" gay guys liked to look for "feminine" gay guys and vice versa (I use scare quotes here but you know what I mean). Actually talking to gay guys, it was a surprise (to me) to learn that most gay guys actually preferred "masculine" looking/acting guys, whatever their own look might be.
I'm not sure that it would be fair to draw such a broad generalization - either in what you previously though or now thought.
Also I would say, admittedly biased by my circles, but the axis is less along traditional male - female roles and more along boyish vs. (for lack of a better term) grown man types.
The generalization is just based on what I'm told, talking to people, I freely admit. For a broader and more accurate picture, one would need more of a sociological survey.
Well I can't help but wonder, like in the generalization that I added to the post, if what they are saying is deeply colored by the circles they typically travel in.
Quote from: viper37 on April 19, 2013, 10:35:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2013, 03:47:22 PM
Maybe you meant something like sexual relations. I think the sex is probably a bit different unless most heteros engage in pegging.
When it comes to lying to your partner in the hope of engaging in a sexual relation.
That kind of thing described in the articles does happen quite often in hetero sexual relations. I've girls telling me this often. I even said so myself a few times. "I never have unprotected sex".
Yeah so like I said, it isn't so much the sex that is the same but the chatter/relations around/getting that sex. :)
I think it's an interesting dynamics and I, broadly, think that garbon's characterization (actual attraction runs along the twink - bear axis, not effeminate - masculine axis) is correct.
I have this theory that the effeminate / masculine axis is a by product of inculturation ("scene" gays turn to be more effeminate by hanging out with other effeminate gays) and the fact that a certain degree of effeminate behaviour used to be necessary in order to identify potential mates. Now that this is no longer necessary, this kind of behaviour will be getting less common.
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2013, 10:06:58 AM
I think even T does not really fit with the rest of the GLBT - the nature of demands here is entirely different.
You exluded the QIAs!!11
How dare you oppress and exclude and stuff.
Quote from: Maximus on April 19, 2013, 10:16:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:11:43 AM
Sadly, "lipstick lesbians" appear to be more a creation of porn than a real-life thing - at least, as a generality. :(
Not my experience. The majority of the ones I know seem to be quite feminine.
Yeah, most of the lesbians I know would not be considered to have pointy elbows by the languish crowd.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: Maximus on April 19, 2013, 10:16:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:11:43 AM
Sadly, "lipstick lesbians" appear to be more a creation of porn than a real-life thing - at least, as a generality. :(
Not my experience. The majority of the ones I know seem to be quite feminine.
Yeah, most of the lesbians I know would not be considered to have pointy elbows by the languish crowd.
You guys obviously haven't worked around enough animal shelters.
Quote from: Valmy on April 19, 2013, 10:58:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2013, 10:06:58 AM
I think even T does not really fit with the rest of the GLBT - the nature of demands here is entirely different.
You exluded the QIAs!!11
How dare you oppress and exclude and stuff.
They can go fuck themselves. Only because I suck guys' cocks/toes, I did not sign up to be grouped together with goths and other weirdos.
Incidentally, I can't stand that whole anti-bullying silliness. Everyone is different in some way. If you are different, you will be bullied, unless you develop social skills and prove you are a boon to your group. If we coddle people and tell them any peer pressure is wrong, we will raise a society of useless sociopathic freaks.
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2013, 02:39:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 19, 2013, 10:58:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2013, 10:06:58 AM
I think even T does not really fit with the rest of the GLBT - the nature of demands here is entirely different.
You exluded the QIAs!!11
How dare you oppress and exclude and stuff.
They can go fuck themselves. Only because I suck guys' cocks/toes, I did not sign up to be grouped together with goths and other weirdos.
I didn't sign up to be grouped with you and yet here we are. ;)
What's an otter?
Quote from: fahdiz on April 19, 2013, 06:28:06 PM
What's an otter?
Otter you suck dick, or you don't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2013, 02:14:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: Maximus on April 19, 2013, 10:16:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2013, 10:11:43 AM
Sadly, "lipstick lesbians" appear to be more a creation of porn than a real-life thing - at least, as a generality. :(
Not my experience. The majority of the ones I know seem to be quite feminine.
Yeah, most of the lesbians I know would not be considered to have pointy elbows by the languish crowd.
You guys obviously haven't worked around enough animal shelters.
Or my sister's most recent ex-girlfriend. Nice enough, and perhaps she ate pussy like a champ, but not conventionally attractive by any stretch.
Now her girlfriend in high school was a rather fine 90 pound bisexual. :smoke:
Marty and Dawid
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache4.asset-cache.net%2Fxt%2F200170794-001.jpg%3Fv%3D1%26amp%3Bg%3Dfs1%257C0%257CTSIR%257C07%257C941%26amp%3Bs%3D1&hash=836e9a3e09d9ebdfb3c47cfa721db1efa131c025)
Renly was an otter. :contract:
In fact, Game of Thrones is a veritable otter-fest (Robb, Jon, etc.)
By the way, while not strictly a requirement, otters tend to be younger (say, below 40). Past certain age, they become silver foxes.
Why are you guys stealing our words?
I do that a lot these days.
Quote from: Syt on April 20, 2013, 07:28:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 20, 2013, 07:09:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2013, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 19, 2013, 06:28:06 PM
What's an otter?
Otter you suck dick, or you don't.
Well, I laughed.
Better would have been: "Gays suck each otter's dicks."
Eh, I thought it was funny.
Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2013, 07:08:55 AM
Why are you guys stealing our words?
Aren't your words properly illegal?