What is a 'gay man?', an article I'm writing

[Passels]

There is nothing wrong with being effeminate. It is you guys who think that there is.

The only people who associated effeminacy with any negative traits were Lube and to a lesser extent, the original poster. No one else.

When I say that gay men are on average less masculine, I am not making a value-judgement: I am simply making a statement of fact. I am not saying that it is a bad thing or that gay men are inferior kkkkkkkk.

But it's not a statement of fact, it's your opinion. And a) unless you distinguish between innate traits and cultural programming, and b) provide a workable definition of masculinity, it's a dodge.

I don't ever describe myself as 'masculine' or 'feminine' or 'straight-acting' or 'effeminate', nor do I try to categorize my interests as such. That's an absurd and inaccurate simplification, and it's one that has led to the perpetuation of a heterosexual patriarchy that traps everyone, male heterosexuals included.

It's also patently sexist, as Lube so ably if inadvertently demonstrated, when he ascribed weakness and passivity to effeminacy and thus - according to his belief in inherent traits - to women as a whole. There's also implicit homophobia in that view as well, but that was already well-covered on the second page.

I'll put it another way: I object to anyone labeling my interests or personality traits as masculine or feminine, or gay or straight. I find it patently offensive. But if I find those ascriptions offensive, I am doubly offended by the belief that they arose out of my sexuality, or any internal conflict surrounding it.

 

[Dduder]

Like we're going to let a "curious" guy tell us what gay men are like.

Lmaoooo, first of all, I don't need yours or anybody else's permission to do anything. Secondly, what I am or not is irrelevant. The fact is that, on average, gay men are less masculine than straight men. It doesen't make gay men inferior to straight men in any way.

 

[Passels]

Lmaoooo, first of all, I don't need yours or anybody else's permission to do anything. Secondly, what I am or not is irrelevant. The fact is that, on average, gay men are less masculine than straight men. It doesen't make gay men inferior to straight men in any way.

Since you obviously have no criteria for defining what 'masculine' is besides, 'not effeminate', or 'not gay', please stop pretending that your opinion has any evidentiary basis.

 

[Krakenbwool]

If this helps puts things in perspective, I ask, what is a "woman"?

I own a vagina, but I'm ten times more of an asshole than most straight men I know, I wear gigantic, baggy clothing, I shower three times a week at most, I watch sports and action films, I talk in a pretty low, flat tone of voice, and I like dudes. For a while I was a transgendered masculine gay man, but the weird thing was that I was completely okay with being a woman (I do care a lot about my hair and dress up occasionally and get compliments; I'm not a bad-looking chick when I bother cleaning up). I didn't feel like I was born in the wrong body, rather that I was born in the wrong environment. Eventually, I realized that the only thing that was making me feel different and weird wasn't me, but society's perception of what it is to be a "woman," which I don't fit.

Okay, TMI, I know.

 

[iiiset]

So I'll vilify you because your arrogance and bigotry towards people, regardless of their sexuality, is a dangerous thing.

I vilify you. You're totally out of line with this remark.

 

[iiiset]

I'll say wear all your virtues with pride and don't genderize it.
And eerrr don't hiss, its ungentlemanly

Gender is inescapable. Millions of years of evolution have made sex sex, and a half-million more have made culture culture, and thus gender gender.

 

[iiiset]

Again with the "generalizations" and "stereotyping" buullshit. Straight men on average are clearly more masculine than gay men. This is a fact. Anyone with two eyes and a working brain can realize that. It doesen'1t mean that each and every single straight man is vastly more masculine than each and every single gay man. It means that, on average, straight men are more masculine. Do you know what the word "average" means? It means that the largest majority of straight men score higher on masculinity than the majority of gay men. This doesen't make straight men better or superior than gay men; it makes them different. There is nothing wrong with being effeminate. It is you guys who think that there is. When I say that gay men are on average less masculine, I am not making a value-judgement: I am simply making a statement of fact. I am not saying that it is a bad thing or that gay men are inferior kkkkkkkk.

I must conclude that about six people here understand what "pattern" means.

And maybe four understand what "average" means. Such big, sciencey words!

 

[iiiset]

I've never seen any of those shows. Give me a good rugby game to watch or an hilarious british satire comedy.




I have a hopeless dress sense. Fashion is a yawn. etc etc .......

If I listened to a recording of your voice made without your knowledge and a recording of a randomly chosen straight man's voice made without his knowledge, I'll bet I could tell which one is you.

 

[iiiset]

You have merely offered us your personal opinion. I respect your right to speak to your experiences. Your opinion does not translate into verifiable fact. Unless you are able to offer us a link to credible research that supports your opinion, your views remain your very personal opinion and is duly noted as such. Nothing more.

My gay acquaintances, and bed mates are always masculine. But they never spit, nor curse, nor chew tobacco to prove their masculinity. I am also masculine but never pretend to be a John Wayne clone. In the bed I always fuck. But I also enjoy Opera, and The Ballet. I have no appetite for Lady Gaga, or Madonna.

Am I a dissenter? Should I resign my gay club membership for failing to live up to the stereotype. Hold on - the ballet, and the opera are definite give a ways.

http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/

http://joeclark.org/soundinggay.html

http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critical-eye/201005/bob-corff-gay-voice-coach

http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/leading-edge/the-gay-voice-why-do-some-gay-men-talk-different/

 

[gsdx]

If I listened to a recording of your voice made without your knowledge and a recording of a randomly chosen straight man's voice made without his knowledge, I'll bet I could tell which one is you.

I think anyone could. justaguy is from New Zealand.

 

[iiiset]

I'll put it another way: I object to anyone labeling my interests or personality traits as masculine or feminine, or gay or straight. I find it patently offensive. But if I find those ascriptions offensive, I am doubly offended by the belief that they arose out of my sexuality, or any internal conflict surrounding it.

Honestly, I can agree with you here. The ascriptions "masculine" and "feminine" to personality traits, in addition to potentially offensive, just aren't that true or that good. Language is not precise enough to describe everything our highly aware social brains pick up on very quickly and quite accurately.

But I think it's likely that some of your individual traits, whatever they may be, are very much involed in a correlative relationship with your sexuality. "arose out of" and "internal conflict surrounding" are fairly disappointing phrases compared to the full complexity of the picture, but somewhere out there there is language to describe the truth. And elusive but highly psychologically meaningful patterns exist in looking at "our" cateogories, however you define them.

 

[iiiset]

I think anyone could. justaguy is from New Zealand.

A randomly chosen straight man from new zealand, then. I almost wish we could do this experiment.

 

[gsdx]

A randomly chosen straight man from new zealand, then. I almost wish we could do this experiment.

Picture it. Canada, October 2010. A young man celebrated his 59th birthday 2 days ago. He's lived in Canada his whole life (so far) and, for his whole life (so far), he has been gay. In all those 59 years of life, this young man was asked only once if he was gay and that was only because an upstairs neighbour noticed the ratio of male visitors (very many) to female visitors (considerably fewer).

That young man was me. People who meet me don't know I'm gay unless I chose to tell them.

I don't act gay, nor do I act straight. I don't act at all. The only thing I do is be myself.

(Special thanks to Sophia Petrillo.)

 

[gsdx]

Don't tell us you're thinking of going to bat for the other team?

Not at all. I've been gay my whole life (so far) and will continue to be gay for the rest of it.

 

[Lube]

Shockingly, I don't really care. You don't get to say that we're all in denial and that you know us better than we know ourselves without getting your own motives called out. So I will insist that you are a troll in denial.

Astonishing, astonishing arrogance and ego on you. Really singular.



Please don't misapprehend my stance. I am past debating you, because I don't debate people who refuse to actually listen to what someone else is telling them, particularly when those people don't know the full facts. yet insist they do.

So I'll vilify you because your arrogance and bigotry towards people, regardless of their sexuality, is a dangerous thing. And if you continue to insist that you know me or my friends better than I know myself, I'm going to respond in kind about what I feel are issues with you and your trolling, as well as the people who choose to associate with you.

Like the characters in my favorite children's book, A Wrinkle in Time, I'm going to counter hate with a little love.

Here's a hug and a kiss. Not to be snarky, but rather because I'm sorry for whatever I've done that caused you to feel that way.

It doesn't matter whether I'm miscommunicating my stance or you're misconstruing my comments...the end result is that you and other people here are insanely angry, and it's not my intention at all to be the cause of that.

 

[iiiset]

Excellent ! You have gaydar.

And that is my point. In order for gaydar to exist and be pretty darned good, there must be perceptible patterns, even if they are hard to describe accurately.

 

[gsdx]

And that is my point. In order for gaydar to exist and be pretty darned good, there must be perceptible patterns, even if they are hard to describe accurately.

But 'femininity' isn't necessarily one of those patterns. You don't need gaydar to spot a queen.

 

[MercuryJones]

gay men are usually born with:

A female's heart, female emotions

This is really very silly. Gay men aren't emotionally women. Or emotionally straight men. We're unique.

And if you want to quickly disprove this silly notion, look at the gay male culture which is relatively more promiscuous, including open relationships, hook-ups in bathrooms and parks, bathhouses and casual hook-ups*.

Does that sounds emotionally desirable to most women you know?

(*This is not to describe all gay men - many of us, myself included, don't fit that bill. But the existence in our subculture can't be denied.)

 

[Passels]

But I think it's likely that some of your individual traits, whatever they may be, are very much involed in a correlative relationship with your sexuality. "arose out of" and "internal conflict surrounding" are fairly disappointing phrases compared to the full complexity of the picture, but somewhere out there there is language to describe the truth. And elusive but highly psychologically meaningful patterns exist in looking at "our" cateogories, however you define them.

First, let me say I appreciate your efforts to maintain an actual dialogue as opposed to telling people what they're feeling/thinking and assuming you know their friends better than they do. I think it is possible to maintain civility when there is the apparent absence of condescension.

That out of the way, I still completely disagree with you, and there is still no basis to your claim that individual traits of mine, unrelated to my sexuality, are connected. And you cannot simply bypass the argument by saying that we lack the current descriptive language.

Let me put it this way: I'd be willing to entertain the possibility that some of our interests might be shaped by sexuality - amongst many other things - if we at some point determine that sexual orientation is a product of the environment, or at least that sexual predispositions are strategically shaped by environmental factors.

That's a high standard of proof, though not an absolute one. But I see no basis for anything less than beyond a reasonable doubt in either myself or others. There is enough cultural diversification and divergence in perceptions concerning homosexuality to cast sufficient doubt over the entirety of the original poster's premise, as well as Lube's ridiculous and insulting hyperbole. And it doesn't really help that the strongest proponents relentlessly define what constitutes 'gay' and 'straight' by incidental and temporary cultural markers.

 

[Passels]

Here's a hug and a kiss. Not to be snarky, but rather because I'm sorry for whatever I've done that caused you to feel that way.

I'm sorry that you're incapable of backing up your argument in any substantive way, other than to produce more hyperbole and continue your unfettered and unjustified assumptions about other people's affairs.

It doesn't matter whether I'm miscommunicating my stance or you're misconstruing my comments...the end result is that you and other people here are insanely angry, and it's not my intention at all to be the cause of that.

Nothing you said was misconstrued. You made the following quite clear:

1) straight men are incapable or nearly incapable of sensitivity. Any straight man who demonstrates any sensitivity - or isn't a complete sociopath - is probably gay.

2) anything or almost anything a gay man does is a product of his homosexuality. If gay men do not participate in activities you consider 'gay', then they are merely attempting to conceal the depth of their 'gayness'.

3) Following from 2), all human activities can be distinguished as 'masculine', 'feminine', 'straight', 'gay', or similar paradigms. This despite your absolute incapability of describing them without using fallacious reasoning.

4) gay men who disagree with you are in denial or tormented by their sexuality. Despite never mentioning effeminacy at all, they are guilty of 'femme-bashing', and in doing so, are only further confirming their self-loathing.


It's obvious your not going to stop your trolling any time soon. But I'll make every effort to be there the next time you make some ridiculous proposition about how watching a particular show, getting a particular piercing, or living in particular style of residence makes somebody gay. Hope you enjoy.


P.S. You are pathologically obsessed with this notion that if someone is closeted, everyone 'knows' they're gay. Yet you also persist with the entirely contradictory notion that somehow all these friends of ours are closeted (which given your broad criteria, would be 100% of the males in my life, and I suspect in the lives of everybody who is not you; or perhaps you actually think that all males are homosexual) yet we cannot see it. Really it's the nonsensical clashing with the nonsensical, but I think it ably illustrates the depths of your own psychosis.

Actually, why don't you say it? You think all or almost all men are secretly gay, don't you? You really are that deranged.