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

[neruda]

I mean... i know a lot of gay men who are more masculine than me.

you should hear me scream when I see a tarantula in the wild.

Tut Jasun, its just another hairy thing....

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Tut Jasun, its just another hairy thing....

Yeah, you wanna know a REAL man?

Last time that happened, I was walking across the floor at the Jake Cruise studio, almost stepped on a live Tarantula walking across the floor ( was barefoot). I let out a scream and jumped on the bed.

Jake Cruise got up... totally naked, picked it up with his hands, said nice things to it, put it outside and went back to shooting like it was nothing.

I'm gettng creepy crawlies just thinking about that.

 

[Passels]

I also find it interesting not that so many gay men vigorously reject characterization of themselves (nobody likes to be summarized, we'd prefer to introduce ourselves, thanks) but that they so vigorously deny what I know they all see and encounter everyday. Namely, that the statement "a gay man chosen at random is likely to be more emotionally sensitive than a straight man chosen at random" is true, and you will make money if you bet against someone insisting that they are equally likely to be sensitive.

I deny it because it's untrue. You have no basis - other than social construction - for making the assertion that gay men are more emotionally sensitive. Simply no basis.

At best, you might make the proposition that non-closeted gay men, not being bound by the same social/gendered constructions of masculinity as straight men, are more likely to display their emotions a certain way, because they don't have the same expectations for behaviour. Even that, I think, is a tenuous proposition, dependent on a very simplistic evaluation of human emotion. But one should not confuse obvious displaysof emotion for actual emotional sensitivity. Some people are very gifted at displaying emotional reactions without actually feeling it themselves.

In any case, I would not extend the marker into determining someone's sexuality, which is something Lube proposes to do (e.g. implying that a man is gay simply because he's emotionally affected by his sick daughter). That's an absurd projection, and rightly recognized as such. It's also harmful to anyone who is seriously questioning their sexuality.

 

[iiiset]

How can you generalise a category (in this case, homosexuals) when everyone is an individual? That's like saying every banana bread recipe you find on the internet will make an identical loaf of banana bread.

Ha! Hilarious example.

Answer: because you can. Perhaps a better term than "generalize" is "search for patterns."

 

[Lube]

Okay, reading the other responses, I can see that this OP needs a champion. I hope people respond to my post in which I defend the OP.

Firstly, it's always, always foolish to look at an individual and say "why don't you fit the stereotype?" Nobody has to explain themselves; people just are the way they are.

However, generalized observations about members of a certain category can be beneficial if done carefully. We make them innately because they helped our ancient ancestors survive and reproduce. Unfortunately, we evolved to do our innate generalizations very uncarefully. Okay for a snap judgment in a real emergency, but bad if you want to know the truth in sober, everyday civil society.

Researching the characteristics of members of categories, in particular how their traits and tendencies differ from the population as a whole, can be enlightening about what that category and membership in it is all about.

It would be hard to test in a truly scientific way, but I suspect that if you could, you would find that all of the OP characterizations are more likely to be true of gay men than straight men. I redundantly reiterate: this does not mean every gay man has all the traits, and it does not mean no gay man exists with very few of them.

The gendered implications of our natures, identities, and behaviors as gay men is most interesting to me. And trends are more compelling evidence of underlying truth than anecdotes or biographies. I also find it interesting not that so many gay men vigorously reject characterization of themselves (nobody likes to be summarized, we'd prefer to introduce ourselves, thanks) but that they so vigorously deny what I know they all see and encounter everyday. Namely, that the statement "a gay man chosen at random is likely to be more emotionally sensitive than a straight man chosen at random" is true, and you will make money if you bet against someone insisting that they are equally likely to be sensitive.

Thank you foe a logical, dispassionate comment. Bravo.

 

[gsdx]

Perhaps a better term than "generalize" is "search for patterns."

Then search for patterns which exist in every single gay male.

(You won't find any. Trust me on this one.)

 

[Lube]

Please.

I'm probably one of the most pro-femme guys around here. It pisses me off when I see femme-bashing. Everyone has a right to be who they are.

The problem is you seem to think every single gay man falls into a stereotype and that any straight man that does is in the closet. It's childish and stupid.

When you had the nerve to say that no straight man is sensitive (or that all gay men are), I couldn't read any longer. This is drivel. Plain and simple.

There are feminine gay guys. There are masculine gay guys. There are a plethora of shades in between. Such is life.

I'm simply astounded at how my assertion that gay men have some effeminate traits turns into femme-bashing (really? I just asserted that it's ok to have feminine traits and one should embrace it), or as others have said that I think every gay man is a diva.

It makes it impossible to have a rational discussion when everything I say gets exaggerated beyond recognition.

 

[iiiset]

At best, you might make the proposition that non-closeted gay men, not being bound by the same social/gendered constructions of masculinity as straight men, are more likely to display their emotions a certain way, because they don't have the same expectations for behaviour. Even that, I think, is a tenuous proposition, dependent on a very simplistic evaluation of human emotion. But one should not confuse obvious displaysof emotion for actual emotional sensitivity. Some people are very gifted at displaying emotional reactions without actually feeling it themselves.

You are quite right, about this part. I realized too late I was wading into trouble with my chosen example. I was guilty of a dire oversimplification of human emotions and their presentation. There is indeed a gayer way and a straighter way for men to experience and show emotion, which encompass wide ranges of possible expression. Describing it all in detail is probably a hopeless task.

So let me go to a better example. If a man speaking uses more than 20% of his available vocal range when explaining how he feels about something, you can win money by betting he's gay against someone guessing at random using 5% as the average proportion of males who are gay.

But you are wrong that there are no important patterns of behavior that are differential between straight and gay men. As to your idea about closetedness, that's impossible to be ethical and scientific about, because theoretically we have no idea who's closeted. (But we do, and we know it.)

 

[iiiset]

Then search for patterns which exist in every single gay male.

(You won't find any. Trust me on this one.)

Did you even read my post? I explicitly denied the possibility of predicting the traits of "every single." But if a trait is more or less common in a certain category than in the population at large, that's a pattern and I believe it's important.

 

[Lube]

It's you who seems to think that everyone is just gay and in denial. Like I said... we're not all losers at the game of life.

I know this is meant to be mean and hateful, but I love both my masculine and feminine side. So this doesn't hurt me at all.

As you know, we're friends on Facebook, and while I don't think you've ever actively looked at my wall or photo library, I believe that if you did you wouldn't find me to be particularly more or less masculine than you. I joke about my effeminate side (sparkles, anyone?!); it doesn't embarrass me in any way.

We're different people for sure, but I believe we both have masculine and feminine attributes. Even if you disavow your ON-J 'joke'.

 

[iiiset]

Straight men are as emotionally sensitive as gay men. The majority of expression differs, and not necessarily across the lines of division. But it would be more telling to examine the social demands that push, pressure and mold straight and gay men into the beings they are.

You are right. My example sucked. Your restatement fixes my error.

 

[gsdx]

It makes it impossible to have a rational discussion when everything I say gets exaggerated beyond recognition.

We did not exaggerate it. You did it the instant you said 'most if not all' and then switched it to 'on average'.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion when one of the participants changes the rationality of his statements.

 

[Lube]

Ha! Hilarious example.

Answer: because you can. Perhaps a better term than "generalize" is "search for patterns."

Yes. In scientific lingo, it's called "pattern recognition".

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

it a say there a intelligent life a ons planet earth but where ?



tos 7000 million folk not here ya no miss nothin!

 

[Passels]

I'm simply astounded at how my assertion that gay men have some effeminate traits turns into femme-bashing (really? I just asserted that it's ok to have feminine traits and one should embrace it), or as others have said that I think every gay man is a diva.

It makes it impossible to have a rational discussion when everything I say gets exaggerated beyond recognition.

Yes, by all means, keep digging the hole.

The only person thus far who has ascribed any negative traits to effeminacy has been you. Repudiating your arrogant worldview and your stereotypical assertions about gay and straight men is my only theme. You can harp about 'femme-bashing' all you want, but you're just making it more clear that you don't really have any substance to your statements.

 

[Passels]

But you are wrong that there are no important patterns of behavior that are differential between straight and gay men. As to your idea about closetedness, that's impossible to be ethical and scientific about, because theoretically we have no idea who's closeted. (But we do, and we know it.)

I am not wrong because I never discounted the possibility of any patterns of behaviour. I certainly deny any biologically-originated extrapolations, but I am open, if highly skeptical to ones based in cultural programming. And I am skeptical because there's enough global cultural dissimilarity in homosexuality to throw most of the assumptions under the bus.

And please, don't try to invoke science and then throw in definitives about 'knowing' who is in the closet when you actually don't. It undermines your overall persuasiveness.

 

[iiiset]

I am not wrong because I never discounted the possibility of any patterns of behaviour. I certainly deny any biologically-originated extrapolations, but I am open, if highly skeptical to ones based in cultural programming. And I am skeptical because there's enough global cultural dissimilarity in homosexuality to throw most of the assumptions under the bus.

All differences between people are ultimately explained by both biology and environment/social context/culture &c. If it weren't for both acting togther, there would be no differences between people at all.

Actually, I was not trying to extend my pattern-recognitions out of the western world. For the most part, the non-western world does not have an understanding of homosexuality as an identity. But where there is one, there are similarities and at least parallels internationally.

And please, don't try to invoke science and then throw in definitives about 'knowing' who is in the closet when you actually don't. It undermines your overall persuasiveness.

And please, don't try clumsily to meta-argue. It undermines your overall persuasiveness.

 

[Krakenbwool]

And I am skeptical because there's enough global cultural dissimilarity in homosexuality to throw most of the assumptions under the bus.

I agree. I'm Asian and pretty familiar with Japanese culture, and many of the things that Japanese men do that would be considered effeminate and "gay" in Western society (ie: take care of their hair and clothing, wear makeup), are considered traits that make them attractive mates to Japanese women. On the other hand, hypermasculinity in Japanese culture is considered quite "gay."

 

[Lube]

Yes, by all means, keep digging the hole.

The only person thus far who has ascribed any negative traits to effeminacy has been you. Repudiating your arrogant worldview and your stereotypical assertions about gay and straight men is my only theme. You can harp about 'femme-bashing' all you want, but you're just making it more clear that you don't really have any substance to your statements.

Quote it or it didn't happen.

You haven't said anything about my point that most guys here are exaggerating my description of gay men beyond recognition. I've never called all gay men divas, for example.

 

[gsdx]

I will say this:

Obviously, the stereotypes are at least somewhat true, or else the sports forum wouldn't be so fucking dead around here.

There's a sports forum here?