The Boards => Der Eigene (Blog + Video) => : andkon June 01, 2013, 10:59:53 PM
: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: andkonJune 01, 2013, 10:59:53 PM
0024: Response to 0017 (Why Aren't Gay Men Attracted to Women?)
This is too big for a comment (on video 0017), so I'll make it a message instead.
Here's my take on your question ("Why Aren't Gay Men Attracted to Women?" when, you argue, so many of them end up partnered with more-or-less effeminate men). And yes, it is, as you say, an **extremely** un-PC topic, as is your question, and as is my following comment on the subject.
First of all, it really isn't the case that **all** gay men are effeminate. (Yes, Dan Savage and Terry Miller are -- they're not **flamers**, but yes, they "ping the gaydar". ;-> ) But if you check out the coming-out videos on YouTube (and other YouTube videos posted by self-identified gay men), there's quite a range of "masculinity" exhibited in them. Some of the military guys, for instance, like "russmarine2014" or "agaytomorrow", do not give off obvious gay vibes (which is probably why they can get along in the Marine Corps). For other examples: "carlose0318" or "kindagayblog" or "keeperdude07" or "big93scott" or "gaycomicgeek" or "MarkE Miller", or "ronjivaa" or "thatfatboiforu" or Bryan and Jay of "depfox" are guys you (or I at least) wouldn't in the slightest suspect were gay unless they told me.
On the other end of the spectrum, folks like "Gregory Gorgeous" or "GoingCoen" I might not recognize as men at all if I passed them while they were wearing their makeup.
And splitting the difference are folks like "wickydkewl" ("Davey Wavey") or "circlenostar" and many other YouTube posters.
I'm willing to grant you that **on average**, self-identified gay men are shifted towards what you're calling "effeminacy".
Secondly, given the above, being a "straight-acting" gay man is (grudgingly, by many "PC" folks who wish it were otherwise) a quality that's very attractive to a lot of other gay guys. (Though if you're insensitive enough to put a demand like "straight-acting only, no fats, fems, ..." in a personals ad, you're going to offend a **lot** of people.)
So finally, I would say that what's frequently happening when gay guys pair up with other gay guys is that they are, to a greater or lesser extent, **settling** for somebody who is **masculine enough** even if not ideally masculine. (It's a well-known danger among gay guys that very masculine straight guys can be fatally attractive and lead to a lot of angst. Nevertheless, a lot of gay guys like to fantasize about people like, oh, Ben Cohen, let's say.) The "stigmata" of masculinity -- a muscular body, a square jaw, facial hair, bushy eyebrows, body hair, a prominent "package" -- these can also offset, at least to some degree, a shift in speech or mannerisms toward the effeminate end of the spectrum. Hence the modern gay obsession with the gym. (And of course, some of the guys mentioned above who could pass for pretty girls might actually be able to attract a totally straight guy, though they'd be risking ending up like the character "Dil" in the movie _The Crying Game_.)
So there -- the masculinity of gay guys lies along a spectrum, and even if the average of that spectrum is shifted, the **most** masculine gay guys are anchored at the same pole of masculinity as their straight counterparts. Masculinity (like youth and good looks) is a valuable currency in the gay world (whether that fact is openly acknowledged or not), and most people have to "settle" to some degree in their partners, whether it's in terms of masculinity, looks, or age, depending on their own value in the sexual and romantic marketplace. Nevertheless, "settling" for somebody as close as possible to the desirable end of the masculinity spectrum, even if not situated exactly at the ideal endpoint of the spectrum, is still not the same as being attracted to a woman. (Though such things can happen -- Dan Savage once told a funny story about passing a muscular fireperson ;-> in the street a few times and involuntarily turning his head and then doing a double-take when he realized he was checking out a woman (presumably a lesbian). She caught him doing this a couple of times and then quipped "You'd like to f*ck me, wouldn't you?" (she must've known she was talking to a gay man). And Savage says to the audience, "You know, I totally would have.")
It's also true (for me at least, and I suspect for a lot of gay guys) that **too much** masculinity can be a turn-off. Maybe not in terms of **looks**, but the gruffness, violence-proneness, insensitivity, and uncommunicativeness of traditionally hypermasculine guys is a total turn-off. Give me a masculine-**looking** guy with a hint of softness, and my heart melts. This may be why straight women are sometimes strongly attracted to gay guys.
0025: Masculine Gay Might Not Be Gay At All?
0026: Why Don't Gay Men *Ever* Settle for *Masculine* Women?
Dan Savage talking about his attraction to a butch lesbian firefighter:
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 04, 2013, 06:03:17 PM
> Dan Savage talking about his attraction to a butch > lesbian firefighter... errr if anyone can find this, > let me know.
It's in this video: "Dan Savage On Straight Men" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TUg3XHPlzk
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: andkonJune 04, 2013, 07:15:09 PM
> Dan Savage talking about his attraction to a butch > lesbian firefighter... errr if anyone can find this, > let me know.
It's in this video: "Dan Savage On Straight Men" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TUg3XHPlzk
Thank you very much! It's now embedded in the original post.
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 05, 2013, 08:07:28 AM
In response to 0025 "Masculine Gay Might Not Be Gay At All?"
It's possible, I suppose, but in modern cultures (even in the most liberal ones) there is such a formidable barrier to be crossed when a man acknowledges or acts on his attraction to other men that the motivation to cross that barrier must be high indeed. As Dan Savage points out, a woman can experiment or even identify as a lesbian in college and nobody holds that against her when she later marries a man, but if a man fools around sexually with another man he will carry the "gay" stigma for the rest of his life if his "indiscretions" become publicly known. The price to paid for crossing the line is high indeed if it entails taking on the label "homosexual" or "gay". You can see this in the coming out stories on YouTube. The angst is particularly pronounced for those coming from religious or otherwise conservative backgrounds, but even guys from liberal households are often terrified at the prospect of coming out to their parents. But before a man who is about to cross that barrier comes out to anybody, he typically goes through a terrible struggle before he comes to acknowledge and accept his preference ("preference" is really too weak a word here) himself, a struggle which takes all too many guys to the brink of suicide.
Masculine gays, by crossing that barrier, are paying that high price. For what, one might ask? If they're "not really gay" then why would they subject themselves to all that pain?
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 05, 2013, 12:06:14 PM
You know, I had the opportunity to explore that never-to-be-crossed barrier in the context of a gay-straight relationship, a few years ago. I (a self-identified gay man) had become friends at work with a younger, married straight guy. I was attracted to him right off the bat, and we became regular lunch companions, which is unusual (OK, unheard of) for me. Nothing much more might have happened, but the following year he lost a younger brother (to a combination of alcohol and pain pills), and I went home with him on the day he panicked and left work early because he hadn't been able to get hold of his brother on the phone for a couple of days (and yes, later that afternoon the police discovered the worst inside the brother's apartment). This came right on the heels of other recent family tragedies -- my friend had lost both his parents (one to cancer, the other to a heart attack) within a year of each other, just a couple of years earlier, and his wife had lost a sister to an automobile accident the year before. The wife was out of the country at the time visiting her own parents, so I stayed with him that night at his place and spent the next several days accompanying him while he made funeral arrangements, contacted the rest of the family, arranged for his wife's return, cleaned out his brother's apartment, and so on, and in fact I attended the funeral and met a number of other members of my friend's family. After that, I became more than just a work acquaintance -- I was invited to several holiday get-togethers, and agreed to stay at their place and babysit their animals for a week or two on a couple of different occasions while they were on vacation, and I was treated as a family friend.
It was an unusually close relationship for me to have with a straight guy (and a married straight guy, at that -- no kids at the time, though). I had made it a point to come out to him when we first started getting chummy at work, and even suggested to him that doing the lunch thing every day could conceivably start rumors about him, but he didn't seem concerned. He said later, during the family crisis, that he thought I, being gay, was therefore less judgmental than a straight friend might be. My feelings for him became stronger after his family crisis, but I kept them to myself for the next year. During that time, there were occasions when I didn't quite know what to make of my friend's behavior toward me. On the day he discovered his brother's death, he had spontaneously thrown his arms around me (as well as his sister), but that was a moment of extreme emotional distress. But there were other times when he seemed unusually touchy-feely, not just shaking my hand but grasping my arm when I showed up at the train station to visit his house. I sometimes wondered whether I had come across a "male fag-hag" -- a straight guy wanting something more intimate (whether physically or emotionally) than he might get from a typical straight guy friend. But on the other hand, he didn't seem at all interested in "gay stuff" -- he wasn't in the least curious about whether I had any kind of ongoing relationship, or about gay-related political issues in the news. There were also times when I wondered whether I wasn't just a convenience -- somebody who was guaranteed to agree to take care of the dog while he was on vacation.
Anyway, about a year after the brother's death, I made a deliberate decision to push the envelope by initiating a gesture of physical affection toward him. Nothing extreme at all -- just a brush of my hand across the top of his head as a greeting. It turned out he didn't like this at all, and he told me so, and that led to a couple of further strained conversations at the end of which I pretty much laid all my cards on the table about how I felt about him. And that (as I fully expected it would be) was the end of the friendship.
I was struck, during our final conversation, by how much animus there was in his reaction to hearing about my feelings. It wasn't simply that he didn't reciprocate them -- he said (with emphasis) that he was **viscerally disgusted** just by the thought that another man could feel that way about him, or "look at him" that way. He also mentioned that his wife had already suggested to him that his relationship with me might not be a good idea, and they had actually argued about it, with my erstwhile friend insisting that I was "too smart" to allow something like that to happen. I replied to him (in response to the "viscerally disgusted" remark) that if a woman were to make a similar confession to me, though I would have to admit to being unable to reciprocate the feelings (and would also want to terminate the relationship for the sake of our mutual mental health), I certainly wouldn't have such a reaction of vehement disgust. That, I pointed out, was what they call "homophobia". "You can call it whatever you like," he replied, "it's just how I feel."
And there's no argument to make in response to **that**.
Jack Donovan (a.k.a. "Malebranche") wrote somewhere that he has a very strict policy about the boundaries of physical affection with his straight male friends. He said he treats it exactly the same way he would treat affectionate gestures from the wife of a married male friend. You may **accept** such gestures (within limits), but you must **never** initiate them. To do so would be a violation of trust. One of the rules of "androphilia", according to Donovan.
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 05, 2013, 12:36:11 PM
BTW, in your chapter "Grero in the Modern World" you mention Gore Vidal's _The City and the Pillar_ (which earned Vidal outright financial punishment in the form of having his books ignored by the New York Times).
There's another book from the same 1940s era you might find interesting -- _The Fall of Valor_ by Charles Jackson. The author is better known for an earlier book (made into a movie) about a binge drinker entitled _The Lost Weekend_. Both alcoholism and homosexuality (or bisexuality, at any rate) turn out to have been semiautobiographical elements taken from the author's tumultuous and painful life ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Jackson ).
_The Fall of Valor_ is the interior monologue of a married college professor who has become conscious of a disquieting fascination (which may or may not, at least at the beginning, be of a piece with the general adulation and hero-worship of a grateful public, together with the vague shame of being a passive bystander during World War II) for the handsome young soldiers in their uniforms so visible during the war years. This fascination intensifies and becomes focused on a particular young man when the professor and his wife meet the soldier and his wife during a vacation. The young soldier seems to treat the older professor with deference and affection as a mentor and father-figure, and the professor responds with more than fatherly regard for the soldier. It all comes to an unfortunate end, as you might expect. ( http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/580037.The_Fall_of_Valor )
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: andkonJune 05, 2013, 08:59:47 PM
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll certainly check it out. It sounds a bit like Death in Venice?
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 05, 2013, 10:41:02 PM
> It sounds a bit like Death in Venice?
Nothing quite so. . . Continental.
Unlike Aschenbach and Tadzio, the two men do actually have conversations with each other. ;->
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: andkonJune 07, 2013, 08:49:12 PM
Alright, book will be shipped soon. I'll do a review sometime in the next few years.
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 07, 2013, 11:20:57 PM
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: andkonJune 07, 2013, 11:41:22 PM
HA, it looks like Ryan Phillipe in Studio 54: http://files.myopera.com/Sabrina3363/albums/23171/sexy_santa.jpg
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 08, 2013, 02:25:29 PM
Speaking of boundaries --
In Chapter 7: "So-Called Situational Sexual Behavior"
You wrote:
> What about men whose wives fuck them with strap-ons every > once in a while? What percentage is the cutoff? Is it homosexual > for a man to be fucked by his wife?
Interesting you should mention this. As a matter of fact, I know somebody who, in an attempt to
spice up his sex life, asked his wife (of how many years? Something like 15 I think. with two
kids.) to use a strap-on and had his request blow up in his face.
His wife told him that as far as she was concerned, the suggestion **made** him homosexual, and
she divorced him. Quite possibly it was just the straw that broke the camel's back, and the
marriage had been failing for some time, but in this case the wife certainly seized on her
husband's interest in being the recipient of anal penetration to vociferously accuse him of being
unmasculine and to suggest that he was probably "really" gay.
So tread carefully, married heterosexuals!
It would seem that in many cases it is women who play a significant role in policing the
boundaries of allowable sexual expression in the men in their lives. Comments I've seen on the
Web suggest to me that for many women, it would be an absolute show-stopper if they found out
that their man had any history of fooling around with other men, or if he let slip any signs that
he might have the slightest inclination to do so. In fact, support groups for women who have
husbands who they suspect might be gay (often run by women who have already gone through the
trauma of having their husbands "come out" and leave the marriage) encourage their readers to
take very seriously the discovery, say, of a gay porn site in a man's browser history. E.g.,
Bonnie Kaye's support group http://www.straightwives.com/newsletter2.html warns:
-------------- But I also get letters from women who do confront their husbands with evidence in hand and get
denials with distorted truths giving excuses such as “Those pictures belonged to a co-worker,” or
“I have no clue how those websites got on our computer.”
For those women whose husbands eventually tell you the truth, count yourselves as lucky even
though you may not feel that way at the time. No doubt hearing the word **gay** is devastating,
but not hearing it is even worse. This month alone, I have received 32 letters from women who
asked me for advice because their husbands or ex-husbands will not admit to their homosexuality.
These women know the truth. They have stumbled on it one way or another. It has smacked them in
the face through hidden websites, email, pornography, letters, hotel receipts, phone bills, etc.
And yet, their husbands just keep lying or denying. They are not ready to be honest--and may
never be ready. Some men will never be ready to accept their homosexuality because it is too
painful or embarrassing.
These are the men whom I call the “Limbo Men.” Their whole lives are lived in limbo. They are
emotionally straight, but physically gay. They never feel totally comfortable in either world,
but they are much more comfortable “passing” in the straight world where they are accepted as
part of mainstream society.
All married gay men go through “limbo” for a period of time. In other words, they are stuck in
between both worlds hoping that by wanting the straight world badly enough they will be able to
“cross over” into it. . .
These are the men who will never leave their marriages. They will stay there until the day they
die, leading a painful existence and sharing that pain with their wives. More specifically,
pouring that pain upon their wives. We all know that misery loves company, and these men are
happy to make you as miserable as they are.
So often, these “Limbo Men” husbands luck out. They have wives who are much kinder and more
understanding than average. These are the women who will keep trying every little trick in the
book thinking someday they will get their husbands hooked. The women live an accepted existence,
looking for the crumbs in the marriage while trying to turn those crumbs into a cake. It is truly
a tragedy and waste of human life. ======
(See also _Is He Straight : A Checklist for Women Who Wonder_ by Bonnie Kaye http://www.amazon.com/Is-He-Straight-Checklist-Wonder/dp/0595004393/ )
This point of view (which may be perfectly justifiable!) does not bode well for a "Grero" culture
of fluid male sexuality (unless it's done on the "down-low" and in complete secrecy, which indeed
it is in certain subcultures of ostensibly straight men today).
Of course, the idealization of strict monogamy is part of this. If you're a man, and you have to
choose and stick with **one** sexual partner, that partner will either be a woman (which "means"
you're straight) or a man (which "means" you're gay).
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 08, 2013, 05:36:53 PM
Dan Savage has some new(ish) videos up on the TakePartTV channel on YouTube. "American Savage - Airs Every Thursday by TakePart" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUIBo2ueM6k&list=PL4Ue-83YkTrwDlPP-6QGjnjcaoWfMRFUn
I gather the topics correspond to themes in his new book, _American Savage: Insights, Slights, and Fights on Faith, Sex, Love, and Politics_ http://www.amazon.com/American-Savage-Insights-Slights-Politics/dp/0525954104/
The Evolution of Cheating: Kristen Stewart to Petraeus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdho-Q-dEOA
On Being Different: What It Means to Be a Homosexual http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN-B4kEl_30
Are You Ready for Some Gay Football? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m98ujIi8OQ0
Are You Ready for Some LGBT Athletes? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM9wkErfyeA
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 08, 2013, 09:54:13 PM
> (See also > _Is He Straight : A Checklist for Women Who Wonder_ by Bonnie Kaye > http://www.amazon.com/Is-He-Straight-Checklist-Wonder/dp/0595004393/ ) > > This point of view (which may be perfectly justifiable!) does not > bode well for a "Grero" culture of fluid male sexuality (unless > it's done on the "down-low" and in complete secrecy, which indeed > it is in certain subcultures of ostensibly straight men today).
You know, health-care professionals, psychologists, and other researchers have had to invent a new category for men in contemporary culture who do **not** self-identify as "gay" but who nevertheless have sexual contact with other males.
The label is "MSM" ("Men who have sex with men"; not to be confused with the dietary supplement methylsulfonylmethane. ;-> ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 11, 2013, 02:04:30 PM
Re the question of whether all gay men are "effeminate" (FSVO* "effeminate")
*FSVO = "For Some Value Of" ;->
Seemingly on the inarguably masculine (apart from sexual orientation) end of the spectrum there's this guy (an Air Force pilot who was discharged after he was accidentally outed when the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was still in effect but probably on its way out, who then challenged his discharge in court, and finally won in the sense that he was allowed to serve until he was eligible for retirement with full benefits):
And at the other extreme, there's the recent and rather startling case of Kristin (formerly Chris) Beck, who had a 20 year career as a Navy SEAL and was (at least on the surface, as described by ABC News) a "man's man", but who after retiring from the Navy has come out publicly as a transgender woman.
The news stories say that her book describes Ms. Beck as going to gay bars in Florida dressed as a woman, which seems to imply that she's seeking female partners as a (transgendered) **lesbian**, but her sexual orientation (as opposed to her gender identity) isn't explicitly disclosed anywhere I've seen.
It's complicated, isn't it?
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: andkonJune 11, 2013, 05:27:16 PM
Well, the "are some gays masculine?" is somewhat irrelevant. Fighting over what proportion of the 2% gays "pass" for masculine is pointless since it's most men who should be attracted to other men.
Regarding the SEAL Team 6 member: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology
She could be the latter type, attracted to women so much that she wants to be one.
: Re: 0024: Response to 0017 (Plus 0025 and 0026 Combo)
: JimFJune 11, 2013, 10:37:17 PM
> Well, the "are some gays masculine?" is somewhat irrelevant. > Fighting over what proportion of the 2% gays "pass" for > masculine is pointless since it's most men who should be > attracted to other men.
Whatever Lt. Col. Fehrenbach called himself during his 20 years in the Air Force, he certainly wasn't publicly "gay" (whether he thought of himself as such I have no way of knowing. I suspect he did, if only because that's the most convenient contemporary label for men who seek out sex with men.). During those years, his sexual partnering was probably similar to that of the (heterosexually) married men who are on the down-low. In the era of DADT, service members who wanted (or needed) to have sexual contact with members of their own sex were likewise on the "down-low", frequently with other down-low service members.
But as discreet as Fehrenbach was during those two decades, after he was questioned by the police after a hookup that went very wrong ( http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/air_force_may_boot_pilot_who_revealed_he_is_gay_to.php ) he certainly **became** "gay" not only to the Air Force, but to the media, and he took on a **political** role as a gay activist (being invited to a Gay Pride reception at the White House, and so on).
I guess I bristle at bit at the notion that the word "gay" (which labels a political identity as much as a sexual or social one) must be restricted to the guys who like to do drag and lipsync to Lady Gaga, but must **exclude** the "real men" who just happen to like dick (who are not "g0y" or "cockrub warriors" or "androphiles" either, but are simply indistinguishable from the 90% of men in general who **would** like dick if their wives or their churches or their upbringing didn't rule it out for them. And that anybody who self-identifies (or is labelled by the world as) "gay" is only, at best, "passing" for masculine rather than actually being masculine. That forced exclusion has the air of gerrymandering categories simply to create a zone of safety for a guy who likes dick but isn't comfortable with **faggots** (like -- maybe -- "Alan" in _The Boys in the Band_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_in_the_Band which, if you haven't seen it, is on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVD39bDowQo and also contains a full spectrum of gay types. And don't forget that **some** of that classic gay "camping" is a "fuck you" reaction to straight society's rejection and disgust -- a good deal of it unfortunately internalized as well (as also illustrated in the movie).
That's not to say I believe it's a **requirement** of being gay to like glitter or dressing up like RuPaul, or listening to Lady Gaga (or Barbra Streisand or Judy Garland), or that butt sex is a requirement, either. I've never been a "proper faggot" (as it was put to me many years ago) in any of those departments.
And it's not to deny, either, that **some** human beings with an X and a Y chromosome seem both to come naturally by the mannerisms (or some exaggerated caricature thereof) typical of the humans with two X chromosomes, and to be sexually attracted to other XYs. Another movie you should see if you haven't: _The Naked Civil Servant_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Civil_Servant_%28film%29 also on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ymbgf0MDE8
The author of "Reclaiming Natural Manhood" seems to want to draw a similar line around the word "homosexual" as you draw around the word "gay" -- he insists on identifying "homosexuals" with India's "hijras" -- men who dress up as and take on the mannerisms of women, who solicit men as female prostitutes would, and who serve their customers sexually as passive recipients of anal penetration. And he **defines** the (discreet) sexual contacts (to orgasm, presumably) between two masculine men such as took place (he claims) before India was "heterosexualized" by western influences, as **not homosexual**.