Queer - yeah or neigh?

Discussion on what it means to be straight acting, whether it's good, bad or indifferent.

Moderators: selective_soldier, furface

How do you feel about the word 'queer'?

We're taking it back! I think it's great!
9
15%
It doesn't bother me.
21
36%
I don't like it.
17
29%
It is a degrading term and I hate it.
12
20%
 
Total votes : 59

Postby masculinity » Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:46 am

Pazuzu P. Sasquatch wrote:There's a fine yet discernable line between:

A) defining one's terms for ease of communication...


... Oh, so for your convenience, you don't mind trampling on someone else's identity... someone who may not be as lucky as you, or as empowered to put forward his case... or to acknowledge or claim his sexual need for men...?
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:34 pm

Before the invention of the concept of 'sexual orientation', it was the effeminate, passive desire for men that was considered unusual, different and unmanly, thus requiring a separate identity. And, in this separation, the queers were not being 'oppressed'. The Queers desired this separation from the 'men' more than the 'men' wanted them out of their space identity.

However, in those days, a sexual or romantic interest in men, per se, was not considered 'unusual' or 'different' (unless it involved an active interest in receptive anal/ oral sex) and thus, did not, in itself, warrant a separate identity. All men were believed to be capable of desiring other men, although, men of character were, in many societies, supposed to keep away from such desires (because they were a sin, not because they were unmanly or queer or different).

As the effeminate, passive males started to define themselves as 'men who like men', the entire spectrum of male sexual desire for men became stigmatized and straight males disowned them and became (exclusively) heterosexual. This paved the way for the vested interest to characterize the entire spectrum of male desire for men as 'unusual', 'different' and unmanly.

The actual men (i.e. masculine males) who like men do not want a separate identity from the straights, even when their desire for men is exclusive. It is still the real gays -- the effeminate, passive male, that wants a distinct homosexual identity. But instead of considering his difference as that of his effeminacy and passivity, he lays it down to his 'sexual desire for men'. The masculine male who likes men will do anything to keep with the straights, even if it means to forego his sexual desire for men altogether, or to exaggerate or fake his sexual interest in women.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:04 pm

catapult wrote:So, if I could dumb this down a bit, is masculinity campaigning for or saying that:

Only men who desire to assume the feminine role in same-sex sex should be considered gay, queer, poof, queen, cumdumpster and a third sex?


Again, effeminate, passive males are not considered the same-sex as 'men' in any of the previous cultures or the contemporary non-West. Sure, they're biologically males, but their Gender, that is, the innate sense of being male or female, is female (making them feminine).

And although, modern West doesn't recognize Gender as a natural, innate, biological trait, the ancients, those in middle ages and people all across the non-West recognize this inner-sex not only as natural, but an equally important ingredient of one's sex-identity (or gender identity, if you please) as one's sexual/ reproductive organs.

Therefore the sex or gender identity of a person is determined by a combination of his inner and outer sex. And a male whose predominant inner sex is also male (i.e. masculine male) has the sex identity of a 'Man'.

While a male whose predominant inner sex is female (i.e feminine gendered male) has the sex identity of a 'Queer'. He's a male but not a man.

Not every male is a man.

And it is the sex identity of a person, which has been misdefined in the West as 'Sexual identity'.

Thus the two types of males are not considered same-sex in other cultures. And thus sex between a 'Hijra' (third sex in India) and a 'Man' is seen as 'heterosexual' sex, rather than sex between 'men'.
Last edited by masculinity on Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby catapult » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:13 pm

What about a very effeminate male who exclusively desires women? These types certainly exist.

What about a very masculine male who exclusively desires to assume the feminine role in sex with another male? I believe these types also exist.
User avatar
catapult
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:35 pm

Postby masculinity » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:45 pm

catapult wrote:What about a very effeminate male who exclusively desires women?

Interesting questions.
I can tell you about this youth NGO's experiences of working with young men in several North Indian cities, who took workshops on masculinity and AIDS with them.

In all their workshops, they would bring up the topic of an effeminate male character in a popular TV serial, who happens to chase women exclusively (his name was Dilruba -- a feminine name), and has no interest in men whatsoever. The men would invariably identify him as a 'homo'.

When asked if they'd identify as 'homosexual', two 'normal' men (i.e. non-effeminate/ regular/ masculine males) who have a sexual relationship exclusively with each other and who never have had sex with women, they would emphatically say 'No'.

And these questions were asked of hundreds of straight men who participated in these workshops. And they were all unanimous in their reply. These were non-westernized urban males, in the year 2001-02.

The Western term 'homosexual', (which is actually a misdefined term for 'third sex') is seen for what it is in the non-West -- i.e. a third sex identity. And, an exclusively heterosexual male who is feminine gendered is also seen as a 'homo' or 'queer'.

Actually, the situation is pretty much the same in the West too. These days a number of males are 'coming out' as 'Queer heterosexuals', which means that they are effeminate heterosexuals. Just google for the term and you'd know.

catapult wrote:These types certainly exist.


It is amazing how far our societies have distorted the truth about male gender and sexuality. These types (queer heterosexuals) not only exist in nature, transgendered males are supposed to be basically 'heterosexuals'. Actually, true heterosexuality is actually Queer, not manly. It is only artificially uphosted (sorry i forgot the right word) as a prerequisite of manhood.

I can give you documentation of animal studies, where only 'transgendered' males behave heterosexually. I am defining heterosexuality as emotional and sexual bond between opposite sex and sex for pleasure, beyond reproduction. Because, even males with a non-heterosexual orientation do have heterosexual sex for reproduction once in a while. And in nature, amongst mammalian males, you find only sex for reproduction once in a while (which is normally a couple of times in a lifetime), and no social or emotional or romantic bonding between the male-female pairs, and no sex for pleasure beyond what is required for reproduction. At the sametime, it is between males that committed, life-long sexual bonds are formed (please read Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance).

Heterosexuality is primarily Queer.

In a study amongst the transgendered/ cross-dresser males in America, more than 90% were exclusively heterosexuals.
Last edited by masculinity on Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:46 am, edited 3 times in total.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:54 pm

catapult wrote:What about a very masculine male who exclusively desires to assume the feminine role in sex with another male? I believe these types also exist.

Like I said, passive sex is not in itself 'feminine'. It becomes feminine when performed by feminine males. Anything becomes feminine when indulged in by feminine males. Anything becomes masculine when performed by masculine males. Femininity and masculinity are not outside of us -- i.e. not in actions that we perform... but inside of us.

However, only a feminine male would think about an exclusive interest in being the receiver... or being bottom as an identity. Because, this disinterest in penetrating, is not natural, but is artificially learned as a social role of one's chosen gender identity (as masculine or feminine).

So, although, on this forum I've heard a few men claim they are masculine and exclusively 'bottoms', I don't believe their claim to be masculine to be genuine. Unless, there is something I'm missing here.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Cachasa » Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:05 pm

What you're missing is scientific evidence!!!!!:roll:

I strongly discourage anyone from listening to this guy. Nothing he says is rooted in any legitimate academic thought. Occasionally organizations like NARTH will make similar statements but again I say, "legitimate academic thought"

What constitutes feminine and what constitutes masculine are culturally specific phenomena that vary between cultures and across time. In short, gendered behaviors ARE NOT intrinsic characteristics for any individual and they don't have any direct link to human biology. There is no component of human biology that makes a person want to play with dolls or play football. There is no genes for wanting to wear a dress.

Also, the gender systems and expectations for appropriate sexual/gendered behavior in other cultures that Masculinity describes are just other cultural values they're no more right or legitimate than our own definitions. They're just different. It is completely false to suggest that somehow "western culture" perverts or upsets a natural gender organization. When the definition of what is natural gendered behavior varies from culture to culture anyway.

Masculinity's "opinions" are nothing more than a bunch of HOMOPHOBIC, MISOGYNISTIC, RACIST horse sh/t and I hope that most people who visit this site can see through that.
Cachasa
Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Shilo Manitoba Canada

Postby dracuscalico » Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:26 pm

catapult wrote:What about a very effeminate male who exclusively desires women? These types certainly exist.

What about a very masculine male who exclusively desires to assume the feminine role in sex with another male? I believe these types also exist.


Everyone is harping on the psychological implications of the sex acts and overlooking the physiology.

People are wired differently as far as what parts of their body turn them on when stimulated. One guy has no feeling when his nipples get played with, another guy shoots buckets. One guy loves the way a d - ck feels deep in his throat, another guy gags just thinking about it. One guy loves being penetrated because it strokes his prostrate from the inside and feels great, another guy hates it because he feels like he is being ripped apart. Some guys get off on rough pain, other guys get off on smooth senuous pleasure.

What physically feels good to one's BODY, works independently of one's gender identification. Though gender identification will INFLUENCE THE ROLES you play during sex, it does not eliminate your "hot buttons" that physically turn you on.
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:18 am

dracuscalico wrote:What physically feels good to one's BODY, works independently of one's gender identification.

1. Yes it does... and so does 'sexual preference' for a particular gender. So, why separate a few people as 'queers' because of that, when they're actually 'men' (straights)..

2. Although, I have noted that receptive sex in itself is gender neutral, but its also true that 'queers' have been taking it up as their identity in non-westernized societies. And, its difficult to imagine a man who has no sexual sensation in his penis... so that he wants to be a bottom exclusively ... unless he is psychologically conditioned to do so because of his feminine gender. You can't deny physiological aspects of sex... a male's sexuality rests in his penis... other areas are secondary.

But even if I'm wrong on this, it doesn't alter the fact that the original, basic difference between 'men' and 'queer' is effeminate, passive sex rather than 'man to man sexuality'. Describing 'queer' as 'man to man sexuality' is to further muddle up the mixing of sexual choices with gender orientation.

dracuscalico wrote:Though gender identification will INFLUENCE THE ROLES you play during sex, it does not eliminate your "hot buttons" that physically turn you on.

1. No it won't. And so, if the society insists that taking it in makes you queer, then if you're a man, you will never acknowledge it openly... and while most men will fight off their instincts to be inserted anally or orally (indeed most would never even experience it because of the stigma), those who do enjoy it will guard their feelings and even when they indulge in it rarely, will hardly ever acknowledge their interest in receiving anal/oral sex even with the man they're having sex with and will try not to give that receptive anal sex any significance in their lives.
They won't go and openly call themselves 'queer' because they like 'receptive anal sex'. Not even if they're addicted to it. If they're addicted to it, they'll just use the 'queer' space, but never ever call themselves as 'queer'.

2. It's the same, when you change the definition of queer to mean "man's sexual attraction to men", the queers will now be known as 'men', albeit, 'gay men', (and 'men' as 'straight men'), but the repercussions for the actual 'men' will be the same as in point one above. Just replace 'instinct to be anally inserted' with 'sexual attraction for men'.

When the society stigmatizes receptive anal sex, straight males block their sexual desires for receptive sex and transfer it towards being the penetrators or other socially acceptable sex. When the society stigmatizes the entire range of 'man to man attraction', then straight males block these attractions altogether and transfer this attraction to women -- because most men do have a choice, because most men have an innate sexuality for both men and women.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:45 am

Z-z-z-z-z-z. . . .
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:13 am

Pazuzu P. Sasquatch wrote:Z-z-z-z-z-z. . . .

When u don't have answers, do you usually go to sleep? :?

8)
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:27 am

Wow! More intelligent AND wittier than anyone else in the world!!!! :roll:
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:49 am

masculinity wrote:However, only a feminine male would think about an exclusive interest in being the receiver... or being bottom as an identity. Because, this disinterest in penetrating, is not natural, but is artificially learned as a social role of one's chosen gender identity (as masculine or feminine).

I'd like to clarify that I don't mean that not a masculine male or any male for that matter would would necessarily want to penetrate to enjoy sex, but that he would think of his penis in some way as a source of pleasure, whether penetration or masturbation or anything...
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby catapult » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:59 pm

There really is not a whole lot of conclusive scientific evidence on a lot of these theories one way or another. No one really knows the whys and hows of homosexuality or even gender behavior for that matter. So we can agree that it is just an ongoing experiment or study at this point.

So there is no reason to try to pin it down or insist that this is the way it is or no that's not the way it is until we learn and know more.

IMO, there seems to be a continuum - in gender behavior and sexual preference.

A male or female may fall anywhere on one scale of gender and behavior - from a very masculine male to a very feminine male or from a very feminine female to a very masculine female.

And that same male or female of whatever degree may then fall anywhere on another scale - of sexual preference - from exclusively heterosexual to bisexual to exclusively homosexual.

It's a field of all possibilities. And the sooner society accepts that, the better off all types will be.
User avatar
catapult
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:35 pm

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:48 pm

catapult wrote:There really is not a whole lot of conclusive scientific evidence on a lot of these theories one way or another. No one really knows the whys and hows of homosexuality or even gender behavior for that matter. So we can agree that it is just an ongoing experiment or study at this point.

So there is no reason to try to pin it down or insist that this is the way it is or no that's not the way it is until we learn and know more.

IMO, there seems to be a continuum - in gender behavior and sexual preference.

A male or female may fall anywhere on one scale of gender and behavior - from a very masculine male to a very finine male or from a very feminine female to a very masculine female.

And that same male or female of whatever degree may then fall anywhere on another scale - of sexual preference - from exclusively heterosexual to bisexual to exclusively homosexual.

It's a field of all possibilities. And the sooner society accepts that, the better off all types will be.

I think you are missing the point here.

The point here is classification and segregation of people. And it is the wrong classification practices through the concept of 'sexual orientation' that totally invalidates the gender of people that is the point in question here.

Especially, since it was practiced totally differently in the past. And in contemporary non-West.

And also, that Sex or more precisely Gender identity comprises of a combination of both our outer sex (i.e. penis or vagina or ambiguous) as well as inner sex (masculine/ feminine). However, the gender we are attracted to cannot be a basis of our identity -- certainly not by foregoing our sex/ gender identities.

Like you pointed out, sexuality is a continuum, and most people do feel a sexual attraction for members of both the sexes. This makes a sexual identity all the more invalid.

But also in quesition here is the objective and validity of misdefining Gender identities of manhood and third sex, in terms of 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' respectively.

And, since there are more than two gender identities, you can't have a sexual identity that only considers two sexes.

Nobody really needs a sexual identity. Life is not only about finding sex.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Daknee » Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:37 pm

catapult wrote:There really is not a whole lot of conclusive scientific evidence on a lot of these theories one way or another. No one really knows the whys and hows of homosexuality or even gender behavior for that matter. So we can agree that it is just an ongoing experiment or study at this point.

So there is no reason to try to pin it down or insist that this is the way it is or no that's not the way it is until we learn and know more.

IMO, there seems to be a continuum - in gender behavior and sexual preference.

A male or female may fall anywhere on one scale of gender and behavior - from a very masculine male to a very feminine male or from a very feminine female to a very masculine female.

And that same male or female of whatever degree may then fall anywhere on another scale - of sexual preference - from exclusively heterosexual to bisexual to exclusively homosexual.

It's a field of all possibilities. And the sooner society accepts that, the better off all types will be.


You are so right catapult. Just as with anything in life there are NO absolutes.
User avatar
Daknee
Member
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:56 am
Location: Phoenix

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:06 pm

masculinity wrote:The point here is classification and segregation of people.

Let me rephrase that, the problem is misclassification and wrong segregation of people, that suits the queers and gives more powers to them at the cost of men. The problem is what is defined as 'queer' and what is defined as 'men'. It should not be so arbitrary as the concept of sexual orientation does.

Daknee wrote:You are so right catapult. Just as with anything in life there are NO absolutes.

Yes, I also agree with him totally. And this applies to Sexual orientation as understood in the West too. That is one more reason why Sexual Orientation is a bad system of segregating men.

But, even though gender is also a continnum like sexuality, Gender lends itself to identity in a way that sexuality can never do. (In the West, although the divisions are supposed to be based on sexuality, they're actually based on gender, while sexuality is secondary).

Gender affects one's perception of oneself as a male or a female (irrespective of our outer sex), which sexuality can never do (unless the two concepts are confused like in the system of sexual orientation). Gender also affects other's perception of us as male or female, (irrespective of our outer sex).

Thus Gender is a basic constituent of our Sex identity, in combination with our outer sex, which sexuality can never be. Sexuality is just a preference, for most males, its a choice that they have to make, forced by social interventions, otherwise, its just fluid, like in a continuum. Don't bind it with sexual identities. Let it flow free like it is supposed to be.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:29 pm

This is how Gender combines with our outer sex to define our Gender or Sex identity:

(Notice that While outer sex refers to our sexual organs, Gender refers to our inner sex or the innate feeling of being a male or female, irrespective of one's outer sex. Our Gender affects how we see the world and relate with others and how others see us and relate with us... not sexuality)

Kinds of Outer sex and inner sex:

Outer Sex:
Male (with a penis and testicles)
Female (with a vagina and ovaries)
Third Sex (hermaphrodites, intersexed people)I

Inner Sex:
Masculine (predominantly male inner sex)
Feminine (predominantly Female inner sex)

Now our overall sex or gender identity as males, is determined as follows:

Man = Outer sex: Male + Inner Sex: Male

Queer = Outer sex: Male + Inner Sex: Female
(Queer also includes the third sex, i.e. hermaphrodites and intersexed)

The middle ages tried to socially change this by linking Passive sex with men with male femininity and changed the definitions as follows:

Man = male who penetrates
Queer = male who gets penetrated

Modern science played politics with the definition of male and queer as this (and this is why science should not be trusted in the matters of male gender and sexuality, because it has an agenda and misrepresents things):

Man, redefined as 'straight man' = Heterosexual
Queer, redefined as 'gay man' = Homosexual

And that, my friends, is the root of all problem.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:41 pm

If you're queer by nature, and have a predominant sexuality for men, then its not a problem for you... but if you're not it can make life hell for you.

Likewise, if you're a man and have a predominant sexuality for women.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:10 pm

Take this article for example:


Sounding Gay

Now, clearly, the difference between speeches of gays and straights, or for that matter gaits of straight and gays are not because of their sexuality, but because of their feminine gender.

Men who like men will not have any difference from straight men. But they have to bear the stereotypes as well as the stigma of the queers, because they are classified with them as biologically 'one' people/ gender.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Odeh » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:18 pm

There is a slang in the U.S. called "muscle bottoms" very masculine guys
who like passive sex some are bodybuilders.

Some don't think of themselves as "gay" ..but use "gay" as a verb..they
say things like "I was "gay" with him...

They don't know anything or very little about the gay subculture and
have regular mainstream straight friends..
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby masculinity » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:39 am

Odeh wrote:There is a slang in the U.S. called "muscle bottoms" very masculine guys
who like passive sex some are bodybuilders.

Some don't think of themselves as "gay" ..but use "gay" as a verb..they
say things like "I was "gay" with him...

They don't know anything or very little about the gay subculture and
have regular mainstream straight friends..

Hello Odeh... how are you...

I once wrote a long response to your post... but left it incomplete and then got so busy... could never get back to you...

I know about a lot of straight males (through my counselling sessions, etc.) who secretly desire passive sex, but, this desire is not exclusive, and sometimes as an experiment. And, they never acknowledge this interest openly, just indulge in it and never seek to give it any significance.

This is apparently because passive sex is considered 'queer'. Because, passive sex has been aritifically prescribed by the society as a sexual role for the 'gay' or 'third sex'.

Do the men in your example, indulge in passive sex openly -- and are they 'bottoms' as an identity, or are they more into all kinds of sex with men, including passive sex?
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Odeh » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:01 pm

Hi Masculinity how are you? am fine thanks, hope you are too. Didn't know if you remembered me..

To answer your question...in my experience the guys in question are
straight guys who just aren't interested in women..In the U.S. in many
newspapers..there are personal ads people post..with male for female
female for male, female for female, male for male..

Now in the male for male section..they will say things like: "I am a
masculine male seeking friendship first"..then they usually identify by
race..interests like sports, cars, bodybuilding...

Some ads self-identify as gay some don't..the masculine guys just identify as a male...

Many say masculine in their ads because it is culturally assumed that if they are seeking male for male friendship they must be feminine...

The difference I noticed about these guys is that they don't automatically
jump into sex like a lot of guys in the gay subculture do...and they don't
frantically seem to be looking for a romantic relationship like a lot of gay
guys seem to do...

Another thing is they are very private about their relationship with you,
some visit very early in the morning...

What I suspect is that the specific sexual issues are based on the individual they are with at the time...passive with this person and not
with that person...

It also seems in interracial male relationships in the U.S. the non-white
person especially the black is expected to be the dominant one even if the
passive partner is quite masculine..

I read an article that some of the hyper-masculine rap stars have very
very secret relationships with men and they say they are not gay because
they are masculine...I think the gay slang is "homo thugs"...

In the gym I go to..it is mostly masculine males with a few women, one
of the staff is kind of fem though and the owner is a state bodybuilding
champion...What I find interesting is that in the lobby of the gym there
are free newspapers and one is the regional gay publication...

What I think is going on is that there is a same-sex thing going on OUTSIDE of the gay subculture that is very private and underground..

Where they just say I am not interested in women but that dosen't
automatically mean I am gay either...

There is a book in this country called "The Death of Gay and the end of
Heterosexuality"

So I think the idea of masculine guys with masculine guys is going on
it is just not culturally organized into a movement...these guys are not
part of the gay subculture at all..they might dip on the edges but don't fit
the rainbow profile at all..
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby Odeh » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:19 pm

The gay guys came up with the slang "muscle bottoms" for masculine
passive guys..

In the sexual relationship the bodybuilders like to be admired,touched
and felt..they like that so hence it is passive for them I was told...they like
to be "done to"...I can't say for each individual case but this seems to be
a common pattern..

They also think there is something else more masculine about the other
person than them having muscles...Lots of psychology here I think..and
they are ALWAYS looking in the mirror..
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby Odeh » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:21 pm

These guys like other sex including passive sex...
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Straight Acting Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests