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 » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:27 pm

Odeh wrote:To answer your question...in my experience the guys in question are straight guys who just aren't interested in women..

I am sure, as in India, there will be a lot more who are interested in women, but also like men too. (In India that means 100% of men, excluding queers).

Odeh wrote: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...

Yes, there does seem to be a relationship between promiscuity and effemiinacy/ gay.

Eversince the times of the ancient Greece, the gays (then known as catamites/ third sex) have been thought of as being particularly promiscuous with men.

It has been so in cultures across the world. In ancient Buddhist lands, it is said that they had a law to ban gays (but not straight males who liked men, even if exclusively) into monastries, because they tended to be promiscuous and create discipline problems (and not because there sex was considered sin).

In India, Hijras, the third sex are very promiscuous and often live off prostitution, selling sex to straight men.

In my observation, straight males tend to be promiscuous vis a vis women, but rather committed and loyal with male sexual partners.

Of course, there may be some exceptions to this rule and many masculine males may now be conditioned to be promiscuous since finding committed male bonds with other masculine males is almost impossible, because there is no space for them (since all the social space is divided between the masculine male desire for men, and effeminate male desire for men).

Odeh wrote:and they don't frantically seem to be looking for a romantic relationship like a lot of gay guys seem to do...[/odeh]
I think I disagree a bit here. Or maybe its a cultural thing, because there may not be any scope for men to form emotional intimacies with males in the straight space.

In my observation, its rather the straight males that tend to form romantic bonds, gays don't understand man-to-man bond or romance. Gays are primarily interested in sex and loads of sex, and even relationships for them are basically centred around sex a lot and are seldom, if ever monogamous.

But, if you have ever been in a relationship with a straight guy, you'd know that they tend to become very romantic -- however, they don't like to identify it as romantic -- they'll call the stuff friendship (of course, only if the society allows intense friendships between straight men in the straight space)... and they not only tend to become extremely possessive about their guys and expect total fidelity, they also tend to be totally loyal to their male friends -- except, unfortunately, when they have to go with girls, or to have a girl friend -- that is often, but not always, seen as something that they must do to keep ahead in the race for manhood (or to be straight in Western parlance).

But, I have also been in relationship with straight men, who became intensely involved with me, but at the sametime also genuinely fell in love, and when I threatened to leave, went through a harrowing time struggling between which to choose and which to take.

Odeh wrote: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...

Again, in my observation and analysis, straight males, when they want anal sex, and are addicted to passive anal sex, they still tend to be careful about the manhood angle, and when they're in an equal relationship with another straight male, tend to perform both roles -- active and passive in order not to let it make them feel less of a man in the eyes of themselves and of the partner. They may only relax over a period of time, when they are in a relationship with that person.

When they're having sex with a queer or someone who they consider inferior to them or lesser male or someone with lesser power, it is then that it becomes important for them to play the roles in order to keep their straight status. Then their ego thing in this takes over. Then they are more likely to play only the masculine male role of being the penetrator. Again, they may loosen up over a period of time.

It's only with a superior, who has power over them, that they would not mind being the passive partner without their manhood being affected.

[quote="Odeh"]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.[/odeh]
Maybe, non-white males are supposed to be more macho/ powerful... or they may be more particular about active/ passive thing, than the whites.
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 Timmybear » Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:52 am

michaelk69 wrote:Quite often when people make a statement that assumes I am straight (e.g. I bet your girlfriend hates when you do that . . .), I often say, well, no worries there, because I'm queer.

I think it is a very strong word if used in that way, and definitely carries with it an unapologetic air . . .


What I find weird, and why I started to use the word 'queer', is the amazing obliviousness of straight people to the fact that they are not 'normal', but, rather, common.

I remember someone once asking me what I thought of such-and-such a woman,and me replying: 'I'm not interested in women', and him saying: 'What do you mean?' I'm not sure how I could be clearer...

So I started to use 'queer' as shock therapy. :)
Timmybear
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:21 am
Location: Canada

Postby masculinity » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:36 am

Daknee wrote:
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.

If there are no absolutes, what is the point in dividing the society on the lines of homo-hetero, as the concept of sexual orientation does?
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 » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:41 am

Timmybear wrote:
michaelk69 wrote:Quite often when people make a statement that assumes I am straight (e.g. I bet your girlfriend hates when you do that . . .), I often say, well, no worries there, because I'm queer.

I think it is a very strong word if used in that way, and definitely carries with it an unapologetic air . . .


What I find weird, and why I started to use the word 'queer', is the amazing obliviousness of straight people to the fact that they are not 'normal', but, rather, common.

I remember someone once asking me what I thought of such-and-such a woman,and me replying: 'I'm not interested in women', and him saying: 'What do you mean?' I'm not sure how I could be clearer...

So I started to use 'queer' as shock therapy. :)


What kind of male would tell someone that he is third gender, in order to say that he likes men... only the third gender, effeminate male. The normal, regular guy would never want to do this... for the queer though, his sexual need for male is basically not a man's sexual need for men, but a female's sexual need for men, that of the female inside his male body, so he doesn't find anything wrong with that...

The thing is that we need to distinguish between a male with a male identity who likes men, and a male with a female identity who likes a men. The latter is gay/ queer/ fag... whatever you may want to call yourself... The first is a straight male.
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 Timmybear » Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:52 am

I have a 'me' identity, not a masculine or feminine one. I don't sit around carefully policing my behaviour to correspond to some societal expectation or construction. I find the people who do that much more camp than the most screaming queen, because each is, to some extent, a parody and a CONFORMITY to society beyond any reasonable expectation.

Even before I knew I was queer, I was never 'straight'.
Timmybear
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:21 am
Location: Canada

Postby masculinity » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:20 am

Timmybear wrote:I have a 'me' identity, not a masculine or feminine one. I don't sit around carefully policing my behaviour to correspond to some societal expectation or construction. I find the people who do that much more camp than the most screaming queen, because each is, to some extent, a parody and a CONFORMITY to society beyond any reasonable expectation.

Even before I knew I was queer, I was never 'straight'.


You don't have a 'Me' identity. Stop lying to yourself. You have a 'sexual' identity which is intertwined with your feminine identity in the 'gay' or 'queer' identity.

And I am not talking about conforming to any set social rules of masculine or feminine behaviour. I am talking about a masculinity or femininity that resides within us, irrespective of how the society outside defines it.

How is sexual identity superior to gender identity? Sexual orientation is an invalid concept. Sexuality is not fixed for most people, and most people have a choice.
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 » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:24 pm

I may be into guys..but I could never bring myself to identify as "gay" or
"queer" just wasn't comfortable doing that, just consider myself Afrocentric
distinctly dark- brown regular dude...and precieved as such...
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby Timmybear » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:13 am

masculinity wrote:
Timmybear wrote:I have a 'me' identity, not a masculine or feminine one. I don't sit around carefully policing my behaviour to correspond to some societal expectation or construction. I find the people who do that much more camp than the most screaming queen, because each is, to some extent, a parody and a CONFORMITY to society beyond any reasonable expectation.

Even before I knew I was queer, I was never 'straight'.


You don't have a 'Me' identity. Stop lying to yourself. You have a 'sexual' identity which is intertwined with your feminine identity in the 'gay' or 'queer' identity.

And I am not talking about conforming to any set social rules of masculine or feminine behaviour. I am talking about a masculinity or femininity that resides within us, irrespective of how the society outside defines it.

How is sexual identity superior to gender identity? Sexual orientation is an invalid concept. Sexuality is not fixed for most people, and most people have a choice.


Please don't tell me what I have or don't have. It's not really your call to make.

And I don't believe there is any inherent sense of masculine or feminine identity within me. Until someone mentioned such a concept to me, it had not occurred to me. If I want to do a thing, I do it, without reference to social standards, which are, after all, the only way in which an action is judged.
Timmybear
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:21 am
Location: Canada

Postby masculinity » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:54 am

Timmybear wrote:Please don't tell me what I have or don't have. It's not really your call to make.

I beg your pardon. We are talking about social identities here. You can call yourself a cow for all I care. But here when you call yourself gay and define it as a 'man who likes men', you are strengthening the forces of heterosexualization, who want to homosexualize (i.e. send it into the third gender group) man's need for intimacy with them. It's not a personal issue, its a highly political issue.
Because when members of the third gender are defined as 'men', and they say they are "men who like men", and attribute their 'difference' to their sexuality when they're different because of their effeminate gender, they make the trait of sexual desire for men a big stigma for those who are actually men.
Now, you won't really understand the difference between 'third gender' and a 'man'. That is the problem with the Western society, which says gender is a social construct, while sexuality is innate + fixed, when the fact is just the opposite.
Queers are not men. By defining yourself as men but still, taking a separate identity from men (whom you define as straight men), you force the actual men with isolation if they acknowledge their same sex needs.

Timmybear wrote:And I don't believe there is any inherent sense of masculine or feminine identity within me.

That is the rubbish that the Western society teaches you on purpose. Your gender is not innate... masculinity is only about wearing certain dresses and adopting certain mannerisms... and so is femininity

But that is all bullshit you know. You guys want to hide your femininity behind that bullshit... you can't fool people for ever. Why don't you own up your femininity and define yourself not as 'men who like men' but 'queers who like men' or 'feminine gendered males who like men" or 'half-males/ half-females who like men", then we will not have a problem.

Timmybear wrote:Until someone mentioned such a concept to me, it had not occurred to me. If I want to do a thing, I do it, without reference to social standards, which are, after all, the only way in which an action is judged.

Wake up Timmybear. I am talking about the real, innate masculinity or femininity that we're all born with. I am not talking about the fake roles fixed by the society. These roles, attitudes, behaviours are artificial social constructs.

I'm talking about the inner male identity (masculinity) and the inner female identity (femininity) that divides men into two genders.
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 Timmybear » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:08 am

masculinity wrote:
Timmybear wrote:Please don't tell me what I have or don't have. It's not really your call to make.

I beg your pardon. We are talking about social identities here. You can call yourself a cow for all I care. But here when you call yourself gay and define it as a 'man who likes men', you are strengthening the forces of heterosexualization, who want to homosexualize (i.e. send it into the third gender group) man's need for intimacy with them. It's not a personal issue, its a highly political issue.
Because when members of the third gender are defined as 'men', and they say they are "men who like men", and attribute their 'difference' to their sexuality when they're different because of their effeminate gender, they make the trait of sexual desire for men a big stigma for those who are actually men.
Now, you won't really understand the difference between 'third gender' and a 'man'. That is the problem with the Western society, which says gender is a social construct, while sexuality is innate + fixed, when the fact is just the opposite.
Queers are not men. By defining yourself as men but still, taking a separate identity from men (whom you define as straight men), you force the actual men with isolation if they acknowledge their same sex needs.

Timmybear wrote:And I don't believe there is any inherent sense of masculine or feminine identity within me.

That is the rubbish that the Western society teaches you on purpose. Your gender is not innate... masculinity is only about wearing certain dresses and adopting certain mannerisms... and so is femininity

But that is all bullshit you know. You guys want to hide your femininity behind that bullshit... you can't fool people for ever. Why don't you own up your femininity and define yourself not as 'men who like men' but 'queers who like men' or 'feminine gendered males who like men" or 'half-males/ half-females who like men", then we will not have a problem.

Timmybear wrote:Until someone mentioned such a concept to me, it had not occurred to me. If I want to do a thing, I do it, without reference to social standards, which are, after all, the only way in which an action is judged.

Wake up Timmybear. I am talking about the real, innate masculinity or femininity that we're all born with. I am not talking about the fake roles fixed by the society. These roles, attitudes, behaviours are artificial social constructs.

I'm talking about the inner male identity (masculinity) and the inner female identity (femininity) that divides men into two genders.


I 'know' what you're talking about, but it is not a philosophy with which I agree, and it is not a way in which I view the world, so to keep expounding it as 'fact' to attempt to convince me, with no empirical data, is pointless. I do not think of myself as masculine or feminine. I am aware of certain behaviours and views, but, when I am alone, I do not go around thinking: 'This is male behaviour.' I am aware the culture may value that, but I don't.
Timmybear
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:21 am
Location: Canada

Postby masculinity » Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:03 am

Timmybear wrote:I 'know' what you're talking about, but it is not a philosophy with which I agree, and it is not a way in which I view the world, so to keep expounding it as 'fact' to attempt to convince me, with no empirical data, is pointless. I do not think of myself as masculine or feminine. I am aware of certain behaviours and views, but, when I am alone, I do not go around thinking: 'This is male behaviour.' I am aware the culture may value that, but I don't.


That is because you're not masculine gendered, so you don't feel the discomfort in the effeminate 'homosexual' identity.

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just telling you the facts as they are... and as for empirical and other evidences I've provided hordes of them, and if you're looking for something in particular, I can provide even more.
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 LiteratureGeek » Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:56 pm

Of all the labels that I could be called, I find "queer" the most problematic and offensive, and I am astonished that the GBTL (for lack of a better catch-all term) community has embraced it so readily. I attend UC Santa Cruz and the major on campus GBTL organization is called the "Cantu Queer Center". Granted, that's a catchier name than "Cantu GBTL Center" but it still gets on my nerves. Not to mention the contemporary use of "gay" by people of my generation (born late 80's to early 90's) as meaning "undesirable" or "weak". In fact, I'm not so hot on "straight acting" either.

The GBTL community has a real problem with language in the same way that African Americans and other ethnicities in the U.S. had and still have problems. I don't think it would be unreasonable to call a person that has 1/2 African heritage and 1/2 European heritage a European/African-American, or somesuch, but we don't do that because of the history of slavery and segregation in the U.S. which classified you as "Colored" if you had just a drop of non-European blood in you. This defined and valued people in relation to the extent of their European "white" heritage and forced the African-American community to band together under a large umbrella group. And we still do this today to some extent, talking about "blacks" or the "African-American community" as if all people of African descent spoke with the same voice and identified as such. African-American is more of a term of political convenience than a solid basis for identity.

<phew> I hope I haven't worn out my quotation mark key. """" okay it's fine, moving on...

In the same way, straight acting implies that I'm a subset of homosexual men who are assumed (not without precedent) to be uniformly effeminate by the "mainstream" heterosexual culture. If I literally defined myself by the language used to describe me, I'm twice modified from the "norm"; once by not being straight, and twice by not fitting into the idea that gays are effeminate.

I don't really see it this way and I never thought in these terms when I was young boy realizing he liked men an awful lot and not women. It wasn't until high school that I really understood what the "gay community" was and thought about myself in relation to it. And all that time I had bumbled along, being my old neither masculine nor effeminate self. If "geek" or "nerd" were considered gender roles they would probably be what I'd choose as they have more to do with behavior than the label of "gay" or "straight", which I'm finding out aren't as strictly defined as everyone makes them out to be.

What I mean is, I'm comfortable with most other people relating to me as the "smart guy who you go to for help on your homework but don't feel much of a fire in your pants for", whether those people are men or women. On the other hand, there are people, including homosexual men, who find geeky guys very attractive, even more so than the typical hunk (I just haven't met any in person :? ). Could that not qualify as a sexual orientation, just as much as being attracted to one sex or the other?

My point is that humans are such variable creatures, even more so than any other species, that our labels for ourselves and each other will always fall short to some degree. My problem with "queer" though is that it has so much emotional baggage with it that adopting that term for myself invites others to think of me in terms of having that particular baggage, rather than what I already have as an individual. For me, "gay" and "queer" are terms of political convenience which enable people with whom I would be (and to some extend am) persecuted to lobby for a voice in the mainstream community. Beyond that, I have no love for those terms and would just as soon drop them for something else.
LiteratureGeek
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:21 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Previous

Return to Straight Acting Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests