FLAMBOYANT MEN=THE REASON MEN STAY ON THE ""DL&quo

Talks about guys that are nellie.

Moderators: selective_soldier, Lesley R. Charles, batty

ARE FLAMBOYANT QUEENS THE REASON MEN CHOOSE TO STAY ON THE DL

Poll ended at Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:52 am

Yes it is
3
21%
No it isnt,it is other things
8
57%
It is very possible
3
21%
Not sure,but i certainly would not be surprised
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 14

Postby blu » Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:21 pm

Are you guys still allowing yourselfs to be fooled by this closeted man in distress, when I have clearly exposed him for the fake that he is? None of the story is true, and he is a deeply sad individual who should take his anti gay propaganda elsewhere. :arrow:
User avatar
blu
Newbie
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:09 am
Location: Philly

Postby Guest » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:49 pm

blu wrote:Are you guys still allowing yourselfs to be fooled by this closeted man in distress, when I have clearly exposed him for the fake that he is? None of the story is true, and he is a deeply sad individual who should take his anti gay propaganda elsewhere. :arrow:
:? :? who in the fu** are you may i ask?? and why are you in here
Guest
 

Postby Lesley R. Charles » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:51 pm

Can we stop with the attacks, please. We are entitled to our opinions, but let's lay off with the name calling.
Come check me out on MySpace at http://www.myspace.com/lesleycharles
User avatar
Lesley R. Charles
Moderator
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

Postby Texas_Thang » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:57 pm

Well said, Lesley. Name calling is against the Terms of Service.

Vocal cords or not, 99% of the other people on here WILL see it as shouting, DL. It's likely to incite anger that may or may not be warranted and/or get you ignored by people who don't choose to read that.

I think Rovie's got it right here... DL men want the respectability of being seen as straight (wife, girlfriend, etc.) but still want sex/intimacy with men.

They want it both ways and have to live a closeted, "down low" life because of it. They get to have their cake, eat it too, and then have the indigestion of living a lie.
Resident of Many Places. Home in a few.
User avatar
Texas_Thang
Moderator
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:55 pm
Location: Where To Next?

Postby Negate » Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:46 am

Exactly, homosexuality is VERy negative in the African American community.
Image
<----Imz In your forum sabotaging yah thredz.
Certified rice queen.
User avatar
Negate
Member
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:51 am
Location: Ashland, VA

Postby tigakub » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:42 am

DL_WILL_REMAIN wrote:First let me point out that me typing in bold caps is nothing but me typing in bold caps.I do not care what anyone tells you i am telling you me typing in bold caps is not me expressing anger or rage.So please do not waste my time telling me other peoples opinions of whats considered poor internet etiqutte.I did not shout,you cannot shout on the internet ,regardless what is perceived to be this or not.SHOUTING requires the usage of vocal cords,which a computer does not have

I never said that you were angry, and I didn't mean to imply so either. I was just informing you about what is widely known internet etiquette. Take it or leave it. Also, I did not say that you were shouting. I just said that flaming is "the equivalent" of shouting.

DL wrote:No kid,it is not difficult,genetics can determine masculine traits from effeminate ones and flamboyancy is not natural at all,let me define the meaning for you so you can better understand it

1 entry found for flamboyancy.
flam·boy·ant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flm-boint)
adj.
Highly elaborate; ornate

elborate:To become elaborate.
To express at greater length or in greater detail: asked me to elaborate on my proposal.

Why do you feel the necessity to belittle me by calling me "kid?" Was that necessary or justified?

I'm afraid that a dictionary definition of flamboyancy is not convincing evidence to say that flamboyancy is any less natural than, say, baggy jeans and neck-breaking bling. It's not an issue of nature, DL, it's about choice. People who are flamboyant are so because they choose it and have as much right to do so as you have the right to choose to wear whatever clothes you want. Some people are deliberately flamboyant to extreme as a way to shock people. Yet others are flamboyant just because they like it, or just because they are comfortable with it.

DL wrote:oh and who said flamboyancy makes me uncomfortable?? is that an assumption??

I did not say it made you, personally, uncomfortable. I used "you" as a general reference to people in general. And may I point out that "an assumption" is not "an inferior form of knowledge" but a precursor to hypothesis which is the foundation of theory, and simply allows analysis to proceed in the absense of complete knowledge. The danger is when assumption is confused with fact without realizing that further investigation and verification is needed.

DL wrote:There is no such things as flamboyant being natural.the meaning is also excessively done.I am not talking about societys standards of football being masculine and ballet being effeminate ,i mean natural traits that women have that are shown to originate from the female chromosome.

Please cite the scientific literature which draws an incontrovertible link between effeminacy and "the female chromosome." I'm afraid that that statement is dangerously close to assumption. Although it is clear that men and women typically display differences in behavior, and that these differences seem to occur "naturally," the fields of genetics, sociology and behavioral psychology are all so complex that no one would dare say with definitive conviction how much either genetics or our environment play in the development of behavior.

DL wrote:Well it is obvious most heterosexual people do not fear effeminate men or flames if so in what way?

I'm afraid I don't understand your meaning.

DL wrote:what threat do they pose if they are running nothing??,when the heterosexuals are running this world and fems are fighting for the respect they want from them,they are the minorities in this world and lets not talk about the inferior complexes many of them have along with ordinary homosexual men in the scene.

I think you have confused illusions of superiority due to physical or sociopolitical power with true psychological security. Someone can perceive threat even when there is none. People who feel the need to intimidate others, or beat them down, with displays of physical power, are suffering from insecurities -- fear that others may perceive them to be somehow weak or inferior. But this insecurity derives from a real belief (conscious or not) that he is weak or inferior. It doesn't matter whether others really do have this perception.

For instance, when you called me "kid" I might have felt insulted if I were afraid that I was childish, if I believed that I was immature. But because I am secure in my adulthood, I saw your words as just words.

DL wrote:Have you considered the thought that you might tell yourself the book is criticizing effeminate men all because you cannot accept the truth,a common trait i have notice amone effeminate men.Not accepting constructive criticism??

I quite readily accept your contention that a large section of society seems to have a problem with effeminateness in men. My question to you was in response to your apparent assumption that the book was a validation of "sissyphobia" simply because it existed in fact. I was trying to get you to consider that just because sissyphobia is reality doesn't make it right or justified. I honestly don't know what the book was about because I haven't read it.

DL wrote:What is with many of you homosexuals always saying,NO ONE CARES,yet there are americans who go out of there way to protest against homosexuals or bisexuals or whatever else that is not heterosexual.

Huh? Who said that? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they don't care about homophobia. I have heard the argument, however, that it's no one's business what gays do in their private lives and straights shouldn't concern themselves over the lives of others.

DL wrote:Come on now give me a break.And please dont generalize

Please point out where I generalize. I don't think I have. Were did I say "all DL men?"

DL wrote:Stop hiding behind the truth

I'm not sure you intended to write this. Did you mean "Stop hiding behind the lie?" Or perhaps "Stop hiding from the truth?" And by truth I assume you mean the fact that sissyphobia exists. I actually very readily agree that it exists. But I don't approve of it, and I am entitled to that.

DL wrote:the truth is many men are DL or in your terms(closeted) because they do not want to associate with effeminate behavior and transexuals,FACE IT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT


I pulled one definition of DL from Wikipedia:
Among some sectors of African-American male sub-culture (called "men on the DL" or "down-low"), same-sex sexual behavior is sometimes viewed as solely for physical pleasure. Men on the "down-low" may engage in regular (though often covert) sex acts with other men while continuing sexual and romantic relationships with women. These men often shun the more commonly-known "gay" as a term applying to stereotypically flamboyant and effeminate men of European ancestry, a group from which some may wish to distance themselves.

One possible explanation for "being on the down-low" concerns the fact that, in traditionally masculine societies, the difficulties encountered by homosexuals are not necessarily moral, but rather based on a view that men should never be passive. The rejection of the label "gay" by the down-low culture is thus seen as a rejection of the perceived effeminacy of the homosexual community, and an effort at preserving the masculine nature of men who engage in activities "on the down-low".

Please note the word "covert" which I have highlighted. Please explain the need for covert sex if DL men are not concerned about how they are perceived. You said that if someone asks you if you are gay or bisexual, you'd reply, "No." Even though you do not consider this a lie, I have to be frank: it is absolutely, unequivocably, a lie. I can understand why you refrain from saying "It's none of your business." But please tell me what's wrong with saying "Yes."

DL wrote:However the philopshy that to have pride of ones sexuality is to""come out""with it is indeed complete HORSESHIT! regardless of how inappropiate you look at it.

If one feels that he has to hide his sexuality because he feels that others would not understand, that is one thing. But if one denies his own sexuality because he believes that his sexuality is bad, that is an entire other thing. In the absense of external homophobia, if a person feels his homosexuality is shameful or somehow makes him inferior, I would say that he has internalized homophobia whether he identifies himself as gay, straight, bisexual, DL or whatever.

DL wrote:The term horseshit is a figure of speech for (BULLSHIT) relative to (UNTRUE)

Ehm. Just because I haven't used this language in my exchange with you doesn't mean I don't know what it means.

DL wrote:Ok but who was lashing out at who and when?? is this an assumption??

I didn't say you lashed out. I said you felt like lashing out. As evidence I quote you:

DL wrote:OUTRAGED ,I could of smacked the living piss out this queen


DL wrote:Have you ever considered the possibiility that the person calling you a name, just knows no better and that does not necessarily make him an insecure individual and that is just you wanting to think that about him, so you can tell yourself a rational explanation to why he has insulted you, causing you to feel better and not hurt??

I don't measure my own self-confidence against others' insecurities. And I maintain that people who engage in behavior which puts others down in order to bolster their self-images suffer from insecurity.

DL wrote:You can be bothered by the statement in 80 million ways,Yet it is true.

Actually it was just a polite way of saying that I think you're wrong. And no, it's not true. A man who believes that he is entitled to just what he likes is not a man, but a child in a man's body.

DL wrote:And who said i was highly regarding the GROWN MAN WHO DOES WHAT HE WANTS WHEN HE WANT. I simple stated that grown men are going to do what they want,when they want.

Again, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you held him in high regard. I just said that I didn't. And despite your previous admonition, this statement is textbook generalization. Perhaps in your experience "grown men" behave like that, but in mine, adult men, by definition, are much more responsible. Those who aren't don't make my definition of man.

DL wrote:And please stop telling me your definition of what is mature and what is not.The problem with our society is peoples interpretations of the meanings of things are quite different.What you consider mature,others may not.

Please stop telling me what to do. I will post my definitions if I want. It is up to you to accept or reject them. I do not need to preface my definitions with "this is MY definition" because it's redundant. It's obvious that they are my definitions because I typed them.

DL wrote:Consequences of being DL?? like what?? I mean what is your definition of DL anway.Because if we are speaking consequences involving STD and hiv infection than that is not a consequence of being DL,that is simply a consequence for making the wrong choices and being inconsiderate of your health,or your partner or whomever is affected by this.

Are you ignoring the psychological damage that lying to one's partner can have? And by psychological damage I mean to both those lied to, and those who perpetrate the lie. DL, by definition, carries with it an element of secrecy. If you tell your wife that you are having sex with men, then technically, you are not DL.

DL wrote:OH AND FAITHFUL IS NOTHING BUT WISHFUL THINKING AND HOPING.people lose almost everytime they fall victim to faith

I don't agree. I am faithful to my partner, and he to me. We've been together for 15 years.

DL wrote:That is funny,mostly gay?? The correct term would be mostly homosexual,which to me does not make sense.How can you be mostly homosexual ,by definition the male who sleeps with both male and female is BISEXUAL even if he forces himself to live a bisexual life of sleeping with a woman,he is bisexual.Some homos and heteros argue that bisexual and homosexual are the same.Yet the true one who has knowledge on the labels is aware that,if bisexual is the same as homosexual,it is also the same as heterosexual.

It's actually quite commonly acknowledged that sexuality is not absolute but a continuum. Theoretically, one can be 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual, but in reality it is widely believed that people are some mixture of both. And I was refering to attraction rather than behavior. If I don't sleep with men or women, but am attracted to men, what does that make me? Homosexual. I just don't act on it. If I am mostly attracted to men but on the rare occasion I find a woman attractive, yes I would technically be bisexual, but because my attraction to women is negligible, I may choose to be identified as "mostly" homosexual. Nothing funny about it.

DL wrote:I never understood why some homos ignore the side of the male that sleeps with the female and focus only on the action that he does that is similar to his?? MAYBE its an inferior thing or misery that homosexual fails to realize he has.

It's not inferior. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it inferior. I identify as gay. I don't find women sexually stimulating. It's just that simple. And I find it presumptuous of you to say that I need to acknowledge and act on any miniscule attraction that I may have to women.

DL wrote:Good talking to you,,glad we can we disagree without the insults and agree on many things.

Indeed, there is no need for insults, even when civilized debaters disagree. It is childish and achieves nothing.
t.kub
tigakub
Newbie
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:50 am

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:19 am

tigakub wrote:
DL_WILL_REMAIN wrote:First let me point out that me typing in bold caps is nothing but me typing in bold caps.I do not care what anyone tells you i am telling you me typing in bold caps is not me expressing anger or rage.So please do not waste my time telling me other peoples opinions of whats considered poor internet etiqutte.I did not shout,you cannot shout on the internet ,regardless what is perceived to be this or not.SHOUTING requires the usage of vocal cords,which a computer does not have

I never said that you were angry, and I didn't mean to imply so either. I was just informing you about what is widely known internet etiquette. Take it or leave it. Also, I did not say that you were shouting. I just said that flaming is "the equivalent" of shouting.

DL wrote:No kid,it is not difficult,genetics can determine masculine traits from effeminate ones and flamboyancy is not natural at all,let me define the meaning for you so you can better understand it

1 entry found for flamboyancy.
flam·boy·ant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flm-boint)
adj.
Highly elaborate; ornate

elborate:To become elaborate.
To express at greater length or in greater detail: asked me to elaborate on my proposal.

Why do you feel the necessity to belittle me by calling me "kid?" Was that necessary or justified?

I'm afraid that a dictionary definition of flamboyancy is not convincing evidence to say that flamboyancy is any less natural than, say, baggy jeans and neck-breaking bling. It's not an issue of nature, DL, it's about choice. People who are flamboyant are so because they choose it and have as much right to do so as you have the right to choose to wear whatever clothes you want. Some people are deliberately flamboyant to extreme as a way to shock people. Yet others are flamboyant just because they like it, or just because they are comfortable with it.

DL wrote:oh and who said flamboyancy makes me uncomfortable?? is that an assumption??

I did not say it made you, personally, uncomfortable. I used "you" as a general reference to people in general. And may I point out that "an assumption" is not "an inferior form of knowledge" but a precursor to hypothesis which is the foundation of theory, and simply allows analysis to proceed in the absense of complete knowledge. The danger is when assumption is confused with fact without realizing that further investigation and verification is needed.

DL wrote:There is no such things as flamboyant being natural.the meaning is also excessively done.I am not talking about societys standards of football being masculine and ballet being effeminate ,i mean natural traits that women have that are shown to originate from the female chromosome.

Please cite the scientific literature which draws an incontrovertible link between effeminacy and "the female chromosome." I'm afraid that that statement is dangerously close to assumption. Although it is clear that men and women typically display differences in behavior, and that these differences seem to occur "naturally," the fields of genetics, sociology and behavioral psychology are all so complex that no one would dare say with definitive conviction how much either genetics or our environment play in the development of behavior.

DL wrote:Well it is obvious most heterosexual people do not fear effeminate men or flames if so in what way?

I'm afraid I don't understand your meaning.

DL wrote:what threat do they pose if they are running nothing??,when the heterosexuals are running this world and fems are fighting for the respect they want from them,they are the minorities in this world and lets not talk about the inferior complexes many of them have along with ordinary homosexual men in the scene.

I think you have confused illusions of superiority due to physical or sociopolitical power with true psychological security. Someone can perceive threat even when there is none. People who feel the need to intimidate others, or beat them down, with displays of physical power, are suffering from insecurities -- fear that others may perceive them to be somehow weak or inferior. But this insecurity derives from a real belief (conscious or not) that he is weak or inferior. It doesn't matter whether others really do have this perception.

For instance, when you called me "kid" I might have felt insulted if I were afraid that I was childish, if I believed that I was immature. But because I am secure in my adulthood, I saw your words as just words.

DL wrote:Have you considered the thought that you might tell yourself the book is criticizing effeminate men all because you cannot accept the truth,a common trait i have notice amone effeminate men.Not accepting constructive criticism??

I quite readily accept your contention that a large section of society seems to have a problem with effeminateness in men. My question to you was in response to your apparent assumption that the book was a validation of "sissyphobia" simply because it existed in fact. I was trying to get you to consider that just because sissyphobia is reality doesn't make it right or justified. I honestly don't know what the book was about because I haven't read it.

DL wrote:What is with many of you homosexuals always saying,NO ONE CARES,yet there are americans who go out of there way to protest against homosexuals or bisexuals or whatever else that is not heterosexual.

Huh? Who said that? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they don't care about homophobia. I have heard the argument, however, that it's no one's business what gays do in their private lives and straights shouldn't concern themselves over the lives of others.

DL wrote:Come on now give me a break.And please dont generalize

Please point out where I generalize. I don't think I have. Were did I say "all DL men?"

DL wrote:Stop hiding behind the truth

I'm not sure you intended to write this. Did you mean "Stop hiding behind the lie?" Or perhaps "Stop hiding from the truth?" And by truth I assume you mean the fact that sissyphobia exists. I actually very readily agree that it exists. But I don't approve of it, and I am entitled to that.

DL wrote:the truth is many men are DL or in your terms(closeted) because they do not want to associate with effeminate behavior and transexuals,FACE IT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT


I pulled one definition of DL from Wikipedia:
Among some sectors of African-American male sub-culture (called "men on the DL" or "down-low"), same-sex sexual behavior is sometimes viewed as solely for physical pleasure. Men on the "down-low" may engage in regular (though often covert) sex acts with other men while continuing sexual and romantic relationships with women. These men often shun the more commonly-known "gay" as a term applying to stereotypically flamboyant and effeminate men of European ancestry, a group from which some may wish to distance themselves.

One possible explanation for "being on the down-low" concerns the fact that, in traditionally masculine societies, the difficulties encountered by homosexuals are not necessarily moral, but rather based on a view that men should never be passive. The rejection of the label "gay" by the down-low culture is thus seen as a rejection of the perceived effeminacy of the homosexual community, and an effort at preserving the masculine nature of men who engage in activities "on the down-low".

Please note the word "covert" which I have highlighted. Please explain the need for covert sex if DL men are not concerned about how they are perceived. You said that if someone asks you if you are gay or bisexual, you'd reply, "No." Even though you do not consider this a lie, I have to be frank: it is absolutely, unequivocably, a lie. I can understand why you refrain from saying "It's none of your business." But please tell me what's wrong with saying "Yes."

DL wrote:However the philopshy that to have pride of ones sexuality is to""come out""with it is indeed complete HORSESHIT! regardless of how inappropiate you look at it.

If one feels that he has to hide his sexuality because he feels that others would not understand, that is one thing. But if one denies his own sexuality because he believes that his sexuality is bad, that is an entire other thing. In the absense of external homophobia, if a person feels his homosexuality is shameful or somehow makes him inferior, I would say that he has internalized homophobia whether he identifies himself as gay, straight, bisexual, DL or whatever.

DL wrote:The term horseshit is a figure of speech for (BULLSHIT) relative to (UNTRUE)

Ehm. Just because I haven't used this language in my exchange with you doesn't mean I don't know what it means.

DL wrote:Ok but who was lashing out at who and when?? is this an assumption??

I didn't say you lashed out. I said you felt like lashing out. As evidence I quote you:

DL wrote:OUTRAGED ,I could of smacked the living piss out this queen


DL wrote:Have you ever considered the possibiility that the person calling you a name, just knows no better and that does not necessarily make him an insecure individual and that is just you wanting to think that about him, so you can tell yourself a rational explanation to why he has insulted you, causing you to feel better and not hurt??

I don't measure my own self-confidence against others' insecurities. And I maintain that people who engage in behavior which puts others down in order to bolster their self-images suffer from insecurity.

DL wrote:You can be bothered by the statement in 80 million ways,Yet it is true.

Actually it was just a polite way of saying that I think you're wrong. And no, it's not true. A man who believes that he is entitled to just what he likes is not a man, but a child in a man's body.

DL wrote:And who said i was highly regarding the GROWN MAN WHO DOES WHAT HE WANTS WHEN HE WANT. I simple stated that grown men are going to do what they want,when they want.

Again, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you held him in high regard. I just said that I didn't. And despite your previous admonition, this statement is textbook generalization. Perhaps in your experience "grown men" behave like that, but in mine, adult men, by definition, are much more responsible. Those who aren't don't make my definition of man.

DL wrote:And please stop telling me your definition of what is mature and what is not.The problem with our society is peoples interpretations of the meanings of things are quite different.What you consider mature,others may not.

Please stop telling me what to do. I will post my definitions if I want. It is up to you to accept or reject them. I do not need to preface my definitions with "this is MY definition" because it's redundant. It's obvious that they are my definitions because I typed them.

DL wrote:Consequences of being DL?? like what?? I mean what is your definition of DL anway.Because if we are speaking consequences involving STD and hiv infection than that is not a consequence of being DL,that is simply a consequence for making the wrong choices and being inconsiderate of your health,or your partner or whomever is affected by this.

Are you ignoring the psychological damage that lying to one's partner can have? And by psychological damage I mean to both those lied to, and those who perpetrate the lie. DL, by definition, carries with it an element of secrecy. If you tell your wife that you are having sex with men, then technically, you are not DL.

DL wrote:OH AND FAITHFUL IS NOTHING BUT WISHFUL THINKING AND HOPING.people lose almost everytime they fall victim to faith

I don't agree. I am faithful to my partner, and he to me. We've been together for 15 years.

DL wrote:That is funny,mostly gay?? The correct term would be mostly homosexual,which to me does not make sense.How can you be mostly homosexual ,by definition the male who sleeps with both male and female is BISEXUAL even if he forces himself to live a bisexual life of sleeping with a woman,he is bisexual.Some homos and heteros argue that bisexual and homosexual are the same.Yet the true one who has knowledge on the labels is aware that,if bisexual is the same as homosexual,it is also the same as heterosexual.

It's actually quite commonly acknowledged that sexuality is not absolute but a continuum. Theoretically, one can be 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual, but in reality it is widely believed that people are some mixture of both. And I was refering to attraction rather than behavior. If I don't sleep with men or women, but am attracted to men, what does that make me? Homosexual. I just don't act on it. If I am mostly attracted to men but on the rare occasion I find a woman attractive, yes I would technically be bisexual, but because my attraction to women is negligible, I may choose to be identified as "mostly" homosexual. Nothing funny about it.

DL wrote:I never understood why some homos ignore the side of the male that sleeps with the female and focus only on the action that he does that is similar to his?? MAYBE its an inferior thing or misery that homosexual fails to realize he has.

It's not inferior. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it inferior. I identify as gay. I don't find women sexually stimulating. It's just that simple. And I find it presumptuous of you to say that I need to acknowledge and act on any miniscule attraction that I may have to women.

DL wrote:Good talking to you,,glad we can we disagree without the insults and agree on many things.

Indeed, there is no need for insults, even when civilized debaters disagree. It is childish and achieves nothing.





I never said that you were angry, and I didn't mean to imply so either. I was just informing you about what is widely known internet etiquette. Take it or leave it. Also, I did not say that you were shouting. I just said that flaming is "the equivalent" of shouting.

And i am telling you my reason for typing in caps was not to shout,regardless of what anyone else considers typing in caps,however i was asked not too because it hurts peoples eyes by the moderatr of this board so i decided not too

Why do you feel the necessity to belittle me by calling me "kid?" Was that necessary or justified?

I'm afraid that a dictionary definition of flamboyancy is not convincing evidence to say that flamboyancy is any less natural than, say, baggy jeans and neck-breaking bling. It's not an issue of nature, DL, it's about choice. People who are flamboyant are so because they choose it and have as much right to do so as you have the right to choose to wear whatever clothes you want. Some people are deliberately flamboyant to extreme as a way to shock people. Yet others are flamboyant just because they like it, or just because they are comfortable with it.


I never said flames do not have the right to be flaming,they have the right to act as they want alongs it isnt against the law,However the dictionary goes straight to the source meaning of the word flamboyant,and it means EXCESSIVELY DONE,in other words fabricated effeminate behavior,express at greater lengths.When you tell me people choose to be flamboyant,you are still acknowledging that flamboyancy is a choice,There is are no genetics that support flamboyant as a original trait,its masculine or effeminate.And i am not speaking on societys standards of masculine being football and ballet being feminine

I did not say it made you, personally, uncomfortable. I used "you" as a general reference to people in general. And may I point out that "an assumption" is not "an inferior form of knowledge" but a precursor to hypothesis which is the foundation of theory, and simply allows analysis to proceed in the absense of complete knowledge. The danger is when assumption is confused with fact without realizing that further investigation and verification is needed.


An assumption is a very low form of knowledge,that is used to by many people without any links facts or references rather just throwing out ideas or thoughts that they would like to believe or not,,define the word assumption and realize its meaning is arrogance,because it is done without any facts and links or references.

People assume without realizing the many other possibilities.which is very arrogant behavior


Please cite the scientific literature which draws an incontrovertible link between effeminacy and "the female chromosome." I'm afraid that that statement is dangerously close to assumption. Although it is clear that men and women typically display differences in behavior, and that these differences seem to occur "naturally," the fields of genetics, sociology and behavioral psychology are all so complex that no one would dare say with definitive conviction how much either genetics or our environment play in the development of behavior.


Your not making sense at all.The meaning of flamboyancy itself explains expressing at greater lengths,a choice,There is no such things as natural flamboyant behavior and if you can prove there is,Then do so,I THINK your problem is you are in denial,How can flamboyancy be natural when the meaning itself is to express at greater lengths and to fabricate ,highly elaborate.That is not an assumption.Its simply you speaking without having any facts links or references to back your statements up.


I think you have confused illusions of superiority due to physical or sociopolitical power with true psychological security. Someone can perceive threat even when there is none. People who feel the need to intimidate others, or beat them down, with displays of physical power, are suffering from insecurities -- fear that others may perceive them to be somehow weak or inferior. But this insecurity derives from a real belief (conscious or not) that he is weak or inferior. It doesn't matter whether others really do have this perception.

For instance, when you called me "kid" I might have felt insulted if I were afraid that I was childish, if I believed that I was immature. But because I am secure in my adulthood, I saw your words as just words


WHAT ILLUSION OF SUPERIORITY?? many homosexuals do feel heterosexuals are superior,because they feel inferior to them.

That is not always true.Once again it seems you think one who beats someone up always has insecurities.When people were innate to believe to beat up homosexuals and to believe they are doing GOD a good deed by beating up homosexuals because they were innate to believe they truly are the scums of the earth.One who was innate to believe in something just may have no insecurity in being brought up to hate a certain group because of his religious beliefs or what his parents taught him.I think you are the type that would like to think insecurity is always the answer,without considering any other possibilities,thats an assumption,rather than a "'fact"" AND STILL,PHOBIA EQUALS FEAR.mentally many effeminate men actually feel inferior and below heterosexuals and masculine men

Oh and me calling you""kid""was a urban term i used thats equivalent to ""dude""or""man""Do not take offense,it was not to belittle you.I f you felt that way i do apologize.

I quite readily accept your contention that a large section of society seems to have a problem with effeminateness in men. My question to you was in response to your apparent assumption that the book was a validation of "sissyphobia" simply because it existed in fact. I was trying to get you to consider that just because sissyphobia is reality doesn't make it right or justified. I honestly don't know what the book was about because I haven't read it.


The book sissyphobia only speaks on why society has such dislike for the effeminate male and why even within the homosexual community there is a major dislike for them,even among transexuals.Read the book.


Huh? Who said that? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they don't care about homophobia. I have heard the argument, however, that it's no one's business what gays do in their private lives and straights shouldn't concern themselves over the lives of others.


If i were not mistaken you stated ,no one cares about WHAT DL MEN DO AND THERE HATE FOR THIS OR THAT?? if not please correct me.

I'm not sure you intended to write this. Did you mean "Stop hiding behind the lie?" Or perhaps "Stop hiding from the truth?" And by truth I assume you mean the fact that sissyphobia exists. I actually very readily agree that it exists. But I don't approve of it, and I am entitled to that.


Well i personally do not call it phobia,I think the term is equivalent to a dislike of a certion group,Like for example arachorphobia or however you say it,means a fear of spiders am i right?? It also means a dislike of spiders.I think sissyphobia is equivalent to societys dislike of effeminate men,rather then some actual fear or inferiority complex,which many effeminate men have when it comes to masculine males and heterosexuals



Please note the word "covert" which I have highlighted. Please explain the need for covert sex if DL men are not concerned about how they are perceived. You said that if someone asks you if you are gay or bisexual, you'd reply, "No." Even though you do not consider this a lie, I have to be frank: it is absolutely, unequivocably, a lie. I can understand why you refrain from saying "It's none of your business." But please tell me what's wrong with saying "Yes."

DL IS INTERPRETED DIFFERENT BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.refer to keith boykins book about DL,how one cannot generalize the behavior of all men like that.

Ummm if you read carefully,i stated i do not consider that a lie to myself.I stated that lying to yourself is were the problem is at.When one accepts what they are to themselves then they really do not owe an explanation to anybody.Though morally society has decided that in marriage comes with truth and honesty as well as relationships with partners you are faithful with.

Whats wrong with saying yes?? What is wrong with saying NO??,there is absolutely no problem in you saying yes,if you feel the need to say yes,then go right ahead.I cannot judge how you choose to be and what you choose to tell someone that ask you,only you know what makes you happy.However in my case saying yes,is a problem because i am content with my well-being of being a discreet male and knowing what i am to myself and a certain group of people.However i will never criticize anyone who chooses to answer ""yes"" thats there obligation and right.But for me it is a no no.Oh and i do not care if i lied to someone else.People lie all the time.Lying has its positivity in it also.Because telling the truth to some unknown stranger whose state of mind is unknown,about your sexuality could result in your death or you putting yourself in grave danger.At least be very considerate of yourself and your life when responding to unknown individuals or people who are just nosey and may just want to have some gossip on you.Too much pride can kill you :wink:


If one feels that he has to hide his sexuality because he feels that others would not understand, that is one thing. But if one denies his own sexuality because he believes that his sexuality is bad, that is an entire other thing. In the absense of external homophobia, if a person feels his homosexuality is shameful or somehow makes him inferior, I would say that he has internalized homophobia whether he identifies himself as gay, straight, bisexual, DL or whatever.

I have read two examples of internalized homophobia the one you speak of is very true,But the other one was complete horseshit.


I don't measure my own self-confidence against others' insecurities. And I maintain that people who engage in behavior which puts others down in order to bolster their self-images suffer from insecurity.


And i ask have you ever considered any other possibilities rather than just given yourself a rational explanation to why someone chose to go against you and your sexuality??

Actually it was just a polite way of saying that I think you're wrong. And no, it's not true. A man who believes that he is entitled to just what he likes is not a man, but a child in a man's body.


Ok and just because you feel it is wrong does not make it untrue.There are men out there who have this mentality,which makes my statement true,regardless of how wrong or right you think it is.

Again, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you held him in high regard. I just said that I didn't. And despite your previous admonition, this statement is textbook generalization. Perhaps in your experience "grown men" behave like that, but in mine, adult men, by definition, are much more responsible. Those who aren't don't make my definition of man.

Actually it is not a generalization.A generalization is stating that ""ALL"" of a certain groups acts this way or has this mentality.If there are grown men who do whatever they want,when they want out there in this world then yes there are GROWN MEN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT,WHEN THEY WANT.that statement is true.



Please stop telling me what to do. I will post my definitions if I want. It is up to you to accept or reject them. I do not need to preface my definitions with "this is MY definition" because it's redundant. It's obvious that they are my definitions because I typed them.


Your definition?? How ignorant!= meaning unaware and uninformed,of you.How can you have your definition to a word that already has a definition to it.If your definition does not fit the original definition to the word that already has a defined meaning.Then your definition simply is not under the label that already has a defined meaning to it.I simply stated by reading the dictionary(which takes you to the true source of a meaning of a word) the word mature has meaning that peopled interpret different.So please stop telling me your interpretations as if everyone feels the same way you do.And i did not tell you what to do.I asked you.

proof:PLEASE STOP TELLING ME.(PLEASE)

Or would it be better if i said Could you please??

Are you ignoring the psychological damage that lying to one's partner can have? And by psychological damage I mean to both those lied to, and those who perpetrate the lie. DL, by definition, carries with it an element of secrecy. If you tell your wife that you are having sex with men, then technically, you are not DL.

GOD,man the term DL is a oxymoron,the correct term is discreet.The meaning of downlow simply is equivalent to DISCREET.And i am saying the consequences of contracting an STD or HIV and spreading it to your wife can happen if your wife is aware you are cheating or not.That is not a consequence of being DL,it is consequence of making poor choices and being very inconsiderate.

I don't agree. I am faithful to my partner, and he to me. We've been together for 15 years.


It does not matter what you agree with or not.FAITH MEANS WISHFUL THINKING

((((faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at

=WISHFUL THINKING.like it or not






It's actually quite commonly acknowledged that sexuality is not absolute but a continuum. Theoretically, one can be 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual, but in reality it is widely believed that people are some mixture of both. And I was refering to attraction rather than behavior. If I don't sleep with men or women, but am attracted to men, what does that make me? Homosexual. I just don't act on it. If I am mostly attracted to men but on the rare occasion I find a woman attractive, yes I would technically be bisexual, but because my attraction to women is negligible, I may choose to be identified as "mostly" homosexual. Nothing funny about it.
Well thats your way of describing it.Mostly homosexual to me is still equivalent to BISEXUAL.But your obligated to say whatever you want

It's not inferior. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it inferior. I identify as gay. I don't find women sexually stimulating. It's just that simple. And I find it presumptuous of you to say that I need to acknowledge and act on any miniscule attraction that I may have to women.

That statement was not meant to criticize you of being inferior.And yes i believe it is inferior complexes and misery that one homosexual does not understand he has anytime he always acknowledges the bisexual male having sex with men only excluding the other side of him that has sex with women.to come to a conclusion of the same action that is relative to him =selfish thoughted

Indeed, there is no need for insults, even when civilized debaters disagree. It is childish and achieves nothing.


AGREED.
Guest
 

Postby Brandon » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:00 am

Man, this thread gives me a headache.....

Too much nonsense!
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

Postby Lesley R. Charles » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:04 am

Brandon, you are right. I think every group in the gay community should accept all others. We are all different and that doesn't make one group better than the other.

I am a MTF transgendered person, who has always known I was born the wrong sex, so at least in my case there is a birth defect leading to the transgenderism, I am not transgendered to avoid classifying myself as gay.
Come check me out on MySpace at http://www.myspace.com/lesleycharles
User avatar
Lesley R. Charles
Moderator
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

Postby Brandon » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:09 am

Lesley R. Charles wrote:Brandon, you are right. I think every group in the gay community should accept all others. We are all different and that doesn't make one group better than the other.

I am a MTF transgendered person, who has always known I was born the wrong sex, so at least in my case there is a birth defect leading to the transgenderism, I am not transgendered to avoid classifying myself as gay.


Leslie.... you are in a class all by yourself! We all love you very much and respect you, and your opinions! I've always thought so very highly of you!

By the way.... WTF is "DL" ?

I need another Tylenol.....
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:11 am

Brandon wrote:
Lesley R. Charles wrote:Brandon, you are right. I think every group in the gay community should accept all others. We are all different and that doesn't make one group better than the other.

I am a MTF transgendered person, who has always known I was born the wrong sex, so at least in my case there is a birth defect leading to the transgenderism, I am not transgendered to avoid classifying myself as gay.


Leslie.... you are in a class all by yourself! We all love you very much and respect you, and your opinions! I've always thought so very highly of you!

By the way.... WTF is "DL" ?

I need another Tylenol.....
:lol: downlow
Guest
 

Postby Brandon » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:13 am

Down low?

talking about my SACK again? Damn the heat!

LOL
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:15 am

Brandon wrote:Down low?

talking about my SACK again? Damn the heat!

LOL
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Guest
 

Postby Smitty » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:18 am

Brandon wrote:WTF is "DL" ?

DL = Down Low = discrete = closet case.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush, in a CNN interview. 12-18-00
User avatar
Smitty
Member
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Oregon Coast

Postby Brandon » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:23 am

Smitty wrote:
Brandon wrote:WTF is "DL" ?

DL = Down Low = discrete = closet case.


Thanks Smitty....


Is this the new and improved, politically correct terminology? I am so far behind the times.... I am still trying to not gag and vomit reading posts that say "My Bad"..... and that was from the mid/late 90's!

I'm never going to be caught up with all the new lingo.....

LOL
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

Postby Lesley R. Charles » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:28 am

Brandon wrote:
Lesley R. Charles wrote:Brandon, you are right. I think every group in the gay community should accept all others. We are all different and that doesn't make one group better than the other.

I am a MTF transgendered person, who has always known I was born the wrong sex, so at least in my case there is a birth defect leading to the transgenderism, I am not transgendered to avoid classifying myself as gay.


Leslie.... you are in a class all by yourself! We all love you very much and respect you, and your opinions! I've always thought so very highly of you!

By the way.... WTF is "DL" ?
Thanks Brandon. I think the guys here are great.
I need another Tylenol.....
Come check me out on MySpace at http://www.myspace.com/lesleycharles
User avatar
Lesley R. Charles
Moderator
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

Postby Smitty » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:29 am

Brandon wrote:Is this the new and improved, politically correct terminology? I am so far behind the times....

You and me, both. I think the term started in the Afro-American community. I was like - what's the difference between being on the down low and being in the closet? So far, I haven't heard of any differences.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush, in a CNN interview. 12-18-00
User avatar
Smitty
Member
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Oregon Coast

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:31 am

Smitty wrote:
Brandon wrote:Is this the new and improved, politically correct terminology? I am so far behind the times....

You and me, both. I think the term started in the Afro-American community. I was like - what's the difference between being on the down low and being in the closet? So far, I haven't heard of any differences.


i still wanna know what is it with many homosexuals feeling to come out is to feel happy and secure with yourself,it is like they think that is the key to every male who is homosexual or bisexual pride and security :?
Guest
 

Postby Brandon » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:36 am

Hmmmm.... no, it is not about all that, well, not exactly.

There is a very liberating feeling when you can look at yourself in the mirror as well as face your family, friends, co - workers and say "I AM GAY"....

Call it happiness if you want, but there is a freedom that is hard to describe (everyone would probably describe it differently as well).

Happy? I suppose so.... I was pretty happy the first time I ever went into a gay bar. I was only 13 and a little nervous. That nervousness was soon evaporated and I did feel pretty happy to feel comfortable with "my own kind".

Everyone feels differently, as everyone has a different path they follow to find themselves.
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

Postby Smitty » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:37 am

DL_WILL_REMAIN wrote:i still wanna know what is it with many homosexuals feeling to come out is to feel happy and secure with yourself,it is like they think that is the key to every male who is homosexual or bisexual pride and security :?

Not I, sir. Sexuality is more complex than any scale I've read about. And we all exist in a social context. Everyone needs to make their own decisions. If 'coming out' isn't right for someone, then they shouldn't do it. On the other hand, if being in the closet creates or perpetuates discomfort in a person's life, they really should examine that.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush, in a CNN interview. 12-18-00
User avatar
Smitty
Member
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Oregon Coast

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:42 am

Brandon wrote:Hmmmm.... no, it is not about all that, well, not exactly.

There is a very liberating feeling when you can look at yourself in the mirror as well as face your family, friends, co - workers and say "I AM GAY"....

Call it happiness if you want, but there is a freedom that is hard to describe (everyone would probably describe it differently as well).

Happy? I suppose so.... I was pretty happy the first time I ever went into a gay bar. I was only 13 and a little nervous. That nervousness was soon evaporated and I did feel pretty happy to feel comfortable with "my own kind".

Everyone feels differently, as everyone has a different path they follow to find themselves.


:!: :!: :!:

it just kills me societys one track minds then how they try to force it on others as if there beliefs and the way they go about thinks is the correct way for anyone
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:46 am

Smitty wrote:
DL_WILL_REMAIN wrote:i still wanna know what is it with many homosexuals feeling to come out is to feel happy and secure with yourself,it is like they think that is the key to every male who is homosexual or bisexual pride and security :?

Not I, sir. Sexuality is more complex than any scale I've read about. And we all exist in a social context. Everyone needs to make their own decisions. If 'coming out' isn't right for someone, then they shouldn't do it. On the other hand, if being in the closet creates or perpetuates discomfort in a person's life, they really should examine that.


TRUE

this term in the closet,,irks me ,because if one acknowledges what he is to himself,what closet is he in...

i mean downlow simply is relative to discreet

but in the closet,,for one the only closet i have ever been in is the one in my room lol. It just comes off to me as a term homosexuals use to belittle men who keep there sexuality to themselves,kind of like OH HE IS A CLOSET CASE HE HAS ISSUES,WE DONT BECAUSE WE ARE OPEN.lmao and there are indeed homosexual men who actually feel that way and take on such a ignorant mentality
Guest
 

Postby Brandon » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:12 am

DL_WILL_REMAIN wrote:
Brandon wrote:Hmmmm.... no, it is not about all that, well, not exactly.

There is a very liberating feeling when you can look at yourself in the mirror as well as face your family, friends, co - workers and say "I AM GAY"....

Call it happiness if you want, but there is a freedom that is hard to describe (everyone would probably describe it differently as well).

Happy? I suppose so.... I was pretty happy the first time I ever went into a gay bar. I was only 13 and a little nervous. That nervousness was soon evaporated and I did feel pretty happy to feel comfortable with "my own kind".

Everyone feels differently, as everyone has a different path they follow to find themselves.


:!: :!: :!:

it just kills me societys one track minds then how they try to force it on others as if there beliefs and the way they go about thinks is the correct way for anyone


I think you are fascinating and rather amusing..... Can we go out for a nice meal and drinks sometime? My treat!

:)
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:18 am

Brandon wrote:
DL_WILL_REMAIN wrote:
Brandon wrote:Hmmmm.... no, it is not about all that, well, not exactly.

There is a very liberating feeling when you can look at yourself in the mirror as well as face your family, friends, co - workers and say "I AM GAY"....

Call it happiness if you want, but there is a freedom that is hard to describe (everyone would probably describe it differently as well).

Happy? I suppose so.... I was pretty happy the first time I ever went into a gay bar. I was only 13 and a little nervous. That nervousness was soon evaporated and I did feel pretty happy to feel comfortable with "my own kind".

Everyone feels differently, as everyone has a different path they follow to find themselves.


:!: :!: :!:

it just kills me societys one track minds then how they try to force it on others as if there beliefs and the way they go about thinks is the correct way for anyone


I think you are fascinating and rather amusing..... Can we go out for a nice meal and drinks sometime? My treat!

:)


Alongs you are masculine and not into letting the world know your gay or bisexual lol.SURE.i am new to this site and people find me very amusing and fascinating because i have a very openminded way of looking at both sides.Rather than just oneside.Perhaps if i showed you my picture you would find me attractive
Guest
 

Postby Brandon » Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:01 pm

So I guess picking you up in a red Ferrari and taking you to a Fabulous restaurant would be to "obvious", huh?

:(
Brandon
Member
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:43 am

PreviousNext

Return to Effeminate Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron