[RodeoRanch]

There. Two into one. V'Ger is proud.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on Feb 3 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

Since this is the way this thread has gone... Have gender roles have created a haven for effeminate men in drama class/theater? Don't answer.

I won't answer your lame pun, but I will say this: the social stigma against homosexuality is a great deal of what makes gay men effeminate. Since society says the relationship is unnatural, they subconsciously strive to make it "natural" by society's definition, even though it's mission impossible. It's a nature vs. nurture argument, but most gay men who are self-assured will tell you that - they're all attracted to men that are more masculine. Some are attracted to men that fall into the submissive role naturally, but the masculinity is still a pertinent part of the equation. Gay men aren't generally turned off by effeminacy, but it is because they've become accustomed to it, and they accept it, and even embrace it in a manner that is similar to the adoption of the N word by blacks.

I'm not saying that some men wouldn't naturally have feminine traits, because all men naturally have feminine traits, to various degrees. Straight men generally suppress them and gay men generally exaggerate them.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on Feb 3 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on Feb 3 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

Since this is the way this thread has gone... Have gender roles have created a haven for effeminate men in drama class/theater? Don't answer.

I won't answer your lame pun, but I will say this: the social stigma against homosexuality is a great deal of what makes gay men effeminate. Since society says the relationship is unnatural, they subconsciously strive to make it "natural" by society's definition, even though it's mission impossible. It's a nature vs. nurture argument, but most gay men who are self-assured will tell you that - they're all attracted to men that are more masculine. Some are attracted to men that fall into the submissive role naturally, but the masculinity is still a pertinent part of the equation. Gay men aren't generally turned off by effeminacy, but it is because they've become accustomed to it, and they accept it, and even embrace it in a manner that is similar to the adoption of the N word by blacks.

I'm not saying that some men wouldn't naturally have feminine traits, because all men naturally have feminine traits, to various degrees. Straight men generally suppress them and gay men generally exaggerate them.

I agree. The pun was bad.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Feb 4 2009, 11:38 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on Feb 3 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

I feel I am a good enough representation of the average male and average human to generalise.

You are a decent representation of the average male (though some might beg to differ). There are a lot of guys that don't really have this strong reaction, or just keep it to themselves, but most guys react similar to you.

CI said:

The seduction of domination is not specific to me. I have faced this, I have no problem with burrying it again.

Good for you - but why do you still react so strongly to it? All of this /thread stuff is a bit dramatic, don't you think?

Also, I don't think that the *squick* reaction is all about an underlying need to be dominated. It's also about the allure of dominating another man. Because, let's face it, most women are pretty easy to dominate in bed, and not just because we're generally weaker. All you have to do to dominate is take initiative, and for most women, nothing turns us off more than a guy who needs to be guided through the whole process. We want you to dominate because we require that you show us you know how. That's thousands of years' worth of socialization stemming from that simple fact of general differences in physical strength between the genders.

But the idea dominating another man....that's something special, isn't it? For a man or a women, the idea has seduction. For a woman, the attraction is obvious - it's a reversal of the natural roles. But if you remove the difference of gender, then all of a sudden the basic rules of domination are unclear. It becomes a contest.


*Thanks Illy...I'm learning all sorts of new words.

The /thread thing was an attempt to demonstrate my discomfort in an amusing manner. It's obviously come across as slightly more than I intended, I'm obviously still talking about it aren't I?

Anyway, domination/submission is only a part of sexuality, and it's one of the parts which leads only to self gratification or at best mutual self-gratification and thus is not what one could call the idealistic part, if one is idealistic, which this one is.

[Darkwatch]

RodeoRanch, on Feb 3 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

There. Two into one. V'Ger is proud.

Sometimes, I wish we still had rep.

[HoosierDaddy]

Just sometimes? I want to neg rep some people, just once, more than I think is sane. And, I'm sure the attitude is reciprocal!

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 04 February 2009 - 03:55 AM

[Cold Iron]

Actually neg rep was very rare.

[HoosierDaddy]

I know it was. I got neg-repped for being a "pussy" I think. Still... the fact that the power is not at my disposal makes me crave it even more. Just like with rep as well.

I said just once because that was all that was needed to get the point across. Plus, I think I'm just a dick.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 04 February 2009 - 04:05 AM

[Aptorian]

What have you done with my beautifull spider thread!?

[Cold Iron]

I blame brood

sniff

[Darkwatch]

Aptorian, on Feb 3 2009, 11:27 PM, said:

What have you done with my beautifull spider thread!?

This picture reminds me of that wierd robotic head from Lexx.

[Terez]

Thanks Rodeo - it's a bit confusing, but it works. I'm sorry that you have to read this thread because you don't trust Apt to moderate it. *hugs*

Cold Iron, on Feb 3 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

The /thread thing was an attempt to demonstrate my discomfort in an amusing manner. It's obviously come across as slightly more than I intended, I'm obviously still talking about it aren't I?

Eh, I wasn't trying to imply that you were hugely uncomfortable. Just that you were blatant about being uncomfortable.

CI said:

Anyway, domination/submission is only a part of sexuality, and it's one of the parts which leads only to self gratification or at best mutual self-gratification and thus is not what one could call the idealistic part, if one is idealistic, which this one is.

I dunno about that. Yeah, the issue of dominance is only a part of sexuality - I wasn't trying to imply that it was everything. I'm not even trying to imply that the guys who freak out aren't heterosexual.* But, just because dominance plays only a role in sexuality doesn't mean that it's a secondary part of attraction. All parts of attraction and sexuality are secondary to love, IMO, but everything else is pretty much water under that bridge.

As for neg rep...I got one neg rep when I abducted the HAWT thread (funnily, that same person that neg repped me just now PM'd me to whine about how my avatar destroyed his favorite childhood memories...and no, it wasn't one of the guys that posted in the thread(s) saying the same thing...I'm thinking we should definitely hook this guy up with some cock to settle down his sensitive emotions). I got several pos reps for abducting the HAWT thread, all from guys. The comments with the pos reps were funny - they were all pretty much what you would expect from a comment attached to a neg rep. It's like they had the overwhelming desire to neg rep me for it, and then pos repped me instead cause they realized that, either way, I'd won.

*at least, for the most part - I'm not sure that anyone is 100% hetero- or homo-, and obviously what I'm trying to suggest here is that the *squick* reaction is the result of a degree of suppressed homoeroticism.

[HoosierDaddy]

Quit trying to make sex complicated. I'm confused enough as it is most times.

Edit: "Something tells me there is no legion of beleaguered women bemoaning the loss of one HoosierDaddy."

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 04 February 2009 - 05:29 AM

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Feb 4 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

CI said:

Anyway, domination/submission is only a part of sexuality, and it's one of the parts which leads only to self gratification or at best mutual self-gratification and thus is not what one could call the idealistic part, if one is idealistic, which this one is.

I dunno about that. Yeah, the issue of dominance is only a part of sexuality - I wasn't trying to imply that it was everything. I'm not even trying to imply that the guys who freak out aren't heterosexual.* But, just because dominance plays only a role in sexuality doesn't mean that it's a secondary part of attraction. All parts of attraction and sexuality are secondary to love, IMO, but everything else is pretty much water under that bridge.

That's pretty much what I said.

I think the social stigma attached to homosexuality is developed during puberty. We are all interested our same sex friend's development so we can confirm our normalcy but we also need to confirm that our interest is not a sexual advance due to an underdeveloped sexual awareness. "I'm not gay" takes care of this.

[Ain't_It_Just_]

I don't think anyone's interested in a friend's puberty (unless they have confessed having problems thereof), but if he turns out to be a feminist separatist lesbian, then I would enjoy that conversation.

[Terez]

Cold Iron, on Feb 3 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

I think the social stigma attached to homosexuality is developed during puberty. We are all interested our same sex friend's development so we can confirm our normalcy but we also need to confirm that our interest is not a sexual advance due to an underdeveloped sexual awareness. "I'm not gay" takes care of this.

Eh, the "need to confirm" might be an original catalyst, but it continues well into adulthood...and we already went through the reasons and seem to agree, but the "need to confirm" is nurture rather than nature, IMO. And that's the issue I'm addressing. I doubt you disagree, but that's not really the point - so long as guys continue to react in this way to images of gay guys, etc., I'll enjoy torturing them. Partly because of my own kink, but partly also because I recognize that this social stigma is the source of the oppression of gays in society today. I will do my part to desensitize.

Just imagine, you're in a live action DBZ movie. All of a sudden, whilst Goku and Vegita are beating the shit out of each other, they start ripping each other's clothes off, sucking face, and then fucking. OMG! You can see everything but the explicit bits. Probably about half the guys would storm out of the theater. Some would be struggling not to retch. You know I'm not exaggerating.

But how often do gay guys sit through the same sort of scenes with heterosexual couples? Where's the reaction there? I think it's pretty clear that this problem is confined to (mostly) heterosexual males. The source of the problem is important, yes, but an admission that there is a problem would be nice.

And yeah, this ranged into DB territory a while back, but my target audience is not the usually level heads of the DB, but the testosterone overload boys of the Inn. The ones that are still brave enough to read are the ones I have a chance of reaching.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

[beru]

im hetro... i hava NOTHING aginst gay people BUT i exspect them NOT to force pics of naked males in my face EXACTLY like i wont put pics of naked girls/males in their faces

[Terez]

beru, on Feb 4 2009, 03:12 AM, said:

im hetro... i hava NOTHING aginst gay people BUT i exspect them NOT to force pics of naked males in my face EXACTLY like i wont put pics of naked girls/males in their faces

Who's posting naked pics? Also, there are pics of barely clad women all of the place - it's impossible to avoid them. Who are you trying to kid?

So my avatar turns you on...just admit it to yourself, stop angsting about it, and go wank.

[beru]

nobdoy have but we are going that way aint we?... and it was not literly ment ennyways