Being Gay

[Aquarius]

It interested me how you wrote: "The concept of women being the "beautiful" (or "weak") gender..." because it was almost like beautiful and weak were being used interchangeably. And when I think about what has long been the western, European standard of female beauty it is related to weakness.

That's interesting yeah, and I didn't even think about it. I just thought that straight macho culture has been labeling women with 2 things mostly: The beautiful gender, the weak gender. At least in German language, "the weak gender" is a thing, not sure about English.

And all of that is in contrast to what male beauty is. Male beauty is all about strength and power. What beauty signifies in a man vs a woman are nearly opposite things.

To think about the animal comparison - to what purpose is the female typically the dull one of the species and the male the more brightly colored or adorned? And then to look at humans with that context... what does that tell us?

I actually see beauty in more than one "state" of being male. The pure beauty of young guys faces, then the "hot" muscular state, and while women lose their attractiveness with age, it's mostly guys who can remain attractive until their 80s. Sure, not for everyone, but good looking men in their 80s? Yep, I think they do exist, even though I myself am exclusively into younger guys. In an objective way, like with women, I can safely say that I've seen hot guys way above 60.

Getting back to the animal/human comparison.. I don't know really, but I think that men are the beautiful gender. Sorry girls. I find it remarkable that girls "have to" use make-up to become acceptable. Does this mean that they are actually dull? Would women be considered the beautiful gender if they walked around without any make-up? Would guys turn gay if women would walk around without make-up? (yep I'm exaggerating a bit here...)
Sure, today we have men who use make-up or even get plastic surgery, I'm not against that but in most cases it's just not necessary I think.[/QUOTE]

You said that this idea that women are the more beautiful sex has been placed on then by straight men is something I agree with, but if beauty in a woman means to be weak and dependent, its not a title that women should necessarily take as a compliment.

Totally, this. I'm following German Celebrity Big Brother these days, and there was a former pimp in the house, which I found very interesting. While he had a lot of good aspects, it became clear that he sees every woman as "the property of the straight male world". One celebrity girl (interestingly, a girl who's considered as a whore in public opinion) didn't wear any make-up - completely contrary to the concept we had of her before - and wasn't ashamed of walking around without any, or without a lot of make-up. The former pimp guy, who has nothing to do with her in actual life, as far as we know, suggested to her that she should use make-up to please the audience, to make herself beautiful.
The girl did the best she could have done: She didn't care about what he said. Anyway, it's a good example of what we're talking here.

Those are my thoughts on that, I dont know if that relates to what you were saying about how homosexuality comes in to be related with the feminine and the weak, but I was curious about the connections you were making there. Can you expand more on that? Is it about a way of controlling male homosexuality, to make it less threatening in some ways? Or how did you mean it?

I meant it like this: The people (straight macho men) who have formed the concept of women being the beautiful sex (because they are into them) or the weak gender (because they define "strength" by mere physical power, something they know they're superior in), are the same people who have formed the cliché of gays. They saw that we are liking men, so they didn't consider us as "real man", and more put us into the same box as women (sorted by the label "people who are into men"). People have often mixed up "liking men" with "being a woman", and still do. I don't see anything feminine in gay guys, and this is why I am having huuuuge issues with the concept of drag queens, but this is material for another thread. In short, I think that the concept of drag queens is "giving in to straight macho culture" and "giving up gay emancipation". Drag Queens, to me, are NOT an expression of gay emancipation, rather the opposite is the case, in my opinion.

And to touch on the last part of what you wrote, I agree that the male form isn't viewed as the more beautiful because gay men and straight women have never had the social power to objectify men in the same way straight men have held that power over women. Now that is changing, but is it because of social power and influence or financial influence?

I also think its interesting to note that at least since the 20th century, gay men have been taste makers in women's fashion and standards of beauty. And more or less it seems we have been happy to perpetuate the same weakness = beauty and sell women on the idea that their sexuality is their only option in how they empower themselves.

I don't know whether it's social power or financial influence, and I don't even know if it's changing that much in first place, but yep, what you say about gay fashion designers is indeed very interesting.

Now I wrote a lot, and I'm not even sober so excuse me if I was talking bullshit at some point... bottom line, I think that guys are beautiful, and don't have to put up with giving in to straight macho culture and making them more feminine than they actually are.

In the end, another theory: Have gays feminized themselves in last decades and centuries because - in a time when there was no gay community - they hoped that straight guys would be interested? I think that's what happened. And I think that's exactly why gay culture doesn't need drag queens anymore. Because we don't need the attention of straight guys anymore... we can find each other now, mostly legally in our countries.
Something that gay guys couldn't in past millennia.