[COLOR="Blue"]I have to wonder what the opinion is truly, besides the general consensus of preferring a more "versatile" lifestyle, in regards to a Gay relationship.
I'm going to focus more on the Gay Male spectrum for this, as it's more...for lack of a better word controversial.
Now in case it's not clear, Heteronormative in this case means the obvious identity differences that would seem like a straight couple's. I.e "More feminine guy and more masculine guy together" By no means am I saying one is the "Guy" or "girl" , but merely inquiring as to the opinion of such a thing, as it seems many many many gay men especially would prefer either a versatile or "bromance" relationship.
I myself am probably more inclined to fall into the spectrum of the type of person who would enter a relationship in such a way, as I often refer to myself as House wife and the like, however, I am quite aware of the limitations and all the other stigmas and such that gay men place on this type of relationship and am aware of other options and am open to them.[/COLOR]
But for now, let's just seg-way right into this biz;
[COLOR="Purple"]Basically, what is your opinion or maybe even belief, in regards to either being in such a relationship or even dating someone who would want that sort of relationship. It seems to be generally assumed Versatility is the go to for all gay men.
I'd also like to just put a video to kind of show what I mean. It depicts the typical "Man saves/protects Woman" idiom and the general Erastes/Eromenos idealism of men at war, which again also invokes a similar idea, of one being the protected and support, and the other being the protector and supported, based on feelings commitment and loyalty. Which more often then not turned into romantic/higher than platonic involvement.
This is the Fight of Haku's honour by Zabuza in the Anime Naruto, in their final moments. And yes Haku is male and like a few years under Zabuza(can't remember).
While exaggerated, you can clearly see who is the more "dominant" one of the two, beyond physical looks.
I have to wonder why a relationship like this is frowned upon.
[COLOR="Blue"]I believe that it is more with what you are comfortable with. I have definitely experienced the hetero-normative relationship with my ex. I was more masculine, he was way more feminine. To be honest, I do not think it should determine the role in bed, but it sadly does for many.
Personally, I would prefer being in a relationship that was a lot more versatile in bed, and in the relationship itself. Gender roles have defined relationships for thousands of years though, so it is kind of hard to break out of that cycle, even when your gay. I consider myself a bit in the middle, a bit masculine, a bit feminine. I try not to let gender labels or sexual preferences define who I am.
There is so much pressure from society to label yourself, like it is some way to define who you are. People cannot understand when you do not attach yourself to a label. Which is why I think a lot of people are either "top" or "bottom" rather than versatile. same goes for masculinity and femininity. We tend to push ourselves to the etreme of what we label ourselves because that is what society wants.
I would love to see more gay couples out there being more versatile and not defining themselves as masculine or feminine. We are who we are, nothing more. I think there would be a lot less pressure on everyone if we could just be who we want to be, have the relationships we want, without having to fit into a label. Anyways this was sort of off topic but I wanted to illustrate my point. lol
YAY for relationships that are not defined by gender labels, society rules, and expectations. That would be my ideal relationship... [/COLOR]
I don't have a lot of experience with this -- the gay couples I know are either both a little feminine or a little masculine (paired). In my personal relationship, I'm actually less macho... I guess just because my father never really taught me how to use tools, I never had a real father figure, a lot of my friends were women --- my boyfriend is basically the opposite.
But it's not like I'm a girl, I'm just not as stereotypically manly --- although I'm learning to do the guy things --- learning to use tools, lift heavy objects, work, etc., because steroptypical man things, whether or not we should still consider them man things in 2014 or not, are important for everyone to learn!).
But it doesn't influence sex??? It's not like, "Oh, you're girly, so let's pretend you have a vagina.". Do people actually do that? It's silly.
I don't even think the whole top/bottom thing is very relevent to me.... It seems like it would mostly be relevant for hook ups, but not in actual relationships. Aren't you going to basically do everything mostly, so even if you have a preference for a certain activity, you'll both be versatile basically? Pretending top/bottom is relevant, what I mean is that I completely get if you have a phobia of eating in reverse, and you wanna stick it (pun intended) to other people, but if that makes you a man in a relationship because you're a top, or if you're a woman suddenly because you're poop hole is 16 meters in diameter, I think we need to do some serious reflection on what it means to be a man or a woman.
I know I use labels a lot. I think labeling the LGBT spectrum is important, to understand and study our reality better. But in same sex relationships, labelling as the man/woman wife/husband, it just seems unnecessary.
Sure you would consider yourself to fit kind of into a house wife role Sylph, but you still have a penis -- you're still a man, you consider yourself a gay man. When you date your boyfriend might do all of the heavy work (try to do a lot yourself though if so, you want to be able to do stuff if he's ever gone!!), but you'll still both be men, it's just that you won't be the macho man. But you won't be a girl/boy then.
NayNay Wrote:[COLOR="Blue"]I believe that it is more with what you are comfortable with. I have definitely experienced the hetero-normative relationship with my ex. I was more masculine, he was way more feminine. To be honest, I do not think it should determine the role in bed, but it sadly does for many.
Personally, I would prefer being in a relationship that was a lot more versatile in bed, and in the relationship itself. Gender roles have defined relationships for thousands of years though, so it is kind of hard to break out of that cycle, even when your gay. I consider myself a bit in the middle, a bit masculine, a bit feminine. I try not to let gender labels or sexual preferences define who I am.
There is so much pressure from society to label yourself, like it is some way to define who you are. People cannot understand when you do not attach yourself to a label. Which is why I think a lot of people are either "top" or "bottom" rather than versatile. same goes for masculinity and femininity. We tend to push ourselves to the etreme of what we label ourselves because that is what society wants.
I would love to see more gay couples out there being more versatile and not defining themselves as masculine or feminine. We are who we are, nothing more. I think there would be a lot less pressure on everyone if we could just be who we want to be, have the relationships we want, without having to fit into a label. Anyways this was sort of off topic but I wanted to illustrate my point. lol
YAY for relationships that are not defined by gender labels, society rules, and expectations. That would be my ideal relationship... [/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]Yes, this I all understand Nay Bay Bay, however I really didn't mean sexually per se, however I know this is where many men would go especially and then correlate it to one's "role" in the relationship and bed, however.
I meant more in the sense of the persons themselves in respect to the actual working of the relationship and not so much the expectations of what their part in the relationship is.
I realize many feminine men can do what a masculine man could do and probably on a better calibre, hell I can attest to that, however what I'm trying to get at is why is it seen as a form of restrictive expression? To be more one way than another or exclusively so? And in a relationship no less?
I am very well aware of labels and the human mind, but saying labels are this and that and wanting the removal of them, is actually going against the human mentality essentially and I do not find them limiting, as limits can only be bound by one's own self. Not by a word.[/COLOR]
Woollyhats Wrote:I don't have a lot of experience with this -- the gay couples I know are either both a little feminine or a little masculine (paired). In my personal relationship, I'm actually less macho... I guess just because my father never really taught me how to use tools, I never had a real father figure, a lot of my friends were women --- my boyfriend is basically the opposite.
But it's not like I'm a girl, I'm just not as stereotypically manly --- although I'm learning to do the guy things --- learning to use tools, lift heavy objects, work, etc., because steroptypical man things, whether or not we should still consider them man things in 2014 or not, are important for everyone to learn!).
But it doesn't influence sex??? It's not like, "Oh, you're girly, so let's pretend you have a vagina.". Do people actually do that? It's silly.
I don't even think the whole top/bottom thing is very relevent to me.... It seems like it would mostly be relevant for hook ups, but not in actual relationships. Aren't you going to basically do everything mostly, so even if you have a preference for a certain activity, you'll both be versatile basically? Pretending top/bottom is relevant, what I mean is that I completely get if you have a phobia of eating in reverse, and you wanna stick it (pun intended) to other people, but if that makes you a man in a relationship because you're a top, or if you're a woman suddenly because you're poop hole is 16 meters in diameter, I think we need to do some serious reflection on what it means to be a man or a woman.
I know I use labels a lot. I think labeling the LGBT spectrum is important, to understand and study our reality better. But in same sex relationships, labelling as the man/woman wife/husband, it just seems unnecessary.
Sure you would consider yourself to fit kind of into a house wife role Sylph, but you still have a penis -- you're still a man, you consider yourself a gay man. When you date your boyfriend might do all of the heavy work (try to do a lot yourself though if so, you want to be able to do stuff if he's ever gone!!), but you'll still both be men, it's just that you won't be the macho man. But you won't be a girl/boy then.
I don't think so anyway
Very Interesting.
[COLOR="Red"]Now, I hope I didn't seem misleading, I wasn't talking distinctly about sex, or top/bottom, as there are plenty of feminine men who love to play ding dong up to their ping pongs in macho men's ying yang.
I am under no delusions that I have a vagina or any thing, and that my self portrayal is a definition of who I am, it is merely another label if you will, however, it's one that I find can represent a facet of who I am.
I've never felt wholly male, regardless of my Dick, nor do I have any inclination to be female, but am pretty evidentally well integrated with my femininity lol, so naturally I feel more inclined to find more traditional roles/aspects of women more appealing, both mentally and physically.
Slightly off topic; I've always looked at myself and seen neither a boy or girl, heck, my physical features are possibly more feminine in comparison to my masculine ones, which is why I feel so at odds with men.
However that's besides the point, you make a very valid point. Versatility within the relationship itself, like lifting crap and what not, however I fail to see the limitations a relationship that has basis on one partner being more adept and even integrated in areas the other is not, whether they be traditional or not.
The way I see things now, it seems the whole Versatility factor is even more for hook-ups then are Bottom/Top, if we are to speak sexually for a moment, because with the element of Versatility, adds the component of easier compatibility. As either person will and could fill either position in bed.
But I am more interested in why a relationship that is not generically versatile, in the sense that one partner prefers or desires a particular role or position even in a relationship, is looked on as a limitation itself. I know what they are, but why?[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Magenta"]I have read somewhere that "Macho Men", who go for more Feminine men, are typically looking to find substitutions for women in the form of a Male, which begets the tireless arguement of Fem Man Vs. Woman, which begets even more arguments of Roles and Top/Bottom.
But the point is, these men are looking to find a man, who can fill in traditionally where they lack or find themselves inept.
While being versatile and rounding out the circle of things one can do self sufficiently is great and important, I don't under stand why it's the denominator of gay relationships. A Jack of all Trades is a Master of None.
Perhaps is it not stemmed from the logic that, in gay male culture, to be seen as less of a man in conjunction to your partner, makes being gay that much harder, due to societal norms and judgements?
Gay= Dainty feminine queen, so the answer would be to "man up" and try to find the likewise and not represent or align with such a stigma?
Is that why sexually, which is where many men tend to divert the subject of "gender roles" to, Versatility is so prevalent, because of the fear of being the lesser of another? I.E the woman?
Which is in itself a dishonour to women mind you.
Could you extrapolate alittle more for me? :hugs-and-kisses-smi
I am ever learning, and angles are important to a shape. [/COLOR]
I'm wondering if this ties into the idea that being a woman is weak, maybe even "gender treachery." Think of how words like "pussy" are used to insult men as much as "faggot." It gets used in movies, too, like one had a coach order a football player to pull down his undies so he could check to see if he "had a tampon that day" (or some such), which was meant to humiliate him in front of the other players. To be a woman (at least metaphorically speaking) is to be fucked, screwed, used, a total loser from the perspective of many guys.
I've wondered if it has something to do with how heteronormative values oppress men as well as women...whereas women are encouraged to limit their power and ambition (at least outside the home) men are encouraged to suppress their feelings (at least outside of anger and laughter, and even those tend to have some regulation). My observation is that in SOME cases the attraction of a "bad boy" by women is that a disempowered woman can feel vicariously empowered through him while at the same time he can show a softer side to her that he'll never show to others (so she feels really special seeing a side to him no one else does, which may be sincere or may be his cynically playing her to get into her pants), because if he showed that to another guy then that would be somehow self-emasculating. I think a lot of hatred toward gays is actually men fearing their repressed "(so-called) feminine side" and that also plays a part in why plenty of gay men also lash out at "feminine gays."
Pix Wrote:I'm wondering if this ties into the idea that being a woman is weak, maybe even "gender treachery." Think of how words like "pussy" are used to insult men as much as "faggot." It gets used in movies, too, like one had a coach order a football player to pull down his undies so he could check to see if he "had a tampon that day" (or some such), which was meant to humiliate him in front of the other players.
I've wondered if it has something to do with how heteronormative values oppress men as well as women...whereas women are encouraged to limit their power and ambition (at least outside the home) men are encouraged to suppress their feelings (at least outside of anger and laughter, and even those tend to have some regulation). My observation is that in SOME cases the attraction of a "bad boy" by women is that a disempowered woman can feel vicariously empowered through him while at the same time he can show a softer side to her that he'll never show to others (so she feels really special seeing a side to him no one else does, which may be sincere or may be his cynically playing her to get into her pants), because if he showed that to another guy then that would be somehow self-emasculating. I think a lot of hatred toward gays is actually men fearing their repressed "(so-called) feminine side" and that also plays a part in why plenty of gay men also lash out at "feminine gays."
[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Eerie... This is close to what my logic of the situation is like.
I can agree with practically everything.
It extrapolates in a way on the point I made previously of how gay male couples would rather it seems, be equal or near so in likeness, so as to not have one or the other appear as the lesser(woman) to societal judgments.
I thought I'd point out that feminine doesn't necessarily mean submissive. Plenty of men (gay and straight) and lesbians can think of a spoiled princess who expect to get their way (then there's the maternally dominant women, some who "henpeck" husbands and the archetype of the shrew is centuries old at least). And I also thought that you might like this song...
Pix Wrote:I thought I'd point out that feminine doesn't necessarily mean submissive. Plenty of men (gay and straight) and lesbians can think of a spoiled princess who expect to get their way (then there's the maternally dominant women, some who "henpeck" husbands and the archetype of the shrew is centuries old at least). And I also thought that you might like this song...
Oh trust me I know . Pixie, you know me gurl. I'm the farthest from Submissive you can get ;P
and I agree. all these songs now a days talking about pussy this and that, women need to realize they really do hold the power over these mens. I don't find them offensive, it's funny that men think by talking about women and their parts, that they're in control, when in reality, it's the women holding the power.
On the topic of the feminine role generally being something that's viewed as weak and looked down upon, I personally disagree with that mindset. If a woman tries to be more masculine, people either don't care or are proud of her for showing those men that women can do what they do too. But if a man tries to be more feminine, people rag on them, call them gay, and look down on them. Why? What's wrong with femininity? I've been watching Feminist Frequency and Anita Sarkeesian's video series on video games. While I generally agree with what she says, sometimes it seems like what she wants are more female roles in video games where the girl kicks ass and goes on her own adventure instead of waiting around for the man to do the dirty work. So basically, she wants all the girls to be the same as the guys. I dunno, but if we lived in a world where everyone was masculine, I might go a little insane. In the videos, she criticized Princess Peach and Princess Zelda for being the typical damsels in distress. But, at least in Zelda's case, even though she's not going out and saving the world like Link, she is trying her best to fulfill her own role in helping to save the kingdom. She gives Link helpful hints, provides him with important items, reveals paths to him, stuff like that. Without Zelda, Link would be lost in some of the games. But apparently this "feminine role" is degrading. Well I disagree. There's nothing wrong with femininity or feminine roles. If I was playing an RPG and all my party members were Fighters (masculine), I can't imagine it going well if they all get hit by a powerful attack and there's no White Mage (feminine) to heal them.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
[/COLOR]
. Pixie, you know me gurl. I'm the farthest from Submissive you can get ;P
lol
