"Straight Acting"

[Anocxu]

My husband and I used to play this sexy game where he was the straight guy & I was the whimpy gay guy. He'd force me onto my knees and______________________________ Oh,, never mind.. This might be to graphic for all you horny wild thangs....

Crazy Jim

Jimmy..
I know you don't want me to fill in those blanks..

[Anocxu]

*Flashes a grin at Twist*

I'm a greedy fucker, man. I wouldn't -accept- anything less than you being all that you are, exactly as you are

Only a man packing 8+ could be that smooth..

[s13ep]

I'm sure I said 100x, I have no problem with you. The fact is, I'm not you.

[hank]

I'm sure I said 100x, I have no problem with you. The fact is, I'm not you.

Than be who you are. Idon't think anybody would have a problem.

[princealbertofb]

I love labels. I'm a man of science, they are a vital to me.

But dude, you're barking in the wrong woods. Nobody here gives a shit about your hiptwirls or lack thereof. We're not that shallow. Furthermore, we're not here seeking hookups or relationships.

As for straight acting people running the world, there's a curious correlation between women's rights and our (as a species) advancement in... everything.
But that's a mute point, women often act straight.

I think the expression is moot point, @Cuddly... just saying.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point

[princealbertofb]

I love labels. I'm a man of science, they are a vital to me.

But dude, you're barking in the wrong woods. Nobody here gives a shit about your hiptwirls or lack thereof. We're not that shallow. Furthermore, we're not here seeking hookups or relationships.

As for straight acting people running the world, there's a curious correlation between women's rights and our (as a species) advancement in... everything.
But that's a mute point, women often act straight.

To go further, most of the population (male or female, if they are straight, act straight = ie in keeping with presumed masculine or feminine traits of character, and behaviour). Which is probably why the gay community adopted the word "queer", first imposed on them as not matching standards, and then taken on as a form of identity.... = ie not doing what the rest of the world (the norm) is doing. It is even this loss of the 'queer' behavirous and original thought that some gay people fear losing through too much emulation of the staight norm in patterns of behaviour (so called 'gay' marriage is a form of imitation as well as a blending into the rest of the population).

[princealbertofb]

If you identify with the term straight acting over masculine behavior, then go for it. You use the words for yourself that you prefer to use, and don't worry what other people think about it. I think we all should have the ability to self identify.

But I dont feel its necessary to put different traits and behaviors against eachother like one is better or more vital than the other. I dont think we should be seeking one ideal of what a man is, gay or straight. Theres nothing exciting or interesting in everyone trying to emulate one thing.

Its more important to be comfortable in who you are and try not to worry so much about how other people act. And if you're concerned about being associated with certain traits because of how other gay people act, i mean welcome to the world of being stereotyped. Lots of people face that, and its frustrating. But we only have so much control over how other people are going to perceive us before they know us. If you want to separate yourself from those stereotypes, a more productive way is to go out and model the behavior you want to be associated with and help to show other people that not all gay men have the same traits as what is most commonly associated with "acting gay".

We should strive to broaden our definitions and representations, not limit them.

"Acting gay" should solely define behaviour where two (or more) same sex people are engaging in rather intimate acts (which don't all have to be sexual)...
So we can assume that "straight acting" is only an extention of the act of hiding one's real self from the world, since it precludes such activities as defined before, and necessitates some forms of inhibition from all intimate forms of touching, and maybe forms of address (intonation, choice of words etc). No holding hands, no kissing, maybe even hugs have to have that special form that most males employ toward one another... (awkward can sometimes spring to mind).... no words of endearment unless they're said with a specific tone which carries humour and/or sarcasm. What a straitjacket to impose on yourself.
Strangely, contrary to what s13ep thinks, it was the Transsexuals who got the whole affair started, back in 1969. No guy in a suit. Barrack only picked up from where the movement had led the community, down the line of history.

[meridannight]

To go further, most of the population (male or female, if they are straight, act straight = ie in keeping with presumed masculine or feminine traits of character, and behaviour). Which is probably why the gay community adopted the word "queer", first imposed on them as not matching standards, and then taken on as a form of identity.... = ie not doing what the rest of the world (the norm) is doing. It is even this loss of the 'queer' behavirous and original thought that some gay people fear losing through too much emulation of the staight norm in patterns of behaviour (so called 'gay' marriage is a form of imitation as well as a blending into the rest of the population).

i don't agree that wanting equal legal status as couples amounts to ''imitating'' heterosexual population.

also, gender traits (male and female) are biologically based. most men act masculine because that's in their physiology. it would be unnatural for them to act any other way. the queer phase of the gay community was probably unnatural (i.e. it was more likely a reaction to something in the society, rather than a genuine self-expression) to begin with. thus, as the social element that produced it was gradually eliminated so was the reaction to it. thus, gay men returned to their more natural disposition. they didn't resolve in imitation, they went back to their naturally-occurring expressions (that was the status quo also before the queer phase).

my generation barely understands why that queer expression was even necessary and looks down on it, because we grew up in more open and accepting conditions, and didn't have a need to react against the society so strongly as to differentiate ourselves as essentially different human beings. we're not.

[Emiliano]

"Acting gay" should solely define behaviour where two (or more) same sex people are engaging in rather intimate acts (which don't all have to be sexual)...
So we can assume that "straight acting" is only an extention of the act of hiding one's real self from the world, since it precludes such activities as defined before, and necessitates some forms of inhibition from all intimate forms of touching, and maybe forms of address (intonation, choice of words etc). No holding hands, no kissing, maybe even hugs have to have that special form that most males employ toward one another... (awkward can sometimes spring to mind).... no words of endearment unless they're said with a specific tone which carries humour and/or sarcasm. What a straitjacket to impose on yourself.
Strangely, contrary to what s13ep thinks, it was the Transsexuals who got the whole affair started, back in 1969. No guy in a suit. Barrack only picked up from where the movement had led the community, down the line of history.

I agree that the only thing that should define someone as gay is the attraction to members of their own sex. And I really disagree with the shaming of effeminate gay men and of trans people.

But it's also not my place to tell anyone else how to express their sexuality or how to behave. I don't believe in outing people either, I think that is something an individual should have power over themselves.

So if a person wants to be "straight acting" and that's how they feel comfortable identifying themselves, then I'm personally not going to jump in and tell them to act or identify themselves differently.

But as you brought up - that some people believe it takes a man in a suit to get things done... - that's what I was going on about in the other thread about the importance of representation in films, especially when it comes to historic events. People aren't born knowing the past. It's something we have to learn. And the contributions of many sorts of people are often overlooked. You can hardly blame a person for not knowing because we are so often surrounded by the narrative of a specific sort of person, both when it comes to gay history and broader history in general. Knowledge and awareness are not things to be taken for granted.

[princealbertofb]

i don't agree that wanting equal legal status as couples amounts to ''imitating'' heterosexual population.

also, gender traits (male and female) are biologically based. most men act masculine because that's in their physiology. it would be unnatural for them to act any other way. the queer phase of the gay community was probably unnatural (i.e. it was more likely a reaction to something in the society, rather than a genuine self-expression) to begin with. thus, as the social element that produced it was gradually eliminated so was the reaction to it. thus, gay men returned to their more natural disposition. they didn't resolve in imitation, they went back to their naturally-occurring expressions (that was the status quo also before the queer phase).

my generation barely understands why that queer expression was even necessary and looks down on it, because we grew up in more open and accepting conditions, and didn't have a need to react against the society so strongly as to differentiate ourselves as essentially different human beings. we're not.

@meridannight, this was not the point I was making. This is not what I think, this is what some 'queer' people think : that wanting same sex marriage is imitating straight life.... (I guess it does have a normative quality, which in essence is falling away from queer culture and thought, which is meant to be different, not identical, or equal). It's a complex issue.

I think 'queer' defines different ways in dealing with art, with politics, with family and relationships than how a heteronormative society would define these issues. Therefore it was being a misfit (note that being 'gay' is not the only attribute that could make you 'queer' (considered as or consider yourself as) that made you not fit in with the rest of society but also gave you a different perspective on life. 'Queer' culture might seem less inhibited.