Being Gay

[Emiliano]

You really wanna hear the whole story?

The physical aversion started from very early on. When I was 4, 5, or 6 years old. My mom used to take me to the sauna with her and other females, her friends, back then. It was uncomfortable for me, and I hated it. I remember I was disgusted with the female body and the way it looked already back then. And to have it touch me was even worse. Nauseating. You'd have to ask I don't know who why it was repulsion that I felt then, instead of something more positive. There are two options, in a situation like that, either your reaction is positive or it's negative (okay, neutral maybe exists as well). All I remember mine was strongly negative.

Why do you think that was so for a child like that?

Intellectually, I do concede that there is a number of females who are intellectually decent to have a conversation with. I can't stand the obvious barbie-doll-brain types (i think you know what I mean), but women aren't all like that and it is insulting to reduce them all to that level. Although, even though I understand this, I have no respect for women. Although I said that intellectually some of them are not that bad, I feel no respect for them either way. That probably plays a huge part in this. (I don't know why this is. When I was growing up, I was not, in fact, taught to be respectful of women. Not even my mom was respectful of other females, in fact, she was the opposite. I don't know how much that influenced me, and I am not explaining my disrespect with that, but thought I should mention, since you wanted to know it all).

But here's the key -- I feel no emotional connection to women whatsoever. It's completely missing. With men I am emotionally very much involved and connected to, it's obvious to me. And it's deep and intense, rich in texture, it's everything I love. With women it's not even there on the level of friendship. It leaves me completely cold. Even though having an exchange with certain females wouldn't be so bad intellectually, I'm simply not bothered to. Because of the fact that there is no emotional component, the exchange is dull and boring even if we're talking about a topic that interests me. There is no spark.

I should know because, I have, in fact, met a couple of females who I wouldn't even have minded to make friends of, because they were intelligent and decent people. But it's not there, it's boring to me, there's no drive, no connection, nothing.

So as it turns out, this emotional component is crucial to me in my social interactions with other people. And it's only there when I am with men. It has been, so far, 100% exclusive to males. I am that exclusive. I am 100% attracted to men, physically and emotionally. And I have come to like that about myself. My friends are all male, and in my daily life I near-exclusively only deal with males to the exclusion of females. I like that. It has become part of who I am, and what my life is like. I find it a positive side to my life, and I might be consciously and unconsciously reinforcing it where I can.

I am all entangled up in men, and it takes up all my energy and fascination with life; it is the most intense thing in my life. And it feels something beautiful. I do feel that introducing women to this world that I have ruins the symmetry/beauty of it for me.



So, does all that answer your curiosity?


PS. You made me type such a long post, I expect a cookie from you.

Thanks for taking the time to write it all out and I appreciate that you were willing to give some more insight into your world view. My curiosity is never completely answered, but at least I have a better understanding.

As for your cookie - a NYC classic:

[Emiliano]

The concept of women being the "beautiful" (or "weak") gender has been coined by straight guys throughout many many centuries.
While obviously with animals, it's mostly the male (duck, lion for example) who is what we as humans consider beautiful.
I am convinced that this "woman = beautiful" concept is coming from the same "sociohistoric" source as the concept "gays = feminine, weak".

Excuse me female fellows, but I don't find the female body beautiful. I think that men are the "beautiful gender" and in our society the only reason why it isn't widely considered like that is because
1. women unfortunately didn't have a lot to say in past centuries, and
2. gays neither

Like I said, I wanted to come back to this because you said a few things I wanted to think about. Its a rough couple of days but my brain is at last almost kind of working today.

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.

When I think about female fashions up until pretty recently (and to an extent current ones as well), its all very physically restrictive - corsets, high heels, tight skirts, just to name a few examples that cause pain and limit movement. But also elaborate hairstyles and makeup - fashions that require a lot of upkeep, that discourage a lot of movement or physical exertion. Its only been since like the 1960s that it has been considered attractive for white women to have tanned skin, where as before women would literally poison themselves to remain pale - to be dark would be to mean you had exposure to the sun, you worked rather than being pampered indoors.

I know very little about non western standards of beauty because I was raised in the USA, but I can think of similar things in other traditions too - the Padaung women who stretch their necks with rings, or the history of foot binding in China. Im sure there are many others.

It is often a delicate, fragile, dependent, somewhat childlike - both physically and intellectually - standard of beauty that is placed on women. It seems like a more recent thing (maybe ancient too in some ways) that we have begun to celebrate the beauty of strong, powerful, athletic women.

I feel like this relates to what [MENTION=14705]Pix[/MENTION] was saying about how so much female representation is just about looking good and getting the guy, and the lack of representation in our culture of powerful, strong, independent women. Beauty doesn't really seem to be a way to find female empowerment, it seems like it is more often a tool to dis-empower a woman. In a society where worth is based on sexual desirability though, I can see how some women could use beauty in such a way to gain power, or wealth, or status.

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?

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.

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?

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.

[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.

[meridannight]

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.

I wanted to say something about this. To me, beauty and looks are not equivalent. I know if a guy is good-looking, but that doesn't mean that he's beautiful. Beauty is something that is inside, in his person, in who he is. I've met a number of guys who were exceptionally beautiful to me, who wouldn't be considered beautiful in looks.

Neither am I saying that looks and beauty are completely separated (they are not). Just that beauty itself is not rooted in the external looks, it's an internal quality, and it enhances and reinterprets the looks a guy has.

[MENTION=21558]Emiliano[/MENTION], I have an acquaintance who has a different take on your female clothing etc theory. He explained it to me years ago, and he said that women dress the way they do not because of men (and certainly not because of straight men), but because of other women. It's some type of competition thing between themselves.

[Emiliano]

I wanted to say something about this. To me, beauty and looks are not equivalent. I know if a guy is good-looking, but that doesn't mean that he's beautiful. Beauty is something that is inside, in his person, in who he is. I've met a number of guys who were exceptionally beautiful to me, who wouldn't be considered beautiful in looks.

Neither am I saying that looks and beauty are completely separated (they are not). Just that beauty itself is not rooted in the external looks, it's an internal quality, and it enhances and reinterprets the looks a guy has.

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.

Now I admit that there is a certain body type i am most attracted to, but im not that shallow lol...

I was thinking about art when I wrote about the male form, art as well as the men we see in other forms of media too. Like no one looks at Michelangelo's David and says, wow, what a great personality. Im all about a good personality and brains to match personally, but when we are talking about the idealized male form in comparison to the idealized female form, men are shown as having physical strength and muscle, women are shown as being delicate and not athletic.

[Emiliano]

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.

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.

About the talking bullshit thing, I have to laugh. I like talking bullshit with people, just putting ideas out there and discussing them. You dont need citations or mathematical proofs to have a conversation with me.

About the drag queen stuff, I guess I just see that as one aspect of gay culture, of gay expression. I think that gay men are just allowed to play with gender lines more than straight men are. Being sexually liberated and all. I think there tends to be a clear distinction between trans and drag though, even if sometimes individuals might blur it. Drag is more like performance art vs this is how I live my daily life or how I want to be seen by others. At least in my experience of it. But thats just my feelings on it. Its not something id want to see disappear.

I think it benefits the straight men who are made uncomfortable by gay men to see us a feminine rather than masculine. Feminizing and de-sexualizing gay men removes the threat. I think in some ways gay men have feminized themselves in order to find better acceptance, like how certain jobs like stylist, theater, designer are more open for gay men. Its also kind of like interpreting the world through a familiar context. That there is a male and a female role even between two men. I think its a lot of not understanding what homosexuality, not caring to understand it, and wanting it to be easily classified... if that makes sense.

When homosexuality is taken as hypermasculinity - which is what I see it more as too, its more threatening. If straight men were treated by men in the same way many of them treat women, that would make them very uncomfortable. There can be something predatory about male sexual expression. I think its easier for some to dismiss a gay man as not being a real man, as wanting to be a woman, as being feminine than seeing him as someone who could overpower him and fuck him.

My hope is that in the future we dont go to either extreme, or lose anything.. Id like to see what it means to be gay, what is gay and acceptable, to be expanded. There are many, many types of gay men, just as there are many types of straight men and women and lesbians, and everything else. You said you see being gay as a more masculine thing, I see it that way, and I know [MENTION=21405]meridannight[/MENTION] does as well. But we are just tiles in the larger mosaic of what actually makes up the homosexual experience.

Im all about identity and common experience and how certain aspects influence who we are and how we are treated, but I try to always deal with people as individuals. And it would be nice if as a society we were more able to see eachother as complex individuals as well.

[meridannight]

I was thinking about art when I wrote about the male form, art as well as the men we see in other forms of media too. Like no one looks at Michelangelo's David and says, wow, what a great personality.

In this case we are talking about beauty of an object and not of man. It also implies high capacity of the artist's skill, which will enhance and bleed into our perception of the beauty of work of art. (It's also influenced by how long it has lasted through history, previous reception and praise from influential men, etc, but for simplicity's sake I will not go into that here).

But works of art, even if they mimic nature faithfully, are devoid of personality. Thus it is never a component there nor can it be. David's beauty is uninfluenced by personality, because David has no personality. It is, all the way through, a beauty of an object, lifeless and dead. But in case of actual live men that you know, their beauty is influenced by said personality. (I disagree that it is actual personality that is the influence, but that is a different subject and if I explained my post would run too long for this reply).

In sum, what I'm trying to say: you can objectify live people (treat their beauty as just that of looks), but you can't do it the other way around: there is no internal beauty to objects including works of art. Which means it's nonsensical to talk about Michelangelo's David and his personality; nobody does that because it's not possible. There is only one beauty to him, and that is of his looks.


PS. I prefer Perseus. David has a nice trunk and legs, but it has too long right arm and too huge right hand (both are clearly out of proportion with the rest of the body). And David's face is awful. Perseus, on the other hand, is perfection. There is nothing wrong with it. It has a beautiful body in its entirety, and its face too is pleasant.

Cellini was a master of the male physique. This is evident not only in Perseus but also in the rest of his works depicting the masculine body. His males look real and alive. Michelangelo was just an admirer (albeit not one without skill). Michelangelo liked the male body, Cellini understood it. It's the difference between one who admires from afar, and one who has touched and loved his object of affection, one who possesses knowledge of it. (Had to make this clear, Michelangelo is so over-rated, in my opinion).

Im all about a good personality and brains to match personally, but when we are talking about the idealized male form in comparison to the idealized female form, men are shown as having physical strength and muscle, women are shown as being delicate and not athletic.

Yes, the male form itself is an object too. I don't disagree that you can find beauty in the male form separate from his person. It is there. What I was trying to pass on, was that it is inferior to the internal beauty that a man has. Which is not to say that looks is a bad thing, just that its value is relative to the internal beauty.

As for the comparison, how does an idealized female form differ from an athletic female form? I am asking this seriously from you.

[meridannight]

David's beauty is uninfluenced by personality, because David has no personality.

[MENTION=21558]Emiliano[/MENTION], I have to bring out an exception to this. Even though mostly this is true, in some minds lack of personality can actually correlate as 'perfect' personality. It draws associations to cleanliness and purity, even though they are not there in the sculpture itself in any recognizable form.

He is a clean slate, and some people do imagine him to also possess certain qualities of character that reflect even better on him (because you would not imagine a 500-year-old renaissance masterpiece of art to have been a deviant character. Although he might have been!!). Some minds project qualities onto him that they associate with more beautiful personalities in their mind.

In this case, they actually are perceiving David in terms of physical and internal beauty, although it is usually not conscious, and although it is fake.


PS. For a thought exercise: imagine that the model for David was a petty thief chanced upon on the street during one of his nighttime prowls; he had a woman whose modest income he used up on drinking and paying for prostitutes, he beat his dog and broke its leg because the animal chewed on his shoe... I'm not sure it's 100% possible to do (since David is so deeply within our subconsciousness as a concept on its own), but give it a try. How do you like the statue now?

[Emiliano]

You're too literal for me right now man.

[meridannight]

You're too literal for me right now man.

Try the thought exercise I provided in my last post. I just edited it into that post, not sure if it shows for you.