Business meeting pick-ups

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by unjung

Rach, what makes a man more gay: enjoying and desiring sex with men, or falling in love and wanting to be with men?

There is a joke in my social group, and far beyond it (perhaps limited to guys in my age group, in my area of the world, but probably not), about how if you get a ** from a guy, you're not gay, or if you pitch, you're not gay. Personally I've felt that your sexual orientation has more to do with who you could fall in love with and be with, and feel jealousy about, but then maybe we shouldn't call it "sexual orientation."

Very interesting question. The US psychiatrist Dr. Fritz Klein created the "Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG)" as a system of describing a person's sexual orientation. The KSOG takes into consideration seven different variables: sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preference, social preference, lifestyle, and self-identification.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_S...ientation_Grid

 

[philosophe]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Question to those of you with more experience. How do the various generalizations being made about the gay community, the differences between gay and straight relationships etc change when you move from a community in which there is a longer history of gay acceptance to one which is less tolerant, while staying in the same greater community, say in the US? I don't really mean the difference in interaction between the gay and straight communities, but whether the basic structure, and various subgroups have formed differently in more gay friendly places like SF and West Hollywood, where the entire community faces less overt hostility, versus other cities in the US.
This is a great question. I agree that a lot of gay culture has been formed in reaction to straightness and exclusion or discrimination. Even on the west coast, the acceptance of gay lief is fairly recent and (in California) still somewhat limited. What I find striking is the gay kids I know. I did not grow up in an era of positive images of gay people. My social world wasn't openly homophobic, but there weren't popular gay characters on television, openly gay and lesbian couples outside the gay neighborhoods, etc., etc. The kids I know--and granted that I live in very liberal precints--are going through less angst about being accepted, being different, and all that. It's very moving to watch them grow up with greater ease. I think a more open and accepting society will lead to different forms of glbt "identity." There will be more options and less personal suffering. Exactly what will emerge remains to be seen. I think, btw, that the social identities "heterosexuality," "masculinity" and "femininity" are changing, too.

 

[LabelKing]

I find the old gay public figures interesting and perverse: Paul Lynde, Liberace, Rip Torn, et al.

 

[Spatlese]

I have nothing to add other than also to say this was a great thread. My first reaction was So.Many.Words. However, seeing many thoughts well-articulated, in complete sentences...I...I love you man. In the non-**** sense, of course.

 

[thekunk07]

you forgot quentin crisp. shame on you.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I find the old gay public figures interesting and perverse: Paul Lynde, Liberace, Rip Torn, et al.

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by thekunk07

you forgot quentin crisp. shame on you.

My personal favorite!

 

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by iammatt

That makes sense. I guess what I was getting at, though, was more along what blvfr was referencing, and that is whether in a setting in which there is less discrimination, and therefore slightly less impetus to function as a cohesive group, whether there is more friction between different subcultures, and whether there is simply more gay diversity, since it is possible to let go of an overriding identity of being simply gay. In other words, when the gay culture is seen as more normal in a given area, does it develop like any other culture, with all of the rifts and striations, or is even minimal acceptance so new in the US that even in the most open cities, there is still an important identity of being gay.

Obviously, I am way over generalizing, but...

I wanted to ask something along the same vein but had major trouble articulating it clearly.

 

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by iammatt

I guess what I was getting at, though, was more along what blvfr was referencing, and that is whether in a setting in which there is less discrimination, and therefore slightly less impetus to function as a cohesive group, whether there is more friction between different subcultures, and whether there is simply more gay diversity, since it is possible to let go of an overriding identity of being simply gay. In other words, when the gay culture is seen as more normal in a given area, does it develop like any other culture, with all of the rifts and striations, or is even minimal acceptance so new in the US that even in the most open cities, there is still an important identity of being gay.

Yes. The principal thing that holds gay people together is the hostility directed towards them from the outside; there is no inherent internal cohesiveness. The less external hostility there is, the less cohesiveness there is. Gay people are a highly disparate group of people, they seem to really be a near totally random sample of humanity, and a common sexuality does not really hold them together. (Although unlike other minorities, gay people (pretty much) have to mate within their own group.)

Although they are convenient terms, there really is no "gay community", nor is there really a common "gay culture". The terms suggest a commonality that doesn't exist.

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Yes. The principal thing that holds gay people together is the hostility directed towards them from the outside; there is no inherent internal cohesiveness. The less external hostility there is, the less cohesiveness there is. Gay people are a highly disparate group of people, they seem to really be a near totally random sample of humanity, and a common sexuality does not really hold them together. (Although unlike other minorities, gay people (pretty much) have to mate within their own group.)

Although they are convenient terms, there really is no "gay community", nor is there really a common "gay culture". The terms suggest a commonality that doesn't exist.

Agreed.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

My personal favorite!

I have a friend who has some possessions of Crisp's: neck scarves, etc. He said that when you open up the packaging, there is an old lady powdery smell.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Yes. The principal thing that holds gay people together is the hostility directed towards them from the outside; there is no inherent internal cohesiveness. The less external hostility there is, the less cohesiveness there is. Gay people are a highly disparate group of people, they seem to really be a near totally random sample of humanity, and a common sexuality does not really hold them together. (Although unlike other minorities, gay people (pretty much) have to mate within their own group.) Although they are convenient terms, there really is no "gay community", nor is there really a common "gay culture". The terms suggest a commonality that doesn't exist.
Thanks. That is what I imagined. Unfortunately, it creates a situation in which everybody is working against his own best interest, in many ways.

 

[Hippo]

Regarding sexual orientation: I always hear straight guys talking about how repulsive other men's penises are, and gays guys saying the vaginas turn them off. My general question: Does liking one sex's reproductive organs, and bodies overall, require you to be disgusted by the other sex?

I think that this repulsion is a creation of society, and to be frank, stupid. How I see it, sex can be pleasurable, regardless of the sex of your partner. It may not be the best they've ever had, but without our social hang-ups, I assume that most guys, gay and straight, would be happy with their penis in a hand, mouth, ****** or anus, regardless of their partner's sex. In settings without females, like prison, many straight guys have homosexual sex. Sometimes it's to facilitate and maintain power dynamics, but other times, it's just because it feels good. In addition to assuming that most men like putting their penises inside other people, I also assume that most guys would like someone else's penis inside them, just because it feels good. I think Edmorel is a testament of a straight guy's interested in anal stimulation.

Those are two assumptions, from my personal bias. I'm not sure if bisexual is the correct term for me, because my emotional and intellectual relationships with men cannot compare to mine with women. But I like to get fucked, and I find some guys really attractive. I generally consider myself straight, with a fetish for guys, because bisexual is often interpreted as "closeted."

 

[JayJay]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Yes. The principal thing that holds gay people together is the hostility directed towards them from the outside; there is no inherent internal cohesiveness. The less external hostility there is, the less cohesiveness there is. Gay people are a highly disparate group of people, they seem to really be a near totally random sample of humanity, and a common sexuality does not really hold them together. (Although unlike other minorities, gay people (pretty much) have to mate within their own group.)

Although they are convenient terms, there really is no "gay community", nor is there really a common "gay culture". The terms suggest a commonality that doesn't exist.
Good points.

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by Hippo

Regarding sexual orientation: I always hear straight guys talking about how repulsive other men's penises are, and gays guys saying the vaginas turn them off. My general question: Does liking one sex's reproductive organs, and bodies overall, require you to be disgusted by the other sex? I think that this repulsion is a creation of society, and to be frank, stupid. How I see it, sex can be pleasurable, regardless of the sex of your partner. It may not be the best they've ever had, but without our social hang-ups, I assume that most guys, gay and straight, would be happy with their penis in a hand, mouth, ****** or anus, regardless of their partner's sex. In settings without females, like prison, many straight guys have homosexual sex. Sometimes it's to facilitate and maintain power dynamics, but other times, it's just because it feels good. In addition to assuming that most men like putting their penises inside other people, I also assume that most guys would like someone else's penis inside them, just because it feels good. I think Edmorel is a testament of a straight guy's interested in anal stimulation. Those are two assumptions, from my personal bias. I'm not sure if bisexual is the correct term for me, because my emotional and intellectual relationships with men cannot compare to mine with women. But I like to get fucked, and I find some guys really attractive. I generally consider myself straight, with a fetish for guys, because bisexual is often interpreted as "closeted."
Very good points here, too (IMHO) and ones to which I am not immune. For example, I continually warn about the revolting "Mollusk of Decrepitude" (copyright Prof Fab, LLC)

but I agree that it is largely a social affectation. OR, if not that, then perhaps that repulsion is a way for gay guys to feel more "secure" in their gayness, in the same way straight guys want to feel more "secure" in their straightness. We spend so much time, effort, and struggle coming OUT of the closet, maybe sometimes we HOPE that having come out, our "position" is fixed and we are 100% "gay." BUT, I think very few people actually are 100% gay (or straight) and, as you said, probably have some situation under which the other sex might be a possibility for them. Nevertheless, so much of gay guy's early life is spent in confusion/denial that at some point we want a solidified identity, "this is who we are." It's counterproductive and ultimately restrictive, but it helps sometimes to give us a place at the table, or a place in our own conceptual make-up of the world. It gives us SOME foundation upon which to build a life or a body of work. So, we make ourselves "replused" because it is easier than entering that gray/fuzzy world of non-absolute sexual attractions. And it leads us to say, even on teh interwebz, "BEWARE THE MOLLUSK; IN ALL OF ITS ENSNAREMENTS!"

 

[Eason]

GQ had an article about guys who came out as gay prematurely and later realized they weren't, it was an interesting read.

IMO there's nothing inherently good or bad about ********, whether they be a dong or a gash, but say a dirty hairy dong and a rancid vag are both equally terrible thoughts.