Business meeting pick-ups

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Click to expand...

Among other things, your mentioning of normalcy/abnormalcy in heterosexuality really advances the discussion, I think. It's something that admittedly I didn't even consider in my posts and is a critical component of seeing how the issues might work. So, though you may not be a ****, you are definitely seeing the issue.

Thanks. Lots of issues come to the fore when you tease at the strands like this. Admittedly, that makes it harder to come with an answer to the problem, whatever that might look like. Another thing worth considering is the effect of homosexual culture in its current form on heterosexual culture -- and again, I don't want to reify either. In many ways, characteristics and activities that are stereotypically associated with gays (shopping, decorating, general effeminacy) have really set the boundaries for what's permissible among straights. Many straights will also avoid gay areas, which is as much a limitation for them as it is for gays who feel uncomfortable leaving those areas. As per Foucault, power moves in both directions. I get **** from my friends all the time for dressing well, enjoying cooking, etc. Interestingly, the latter isn't even a gay thing so much as a female thing. Thus we have a situation where, in popular consciousness, homosexuality and femininity are equated (both being seen as inferior), and opposed to heterosexuality and masculinity. Hence the importance of gender as a category for addressing these issues. So I would agree with your earlier point, why, about the undermining effect of things like pride rallies and hedonism for general acceptance. But insofar as some gays are conducting themselves like women, the interesting questions to me are: why do some gays associate with femininity? What does this tell us about the relationships between men and women? Do we need to address female inequality first? Etc. etc. It's all very confusing and complicated.

Why are you ****'s all so longwinded????

Jesus, my biggest issue with broads is that you hsveto listen to so much crap before getting in their pants. If you guys are the same, you are really hurting your chances of recruiting new members.

Originally Posted by edmorel

Click to expand...

Why are you ****'s all so longwinded????

Jesus, my biggest issue with broads is that you hsveto listen to so much crap before getting in their pants. If you guys are the same, you are really hurting your chances of recruiting new members.

+1. The *** drag.

Ed, if I'm in NYC next weekend (Good chance I will be), we should go out on a date.

Originally Posted by GoSurface

Click to expand...

+1. The *** drag.

Ed, if I'm in NYC next weekend (Good chance I will be), we should go out on a date.

Absolutely, but I'll be playing the role of the man on the date.

Originally Posted by edmorel

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but I'll be playing the role of the man on the date.

That means you're paying. Don't forget to bring ear plugs.

Originally Posted by GoSurface

Click to expand...

+1. The *** drag.

Ed, if I'm in NYC next weekend (Good chance I will be), we should go out on a date.

Is that where you suck some butts?

Originally Posted by edmorel

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but I'll be playing the role of the man on the date.
LOL!

Originally Posted by GoSurface

Click to expand...

That means you're paying. Don't forget to bring ear plugs.

This is good stuff.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. I think I was (as usual) not being clear as I wrote, but this is more or less what I was trying to get at. The elimination of an inherently dualistic framework or definition is, I think, where we need to go/are going. It is in this way that the "desirable" gay way of life will find an authentic meaning. It won't just be a part of a binary (gay/straight) that will always leave it at a disadvantage.

This is what I was trying to get at in my previous post about falling in love with people, not categories. I think we all know people we think of as gay or straight who periodically or even rather suddenly switch teams.

As I understand the research, sexual identity is more fluid for most women than for most men. I have, though, known more than a few "straight" men I'd describe as somewhat bisexual. Why must desire obey some binary opposition?

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

So I would agree with your earlier point, why, about the undermining effect of things like pride rallies and hedonism for general acceptance. But insofar as some gays are conducting themselves like women, the interesting questions to me are: why do some gays associate with femininity? What does this tell us about the relationships between men and women? Do we need to address female inequality first? Etc. etc.
I think the effeminacy just comes with the territory. Not all homosexuals are effeminate though. I know a lot who are the SR-71s to gaydar. Your point about areas being seen as 'gay' and therefore off-limits to heterosexuals is a good one that I take for granted. I think the root cause, really, is the defined boundary that's often set by gays as a reaction to heterosexual ostracism. In re history: I still think it doesn't apply. At least not as far back as Greece and Rome pre-Constantine.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

You honestly have me all wrong and you don't understand that the gay subculture is much different from the mainstream beyond the obvious difference in sexuality. Those other elements (hedonism, rampant drug usage, calling each other 'girlfriend', *** hags, etc.) are what keep me away from it. I'm not a 'self-hating ****' and I'm completely confident in my sexuality and myself. I just don't like certain aspects the almost-forced gay subculture and I have no reason or intention for shoehorning myself into it or any other subculture that garners the same feelings.

I can't make it any more clear that I'm not the subject. My intention for this thread was to discuss the dichotomy sometimes felt between emotional and physical attraction and individual standards for affection.

I've been in the gay community for years, and I see the subculture you describe as just one part of gay life these days. Lots of us are leading lives that bear no resemblance whatsoever to your description. So, frankly, I'm puzzled. Surely you know that what you describe is only a subculture.

Your second subject, the split between emotional and physical attraction, is an important and fascinating issue. As I said above, I think it could be quite painful to be living out that split for a long time.

jesus christ, tell me if you're coming before i book for dc.

Originally Posted by GoSurface

Click to expand...

+1. The *** drag.

Ed, if I'm in NYC next weekend (Good chance I will be), we should go out on a date.

Originally Posted by philosophe

Click to expand...

I've been in the gay community for years, and I see the subculture you describe as just one part of gay life these days. Lots of us are leading lives that bear no resemblance whatsoever to your description. So, frankly, I'm puzzled. Surely you know that what you describe is only a subculture.
I know, but with people that are used to being shunned (ie. gays) it seems a lot of people get into that subculture as a means of acceptance. Its pervasiveness has almost made it de rigeur for homosexuals and it just helps to feed assumptions and ultimately aversion.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

Thanks. Lots of issues come to the fore when you tease at the strands like this. Admittedly, that makes it harder to come with an answer to the problem, whatever that might look like.

Another thing worth considering is the effect of homosexual culture in its current form on heterosexual culture -- and again, I don't want to reify either. In many ways, characteristics and activities that are stereotypically associated with gays (shopping, decorating, general effeminacy) have really set the boundaries for what's permissible among straights. Many straights will also avoid gay areas, which is as much a limitation for them as it is for gays who feel uncomfortable leaving those areas. As per Foucault, power moves in both directions. I get **** from my friends all the time for dressing well, enjoying cooking, etc. Interestingly, the latter isn't even a gay thing so much as a female thing.

Thus we have a situation where, in popular consciousness, homosexuality and femininity are equated (both being seen as inferior), and opposed to heterosexuality and masculinity. Hence the importance of gender as a category for addressing these issues.

So I would agree with your earlier point, why, about the undermining effect of things like pride rallies and hedonism for general acceptance. But insofar as some gays are conducting themselves like women, the interesting questions to me are: why do some gays associate with femininity? What does this tell us about the relationships between men and women? Do we need to address female inequality first? Etc. etc.

It's all very confusing and complicated.

This is a great post. So much anti-gay feeling is wrapped up with misogyny.

At this point, I find myself wondering about the utility of the usual categories? If a man is doing something feminine, is he feminine or has the activity moved over to the category of masculine? This is a major issue when all the activities and traits labeled masculine (e.g., courage, intelligence, leadership, etc.) are better, and activities and traits labeled feminine (emotional attunement, care, etc) are less valuable. Is a nurturing man really less of a man? Is an intelligent woman less of a woman?

It's true that we can make generalizations based on our experience of patterns, but we need some fluidity.

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.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Like I said before, people will pretend to be accepting and even go so far as to convince themselves that they're accepting but as soon as a gay person shakes their hands and greets them they go through the formalities of politeness and often never delve beyond the surface in their interaction.
According to the last gay man I made out with, I am still pretty accepting

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Click to expand...

Among other things, your mentioning of normalcy/abnormalcy in heterosexuality really advances the discussion, I think.
That is one thing I was trying to warn you about.

Originally Posted by edmorel

Click to expand...

If you guys are the same, you are really hurting your chances of recruiting new members.
But there are so many advantages that their side is still tempting, admit it.

Originally Posted by philosophe

Click to expand...

As I understand the research, sexual identity is more fluid for most women than for most men. I have, though, known more than a few "straight" men I'd describe as somewhat bisexual. Why must desire obey some binary opposition?
I have the same understanding of current research (the jury is still out on how much of that is based on society and how much inherent to biology). Still, although most bisexuals I know like to think that everybody is bisexual to a certain degree, you have to admit that this is not for everybody.