Business meeting pick-ups

Originally Posted by Eason

Click to expand...

GQ had an article about guys who came out as gay prematurely and later realized they weren't, it was an interesting read.
It's so tough and, honestly, often you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. "Identity," whatever that means, is fluid and we good dualistic Cartesians make ourselves pick a place... and stay in it. I do it to myself, even though I don't mean to. I tell my students everyday about "embracing multiplicity," allowing yourself room to maneuver, change, grow, and not feeling constricted by oppressive social structures. I tell them not to WORRY if they like boys or girls and I even give them the tools to analyze their situations and themselves such that they can start NOT to worry. And yet, I'm not perfect and I rarely, if ever, am actually able to practice what I preach. I've honestly never even considered, nor do I know how... what it might be like to LIKE a girl/woman. Does that mean I'm 100% gay? Doubtful... it probably just means I've swung the pendulum in the opposite direction from my upbringing, to tell myself now that all that conflict was "worth it" because now I "know" who I am. Do I? Doubtful. Nobody does. We change by the hour/minute/day. I've studied enough Zen to know the stakes, and yet I'm the worst Zen, most insidiously Cartesian, you can get.

I personally think all ******** are ugly and slightly revolting and attribute the praise and admiration of Michelangelo's David to the artist's ability to make a dick look decent.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

I find the old gay public figures interesting and perverse: Paul Lynde, Liberace, Rip Torn, et al.
I'm pretty sure you mean Rip Taylor, not Rip Torn.

Yeah I thought "Isn't that the guy from Men in Black?" and wiki'd to confirm him as a straight alcoholic.

Originally Posted by Eason

Click to expand...

Yeah I thought "Isn't that the guy from Men in Black?" and wiki'd to confirm him as a straight alcoholic.
I thought the same thing, but knew somebody else would post it.

Originally Posted by Hippo

Click to expand...

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?

It seems more unlikely if the non-preferred gender is one's own gender (i.e., heterosexuality), since most people don't seem to find their own anatomy repulsive.

Originally Posted by Hippo

Click to expand...

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."

A person might be bisexual without being bi-affectional, i.e., a person might be sexually attracted to both genders but only be emotionally attracted to one gender. Conversely, a person might be bi-affectional (emotionally attracted to both genders) without being bisexual in the usual sense (as in the case of a "Boston Marriage" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_marriage).

In an earlier post in this thread I referenced the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid, which recognizes these kinds of distinctions. See also "Affectional Orientation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affectional_orientation

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Click to expand...

It seems more unlikely if the non-preferred gender is one's own gender (i.e., heterosexuality), since most people don't seem to find their own anatomy repulsive. A person might be bisexual without being bi-affectional, i.e., a person might be sexually attracted to both genders but only be emotionally attracted to one gender. Conversely, a person might be bi-affectional (emotionally attracted to both genders) without being bisexual in the usual sense (as in the case of a "Boston Marriage" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_marriage). In an earlier post in this thread I referenced the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid, which recognizes these kinds of distinctions. See also "Affectional Orientation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affectional_orientation
I took it just for fun: 17% straight for me, though I think it is probably because of the "your past" thread of the grid. Growing up in the Bible Belt, obviously I didn't meet other gay people until college, so the "affiliations" and such were predominantly heterosexual until then. Nevertheless, 17% of me apparently is REALLY digging the "NSFW Tittaaaay" threads. Who'd a thunk it?

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

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.

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...

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.

There's something interesting here that might rely on the seeming inferiority of femininity--or better, on the seeming superiority of one mode of masculinity (even if that one mode is awfully hard to pin down). If there is a rigid image of manliness that many straight men aspire to, then anyone who comes to terms with their exclusion from that image is free to experience much less rigid social roles. That freedom may take on sexual or social manifestations more fluidly and can be experienced by gay men, women, 'sensitive' men equally. If this were the case, would completely astigmatizing 'feminine' characteristics de facto force more people into defined social roles? Just throwing it out there.

Why, the ancient historical interest isn't necessarily to help understand the experience of gays today, but to understand why and how social roles change over time, and how that might be instructive to think about the future.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Click to expand...

I took it just for fun: 17% straight for me
Should we start a thread about this? I just took the survey. 62% straight, which seems about right, maybe a bit low.

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

Should we start a thread about this? I just took the survey. 62% straight, which seems about right, maybe a bit low.

Les grands esprits se rencontrent! I was just wondering about this; if you start one, I'll re-post my results.

I didn't expect the straight numbers to be so low. This is sure sign that the apocalypse is imminent.

I guess I'm 13.5% gay, if I read my results right. .81/6 I expected more to be honest.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Click to expand...

Les grands esprits se rencontrent! I was just wondering about this; if you start one, I'll re-post my results.

Done.

Originally Posted by Eason

Click to expand...

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.

Funny to read this - Mrs. T has a friend who was out (or semi-out, I guess) in college. They lost touch and when they reconnected, he's married with a child. Imagine our surprise.