He shouldn't meet me then since my personality, identity, and appearance is a combination of masculine, feminine, and childlike characteristics. His head might explode.
To play devil's advocate here, non-effeminate gay men do receive great scrutiny about their gender identity, both externally (in having to convince straight people of their sexuality) and from within the gay community (receiving comments like "stop pretending to be masculine", "stop being so heteronormative", "drop the act"). It is understandable then that some are going to "react" against such provocation (essentially identity denying); it is just unfortunate that this is done in such a negative way. In some instances yes, and they certainly gained the most media attention. But it is inaccurate to state masculine gay men have had no part in standing up for gay rights. In some ways yes, in others no. Masculine gay men have different problems to deal with. Feminine gay men for instance don't generally have to convince others that they are not-straight, people just assume. And in some ways non-effeminate gay men are more of a challenge and more confrontational an idea to homophobes as it removes the "they are nothing like me" barrier that is in place. We as humans like neat little boxes, and so people can react to these stereotypes and schemas being rapidly broken down in some unusual ways. You are generalising a hell of a lot here which is part of the problem mentioned above. Without wanting to sound disrespectful here, but if you are regularly spouting theories like that questioning others' core identities, is it any wonder some react badly or lash out in frustration? Any hint of masculinity can be painted as internalised homophobia, fakery, heteronormativity, lying when its more often and not just something natural.
I would say that exclusionary types within the gay community are the real problem, and those can be found across the spectrum. In the meantime, I will say that generally I'm not friends with extremely flamboyant gay guys, since they tend to have the same interests and mannerisms as very clique-ish girls who I also wouldn't date or be friends with. I'd have as much difficulty hanging out with gun-nut football jocks with right wing politics. They're basically people in a different universe compared to me. There's a difference between flamboyance and femininity, I'd also mention. The way I see it, flamboyance is sort of like an affinity to the gay community. A signal of one's strength of interest in the community or willingness to portray one's-self as gay. It's like a secret handshake that all the cool kids do, except it's known to everyone and you wear it on the cuffs of your sleeves all the time. Some people get really into it and it's their thing. It's how they conceptualize their new image and they just enjoy it a lot. That's cool, to each their own. There are also a lot of gay people who don't get into it and don't "get it" or see the appeal. Again, to each their own. Femininity exists on another spectrum, and there's some overlap but it's not specifically a 'gay' thing and there are feminine-acting straight guys. I find mildly effeminate twinks super hot. Plus I like their mentalities--usually very chill and sweet.
It's no surprise to me that you're upset. Many of your posts often turn into negative, unproductive arguments. I am saying my opinion based on what I have personally observed and read about. I like to question core identities, and I am always questioning my own. Some people don't like that. Some people like to have more rigid boundaries, which is their prerogative. Also, stop putting words in my mouth. I specifically mentioned "butch" friends for those who are not very effeminate. I didn't say masculinity is internalized homophobia. Masculinity itself is not even a sexual orientation. It is a gender. Yes, it is natural for some people to be masculine, but there are other people who try to be hypermasculine for the express purpose of being accepted.
I agree with that i had this friend who started smoking cause he thinks his voice is too girly for a man like him he is the same one who called bottom guys are donkeys well he is gay and is a pretty much fucked up one -_- Im glad he doesnt talk to me anymore :lol:
It's not femininity that is ruining PR; it's flamboyant idiots who are running around half-naked and waving dildos around. Conforming to gender roles shouldn't be necessary to be gay! Feminine men aren't harming anyone by being feminine. There's nothing wrong with a man who likes fashion, the color pink, or is compassionate (examples of stereotypical feminine traits). However, I would consider the "idiots" I mentioned earlier to be harmful to the community. They aren't promoting equality, they're committing acts of public indecency, and people shouldn't act like that if they're trying to have pride in themselves (I could write a whole article about what pride for one's identity should be, but it would be pretty much 100% my opinion.) Either way, though, your friend's comments were uncalled for.
Its obviously fine for people to question their own identities, but when questioning others' a degree of sensitivity is essential. That is why non-masculine gay men should expect some reaction if they begin attacking those who are different to themselves, it does work both ways. For someone to question the validity of someones gender expression is as bad as someone questioning another's sexual identity. Could you imagine if someone told a transitioning transman they were "lying to themselves" and "chasing heteronormative ideals" by going on T or getting a short haircut. That would be insanely ignorant and rude, yet its the sort of judgment and scrutiny that masculine gay men do have to put up with. No you didn't, you were being very non-specific and here is the evidence: You state that masculine guys (implying "all" by not specifying "some") are chasing false ideals. Obviously you have clarified now and I understand that, but don't blame me for misinterpreting you if you worded your earlier post badly.
On the contrary - I think '741852963' is one of the few level-headed and non-hysterical members knocking around on this forum, and I fully agree with what he is saying. If only more people like him would contribute to discussions instead of the same boring, tedious and repetitive narrative that is churned out by the same people over and over again.
I intended this to be a quick response to this quote, but this point went a few additional places. Honestly, we should be used to my elaborate short essay posts on this site so I wouldn't even apologize for the length. This is a drastic overstatement of the effect of the conflict that transgender individuals face as a result gender archetypes and heteronormality. Transgender individuals do not benefit from social privilege or community within the members of their birth sex, nor the members of their true gender. They are largely discounted and invalidated amongst both heterosexual and homosexual social environments. A heterosexual transgender individuals is almost always claimed to be homosexual based on their birth sex; and a homosexual transgender is hardly ever validated at all. I understand reasoning behind this connection, but it is quite the overstatement of the issues homosexuals face and the understatement of the issues that our transgender neighbors face. Moving on to the subject of the invalidation of masculine men within the gay community, it is absolutely a valid issue. It is something that extends beyond the LGBTQ community without a doubt; however, the notion that it is exclusively difficult for masculine men within the LGBTQ community needs to die. Representation of minorities individuals as punchlines does not lead to acceptance. The amount of flamboyant men in the media hasn't caused a surge of acceptance of those who venture outside of the norm. It hasn't stopped the violence and the aggression that pours out of the heteronomative world. It hasn't stopped feminine men within the LGBTQ community from being considered the least desirable. In every single one of these threads we have heard comment after commented about how more accepted feminine men and masculine women are in the gay community, but there are actual statistics and studies that have proven that to be untrue. There has not been a single thread within this community alone in which more members showed a preference for those individuals, neither platonically or romantically. Not a single one. Transparency is meant to be a privilege, when we live in a world when those who deviate from the norm in terms of gender and expression are victimized at staggering rates. When it is statistically more likely for gender and expression minorities individuals to be bullied, assaulted, raped, or murdered at least once in their lives than not. Notice that I did not say "more likely than those than fall in life with the norm". Statistically more likely of being confronted with violence than not period. However, being represented by stereotypes that portray non-masculine men as weak, shallow, and tools for comedy is meant to have benefited them. Transparency is meant to be a privilege compared to those who blend into the background. Personally, I've always embraced my sexuality. I have never had much trouble coming out. In fact, I would have loved to be able to decide who received opportunity of judging me throughout my childhood; to have some sense of control over who could retaliate against the identity they assumed. I would love to not have to live in fear of entering certain environments because of how "transparent" I just might be. How much I will stand out to the same type of people who brought harm to those who expressed themselves as I do. I would have preferred that a childhood friend of mine could have gone unnoticed rather than assaulted on a public street because he "walked like a fag". There is without a doubt a focus on the issues those who defy the norm in many sectors of the LGBTQ community. No one should be, or feel, invalidated for the ways that they express themselves. There are dozens of examples in other movements (Feminism, Race Equality, etc) in which those within the group who are perceived as having things easier are questioned and discounted. It is disappointed and unacceptable; however, this rhetoric about how masculine men are the true unspoken suffers in this community is exhausting. Of course, they face their own set of obstacles and anyone who would invalidate that is most certainly being ignorant; but when it comes down to the perception, the treatment, and the acceptance of feminine men and masculine women in both the heteronomative and LGBTQ world there is simply no comparison. You cannot get lower than gender and expression minorities in the modern world. Anyone who cannot acknowledge that is either hopelessly in denial or living the epitome of a sheltered life.
I think this is a good point. Some people are fairly conventional because they just are. That gets the "but you're not ..." or "you don't act ...". These people are neither overly macho nor overly effeminate, yet the media can't cash in on painting G/B men as conventional, therefore they're not that well represented. Even though I didn't like the movie all that much, I'd say Heath Ledger's character in "Brokeback Mountain" was a step in the right direction, along with a few others in some films and novels. ---------- Post added 17th Feb 2015 at 09:53 PM ---------- Always a good read. I agree. If a person likes very middle of the road people in general, there are fewer of them. And with that, comes the exclusion from more militant and out gay guys who you'd be friends with because you find qualities in them that are likable (and not related to having sex, either) at the interpersonal level. It's sad when you think about it. ---------- Post added 17th Feb 2015 at 10:00 PM ---------- True on both counts, even though this thread has gotten a little feisty. It was the more obvious guys who put up the fight. Does the LGBT community OWE them anything, as in from each and every member? I've thought about that and wouldn't even know to answer it. There is definitely some resentment from those who have put up the fight toward those who were and are more private and passive about the situation. Very true that being the ultra macho G/B guy who passes does not get that much more acceptance. Heteros think they've been defrauded. They think they're a "waste." There are also words like "muscle puss," but that's even used among G/B guys. As for that term, I often wonder if it's a jealousy thing because some people don't have the dedication to pull that off. I was never interested in going to the gym to look like a sculpted statue but it's a discipline and a sport, so I can't really knock those who are into that.
I am not and I have never questioned other people's identities. They must choose to question. I am making them consider alternative viewpoints by writing them and them reading and internalizing those words in their own heads. I can't make you or anyone else do anything. Personally, I consider myself neither masculine nor feminine. It is your own fault for assuming I meant "all" instead of "some". That means you were primed to think in terms of gross over-generalizations. You made that choice, so you should have asked for clarification before getting so upset. In every topic of every nature, you will find exceptions to the rule. Some of your posts are not argumentative, which is why I said "Many of your posts often turn into negative, unproductive arguments." ---------- Post added 18th Feb 2015 at 11:17 AM ---------- I have no problem with people saying viewpoints that are against what I have said. I do have a problem when the argument becomes personal and vindictive. If you have something to say, then say it and let the community as a whole discuss it in the open. Even in this post, you use some passive aggression of calling some posts "boring, tedious and repetitive." That's your opinion, not an objective fact.
Perhaps you should start closer to home then, as the below is very much personal, vindictive and passive aggressive: Saying I make "gross" over-generalisations, stating "many of my posts" are "negative and unproductive" (to use your own quote: "that's your opinion, not an objective fact."). It was completely uncalled for, hurtful and I believe unfair. You are essentially saying you would prefer me not to post on these forums. To respond to that I really don't think my posts are "negative", I merely give my thoughts and opinions based on my own experiences, and at times try to see other sides of debates that we can all be guilty of viewing a bit too one-dimensionally. I've posted a wide mix of topics, non-LGBT related stuff, positive LGBT stories, stories more serious relevant to the LGBT population - I'm hardly bringing the forum down.
An excellent post, well worth the 'short essay'. I suppose I fall into the so-called 'masculine' category of gay men, and while it has its occasional difficulties, I couldn't begin to pretend that these come anywhere close to the battery of disadvantages and struggles faced by those whose expression is 'feminine'. I'd take the opportunity to mention, as I'm surprised that no-one in this thread appears to have done so as of yet, that it should go without saying that the idea that these arbitrary groupings of behavioural characteristics can sincerely be described as 'masculine' and 'feminine' is a total nonsense. There is nothing inherently or biologically 'female' about being extrovert, emotionally open, creative, physically and verbally flamboyant, interested in clothing/gossip/interior design, wearing the colour pink ( ! ) or anything else that is currently associated with women in our sociocultural psyche. There is nothing inherently or biologically 'male' about being emotionally guarded, aggressive, pragmatic, disinterested in aesthetics, interested in sport/politics/science, wearing the colour blue (for crying out loud) etc. The association of these sets of characteristics and behaviours with gender is a sociocultural construction. You barely have to go back more than a hundred years to see some of these behaviours switch to the other gender. Pick any combination at all and you will be able to find separate examples from history in which they are assigned to both men and women. -In early medieval western Europe, an interest in fashion (and the extravagant indulgence of that interest) was seen as inherently male, and indecent/unnatural in women. -In early-modern Japan, open displays of aggression were seen as unmanly - a 'masculine' man was softly-spoken and diplomatic. -In ancient Rome, pink and purple were predominantly male colours (suggestive of the mercantile and ruling classes, respectively) and blue was the appropriate colour for the clothing of a respectable woman. -In Hellenic Athens, the cultivation and appreciation of flowers was an exclusively male pursuit. -In World War Two, it was seen as a novelty when women stepped in to keep Britain's farming industry alive (the 'Land Girls'), but in many pre-Colombian Mesoamerican cultures, agriculture was an entirely female responsibility, while children beyond the age of infancy were raised by their male relatives. Obviously this is all very academic, and it makes good sense to use 'feminine' and 'masculine' to refer to the characteristics that are currently assigned to them in the cultural lexicon. But I think it's important to remember not to think of these as things that a man 'should' be or a woman 'should' do, but just as what is expected of the genders at this particular moment in history. EDIT: Oh, and of course it's worth pointing out that for almost the entirety of human history it was considered one of the defining characteristics of a red-blooded male to be sexually attracted to beautiful young men. Ask Shakespeare who a normal adult man is supposed to be attracted to and he would tell you grown women and adolescent boys. That didn't really stop being a thing in western Europe until the 1700s. /rant :icon_redf
So, you met some crazy person online and now you are saying, that queeny guys ruined the gay image. No no no, quite the contrary, queeny gays brought gay image back to the spotlight. That is, to this century, like William Belli. So, don´t take too serious those kind of jerks, like the one you described. Be proud, young, free & single and some real gentleman will fall for you some day.
I'm a masculine type guy and I'm attracted to and could only be in a meaningful relationship with a femme/camp/TV guy. To those who have difficulty understanding, I say to them, "think of me as the male version of a bisexual femme girl who is attracted to the butch dyke". Don't see anything wrong with that.
Well, reading through this thread, I think both the feminine and masculine gay men have entirely different issues. Both feminine gay men and masculine gay men are both equally part of the gay image. Now feminine gay men haven't ruined the Gay community as it is clear that the people who are against femme gay men are deluded, now if you don't like them that's okay, but do not make the nasty comments about them. For Masculine guys, we have our own problems within the community. The masculine guys have more trouble connecting or feeling a part of the gay community since the guys who follow the stereotype of femininity being prevalent may say "You're not gay since you are not feminine enough." Sound familiar, I think both types of gay men need to get along and be friendly to each other, because we are a community and we are in this fight together. No one has ruined the gay image, in fact that is a personal belief of some people. The gay image is being affected more by the media than by the gay community. It is the media who are effectively putting forward that all gay men are feminine through all of their TV shows, how many have a stereotypical gay character, so many, in fact when I see gay guys on television who are masculine or even a combination of the two, I think that is a smart director or producer for not making the gay guy the stereotype.
