Gay men Navigate like women

[colinian]

Des and TR, I think you both have made excellent points. When I was 10 years old and had to take gym class every day in intermediate school (6th grade) and shower afterwards I discovered that I really, really liked looking at boys. I never thought of myself as "gay". I was always just me. But people insist on hanging labels on people, and I realized that my label was closer to "gay" than anything else. Except "human". And "male". And "boy". And etc.

"Gay" doesn't define me. My auburn hair color doesn't define me. Being 6'2" tall and 175 pounds doesn't define me. Being a computer science major doesn't define me. Living in the San Francisco East Bay doesn't define me. They are all parts of me, but none alone defines me.

Colin

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I'm gay, but if I see a particularly good looking girl I'll ogle her especially if she has big bazoombas out to here! sneaky.gif But get into a relationship with a girl? Nada! No way, Jose! Nyet!

Ok, so I am very much the same in this respect, along with many of my straight friends. I am very much a believer in the, well I can't remember what it is called, but that whole line thing with variances between gay and straight. I always recognize how attractive a particular person is, but then I realize whether are not I am attracted to them personally. I mean, I am totally to one side, but sometimes I wonder why I can be so open about a girl and find such beauty in them, but not be attracted to them.

Additionally, it kind of perplexes me when someone finds their "one" and that person isn't exactly their personal "type". So, you can think that you totally have a "type" that you are attracted to, but your best relationship isn't with that exact "type".

[DesDownunder]

Additionally, it kind of perplexes me when someone finds their "one" and that person isn't exactly their personal "type". So, you can think that you totally have a "type" that you are attracted to, but your best relationship isn't with that exact "type".

I am going to run with this in a direction that I hope will end up displaying how these ideas affect the direction of our writing. So please forgive me if I get carried away.

It is interesting that before the notion of "Romantic Love" took such a stronghold on relationships, "arranged" marriages were quite the norm in many societies. While compatibility was paid some degree of consideration it was also equally ignored for a "match" that benefited everyone except the betrothed couple.

Research through diaries of these people have revealed statements like, 'I grew to love him/her over time, until I could not imagine loving anyone else.' This kind of slow appreciation of one's partner is the opposite to the "Love at first sight" instant falling in love situation. It is an acquisition of love for someone and takes time to grow. This someone may not fit into the mould of what we feel is our personal "type."

Indeed from observation of my friends and family as well as my own experience, the instantaneous love affairs based on "type" have never lasted as long as the ones against "type" that grew over time. However the breakdown of relationships is outside the boundaries of the direction of this post.

The reasons behind failure and success in a relationship, (a long debate) are not simply failure of physical attractions losing their lust-filled inspiration, (though that can be a consideration).

Success with someone we find less than our image of perfection as an object of our "type", may come from putting more effort into getting to know the person behind the face. The danger here (if you like to call it that), is that we may well become more attracted to the qualities of the person's mind and character than we would to the physical beauty of our "type."

I won't bore you with the psychological breakdown of attraction in love, but it has been studied and nowhere is it noted that brains and beauty (or their appreciation) are mutually exclusive or dependant on each other.

We are each attracted and repelled by a number of personal preferences based on our immediate upbringing as well as by our genetic and cultural backgrounds.

All of us are subject to the same rules of survival of the species. We humans have the conscious ability to reject or accept those rules, but please note, that does not mean that homosexuality is outlawed by those rules of survival.

I would maintain that same sex attraction is very much part of the survival of the species. (That of course is an even longer debate.) We have however invented social laws that seek to outcast such natural behaviour as "wrong." It is those laws, that sense of "wrong" that we need to avoid adopting for ourselves and requires a constant vigilant effort by each of us.

To get back to literary basics, we are seeing some effort in understanding and exposing these issues in some of our stories and poems. The gay novels that liberate us from the clutches of the homophobes can also free us from our own misgivings.

In the mean time gay romantic fiction is serving not only as an amusement but as an important breaking down of the barriers which stop all humans, all of us, from appreciating ourselves as sentient beings, capable of loving each other and being in love.

[Cole Parker]

Des said:

The problem is not so much as to what is "straight-acting" as it is to find and recognise the self-respect each of us should have for ourselves as individuals and not for some cultural expectation of how we should "act", whether that is an adopted masculine, effeminate or gay image.

These are the labels on the clothing of our humanity that do indeed maketh us the man or woman of our own perceptions of ourselves. Choice is being eroded by wearing other peoples' designs.

We should do all that can to make sure we do not succumb to wearing the designer label personalities of any culture and instead seek to be ourselves.

Trying to make people accept politically correct designer fashions of cultural images should not be our goal. Acceptance and encouragement of our differences as unique individuals is being overlooked for the sake of misplaced ideas of community safety with social acceptability.

He also said:

To get back to literary basics, we are seeing some effort in understanding and exposing these issues in some of our stories and poems. The gay novels that liberate us from the clutches of the homophobes can also free us from our own misgivings.

In the mean time gay romantic fiction is serving not only as an amusement but as an important breaking down of the barriers which stop all humans, all of us, from appreciating ourselves as sentient beings, capable of loving each other and being in love.

What words of wisdom, and how well expressed!

You continually amaze me, Des, with the depth of your understanding of the human condition and your ability to articulate it.

C

[DesDownunder]

You continually amaze me, Des, with the depth of your understanding of the human condition and your ability to articulate it.

Dare I say I am somewhat surprised myself. It must be due to the company I keep on this wonderful site.

[Insomniac]

I'll take another try at this since it's morning and I have a clearer head.

Ah, Nick? Since 'liking men' comprises the entire actual definition of 'gay' or 'homosexual', your comment suggests that you've bought into some stereotypes and probably the less flattering ones. You might want to get a refund.

Take a step back and rethink your response. Would you describe yourself (and all chosen friends) as 'straight acting',etc?

I would never even consider myself anywhere close to being that shallow. And to answer the question, no.

I respectfully suggest that if that, if so, you may not be entirely comfortable with your own homosexuality (but this is fixable).

What else is there to be comfortable about? I have a BF I've been with for coming on 2 years and anyone who is important in my life knows it. Hell 90% of the time we act like an old married couple and are happy about our situation.

What those who require this in friends and lovers (and themselves) are doing is twofold: buying into bad stereotypes because, obviously, there are gays who can't be clocked as gay very easily and, two, there are also gays (and let's not forget bisexuals) who can be seen as such from a mile away. This latter may be their choice, they make no effort to be seen otherwise, or may be behaviors picked up within the community, I've never quite decided. Still, things like the 'gay accent' and a general tendency towards a few things suggests at least some sort of learning curve that precedes any actual same-sex sexual or romantic experience.

I nevertheless shudder at men who describe themselves as 'straight acting' (other terms exist) and claim they only date or befriend same. From a distance, I can tell you that I, at least, almost always take issue with their self-descriptor (though seldom to their face, I'm not a jerk, no matter what my ex says). In fact, they are often more obviously gay than men who are fully 'out' , seldom mitigating whatever behavior comes naturally.

No one likes stereotypes, but sadly men who are not openly or obviously gay are not going to attract the same attention as someone who has effeminate mannerisms. Also, believe it or not, there are gay men who are 100% manly down to the bone and are so naturally. Don't confuse these who those who are faking it. (Although, much like effeminate mannerisms, it is pretty hard to tell who is simply acting and who has a biological motivation.

Regardless, some percentage of gay men persist in claiming this 'straight acting' jive...but why? The clear assumption is that straight acting is superior to and/or more manly than, what, 'gay acting'? If that's a problem, I, again respectfully, suggest that it might lie exclusively in your head and live alongside your learned beliefs about gays and straights (and let's not forget bisexuals). Those learned beliefs are just that and do not reflect the real lives around you...again, if you step back and really look.

I do the things I do becuase I like them and they are fun. I never had anyone teach me anything about cars, but as a 17 year old I picked up a Camaro and really got into it. Alot of my relatives live in the "cun-tray" (country with a heavy hick accent lol), but I never grew up around guns but when I was old enough I got my license and started into it. I have also been interested in fitness and nutrition since I was probably 14 and it has stuck with me since.

What I am trying to say is don't treat so called "straight acting" gay men the same way you see effeminate gays being treated. Like you've said before it is hard to tell who is acting and who is not. So unless you can get to know someone intimately enough to be able to tell, don't judge them either.

The good news is that we can always learn new tricks, unlike old dogs in the well-known adage.

Are you saying those who are not naturally tuned into their "queer" side should attempt to learn to do things more effeminately? I don't think that is right at all.

Try this one: don't judge a person's sexuality or manliness by their mannerisms, hairstyles, clothing choices, vocal inflections, etc. Sit back and watch. The fun thing is that, like me, you may find that the more 'flamboyant' among us are not only happier but more manly, braver and more aggressive by a mile, and maybe even a lot more fun to be friends or lovers with.

There is no doubt there, but if you share nothing in common with someone then being friends tend to be really hard. Though, like you said, you should always judge by the person and not by the mannerisms.

I'll not delve into the waters where actual heterosexuals display that same flamboyance (the Arts are rife with them, regardless of orientation, and my father may fit that category).

Just a thought, put out here because I do not think that category really exists, of the 'straight acting' homosexual, but also because belief in it hurts the believer more than those he judges---it is perhaps the essence of internalized homophobia, that plus any religious baggage in that direction one may be carrying.

'Gay' just and only means you like men, honest, anything else you believe is an add-on and may or may not be helping your day-to-day happiness. Really and truly, that is the complete definition and the only way you can know about anyone else in particular is to ask...or ask them out.

I understand this completely, but sadly the rest of the world does not. They see pride parades and leather bars and will automatically attribute the things that accompany these events with gay. I will not doubt that I have been somewhat culturally influenced in my choice of words, but sometimes it is hard not to be unless you make a huge conscious effort at it.

Queer Eyes come in many colors, many shapes and live a million differing lives.

My opinion, listen or ignore as you choose.

TR

P.S. I 'get' DarkShadow's concept of Zen Navigating and engage in it with reasonable success but, alas, am also extremely reluctant to ask for directions. As I've done this with loooong cross-USA driving for years, that fact obviously has its good and bad points.

And a very good opinion it is. Furthermore I will never ignore someone who takes the time to write like this. I'd hate for the same to happen to me just because someone didn't see the same way as me.

[Insomniac]

I'm gay, but if I see a particularly good looking girl I'll ogle her especially if she has big bazoombas out to here! But get into a relationship with a girl? Nada! No way, Jose! Nyet!

Colin

I'm very guilty of going out with a bunch of friends and when chicks hit on me I'll flirt back. Sometimes if this goes on long enough my buddies will take the first opprotunity to tell them that I have a BF and are probably barking up the wrong tree. I swear the look they have after that is like someone just killed their puppy. I usually feel bad until they come back and say something really dumb like, "I'd like to try to turn ya back", or something else like that .

[Insomniac]

Here's a link to a thread in the CW forums where I posted up a paper I did for a Health class I had last year.

http://codeysworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=428

[colinian]

Here's a link to a thread in the CW forums where I posted up a paper I did for a Health class I had last year.

http://codeysworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=428

I think your paper was excellent. Two questions:

1. Was this a college course or a high school class?

2. What grade did you get, if you're willing to tell us.

Colin

[Insomniac]

I think your paper was excellent. Two questions:

1. Was this a college course or a high school class?

2. What grade did you get, if you're willing to tell us.

Colin

It was a (supposedly) level 4 college course. I found it to be fairly easy as the professor was a part-timer who also teaches alot of high school kids. My final in that class was a 3.0, but I'm not sure what I recieved on that paper. I thought it was a pretty good paper myself, though I would

[JamesSavik]

Of course gay men surf the web differently than breeders.

We simply do not use the search terms "hooters", "hoes" or "jugs" for every other search.

We do however use alternate search terms like "speedo", "boxers" and "twinks".