posted
And "submissive" and "nelly" are completely different things. "Nelly" is swishy, mincing, hyper-effeminant, and I've seen it in theoretically straight men as well as gay men. I realize my negative reaction is entirely sexual. I'd add "aesthetic" but I really like guys in drag (in a totally non-sexual way) and I have gay male friends who are fun to hang out with that are nelly. I find nelly men sexually unnattractive, though I can be friends with them when that's not an issue.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: With both of my friends, the fathers had a little bit of a tougher time with it than the mothers. I don't know why, but...it seems like in general, heterosexual men are more likely to be uncomfortable with gay men (of course, there are many exeptions, thank God), while heterosexual women usually don't have as much of a problem with lesbians. It doesn't make sense to me, really.
I think for a lot of women, the ideal of their sexuality is so intertwined with the ideal of 'character' and looks that for many women their sexuality is seen as a kind of super friendship, whereas for men I think this is much less true. That is, I think many men would have nothing to do with their girlfriends/wives, if it weren't for the fact that there was a sexual attraction there.
I know, I know. It's not that way on Hatrack. Everyone here's spouse is their best friend, etc., but I do think nonetheless there is some level of truth to this. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, I said as much in my post at the bottom of the page, and I agree with you.
Katie, I was thinking mostly of the homosexual practices that are often connected to Mithraism, which was very popular among the Roman Armies. I mean, not that I know this personally, just from reading a book called The History of Sex which stated as much. (Though I do not mean to assert that practitioners of mystery religions are all necessarily gay, and do not intend to insult those of this board who practice secret rites.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mithraism was later, during the Empire. I think there's a different in the social mores between the classical period and the Empire.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is, I think many men would have nothing to do with their girlfriends/wives, if it weren't for the fact that there was a sexual attraction there.
I've seen this in a lot of men. In fact a lot of people only socialize with people within the set of their sexual preference who they find attractive. Many straight men don't want to be seen with women they don't find sexually attractive, and many gay men won't even speak to other gay men they don't find attractive. I can sort of understand some of the underlying psychology in this, but I think it's mostly something best overcome.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure what this means. You mean the image? That's just it - the image of Rome did change over the centuries. What It Means To Be Roman did change slightly, but over homosexuality was always seen as a Greek thing.
Towards the end of the Empire, the Roman Army on the borders was generally composed of the people who were from the lands on the borders. The composition, training, and purpose of the Roman army changed too.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've seen this in a lot of men. In fact a lot of people only socialize with people within the set of their sexual preference who they find attractive. Many straight men don't want to be seen with women they don't find sexually attractive, and many gay men won't even speak to other gay men they don't find attractive. I can sort of understand some of the underlying psychology in this, but I think it's mostly something best overcome.
Sure. You should like people for who they are, not what they look like. Absolutely.
What I'm trying to say, though, is that I think that sexuality and friendship are two totally different things for men, while for women, the concepts are much more intertwined as an ideal, so that for women two women being sexually involved isn't much different from a man and a woman being sexually involved. In both cases, they're just super friends.
This is actually a complicated subject. I don't think Chris's idea that it is strictly a power issue is wrong, exactly, but I do think it's so vague as to be somewhat unuseful. I do see some truth to it, but...I can think of other reasons why homosexuality is reacted to much more negatively by men than women.
For instance, there is a trait of being sensual that is very much frowned by many men. You frequently see an ideal of being above pain, forging through obstacles, being unaffected by your surroundings. Inasmuch as gay men are stereotypically seen as being 'sensual/emotional' (artsy, interior decorators, crying when they get a scratch, etc.), this rubs a lot of men the wrong way.
While we could say that this is neanderthalic, what have you, as anyone can tell you, it's a quality that's hard to achieve and is worthwhile in a lot of instances.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
"Nor was the Roman army generally homosexual. There was certainly homosexuality in Rome, but it was seen as a "Greek" thing that manly Romans didn't do. "
I said homosexual acts were reputedly part of this mystery religion, which was, in fact, very popular in the Roman Army. There were laws against homosexuality, but the Mithraists got away with it because you don't mess with the Roman Army, if you know what's good for you.
Which is to say that they were so unmanly that the manly men would sooner soil their togas than try to punish them.
So, in reader's digest form, "Roman soldiers+otherRomansoldiers=not nelly"
"But that was a greek thing that Romans didn't do"
"Mithraists did, and the Roman army was largly mithraist"
"But that was later"
"It was still Rome."
Is that clearer? That's what I meant when I said it was rome.
posted
I've never really caught on to the whole "Lesbians are kinda hot." sentiment.
I mean I COMPLETELY relate to the sentiment that girls are hot and desirable dont get me wrong I guess its the thought that I lose value to a girl if she is trying to share me with another girl.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an oversimplification of it. In other words, there's more going than the enforcers of the laws being afraid of the manliest manly men and their religion. As in, the Roman army WAS the enforcer of the law, so who exactly was going to enforce it? I wonder if the prevelance of it had something to do with stationing an army for years at a time in the middle of nowhere?
It's complicated. Saying "the Roman Army was gay and therefore it was fine among that manliest of organizations" isn't accurate.
It's part of why Rome is fascinating. On the one hand, they absolutely adored classical Greece and copied all sorts of things. On the other hand, calling someone Greek could definitely be an insult, and Caesar was plagued by rumors of a homosexual affair from decades before. The reality of what they borrowed and approved of and what it meant to be Roman is more interesting when the descriptions of Romans mores and how they changed and where is accurate.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Well then no worries, as a lesbian wouldn't be trying to share you with another girl.
Never had one use the line as a means to not date me So either I just never came across one on the dating scene, or they decided to try swinging for the other team when I came along </fantasy>
The girl I took to the prom down the road decided she was gay (I think I saw some of the signs in HS but I just don't think she had come to terms with it) She's a great girl, I hope she finds happiness.
I just think even if you did like the idea of 2 hot girls, you have diminishing returns. Whats the difference between 1000 hot girls and 1001 hot girls?
For me the diminishing returns start at 2. I just think its hot that a girl loves me enough to not even consider other options. I'm pretty sure the wife (Tiffany) feels the same way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: What I'm trying to say, though, is that I think that sexuality and friendship are two totally different things for men, while for women, the concepts are much more intertwined as an ideal, so that for women two women being sexually involved isn't much different from a man and a woman being sexually involved. In both cases, they're just super friends.
I dunno. I mean, I've never been sexually involved with a woman. But for me with men, being super friends isn't enough, relationship/sex wise. Even being an attractive super friend isn't enough. My boyfriend and I were friends first. Then we were best friends. Then we were super best friends who found each other ridiculously attractive. I mean, we are super best friends. But the sexual element is definitely there, and I honestly don't think there are many women (though I might be wrong) who think there is no difference between being really really good friends and being wow you're so hot let's have sex really really good friends.
Edit: You can recognize that someone is attractive and not be sexually attracted to him/her, as well.
posted
Well, I was going for teh funny (and there is some debate about how widespread teh gay was in that period). But I do not see how what I said disagreed with what you said, which is why I'm a bit puzzled by your tone.
The rulers of Rome may not have liked it, but since the army was the enforcer of the law, they couldn't do a lot about it. I know that.
But that doesn't mean that Roman Army was a bunch of limp-wristed guys singing show tunes.
I really don't get why, when I think were actually saying the same thing, you think we're arguing.
There were gay people in the Roman Army, who were generally left alone. Mithraism was pretty widespread for a while. They may have thought of it as a Greek thing (Romans were big on Greek stuff), but it was still happenning in Rome. That was all I meant.
And that being gay doesn't mean being weak, though it may be seen that way.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Greek homosexuality wasn't like today's homosexuality. It seemed closer to pedarasy. They even had a form of that in Japan... It was interesting.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I honestly don't think there are many women (though I might be wrong) who think there is no difference between being really really good friends and being wow you're so hot let's have sex really really good friends.
I agree with pH. When I am attracted to someone, emotional intimacy makes them far, far more attractive. But emotional intimacy in and of itself does not bring about sexual attraction. Further, sexual attraction can come with absolutely no emotional intimacy. I think Storm is right to the extent that there seem to be more men than women that accept being in a relationship with little emotional intimacy. Perhaps women, in general, have an easier time accepting lesbian relationships because they are more focused on the emotional aspect of the couple's relationship. Men, in general, might focus on the more physical and find that problematic.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Chris's idea that it is strictly a power issue is wrong, exactly, but I do think it's so vague as to be somewhat unuseful. I do see some truth to it, but...I can think of other reasons why homosexuality is reacted to much more negatively by men than women.
I should note that I don't see the power/powerless aspect as the sole reason for antipathy towards homosexuals, but I do think it's a strong one. Re: Rome, note how many gay pairings (besides the military ones mentioned) were master/slave, ruler/citizen, or conquerer/conquered.
Among heterosexuals, the less masculine a male you are the more you will be picked on, looked over, pitied, starting as soon as children start to become aware of genders. For girls, if you don't fit the ideals of pop feminity, whatever they are that week, you're an outsider. But if you're gay, you're even worse than the less-than-alpha males and females. At least the alphas can understand them. You represent something other, something that cannot be understood, something to be feared by those who cannot or will not break out of their lizard brains.
But it's certainly not the only theme running in there. There's also those people who fear their own homosexual thoughts, and those who fear a collapse of the current social structure, and those who fear the violation of a religious commandment, and those who honestly and sincerely feel that it's just a phase and you'd be much happier if you just started dating girls, dear, and prolly others I haven't listed.
As for usefulness... if it's true, the only real use is to help explain why some people actually seem threatened by homosexuals, and to maybe make some of them realize the real source of their disgust (if that's it) so they can work on it.
[ October 12, 2006, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When so many of the staunchest opponents of "dirty" actions turn out to be involved with them, I think it's obvious that a large part of their opposition comes from shame. Guys who are really afraid that they might be gay, or that they might be attracted to other guys will act homophobic to try to fight it.
To a lot of men, being gay is seen as being feminine, being less manly, which is undesirable to a lot of guys. They want to be a Man.
They should just put on some leather and grow a big mustache. Manly and gay, all at once!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...I think there may be a "clumping" thing going on. People who are shunned or persecuted tend to clump together (also better "hunting grounds") and we learn behavior from the people we spend time with so traits can be "contagious". Especially in a mentoring relationship which is not uncommon in the gay community.
A simliar thing happens in, for example, in the African American community. You get stereotypical "black" traits.
I am not at all bothered by "swish" (except in actors that I have to train to play straight) but I don't find a correlation between "swish" and submissive. (A correlation may exist in types of relationships I don't have with them.) Submissive people in general bring out the "bully" in my personality. I am not at all attracted to men that I can boss around.
Also, (re: Jesus) not aggressive or violent is not the same thing as submissive. At all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's weird to me is the guys that have no problem with bisexuals in theory; but would never date a bisexual girl. I've talked to several guys who feel that way, and none of them have had any reasons beyond, "but then there are twice as many people for my girlfriend to cheat on me with!"
Does anyone have any ideas about why this is?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: What's weird to me is the guys that have no problem with bisexuals in theory; but would never date a bisexual girl. I've talked to several guys who feel that way, and none of them have had any reasons beyond, "but then there are twice as many people for my girlfriend to cheat on me with!"
Does anyone have any ideas about why this is?
I've met more guys who are the opposite. I dated a guy who spent far too much time trying to convince me that I was bisexual because I know when girls are hot and because I have, in the past, kissed a few girls. Except that was because he thought that a) that was the reason that I wasn't into sex, and b) if we had a threesome, I would suddenly be into sex.
Edited to add: I also don't understand the threesome mentality.
quote:Originally posted by kojabu: I've come out to my family twice. As Pix said, it takes time. For you it'll seem like forever, but for them it might be something that they just learned whereas you've been thinking about it, etc for a lot longer than them.
Twice? That sounds interesting. Had they forgotten, or did they think you'd changed your mind in between?
I came out to them about two different things.
Ah. I came out to mine about three.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, I might have to do a third later... though I might just let them ponder for awhile and never really explain.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one of mine was when I became Orthodox. But honestly, it was good practice for coming out later. It was very similar in very many ways.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's weird to me is the guys that have no problem with bisexuals in theory; but would never date a bisexual girl. I've talked to several guys who feel that way, and none of them have had any reasons beyond, "but then there are twice as many people for my girlfriend to cheat on me with!"
Does anyone have any ideas about why this is?
I can't answer this one from personal experience, but I have observed that guys are (in general) easily intimidated by a woman's past experiences, and it may be difficult for some guys to imagine themselves satisfying a given woman as skillfully as another woman might.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Straight men find women attractive, so they can easily imagine a bisexual woman finding other women attractive. I would imagine this is partly why some men might not want to date bisexual women, because they can easily imagine how their girlfriend could want to leave them for another woman.
I've also spoken with guys who think that some bisexual women are lesbians who can't let go yet. They don't want to date someone who is going to decide she's ready to go full-gay and dump them.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were bi-sexual, I would probably attempt to date other bi-sexuals, man or woman. It sounds to me that in a lot of cases it would make things easier because the other person should truly understand where I would be coming from.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephan: that works great on paper, but we're really kinda rare. Plus there are different kinds of bisexuals. Restricting yourself so narrowly will make you unlikely to find the right person.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can speak from experience (and keep in mind that what I'm saying only comes from my experience). Dating bisexual women has been, for me, very different from dating straight women. For one thing, many of them view dating men and dating women as semi-separated activities. This, and a whole host of other things, plays havoc with the reactions I've built up through many years of dating straight women. I'm never quite sure when I'm going to run into a difference I didn't expect, nor, when I run into one, whether it is different because the girl is bisexual or just because she's an unique individual with her own stuff going on.
I think there's also a bit of sexual uncertainty built in. To paraphrase Elaine from Seinfeld, we get a limited time with the equipment whereas other people they may have dated walk around with it 24/7. I think there's also the potential blow to the ego of the girl deciding to go full lesbian right after dating you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many bi women have you dated, Squicky? Cuz I can tell you, all women are very different from eachother (at least, bi women and lesbians are. There might be a cookiecutter for "StraightGirl" but I doubt it.)
posted
For more than a week or two, 4. What can I say, I play volleyball.
And, to again emphasize, I'm only talking from my experience, not asserting that this all is true from a more general standpoint.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Kiss the red pumps, baby! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But I have a line on how much submissiveness I can handle before it gets annoying. It's complicated.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I guess its the thought that I lose value to a girl if she is trying to share me with another girl.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
