The dictionary definiton is about 'sexual orientation', but what do these words really mean? For instance most Gay men may claim that they are just men who happen to be attracted to men, but in reality most of them seem transgender: they talk and move like women, and have carreers and interests like women: hairdresser, decorator, etc. Most gay men don't want to admit this but its true. So when kids say "that's so gay" meaning effeminate or "weak," its kind of accurate, isn't it? And "straight" means masculine - that's why the gays call it "straight-acting". And please don't tell me you know one gay/hetero person who "isn't liek that" - there's always excpetions.. we know.
Are you a member of the big gay all community, in truth all people have some unisex qaulities... Sure most gay's act somewhat feminen hell some even become transgenders but for the most part I don't really think you can see the difference between most of them. Altough I also find at funny that most people I know who are obssed by their hair and looks are of the macho type. I knew a guy who refused to wear anything that had to be pulled over his head because it would mess up his hair (seeing him putting on a t-shirt was hilarious)
It's a stereotype, and nothing more. While there are a few affeminite men in the world, not all of them are gay. I know lots of butch girls who aren't lesbians either. I was a hardcore tomboy all my life and am in a field that is dominated by males, does that mean I am gay too? The gender line has been blurring for years, because equal sides have equal potential no matter their sexuality, in whatever field that interests them. Some girls like engineering, demolition, ammunition and police work. Are "most" of them gay just because you feel like it's a more "male" job? Macho is passe, and so is the idea that most gay men are weak girlish people, and most lesbian women are bull dykes. It's all crap. You are who you are, and if you feel like working a jackhammer or painting a landscape it doesn't indicate your sexual preferences in any way. There is also a clear difference between gay people and transgender people and while that line may cross from time to time, it also has nothing to do with their sexuality, only to do with which genders skin they feel more comfortable wearing. I think you don't know many gay people, and you've been spoon fed by the media too much. Let go of those notions, they won't get you anywhere in life.
man2008 says: The western society defines Gay as "man who is attracted to men" and straight as "man who is attracted to women", and then goes on to segregate men on the basis of this classification. The majority aligns with the 'straight' identity, and a minority with the 'gay' identity. My contention is that, Gay is just a rehashed version of the 'third Gender' (i.e. half male/ half female) identity of the yore, while Straight is actually the much coveted 'manhood' identity of the past. In order to discourage men from aligning sexually with men, and to put pressure on them to be with women, the society has defined third gender/ queer in terms of desire for men, and manhood in terms of heterosexuality. This is a part of the politics of gender and sexuality that the society plays vis a vis men. There is enough documentation of the assertions I am making, and I can share them here. All through the middle ages, and into the pre-modern west, as well as in contemporary non-western cultures, 'gay' is defined only as the effeminate male who seeks receptive anal/ oral sex with men, as an assertion of their inner female gender, using their anus as their vagina..., while masculine gendered males are supposed to 'penetrate' and are called 'men'. Gays are not known as 'men' in any of these societies. A sexual/ romantic desire for men was part of the straight world, not 'gay'. The societies made a distinction between straight male desire for men and 'gay' or third gender/ effeminate male desire for men. Thus, Alexander the great was not a 'catamite' or 'homosexual', as the gays of modern West so wrongly claim. He was a straight man of his time, doing what straight males then did. The gays, as passive, effeminate males have been known by different names in different cultures, such as Hijra/ koti/ Ali in contemporary India, Pandaka in ancient south east Asia, Ladyboy in Thailand, Mollies in 17th century England and so on. The gays were known as a separate gender from men, and were called the third gender. Even in the modern West, even though the formal definition of 'gay' is silent about the 'effeminacy' part, or the 'passivity' part, the slangs used for gays all refer to these two points, e.g., faggot, queer, pansy, fruit, poofter -- they all refer not to men desiring men, but to queers (or effeminate/ transgendered males looking for receptive sex from men). Gay is commonly used to refer to male effeminacy, as in "he looks so 'gay'" or "he doesn't look 'gay'". What is meant to be conveyed here is not whether he looks as if he likes men or not, but that "he looks effeminate or masculine". If you dislike the campy behaviour of gays, or their effeminacy, you're liable to be called a 'homophobe' when as per the definition you did not comment on their sexual desire but their 'acting as females'. Similarly, Straight, is a term which refers actually to the 'normal', 'regular', masculine gendered males, which have been forced to define themselves as (exclusively) 'heterosexual', since in the west, that is the precondition for manhood. Furthermore, it is the gays who insist that sexuality is fixed and not fluid, that have forced the 'normal' men to take on the 'straight' or 'heterosexual' identity, since the queers now define themselves as 'men who like men' and there is such a strong stigma since the ancient times, for men to avoid anything that the third gender/ queer does. And if they're defined as men who like men, straight men just had to define themselves as heterosexual, although, they are greatly inconveninced by it. E.g., Straight-acting -- a common gay terminology doesn't mean that the male concerned is acting as if he likes women exculsively (in a gay bar?)... it means that he is acting like a 'man', a masculine male if you please. The homo/ hetero divide is a great conspiracy of the Western world to break men from men, by linking intimacy between men with male femininity, and sexual desire for women with male masculinity through arbitrary and manipulative definitions. The ancient roles of manhood were the exact opposite. The most original definitions of 'men' and 'third gender' however, are not about sex acts or sexuality at all. They are merely about being masculine gendered and being feminine gendered males. There is no basis for dividing men on the basis of who they like... but there is a lot of sense in dividing them based on their inner sex (or gender) identity as males with a male identity and males with a female identity. What the concept of homosexuality has done is to bring the entire gamut of male sexual desire for men into the purview of unmanly, effeminate, third gender (when previously, only effeminate, receptive sex was placed as such)... and place the entire gamut of male sexual desire for women in the purview of manhood (when apart from vaginal intercourse, any other intimacy with women was considered unmanly and thus queer). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a brief account of how the male gender identities have been politized through the ages: How Gender combines with our outer sex to define our Gender or Sex identity: (Notice that While outer sex refers to our sexual organs, Gender refers to our inner sex or the innate feeling of being a male or female, irrespective of one's outer sex. Our Gender affects how we see the world and relate with others and how others see us and relate with us... not sexuality) Kinds of Outer sex and inner sex: Outer Sex: Male (with a penis and testicles) Female (with a vagina and ovaries) Third Sex (hermaphrodites, intersexed people)I Inner Sex: Masculine (predominantly male inner sex) Feminine (predominantly Female inner sex) Now our overall sex or gender identity as males, is determined as follows: Man = Outer sex: Male + Inner Sex: Male Queer = Outer sex: Male + Inner Sex: Female (Queer also includes the third sex, i.e. hermaphrodites and intersexed) The middle ages tried to socially change this by linking Passive sex with men with male femininity and changed the definitions as follows: Man = male who penetrates Queer = male who gets penetrated Modern science played politics with the definition of male and queer as this (and this is why science should not be trusted in the matters of male gender and sexuality, because it has an agenda and misrepresents things): Man, redefined as 'straight man' = Heterosexual Queer, redefined as 'gay man' = Homosexual
I think you are still trying to put people in a box, and label people's environmentally learned behaviours with their biologically inherited genders. It's not always true, if it was, there would be a female counterpart. A rule that says "most" tomboy/butch females are lesbians. That is not true at any level. I know a lot of tomboys who are with men who are seemingly (according to your chart) neither male or female inner sexed, and with males who are all man all the time. The majority of the guys I know are what todays media would call metrosexual, or blurring a line between the traits of both female and male, and almost all the women I hang out with are like that too. There is no gender specific behaviour except what we have been taught as children. We dress our little girls up in pink and our little boys in blue and hope that it sticks for "society" sake, or for people like you who want to label them. I think you are trying to compartmentalize human behaviours into boxed that they don't fit in. There is clearly no scientific proof of your theory because none exists. You are speculating off of what you see in the media, not is what is true to life. You can't put people in neat little boxes so that you can label them. The human psyche and how human behaviour develops is far more complicated than that. Any psychologist that tells you that gays act one way, and straights act another is a hack, probably working off the dogma of a religious text and does not have peoples general mental health in mind. People are what they are, each one of us different and unclassifable by our learned behaviours. Where is your scientific proof of this theory of yours? I'd like to see a study you are working off of, or something to back your claims please.
Effeminate little boys mostly grow up to be gay men: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/3/339 Retrospective recall of gender nonconformity among gay men: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2l68583l6514u31/ Gay Men's adult effeminacy despite anti-effeminate attitudes http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=WSNS9QP462CC8N1D5CS8KV5JDQXC760A&ID=8196 Sexual orientation and sex-dimorphic behavior in twins http://www.springerlink.com/content/u2610064035p8743 Gay Speech/vowel production differs from straight mens: http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00116000004001905000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Male profesional dancers and sexual orientation http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3r2l2276023p346/
Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation in men's speech: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9509737 The acoustic correlates of perceived masculinity, perceived femininity, and perceived sexual orientation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17518106?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed Gender-related traits of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11910795?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
You are never going to get physics-level proof on something like this and you know it. There are 'facts and figures' in these studies if you want to look at them...
I looked at them. Well, for this to be in the Human Science section, you would think that you could offer some scientific proof to your claims. All you have is; "Most gay guys sound and dress sharply and have a lisp!". And here are the opinions of a bunch of other people that have no degree in biology or science to prove it! I want proof that it's a genetic behaviour and tendancy, rather than a learned behaviour, as you are claiming. That they act the way you think they do because of their homosexual tendancies and not because they were taught that's how females act. Psychology and Biology are two different things. You claim one thing, and have nothing of the other to back it up. So is it biology, or psychology? Is it genetically inherent behviour of homosexual males, or is is learned behaviour? Why are there no demonstrable measures on the female side? That's what I am asking for. For you to come up with the right facts for the labels you want to slap on your cute little boxes.
What's the intent of the thread? we all equal but nature shares often a few are 'different' (hence the 'Gay' of any species, can't procreate between the 'alternate' union). The question you are inquiring perhaps should to be addressed such as socially or scientifically? Socially? It becomes a loose subject open to the world of opinions. Scientifically? Well, look around at nature. For example: I don't think gay dolphins are happy, i believe it is bonding, frustration or last resort, perhaps. Either way them unions fail in the chain of life aspect, in which nature chooses over the long run, like always. Most can see how mankind handles nature, by the impact. To separate the 2 forms of thinking is exactly what is required in order to answer your question and be even remotely 'politically correct.'
Bishadi: you reflect the current dominant obsession with reproduction among biologists, and the current obsession with "homosexuality" in the popular culture. Bonding doesn't make dolphins unhappy, it makes them happy. Most likely, most male dolphins bond with other males. And they reproduce with females. There is no conflict between the two. There is only a conflict when you project human, Western "gay" concepts on to the animal kingdom.
Liebling, look at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1496013
With all these threads, one can but speculate someone here is having great difficulty in accepting his own sexuality. I'm still under the suspicion that they are all the same person with different accounts.
About 1 in 10 men are homosexual. In your experience, are 10% of the men you come in contact with usually female like? The frequency in which you come in contact with feminine men is about the same as how often you come in contract with masculine women.... and I haven't run into that many masculine women.
Some people think everything is a personal problem. Some think we should all be happy as lonely "self-accepting" islands. We have no problem with our sexuality , we have a problem the 'definitions' imposed upon us from without.
Thats a misinterpretation of the old Kinsey numbers, used by the gays for propaganda purposes. More recent studies show that 1-4% consider themselves gay/bi/lesbian. And that feels about right in terms of fenminine men. There were a few in the office i used to work in.
If ''they'' have no problem with sexuality, why then question along with reasoning that has been answered purely by common-sense? For instance, what does your common-sense tell you about the answer to the OP-thread-header question? Naturally, the answer is almost as simple as adding 2 and 2 together.
