quoththeraven

[MEDIA=twitter]1144248081250172929[/MEDIA]

I'm not disagreeing with most of what you've written. But these central tendencies do exist. In most cases, I'd say, since they are repeated time and time again, I'm assuming they are biologic with an overlay of culture and tradition. And pointing out outliers or how broad the spectrum is doesn't negate the central tendencies.

 

Gman

The world beats the importance of central tendencies into us. It's omnipresent. No additional emphasis is needed unless the point is to marginalize the so-called outliers, which means becoming your own oppressor.

By your reasoning, you are advocating for your own marginalization and oppression as a gay man.

I am surprised you care about negative ratings coming from where they come. Absolutely meaningless.

It's a way of trying to extract meaning when the person doing it is trying to be on the downlow. It seems a bit cowardly compared to posting in the thread itself, and affects what I think of the person doing it.

I don't think it's a bad thing to point it out. It's more information that people can do with what they want.

LOL! Why do you care, William? It is just laughable and pity. I will wait t the negative rating to this post to laugh loudly and get some weird looks in the airport where I am waiting for my flight. F-U-N-N-Y!

What's even funnier is that sometimes the smokebomb emoji is used to indicate an opinion about the subject matter (say an act of homophobia) and not the post itself, which is why I dislike the non-standard emojis.

Let me ask a question out of the blue. You meet a guy. It's a semi formal occasion. He shakes your hand. The hand is for the most part totally flaccid in yours. Assuming you know the guy does not have a neuromuscular disease, how does that hand feel inside yours and what's your mental reaction to that type of handshake? If you've never received that type of handshake from a man, then please state as such.

 

Gman

I have no thoughts beyond "that person has a weak handshake " because I don't use a handshake to try to draw conclusions about someone's character or personality.

A flaccid handshake isn't pleasant, especially if the other person has clammy hands, but I don't read anything into it because it is the absence of something, not the presence of it. On the other hand (haha), if someone crushed my hand or held it for a long time or stroked my arm with his other hand, I would draw conclusions from that. And all of those things are more unpleasant and more intentional than a weak handshake.

Testosterone is present in much greater quantities than estrogen in normal males. Normal females show the reverse.

 

You persist in looking for the outliers. No one rejects that there is a spectrum. But you ignore the central part of the spectrum as being relevant when a majority of cultures fall within it-and have for a very long time.

 

Gman

There are more so-called outliers than you think. And we've had this argument before, but I think the world should not only accommodate the so-called majority but also be welcoming to outliers like intersex individuals, gay men and disabled individuals (who may be a minority at any given time but over a lifetime more people are disabled than not). That's what respecting human dignity means.

Societies are only as good as their treatment of the powerless. None of us is free until all of us are free. And I don't see how respect and treating people equally (which certainly doesn't mean liking them all equally) in any way hurts or harms the so-called majority.

"Wow. So what would a bunch of women playing softball be? Men?" um... lesbians

 

oh for christs sakes!!! stop over analyzing everything.

"Overanalyzing" = "stop trying to drag science into this"

I tend to see these exaggerstions amongst gay men tbh. True alpha males have long had their masculine status affirmed n reinforced n is often a non issue unless someone challenges them on it.

What if that's their response to homophobia? Perhaps rather than adopt heterosexual standards we would all be better off by acting like ourselves and not elevating one group above another.

If "true alpha males" don't make an issue of their masculinity because "they have long had their masculine status affirmed n reinforced," wouldn't we be better off if we affirmed and reinforced the masculine status of all men, or (my personal preference) stopped caring about it? Otherwise we have a world that worships a few men and tears down everyone else.

Do you know us all? Interesting because I don't remember ever having met you! You seem threatened by masculinity.

Anyway, I'm comfortable in my skin and with who I am.

And that's why you feel the need to diss other people with your passive-aggressive use of response emojis, including to strictly factual posts based on actual science, rather than taking the time to respond? What a great sense of security you have!

Like what you like, but don't puff your chest out and act like what you like is inevitable or superior, which is what this whole charade about manliness is. That, and the "science" and assumptions behind it, is what is being criticized.

And yet testosterone is given to female to male transsexuals, and I believe it's supposed to do more than just change physical characteristics. And likewise with estrogen for male to female transsexuals.

 

Gman

But both are present in healthy, supposedly "normal" men and women. The difference is the relative concentration. Neither is a male or female only hormone.

Whether they change more than physical characteristics is impossible to know.

Also, transsexual is now only used to refer to people who have had surgery, particularly bottom surgery. People who identify as a different gender than they were assigned at birth are transgender.

The original post, in its entirety, is:

"Which do you prefer - effeminate or masculine escorts and why? "

 

I do not read that as showing a preference or disdain for either, rather as an objective question. How do you attribute a disdain for effeminacy to that question ?

It's a disingenuous question.

Accounting 201: Tax minimization is legal and expected. Tax evasion is illegal.

 

Of course, on this forum, many believe legal tax minimization is immoral and should be punished by firing squad

We want the tax burden shifted to those who can best pay. That's not the same as being opposed to individual taxpayers following the tax law as is, including provisions that may benefit them.

Tax lawyers are for structuring transactions and tax defense and litigation. In most circumstances use of an accountant who is experienced in tax preparation is all that's necessary and consulting an attorney would be overkill.

For those of you unfamiliar with Chuck Tingle, here's an interview with him, or more accurately someone claiming to be him:

https://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/podcast/206-proving-love-interview-dr-chuck-tingle/

A detailed review of one of his books:

https://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/reviews/oppressed-butt-inclusive-holiday-cups-chuck-tingle/

Yes i think i understand your point and actually think we are in agreement about the main point. Irrespective of the "science", which can be a much longer discussion at another time and place, i was making the point that "masculine" and "feminine" are "descriptions", that in general, we understand what those words are trying to convey. And I don't disagree that they are social assumptions, overly simplistic can be somewhat subjective, and are often used very perjuratively. But i was also trying to point out that if someone discusses their personal preferences and states what they find sexually attractive to them or not, it shouldn't be viewed as a condemnation or indictment against the other preferences or descriptions.

Except this whole thread was started as an opportunity for people to show their disdain for effeminacy.

Welcome to the internet where all the women are strong, the men are good looking and the children are above average.

 

I have no need to click and link to see what is subject to fabrication with ease.

 

I’m intrigued by your need to post this though...whatevah....

I'm more intrigued by your need to make your skepticism public than by @LeonTrotsky posting a link to his Adam4Adam profile. One is someone sharing something and the other is someone minimizing it. One is friendly in approach and the other is hostile.

I don't know, nor much care, in what circumstances he allegedly called you a loser, but someone pissing on someone else sharing a profile link outside of a post in the Deli questioning someone's professional bona fides sure doesn't sound to me like a winner.

P.S. I get the same error message too but I'm not sure if it's because I'm using a tablet or because I'm not an Adam4Adam member.

It seems like some are trying to make some good points and some are just trying to get a rise out of people, yada yada. But to the general Forum members and guests, i think we all know what we are describing and the attributes of that we are speaking about in a "descriptive" manner. We really shouldn't be arguing too much about the "description and the labeling" but more focused on the ramifications. Similar construct to prejudice versus bigotry. We all as humans naturally develop "prejudices" when we see other humans and it is influenced by a multitude of factors that determine how we process and then act on that instinctual prejudice. But being prejudiced doesn't make us full on bigots. (In many cases it of course does and is codified societally). We all know and recognize to a large overlapping extent what we in 2019 in America (and most other parts of the world) can describe as "masculine and feminine" behavior, traits and characteristics. And we all can have "preferences" that we naturally are more or less attracted to when predominantly (not completely inclusive) gendered Males and Females behave in characteristics commonly associated with masculinity and femininity. My ultimate two cents and point is that if as an example a Male gendered person has characteristics and traits that are commonly associated with femininity I/we can be personally attracted or not attracted to that person sexually. But irrespective of that we shouldn't consider that person as "less worthy", less respectable", "bad", "wrong" or even "unnatural". That's when a personal or societal prejudice becomes bigoted to which many are expressing their rightful outrage and concern over. (Should add as well as the very good point that many of us don't even realize the conditioning were under and yes subconciously our society has caused us to internalize many prejudices into villified bigotry that many don't even realize has happened.). But let's try (at least on here as a start) to be able to distinguish between trying to simply express a desriptive personal preference versus implying a an overall demonization.

I disagree that what are labeled "masculine" and "feminine" accurately describe anything other than social assumptions.

I actually think there may be innate, though highly exaggerated, average differences other than the physical ones (male-gendered bodies have a higher ratio of testosterone to estrogen and progesterone and as a result greater upper arm strength and ability to form muscle and therefore are slightly faster, stronger and taller on average), but there's no scientifically valid way of proving that short of completely reversing our attitudes about gender. If we believed gender wasn't relevant to anything other than the bare minimum physical differences and acted that way, but statistically significant differences at the population level persisted, that would be proof of something innate. Everything else is just noise.

PS After thinking about what I wrote above-I still believe it's true-of course my belief and $3.25 will get you a grande caramel frappachino at Starbucks-what probably would be even more interesting than the original question I posed would be the percentage of prepubertal boys with effeminate traits who grew up to be gay vs those who went on to be straight and prepubertal girls with masculine traits and so on, so on so forth...

 

 

Gman

But what are masculine and feminine are culture-specific, so I don't know what this will prove.

Note that I said there were cultural differences. And yes there is a spectrum. But there is a general overarching theme for masculine and feminine behavior. You only have to look at the animal kingdom to see that.

 

It's not really that difficult to surmise that some gay men-apart from any specific trying on their part- considering that all gay men like things that are 'biologically' on the feminine side of things- might have 'qualities' more on the feminine side. And vice versa for some lesbians. I'm not saying all gay men or all lesbians. But the tendency has to be there. It's been noted since antiquity. And I just have trouble believing it's all acquired acculturation of people putting on an expected role-esp considering the animal kingdom.

 

And yes there are outliers. As humans with larger brain power/reasoning, and skills/society, there are lots of times we don't follow the paradigm in the animal kingdom. But it seems to me instead of the fact that there are outliers-which if I'm understanding is your main point-the more important point is that there is a general tendency that we follow the paradigm in broad measures.

 

What I would wonder about -and since these things are society specific I'll talk about middle America-the percentage of effeminate straight guys vs effeminate gay men. Because if there were more (percentage-wise) straight men with these traits we consider feminine, that would do more to support your argument that these traits don't occur more frequently in gay males.

 

 

 

Gman

I'm sorry, you're going to cite the animal kingdom as authority for human beings? That cuts both ways. Male emperor penguins hatch chicks while female emperor penguins are off gorging themselves, but oddly enough they don't get cited as authority for human behavior.

Leaving aside the inadvisability of analogizing to other animals (remember alpha males? that term comes from research on wolves that has been debunked and discarded), there is no way to tell what traits and behaviors are innate and which are socially imposed because social conditioning starts at birth and no one is free of it. Furthermore, conditioning modifies biology, so (for instance) finding gender-related differences in brain scans is meaningless because they could be a result of conditioning. This is something even those arguing for egalitarian/gender neutral treatment get hoodwinked by; those so-called "genetic differences" in, say, gay men may be a response to being gay rather than a cause.

Furthermore, there is as much or more variation within groups as there is between them, and even differences that have been documented (and could be caused by conditioning rather than being immutable), like differences in spatial ability, are less pronounced than they are perceived to be.

Only removing group-based conditioning altogether can even approach an answer to whether and what differences are innate. Funnily enough, the people who are the most devout believers in innate differences never suggest this. Instead they dismiss any talk about the effect of social conditioning as nonsense. Besides embracing the logical fallacy of thinking that a description of the way things are is a prescription for the way things must be, that suggests that there is in fact a political agenda at the bottom resistant to the reality that we are all a mixture of traits we have deemed male and female.

[MEDIA=twitter]1141915246510002176[/MEDIA]

[MEDIA=instagram]BzGptgspyk7[/MEDIA]

Its really not that deep. Deep inside we all know what masculinity is when we strip away the psuedo science and faux analytics. Many will fight it and rage against it but will never change it so best to just acceot it or live outside and apart from it.

I'm fine with not being brainwashed into thinking there's only one way to be authentically male or female. Even at the biological level, sex and gender are a spectrum, not binary. For examples, see https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/.

[MEDIA=twitter]1141126969985327105[/MEDIA]

but remember... are we talking about the natural state of men being masculine or are we talking about hyper,self motivated masculinity? that...even for women i believe is a turn off.

 

i was watching a baseball game last night. i think it was l.a. vs toronto. now THAT was natural masculinity at its finest. just a bunch of men competing with each other being...men!!

Wow. So what would a bunch of women playing softball be? Men?

What about a bunch of average Joes playing baseball? Are they not men, or lesser men than professional athletes?

I don't think the word "masculinity" can bear the weight you're giving it.

If homosexuality is considered a deviation from "normal" masculinity, then it makes sense to either exaggerate the difference (camp, "swishiness", use of feminized terms, etc.) or to embrace hypermasculinity (Tom of Finland, uber muscled types). It's also possible to ignore heteronormative standards altogether and just be natural, whatever that is and wherever it lands on the current "masculine/feminine" spectrum.

In the former case, homosexuality becomes defined in terms of its relationship to heterosexual norms, which is why it gets labeled "internalized homophobia." That may also be why some of this behavior is identified as artificial; however, the embrace of buffness and steroids is functionally equally artificial but isn't perceived that way because it fits widely-held stereotypes and beliefs as to what is "naturally masculine."

Also people who want their preferences respected should expect pushback when they express them as absolutes that don't respect other people's preferences.

There are usually societal standards of both masculinity and femininity. They aren't intrinsically "good". But as opposed to the way some people feel on here, they aren't intrinsically bad either. They also aren't static as they can change over time. Nowadays with the emphasis on self and with media, I'll bet they may be more in flux than in many other eras.

 

But just as the traits themselves are neither good nor bad, liking those traits in a prospective bedmate or partner is not a bad thing either (assuming both partners are of legal age).

 

There can be minor variations in what people feel/think/consider appropriate masculinity/femininity on a societal basis. But unless someone has some problem with emotional perception, I think most average people of a society can at least recognize what the standards are even if they can't consciously recite them. The situation is analogous to the the former definition of porn where the judge may not have been able to define it, but he knew it when he saw it.

 

And then there are those who either consciously or subconsciously have rejected being attracted to the societal standards or who like the standard but have also have broadened what they find attractive outside the standard.

 

Gman

What's intrinsically bad is having a standard, because then natural variance is considered deviant. Kind of like how homosexuality has been viewed as deviant rather than a regularly occurring variation.