EFFEMINATE VS MASCULINE

[+ quoththeraven]

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/.

[+ Gar1eth]

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/.

 

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

[GTMike]

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

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.

[+ Gar1eth]

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

 

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

Edited June 23, 2019 by Gar1eth

[+ Pensant]

If nothing else, at least this thread serves to show that internalized homophobia is a real thing...

Maybe I’m dense; but I don’t perceive it as internalized homophobia at all, simply opinions about preferences.

[+ oldNbusted]

Maybe I’m dense; but I don’t perceive it as internalized homophobia at all, simply opinions about preferences.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[marylander1940]

If nothing else, at least this thread serves to show that internalized homophobia is a real thing...

 

it also serves to show how in denial some folks are... I know for a face 2 of the guys who call themselves masculine sound effeminate on the phone.

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

[GTMike]

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.

 

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.

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

[Gymowner]

"Really Then people who aren't attracted to Black people or fat people or femme people need to be scolded too.

 

How is this bigotry and not a preference? "

 

raven what is your opinion on the above quote?

Edited June 25, 2019 by Gymowner

[+ José Soplanucas]

[leanbtm]

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

 

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 ?

[+ Gar1eth]

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

 

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

[+ WilliamM]

it also serves to show how in denial some folks are... I know for a face 2 of the guys who call themselves masculine sound effeminate on the phone.

 

I do not know how I sound on the phone, most please don't. And it is not from a lack of trying

[+ Gar1eth]

I'll agree with @quoththeraven about the disdain. I disdain overly feminine males. I also disdain overly butch females. I don't want either of them as sex partners.

 

Give me NORMALITY!!!

 

Gman

 

PS. Of course I also disdain overly macho males -but I might consider topping them.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Give us NORMALITY!!!

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

[+ WilliamM]

Ooooo… Seems like I struck a cord there! So if I said I was "queeny" and was attracted to effeminate men, you'd have no verbal attacks and erroneous opinions?! Gee, should I judge you though we've never met by your ethnicity and taste in men of lets say "certain ethnicities"? People are how they are and like what they like, like it or not!

 

I do not understand why you are giving negative ratings to many people here based on what?

 

Negative ratings are fine in almost all cases. But, this thread is especially sensitive to many people, not just you.

Edited June 25, 2019 by WilliamM

[Bearman]

I do not understand why you are giving negative ratings to many people here based on what?

 

Negative ratings are fine in almost all cases. But, this thread is especially sensitive to many people, not just you.

 

If the shoe fits, wear it! We're all on equal footing here. Or is it only those you agree with sensitivity that you're concerned about?

[+ WilliamM]

If the shoe fits, wear it! We're all on equal footing here. Or is it only those you agree with sensitivity that you're concerned about?

 

No. You are in a more powerful position because I refuse to get in a battle with you.

[+ Gar1eth]

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.

 

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