Shaving

[Bilbo]

I'm sorry, I must have left an impression that was not what I was going for. I certainly didn't mean to say anything about your taste in hair or not, Deej. I was only trying to show the youngster that hair is really OK if that's the way you were meant to look. I myself seem to value variety above almost everything else. And it's the same with this subject. Although I do have a bit of trouble, (Samsonite all mine), picturing a fully, or even sometimes a mostly, shaved crotch and ass as belonging to a top. However, I love bottoms, so with me it's an attack signal as in sharky's feeding frenzy instead of as in non-PC hoohah. Again, sorry that I misspoke in such a way that you percieved it as a criticism.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Shaving/Trimming

 

When I travel, one of the things I do both prior to and during my travel, is read the escort and body work classifieds. It gives me a good sense of what is available in a particular city, how it is marketed and what the overall market might be like.

 

One thing that I notice frequently is a certain number of body work or massge guys offering to do either body waxing, hair trimming (including genital areas) and other such grooming services in both sensual and non-sensual capacities. In a large city, I can see there being some availability of these services in certain business that normally provide grooming (a barbar shop, a day spa), but especially in smaller communities or more closeted communities, I think if one wanted a trim or wax job on a private body part, it would be hard to obtain. I have always, perhaps erroneously, simply believed this was an additional market these body workers and massuers had found to supplement income with.

 

 

because we still have that capacity, in the flesh, of the unrealized - the possible . . .

 

http://www.gaydar.co.uk/francodisantis

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I like natural men whether they are smooth or hairy. Body

>hair or lack thereof, personally, mean nothing to me. A man

>who is comfortable being himself is much more attractive and

>sexy than someone who feels he has to shave his chest, back or

>pubes as that to me is so phoney.

 

I'm curious about this. I can certainly understand a preference for unshaven skin in certain areas as purely a matter of taste, but why the natural/phony dichotomy? Is it phony or unnatural to shave your face? Or to cut the hair on your head? Why should certain parts of the body be off limits for grooming? Again, it's fair enough to have your own preferences about those particular choices (and the decision not to shave is a choice in itself), but there's no basis to assume that anyone who shaves anywhere below the neck must do so out of a sense of discomfort with himself. Maybe they're simply comfortable enough with themselves to exercise a simple grooming preference.

[guptasa1]

Hmmm...I like some of the discussion here.

 

The point about facial grooming and cutting one's head hair hit home for me. Really, what is the difference between shaving one's face and one's chest? I shave my face because I think it looks nicer. And I shave my chest because I think it looks nicer too. Same for my genitals (though also because I think it *feels* nicer as well). I'm sure which way other people like better is highly subjective.

 

Also, in relation to the point about it difficult to find a professional establishment to groom or wax intimate areas, I suppose I can relate. I'm in a pretty small and closed-minded town, and though truthfully I've never looked into it, I'm not sure where I'd begin to find a place that does cater to grooming those areas locally. I doubt there is one.

[VaHawk]

>I'm curious about this. I can certainly understand a

>preference for unshaven skin in certain areas as purely a

>matter of taste, but why the natural/phony dichotomy? Is it

>phony or unnatural to shave your face? Or to cut the hair on

>your head? Why should certain parts of the body be off limits

>for grooming? Again, it's fair enough to have your own

>preferences about those particular choices (and the decision

>not to shave is a choice in itself), but there's no basis to

>assume that anyone who shaves anywhere below the neck must do

>so out of a sense of discomfort with himself. Maybe they're

>simply comfortable enough with themselves to exercise a simple

>grooming preference.

 

I was not referring to someone who is doing it as a personal choice, as that is what they really want, but to those who FEEL they have to do so, for reasons of "herd mentality" as that seems to be the gay preference du jour, and doing so for that reason is phoney as in those cases, they are doing it only to fit in with everyone else and to project the expected image.

[theDCeBOY]

well, i say i prefer someone natural, because unless we're talking about a yeti, i really don't mind hair, but i also enjoy smoothness. what i DO NOT enjoy is someone who is spikey or razorburnt. trimming is fine, and i suppose that isn't natural, either. i guess i'm just lazy & rather than explain all this, it is easier to just say "i like natural"...

[Doug69]

RE: Hairy guys

 

There's an article recently published in HX Magazine by . . . (gasp) . . . Andrew Sullivan, detailing the reasons he thinks hairy guys are so hot, have so much more of a masculine primal sexual appeal than totally smooth guys or, worse, shaven guys.

 

The article comes complete with a bunch of VERY HOT pics of super masculine hairy studs (as well as a not-so-hot pic of Andrew, ridiculously trying to be hot).

 

It's an interesting - and potentially arousing - article about the sexual appeal of hairy guys. The pics are super hot. Here's the link:

 

http://hairystudsvideo.com/Sullivan.pdf

 

I'm not sure if the link will work, because it's a .pdf file, but if doesn't, a workable link is also on the first page of HairyStudsVideo.com (at the bottom), which is where I found the article.

[guptasa1]

RE: Hairy guys

 

I suppose it's all subjective. Personally, I'm not sexually attracted to really hairy guys or even really muscular ones. Nothing against hairy or extremely muscular men in the least - often guys who I consider good looking I'm not sexually attracted to in the least. Even I don't understand that one, but I guess some people are sexually attracted to a wide variety of men, and my personal sexual attraction preferences just tend to be fairly narrow by comparison. In the end, I guess it just comes down to different tastes.

[AdamSmith]

The herd mentality does get old. At the Nob Hill Theatre last week, every one of the boys was slick as a button. I kept imagining a chorus line of canned snails. Large ones, but still...

[Guest Merlin]

To me, smoothness is the most important thing. It is a real turn on. He can be any race, thin or muscular,tall or shor, or even a little fat, and I will find him sexually attractive. But facial or body hair is a turn off. I know it is illogical, but on an emotional level, smooth is clean and hairy is dirty.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Hairy guys

 

Well, I am a pretty hairy guy and every once in a while I think I could use a trim. My dilemma is whom to trust with a pair of scissors and my naked body. Ethan?

[theDCeBOY]

RE: Hairy guys

 

i wouldn't advise it.

[Bilbo]

I read in a history book once that the American Indians had a somewhat identical problem to yours which got in the way of their negotiating effectively at first with white men. Hariy Indians are such a rarity, that when they saw white men bathing in the river and saw their hairy bodies, they didn't think of them as men at all but as some beast which resembled men.

If you ever need a bette noir, I'll still be hairy.

[guptasa1]

LOL - that's kinda funny, Bilbo - never heard that before. Makes sense, though.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>There's an article recently published in HX Magazine by . . .

>(gasp) . . . Andrew Sullivan, detailing the reasons he thinks

>hairy guys are so hot, have so much more of a masculine primal

>sexual appeal than totally smooth guys or, worse, shaven guys.

 

I'm all for gay men celebrating the men that they find sexiest, even -- make that especially -- if their tastes run counter to the perceived norm. But it's interesting that someone as obsessed as Sullivan with letting everyone know how masculine he thinks he is spends so much time engaging in the ancient pasttime of bitchy queens: complaining about the appearance of gay men who fail to attract him, as if we should all revolve our existences around catering to his tastes. Moments after postulating and bemoaning the "prejudice" of younger gay men against hairy guys, he unleashes a tirade against "feminized, shaved, plucked, exfoliated creatures....the bristly, clammy, turkey-before-Thanksgiving feel of a hair-phobic floozy rubbing up against you [but if they're so hair-phobic, then why are they rubbing up against "you?"]....chests with the surface of a flat-top monitor...." etc. (This is your idea of an arousing article?) Rarely, if ever, have I heard smoothophiles denounce hairy guys in such strenuous terms. And his attempt to link a taste for smooth men to AIDS-phobia (and, equally weirdly, with political correctness) is as laughable as his apparent belief that there's no such thing as a naturally smooth man ("the one thing [testosterone] delivers uniformly to men -- even the skinniest, flabbiest, girliest of us all -- is...drumroll...hair"). He even seems to question whether gay men who like smooth guys are really gay, since he has difficulty telling smooth guys apart from women, whose bodies, by the way, also produce hair sometimes in greater quantities than that of some men. At the very least, he suspects men who prefer a smooth look of some kind of gender dysphoria, equating shaving with a fundamental discomfort with masculinity.

 

I guess it's normal for fags, regardless of their preferences, to complain that, gosh darn it, there just aren't enough men around that they personally find attractive. But even in the seventies (a period Sullivan rarely has nice things to say about) there were smooth sex symbols (Jan-Michael Vincent, for one), and Ben Affleck, who is hairy, has been popular since the nineties (though 'Gigli' may have put an end to that). And it's hardly as though hairy men ever went away; the smooth look never achieved anything remotely close to hegemony in gay bars or anywhere else. I see no evidence to support Sullivan's claim that "hair-acceptance" (how's that for a PC term?) is in a "fragile" state, other than the insecurity indicated by his need to complain about other gay men look. Perhaps when hirsuitophiles gain more self-confidence they won't need to build up the men who turn them on by tearing down the ones who don't.

[Doug69]

RE: Hairy guys

 

Hey, Devon - Glad you liked the article so much! It's always gratifying to refer people to an article and get such positive feedback.

 

I want to address some of the points you made, and I will. But first - do you think that your strong reaction to the article may, in part, be motivated by the fact that you engage in the exact practice which the article condemns - namely, body shaving?

 

>But it's interesting that

>someone as obsessed as Sullivan with letting everyone know how

>masculine he thinks he is . . . .

 

Why do you think that he's obsessed with showing how masculine he is? I see from the article that he enjoys wallowing in the masuclinity of others, but what makes you think he's eager to prove his own masculinity?

 

>spends so much time engaging in the

>ancient pasttime of bitchy queens: complaining about the

>appearance of gay men who fail to attract him, as if we should

>all revolve our existences around catering to his tastes.

 

I laughed when I read this, and it's not an invalid point, but I don't think he's making the point you claim he's making. I don't think he's just sitting around talking about how "gross" certain guys are (although, granted, he does do this in a somewhat bitchy and even effeminate way). Rather, I think he's expressing bewilderment particularly at the fact that gay men - who are defined by their sexual attraction to MEN - would be so eager to stomp out

one of the defining physiological and sexual traits of masculinity.

 

It's not just that HE finds hairy guys hot and smooth/shaven guys not hot. It's that, objectively speaking, guys who are attracted to MEN should find the defining masculine attributes attractive - or at least not unattractive. And it is an interesting question to wonder why so many gay men find masculine phyical traits undesirable - at least in themselves.

 

>(This is your idea of an arousing article?)

 

I didn't say the article was arousing; it's not. I said I thought some of the pictures accompanying the article were hot (other than the one of Sullivan, which I found strangely horrifying).

 

Rarely, if

>ever, have I heard smoothophiles denounce hairy guys in such

>strenuous terms.

 

Come on now - no need to engage in false hyperbole to make your point. You're telling me that it's unusual for you to hear homos screetching about how disgusting hairy guys are? Ask any fag what they think of a guy with hair on his back and you will see reactions appropriate if you had asked them to eat vomit.

 

And his attempt to link a taste for smooth

>men to AIDS-phobia (and, equally weirdly, with political

>correctness) is as laughable as his apparent belief that

>there's no such thing as a naturally smooth man ("the one

>thing [testosterone] delivers uniformly to men -- even the

>skinniest, flabbiest, girliest of us all --

>is...drumroll...hair").

 

There is virtually no such thing as a COMPLETELY hairless male body - somewhere on the body, on the legs, arms, chest, stomach, arm pits, etc., there will be some hair, and wherever it is, testosterone is the cause. His only point is that on EVERY man, the male hormone generates body hair - it is the hallmark of the masculine hormone, which is to say, of masculinity itself. Don't you find it odd that it is THIS attribute which is the target of so much scorn, and so much effort to eradicate it out of existence, among a group of men defined by their attraction to this very masculinity?

 

>And it's hardly as though hairy men ever went away; the smooth

>look never achieved anything remotely close to hegemony in gay

>bars or anywhere else.

 

Check out 1990s videos - finding a hairy guy in a video is like finding a literate sentence in a Taylorky post - they occur with such infrequency that it's clear it's just an accident. I don't think there's been a guy with a hair on his body at the Gaiety since Lucky was in his teens. In many, many places, body hair is simply absolutely prohibited.

 

And I think that Sullivan's only point about this trend is how preplexing it is - it would be like straight men insisting that in order for women to be attractive, they not have breasts or a vagina.

[guptasa1]

RE: Hairy guys

 

Interesting comments. I should start by saying I didn't read this article - just these posts about that article.

 

That said, I'm confident in the fact that I'm fully gay. However, I, personally, am only sexually attracted to Twinky (Bel Ami type) bois with smaller frames, pale skin (though not always), and little body hair (or shaved body hair). Similarly, I'm not attracted to muscle studs in general, even if they're smooth, and not at all attracted to really hairy guys or bears. That's nothing against ANY of these types, and the cool thing is there ARE plenty of guys who LOVE their type - I'm just not one of them, just as a lot of guys aren't attracted to my type. As I've said before, I can find some of these hairy or muscular guys quite good looking but not at all sexually attractive personally.

 

For me, physical masculinity isn't part of the equation of me being gay. I can't necessarily even explain that. I also like a soft voice and some other features which wouldn't be considered masculine, but on the other hand, I like guys who like to be aggressive, in control, and fairly dominant (so if you combine my physical type and personality type, you'll find it's a somewhat, though not entirely, rare combination).

 

Anyways, the point I guess I'm trying to make is, I don't think being gay is necessarily tied to masculinity. Being gay to me is being attracted to the male gender, or a subsection of the male gender, and for me it's a subsection. *shrugs*

 

I don't know that everyone can really pinpoint WHY they're attracted to who they're attracted to. Some of us just are.

[duke37]

RE: Hairy guys

 

Read the article... it's not long. And as doug points out hot pics to keep the interest level up.

 

It's possible you will modify your view on what you are attracted to in a man as you get older. I did. And to my very great surprise. I started out liking the classic 90's era porn Falcon type model. But as I have gotten older I have come to be attracted to (and hire) guys both much younger and older. Not to question your type. In fact regular readers of Devon's journal know of his interest in the dominant twink. So what you are into (for now at least) is not that unusual. I would have in the past said I'm not interested at all in something like that. But now... who knows? I know fantasizing about Devon getting controlled by some young twink guy is pretty hot. Is it about him or is it about my interest changing?

 

I think Andrew Sullivan is swimming upstream in arguing against "hirsuitaphobia". Sure it would be nice if people were comfortable being or doing whatever they wanted. I just don't think it will happen soon. Besides isn't the smooth look virtually the only one sold in advertising ostensibly aimed at straight woman? Heck check out the new (computer generated) Brawny paper towel guy. Poor guy lost his disco era mustache. No word yet if they ad agency will show him hairy chested or not.

 

I believe they almost cast a real guy to be the "Brawny" after a nationwide search. Instead they went with a what I think is a pretty mainstream view of what ad agencies think American woman want.

 

http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2003/10-23-brawny.jpg

 

 

Jeff

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>But first - do you think that your strong reaction to the

>article may, in part, be motivated by the fact that you engage

>in the exact practice which the article condemns - namely,

>body shaving?

 

Quite possibly. I'm no less likely than anyone else to take exception to reading hostile, ludicrous attempts to deconstruct my own benign personal habits. But I'd like to think I'd still see through such claptrap even if I didn't shave my chest.

 

>Why do you think that he's obsessed with showing how masculine

>he is? I see from the article that he enjoys wallowing in the

>masuclinity of others, but what makes you think he's eager to

>prove his own masculinity?

 

Oh, it's just a general impression I have from his ongoing theories about gay men "reclaiming" their masculinity -- not so much in this article, but in his blog and elsewhere -- and from the intense dislike he expresses anytime an effeminate gay man gets on on television. I don't quite care enough about this point to try and prove it, so I'll be happy to agree to disagree. Nevertheless I've had the sense for quite awhile that he's eager to position himself as a "real" man (sorry, "real" MAN) -- an ideal he seems to think too many other gay men fall short of. And you yourself point out the picture in which he's trying to look sexy. It's not exactly an odalisque pose; I think we're supposed to think he looks masculine, though the overly manicured goatee does tend to throw one off.

 

>I think he's expressing bewilderment particularly at the fact that >gay men - who are defined by their sexual attraction to MEN -

>would be so eager to stomp out one of the defining physiological >and sexual traits of masculinity.

 

His bewilderment bewilders me. Hair, after all, is a defining physiological trait of MAMMALS, not of masculinity. Women, like other female mammals, have body hair too. If I'm not mistaken, when they started shaving their legs and pits some people frowned upon the practice as "unladylike." Now they're "mannish" if they DON'T shave. Similarly, long hair on a man's head, as a cultural signifier, has had an extremely varied history. (And don't let's forget about the powdered wigs some of our virile founding fathers used to favor.)

 

>It's not just that HE finds hairy guys hot and smooth/shaven

>guys not hot. It's that, objectively speaking, guys who are

>attracted to MEN should find the defining masculine attributes

>attractive - or at least not unattractive.

 

My point is that there is nothing remotely objective about this view. Sullivan himself references the body shaving associated with bodybuilders; it's done to highlight the male body, which is what some guys happen to eroticize more intensely than the hair that he would prefer to see covering the bodies up. I find it hard to believe that Sullivan actually has difficulty telling Arnold Schwarzenegger circa the 1970s apart from a woman, or from a Tupperware container. For many gay men, as Sullivan must know, bodybuilding and/or physique magazines served as the first, most readily available variation on gay porn. It seems to me like a no-brainer that many of them would come to eroticize smooth bodies, even if that smoothness comes courtesy a razor. So I don't understand what he finds so confusing, though I can understand why his tastes developed in another direction. It really IS just that he finds hairy guys hot and smooth/shaven guys not hot -- which is fine -- but I can't go along with his attempt to universalize his perspective.

 

>>Rarely, if ever, have I heard smoothophiles denounce hairy guys in >>such strenuous terms.

 

>Come on now - no need to engage in false hyperbole to make

>your point. You're telling me that it's unusual for you to

>hear homos screetching about how disgusting hairy guys are?

>Ask any fag what they think of a guy with hair on his back and

>you will see reactions appropriate if you had asked them to

>eat vomit.

 

Well, not just any fag. Only the ones who are repulsed hairy guys (and I don't, by the way, count myself among them). But usually they just retch, avoid sexual contact with the guys who don't attract them and are done with it. With some hirsuitophiles the animosity towards men who shave anywhere below the neck seems to be a point of ideology.

 

>There is virtually no such thing as a COMPLETELY hairless male

>body - somewhere on the body, on the legs, arms, chest,

>stomach, arm pits, etc., there will be some hair

 

The same is true of women, who, as I noted above, are also mammals.

 

>His only point is that on

>EVERY man, the male hormone generates body hair - it is the

>hallmark of the masculine hormone, which is to say, of

>masculinity itself.

 

Neither he nor you could possibly make this point with a straight face if you'd seen some of the squealing, shrieking, extremely hairy queens that go to my gym. Trust, "masculine" would not be the first word that came to your mind to describe them.

 

>Check out 1990s videos - finding a hairy guy in a video is

>like finding a literate sentence in a Taylorky post - they

>occur with such infrequency that it's clear it's just an

>accident. I don't think there's been a guy with a hair on his

>body at the Gaiety since Lucky was in his teens. In many,

>many places, body hair is simply absolutely prohibited.

 

Good one, but now I think you're engaging in false hyperbole. I've seen guys with body hair at the Gaiety -- not as much as the hairiest guys pictured in the article, but hair nevertheless -- on their legs, on their asses, and on their torsos.

 

>And I think that Sullivan's only point about this trend is how

>preplexing it is - it would be like straight men insisting

>that in order for women to be attractive, they not have

>breasts or a vagina.

 

No, it would be like straight men insisting that in order for women to be attractive, they mustn't shave their bushes or get bikini waxes. I believe there are some straight men who insist on just that.

[guptasa1]

RE: Hairy guys

 

Just read that article. I agree with Devon on just about every point he makes, so I'll keep this brief. I, too, think Sullivan's trying to universalize his view of hairiness as sexy, and the fact is that's entirely subjective. The same guy he says "Ewww!" about as he brushes against him at a club would likely get me VERY excited and elicit an "Oh yeah!", and the guy that makes him excited would probably turn me right off. None of the guys in that article were, to me, extremely hot. I'm sure to others they are. And who knows - maybe my taste WILL eventually change (though I somewhat doubt it, but can't discount the possibility either). But a male is a male, whether he's muscular and hairy or slim and almost hairless...or anywhere in between.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>Hair, after all, is a defining

>physiological trait of MAMMALS, not of masculinity. Women,

>like other female mammals, have body hair too. If I'm not

>mistaken, when they started shaving their legs and pits some

>people frowned upon the practice as "unladylike." Now they're

>"mannish" if they DON'T shave. Similarly, long hair on a

>man's head, as a cultural signifier, has had an extremely

>varied history.

 

Exactly; that's just what I was going to say. Well done, Devon.

 

>Only the ones who are repulsed by hairy

>guys (and I don't, by the way, count myself among them).

 

Thank you. :*

[Doug69]

RE: Hairy guys

 

Devon - I still think your critique of this article somewhat distorts the point he's trying to make. He's not arguing that hairiness is objectively ATTRACTIVE. He's arguing that hairness is objectively MASCULINE. And I don't see how that can be disputed, since is necessarily follows from these premises:

 

(1) Body hair is caused by testosterone;

(2) Testosterone is the hormone of masculinity - perhaps the essence of physiological masculinity; and,

(3) Therefore, body hair is a definitively and objectively masculine trait.

 

It may be that not all masculine traits are attractive. But his real point is that since gay men are definitionally attracted to masculinity, and body hair is an objectively masculine trait, it's odd and bewildering that so many gay men, who love masculinity, hate body hair.

 

>Oh, it's just a general impression I have from his ongoing

>theories about gay men "reclaiming" their masculinity -- not

>so much in this article, but in his blog and elsewhere -- and

>from the intense dislike he expresses anytime an effeminate

>gay man gets on on television.

 

I agree it's not that important, but I've read him expressing admiration for drag queens in Provincetown, etc. I don't see that he seeks to ostracize effeminate gays. But I do agree that his politics emphasize masculine virtues, and he has even written a very lengthy NYT Sunday Magazine piece on the virtues of testosterone, so he certainly holds himself out as a lover of masculinity.

 

>His bewilderment bewilders me. Hair, after all, is a defining

>physiological trait of MAMMALS, not of masculinity.

 

Body hair is from testosterone, which causes and even defines maleness. It distinguishes male from female, not human from other mammals. It is the defining hormonal trait of maleness.

 

Women,

>like other female mammals, have body hair too.

 

Yes, true. All women have some masculine traits and all men have some feminie traits. But to the extent anyone has body hair, it's due to testosterone, the masculine hormone.

 

If I'm not

>mistaken, when they started shaving their legs and pits some

>people frowned upon the practice as "unladylike." Now they're

>"mannish" if they DON'T shave.

 

Yes - styles are subjective. Whether long hair or short hair is considered "masculine" or not is the by-product of subjective cultural preferences which can change like the wind - just as is the case for whether shaving one's legs is "feminine". But the fact that body hair is caused by testosterone, and the fact that men will generally therefore have more body hair than women, is a scientific, objective fact which depends on nothing subjective.

 

>Well, not just any fag. Only the ones who are repulsed hairy

>guys (and I don't, by the way, count myself among them). But

>usually they just retch, avoid sexual contact with the guys

>who don't attract them and are done with it. With some

>hirsuitophiles the animosity towards men who shave anywhere

>below the neck seems to be a point of ideology.

 

I think that guys who like hairy guys take that more seriously than guys who like smooth guys for 2 reasons: (1) gay culture has almost eradicated hairy guys from the orthodox picture of a "hot guy", which makes hirsuitophiles angry and feel excluded; guys who like smooth guys are complacent because they're everywhere; and (2) many gay men who like hairy guys see that as a sign of masculinity, so the deliberate attempt to eradicate it seems like an attempt to eradicate one's own masculinity, which - depending on your perspective - one can easily see as a destructive cultural or sub-cultural trend.

[Doug69]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>That said, I'm confident in the fact that I'm fully gay.

>However, I, personally, am only sexually attracted to Twinky

>(Bel Ami type) bois with smaller frames, pale skin (though not

>always), and little body hair (or shaved body hair).

 

I think you raise an interesting point. Lots of gay men are attracted to BOYS - not to men.

 

I don't mean that they're pedophiles (although a small portion are). I mean that some gay men - predominant among older gay men - find males attractive to the extent that they can relate to them as "sons" or "boys". So the kinds of males they find attractive are what you describe - namely, thin, scrawny, smooth males, aka "twinks."

 

But what most guys are attracted to in these types is not man-ness - to the contrary, it's boy-ness, which in many senses, is the opposite of man-ness. That's why the traits you like - lack of body hair, lack of musculuture, lack of bulk - are defined by the LACK OF MAN-NESS, hence the presence of boy-ness. That you refer to the males you like as "bois" certainly bolsters that view.

 

Most lovers of twinks don't like body hair for exactly the reason the article says - body hair is the sign of MAN-ness, not boy-ness, and twinks with body hair would thus negate the appeal which most older men find in them, since they want boys, not men.

 

 

>Similarly, I'm not attracted to muscle studs in general, even

>if they're smooth, and not at all attracted to really hairy

>guys or bears. That's nothing against ANY of these types, and

>the cool thing is there ARE plenty of guys who LOVE their type

>- I'm just not one of them, just as a lot of guys aren't

>attracted to my type. As I've said before, I can find some of

>these hairy or muscular guys quite good looking but not at all

>sexually attractive personally.

>

>For me, physical masculinity isn't part of the equation of me

>being gay. I can't necessarily even explain that. I also

>like a soft voice and some other features which wouldn't be

>considered masculine, but on the other hand, I like guys who

>like to be aggressive, in control, and fairly dominant (so if

>you combine my physical type and personality type, you'll find

>it's a somewhat, though not entirely, rare combination).

>

>Anyways, the point I guess I'm trying to make is, I don't

>think being gay is necessarily tied to masculinity. Being gay

>to me is being attracted to the male gender, or a subsection

>of the male gender, and for me it's a subsection. *shrugs*

>

>I don't know that everyone can really pinpoint WHY they're

>attracted to who they're attracted to. Some of us just are.

[axebahia]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>It may be that not all masculine traits are attractive. But

>his real point is that since gay men are definitionally

>attracted to masculinity, and body hair is an objectively

>masculine trait, it's odd and bewildering that so many gay

>men, who love masculinity, hate body hair.

 

Can you believe it, it's my turn to scream about hijacking of a thread?

 

I guess my question is whether guys who like hairy guys would still prefer a little shaving or trimming around the balls and cock before they perform oral. My preference is for smooth guys so I kind of expect it. I am not a hairy guy so I was a bit surprised when an escort suggested ever so plitely that I go for a trimming after he had to resort to dental floss after going down on me.

[Doug69]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>Exactly; that's just what I was going to say. Well done,

>Devon.

 

http://www.rayscorner.com/cc-full002_01.jpg

http://www.rayscorner.com/cc-full002_04.jpg

 

http://www.rayscorner.com/cc-full002_06.jpg