Shaving

[theDCeBOY]

RE: Hairy guys

 

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

>finding a literate sentence in a Taylorky post

 

this is my favourite MC quote EVER!

[guptasa1]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>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.

 

You certainly make an interesting point. You're right though - I am most attracted to boy-types (though I'm not an older client...I'm not sure why most people attracted to twinky guys would be predominantly older). MAYBE I'm attracted to twinkish guys because I'm fairly young myself and still (and hopefully always will) consider myself a boy, but as of now I feel like this is the type of guy I'll always be most attracted to. Also, don't get me wrong - I do like fit guys with a little muscle; just not a body-builder type. And some hair (such as hairy legs for example) doesn't really turn me off even though I like totally smooth guys too, nor do guys a little older than myself, though I do like escorts younger than myself too. I'm not sure why any of this is the case...or why I like twinky guys who are a bit (playfully) rough or dominant acting with me, but it's just the way it is and my attraction.

 

I certainly don't think I'm alone in my attraction given the focus these types of guys have in the porn industry (like Bel Ami mentioned above).

 

The question this raises in my mind is simply, taking out the masculine quality from that article, what would make boys different than girls? (And no smart-ass answers...lol - I know that sounds silly). I mean...seriously...there has to be SOME quality, if the masculinity you point out is lacking, that attracts so many gay guys to twinks, right?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

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.

 

I don't have time to address your whole post at the moment, but I'll quibble this much: Gay men are definitionally attracted to masculinities, not to masculinity. It's not the least bit odd and bewildering that some gay men are attracted to one masculine trait, like big muscles, but not to another, like body hair (and vice versa).

[Bilbo]

RE: Hairy guys

 

If the masculinity is missing, you can't feel threatened by it, can you? Or outclassed, if you're not feeling particularly masculine at the moment? (I personally still believe that we should all strive to be androgenous inside.) And if you're feeling inexperienced, isn't it nice to feel that the guy you're with can't have all that much more experience than you? And if you've been taught that sex is dirty when it isn't funny, which is maybe what the culture in general tries over and over again to teach us all, then someone with the look of innocence. And if you have a yen to be a mentor, you want the partner to look like you could teach him something.

 

Hey, just because I'm a bear doesn't mean that I'm not attracted to cubs, amongst other types. Hooray for variety!

[VaHawk]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>Hey, just because I'm a bear doesn't mean that I'm not

>attracted to cubs, amongst other types. Hooray for variety!

 

ABSOULTELY!! As they say "it's the spice of life". Man, I am so greatful, that I have always found all types of men sexy and attractive and appealing, whether a smooth twink or a hairy hunk or just an "average joe". Younger, older or in between. They're all fun, so enjoy yourself!

[guptasa1]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>If the masculinity is missing, you can't feel threatened by

>it, can you? Or outclassed, if you're not feeling

>particularly masculine at the moment? (I personally still

>believe that we should all strive to be androgenous inside.)

>And if you're feeling inexperienced, isn't it nice to feel

>that the guy you're with can't have all that much more

>experience than you? And if you've been taught that sex is

>dirty when it isn't funny, which is maybe what the culture in

>general tries over and over again to teach us all, then

>someone with the look of innocence. And if you have a yen to

>be a mentor, you want the partner to look like you could teach

>him something.

>

>Hey, just because I'm a bear doesn't mean that I'm not

>attracted to cubs, amongst other types. Hooray for variety!

 

Hmmm...thought-provoking response. The two that stand out to me as possibilities are the "threatened" factor and the "innocence" factor, particular the latter. I'm not particularly worried about being outclassed, don't care how masculine I am, nor how inexperienced, nor do I particular care to be a mentor (though some role reversal might be fun with me being the more dominant one once and a while just to try it). BUT, since I'm new to this and a little bit nervous and even frightened when meeting someone new, I can't argue that a twinkish boi is going to seem a bit sweeter and less threatening to me. Similarly, I had a VERY conservative upbringing, and while I don't consciously view sex as at all dirty, I'm sure there will ALWAYS be a part of my unconscious that views it as dirty whether I want it to or not. Perhaps the innocence factor is the real key here, and it's one I never thought of before like this...but maybe that's why innocent-looking guys who are naughty appeal to me so much - lol. (Which brings up a rather disturbing public issues thought to me, but I don't feel good about posting it here publically, so PM me if you're curious.)

 

Anyways, I'm actually sometimes upset I'm not particularly attracted to most other types of guys, like hairy guys or really muscular ones. It would honestly make things a lot easier if I was attracted to more types of guys, but I'm just not at this point. I can think a guy is very handsome, but get no pleasure from imagining being with him on any intimate level. Maybe that'll change eventually - I almost wish it would.

 

In thinking about body hair some more, I actually DO like some crotch hair and armpit hair, and I like medium-long head hair sometimes too. Fine hair on the legs and such can be sexy in some circumstances too, so I guess I'm not into total hairlessness - lol.

[AdamSmith]

RE: Hairy guys

 

Thank you, Devon. This whole (productively hijacked) thread comes to a crux in your formulation. “Masculinities” are phenomena we can agree on, and use in meaningful catalogs of what stirs desire in some, not in others. But “masculinity” is a constructed category, dangerous precisely to the degree that its arbitrariness is denied.

 

This is the heart of Sullivan’s intellectual dishonesty. He valorizes one particular set of traits as the essence (the old philosopher’s sin of essentialism!) of masculinity, its truest, most “natural” form. While cloaking himself in the pretense of reasonable, equitable consideration of all possible viewpoints.

 

The real destructiveness hidden in his method is to multiply categories and boundaries in order to set up us/them conflicts in all directions. Near the end he produces an almost heroic example of this nonsense: “…as the terror of AIDS has receded, and sexual confidence has returned, and an anti-P.C. revival has resisted the feminization of our lives and politics, hair is back.”

 

The feminization of our lives and politics? Is that what happened? Does it even mean anything? More, what is his agenda in using “feminization” as a dirty word? It's almost too P.C. to bear saying, but has being queer given him that little appreciation of difference, variance, and life elsewhere than on one endpoint of the sliding scale? Not to mention the freedom to slide as a matter of choice, within the bounds of one's nature and nurture.

 

Of course his agenda is to get published and sell books. But in spinning out these mean-spirited circularities, which he himself is clearly capable of seeing through, he seems bent on becoming the queer alter-ego of William F. Buckley.

 

The internalized self-loathing in all this, and the invitation to join him there, calls out for an effective public critic, which he has not had. Foucault is gone. Where is Camille Paglia when you need her?

 

To close on an appropriately low note:

 

Q: How do you tell the men from the women at MIT?

A: The men shave.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>Of course his agenda is to get published and sell books. But

>in spinning out these mean-spirited circularities, which he

>himself is clearly capable of seeing through, he seems bent on

>becoming the queer alter-ego of William F. Buckley. The >internalized self-loathing in all this, and the invitation

>to join him there, calls out for an effective public critic,

>which he has not had. Foucault is gone. Where is Camille

>Paglia when you need her?

 

Well, I don't agree that wanting to be a queer alter-ego of William F. Buckley (if that, indeed, is what he wants to be -- I think he's more ambitious than that) is a sign of internalized self-loathing, and in fact I think that kind of labeling is an example of how ineffective the public criticism of Sullivan has been. (I say this as someone who got home just in time to vote for the Green Party candidate in San Francisco's mayoral race.) That said, Sullivan's theories about why men shave look like a variation on the old "internalized homophobia" charge which he has rightly noted is too frequently used by some gays to tar those who disagree with them. And his strident tirade against

"hirsuitophobia" and his call for "hair-acceptance" are striking not least for the uncanny resemblance of their language to that of the most victim-y schools of feminism, which he routinely derides. You're right to bring up Paglia, who I'd tend to think is too big a fan of fashion photography and pornography to have much patience with his shrill complaints about those industries. Who knows, she might even point to Greek (and, later, Renaissance) statuary as possible influences on gay men's eroticization of the smooth, marble-like look.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

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.

 

But I think he IS making a variation on just that argument. He goes out of his way to make those of us who shave our chests look like neurotic, self-hating, AIDS-phobic freaks, and to convince us that HIS attraction is rooted in reason, where ours is rooted in self-loathing and a compulsive need for auto-emasculation. In the spirit of hyperbole, I'd even suggest that there's a creepy, "natural law" tone to his arguments. Again, I have no problem with the passages expressing admiriation for the tufts of hair under the collar and the rest of it. But there is no need to go on the offensive and engage in the kind of superficial stereotyping of exactly the nature he's supposedly objecting to (without giving any evidence that it's actually a widespread phenomenon, or even a real one).

 

>He's arguing that

>hairness is objectively MASCULINE.

 

But what does that MEAN? That hairy guys are objectively more masculine than naturally smooth guys? Is it even actually necessarily the case that they have more testosterone in their bodies? Don't race, ethnicity and genetics have a lot to do with who's hairy and who's not? And surely you've met both masculine smooth guys (even, gasp, masculine shaved guys) and extremely queeny hairy guys, or would at least believe rumors of their existence? In other words, even if, as you claim, body hair is an "objectively masculine trait," it is, as such, a trait that often exists in isolation from one's other traits.

 

>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.

 

Well, I don't believe that all that many gay men "hate body hair" across the board. Many gay men DO prefer that certain areas of the body be smooth, most popularly (I suspect) the back, followed by the torso. But far fewer, I think, "hate body hair" so much as to need someone to be completely smooth all over. In fact, I can personally attest that a look that combines a smooth torso (and -- new! -- exquisitely smooth balls) with hairy legs, arms and pits most definitely has its constinuency. I'd echo a point I made in my first post on this thread: why should certain parts of the body be off-limits for grooming? Beards are pretty much universally seen as "inherently masculine" too -- just ask the poor women who have them -- but nobody's seriously arguing that shaving your face is a negation of your masculinity (though many guys have fetishes for facial hair). Why is shaving your chest? Sure, the ability some men have to grow chest hair is one prominent trait that separates them from women (and, er, from MEN who can't grow chest hair). Men can grow chest hair while women can't, which is another way of saying the obvious, which is that men can shave chest hair while women can't. In other words, shaving your chest hair is definitionally a masculine activity since women can't do it.

 

>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".

 

Now why is the case for whether shaving one's legs is "feminine" merely a byproduct of subjective cultural preferences, but the case for whether shaving one's chest is "masculine" is somehow objective,clear cut and grounded in objective reality?

 

>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

 

The victim-y tone of this complaint comes from such unlikely quarters that I feel compelled to ask whether you're being serious, or merely parodying the language of media feminists' complaints about the fashion world and pornography? Did you lift this from a Berkeley women's studies grad student's thesis? Put it back, Doug, put it back!

 

>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.

 

Again, I'd argue that the "eradication," which is hardly universal, is also, for the most part, selective and signifies nothing more than personal preference (much as could be said about facial hair choices). As "destructive cultural or sub-cultural trends" go, this one has to be as benign as you can get.

[AdamSmith]

RE: Hairy guys

 

Point taken, Devon. The call back to disciplined thinking is apt. Got carried away with the pleasures of Andrew-bashing and lost concentration. Your decon is subtler, more urgent (are you Wallace Stevens's "more severe, more harassing master"?).

 

It is a wonder that Hurricane Camille has not taken on Sullivan. The disingenuousness you trace in him is the kind of thing that sets her blood to boil, and that she demolishes so well. It would be a treat to see them together in a public forum, where he's usually distressingly able to mop the floor.

[Doug69]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>It is a wonder that Hurricane Camille has not taken on

>Sullivan. The disingenuousness you trace in him is the kind of

>thing that sets her blood to boil, and that she demolishes so

>well. It would be a treat to see them together in a public

>forum, where he's usually distressingly able to mop the

>floor.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sullivan and Camille Paglia actually get along quite well - almost sickeningly well. He has interviewed her several times for his blog and she was nothing but sugar to him, full of compliments and eager to praise him. He did the same. It was a bit nauesating, really.

 

It's no wonder she likes Sullivan - he celebrates masculinity, embraces the sexual pleasures, and believes in strength and power - all things that Camille worships.

 

I'm surprised that you have such nice things tosay about her, since you're the type of guy she actually despises - liberal and whiny.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Hairy guys

 

"God, what a dumb, pathetic, faggot cliche you are."

 

Here's a comment from a self-loathing individual in response to a gay man's thoughts. Is it Andrew Sullivan speaking? No, our very own Doug 68.5!!

[nate_sf]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>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.

 

Along these lines (sort of), I don't know if anyone noticed that Men's Fitness this last month finally put a hairy-chested man on its cover after years and years of smooth guys. Well, ALMOST... NY Giants' Tiki Barber shows off his groomed but definitely hairy chest in the magazine feature, but on the cover, alas, he is wearing a shirt, covering up his chest hair. Can't break with tradition too radically!

[nate_sf]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>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.

 

Along those lines, hey, looks like Andrew Sullivan shaves his head bald! What's that about? Isn't male pattern baldness natural and masculine? It's the testosterone, man! Give me a break... grooming is grooming -- it's an asesthetic decision. It's easy to assign too much value to these choices....

[axebahia]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>Is it Andrew Sullivan speaking? No,

>our very own Doug 68.5!!

 

Doug 68.5, I like that! Or maybe Andrew and Doug have taken a page out of the Ethan and Oren book?!

[theDCeBOY]

RE: Hairy guys

 

is that anything like the ad rian/axebahia book?

[Doug69]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>is that anything like the ad

>rian/axebahia book?

 

How much do you love/hate these mother fuckers who run around speculating and disparaging to no end other users whom they believe - usually inaccurately - posted under other fictitious names at some time in the past, when they themselves have unquestionably done exactly that?

 

How badly to you want to crack their vertebrae?

[+ Lucky]

RE: Backcrack

 

Dougie, Dougie, Dougie!!!!

No one is saying that you have ever posted here as Andrew Sullivan!!! You are both self-loathing pontificating homophobes, but no one thinks you are the same person. Such a nasty response. Vertebrae-cracking! Control yourself Dougie!

[theDCeBOY]

RE: Hairy guys

 

i may have misread your posting, doug. i do find axe to be supremely annoying. i was just commenting on his own activities & responding to his assault on me. i wasn't disparaging you or suggesting that you have done anything.

[AdamSmith]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sullivan and Camille Paglia

>actually get along quite well - almost sickeningly well.

 

>I'm surprised that you have such nice things tosay about her,

>since you're the type of guy she actually despises - liberal

>and whiny.

 

Revolting. But some of us whiny liberals can take the good with the bad in Paglia. Holding more than one idea in your head at a time is a useful trick. Try it sometime.

[Doug69]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>i may have misread your posting, doug.

>i do find axe to be supremely annoying. i was just commenting

>on his own activities & responding to his assault on me. i

>wasn't disparaging you or suggesting that you have done

>anything.

 

I know that, Ethan - I know you weren't speculating that I or anyone else here has posted under a different name; it was Axe who did that. My comments about vetebrae-cracking were about him - they were directed to you only because you were the subject of his musings.

 

Now that we cleared that up, please answer my original post to you about that. Thanks!

[Doug69]

RE: Hairy guys

 

I'm getting to this Devon; be a good boy and wait nicely.

 

While I have you, though, I did want to say this:

 

>The victim-y tone of this complaint comes from such unlikely

>quarters that I feel compelled to ask whether you're being

>serious, or merely parodying the language of media feminists'

>complaints about the fashion world and pornography? Did you

>lift this from a Berkeley women's studies grad student's

>thesis? Put it back, Doug, put it back!

 

It's amazing how this shaving discussion has lured out of its previously impenetrable shell the comedic side of Devon. Devon the Comic, if you will.

 

While I agree that the phraseology is frighteningly similar to feminists' whines about image exclusion and the silencing of their "voices", the anger from guys who like hairy guys isn't one based on fairness or a sense of entitlement. It's not a grievance as much as it is just frustration at not being able to find the things that make their cock hard, and wanting to have more of it, combined with being deluged with things that are (to them) asthetically unpleasant, sexually unarousing, and arguably somewhat psychologically disturbed.

[axebahia]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>How much do you love/hate these mother fuckers who run around

>speculating and disparaging to no end other users whom they

>believe - usually inaccurately - posted under other fictitious

>names at some time in the past, when they themselves have

>unquestionably done exactly that?

 

Perhaps, but surely you see a distinction between posting simultaneously under the same name, and adopting a new name to go into the federal witness protection program, or its M4M on-line posat-censorship equivalent. Whether you are are Andrew Sullivan was a joke. Whether Ethan is Oren, has I think been proven.

[theDCeBOY]

RE: Hairy guys

 

vertebrae are, i admit, among the things i wouldn't be terribly upset to see broken on axe.

[axebahia]

RE: Hairy guys

 

>vertebrae are, i admit, among the

>things i wouldn't be terribly upset to see broken on axe.

>

 

Well, Oren, that's hardly surprising given the violence and hate you regularly espouse over in the other lounge!

}(