When is a “preference” a “judgement”?

[phage]

I happen to think that being rich is better than being poor. That being a Democrat is better than being a Republican. Smart is better than dumb. Tall is better than short. Thin is better than fat. Dark hair is better than blond. Uncut is better than cut. Masculine is better than effeminate.

 

Am I all of those things? Absolutely not. They are just the things I find desirable or, dare I say…superior. If I made the list a little longer I’m sure I’d find a way to piss off just about everyone, but it’s that last one – masculine -v- effeminate – that really gets people going. That’s the one that will get me called a litany of names and accused of being a self-loathing, over compensating, maladjusted freak.

 

Why are some things accepted as preferences and others are considered judgements? Why is being judgmental considered the height of bad taste in the gay community? And why are we so damn sensitive about the issue of masculinity?

 

I have my own theories but I would prefer to hear yours.

[Michael]

Preferences are statements that you make about yourself.

 

Judgements are statements that you make about general issues or other people.

 

>I happen to think that being rich is better than being poor.

 

It's a judgement when you say "A is better than B".

 

It's a preference when you say "I prefer A to B".

[Guest JON1265]

Well don't forget white over black - which seems to get one labeled a racist for even thinking it. There was a thread over at ATKOL regarding that issue and it was very heated - but civil for the most part.

 

To me - it seems to be how one presents their "preference." Putting somone down for not fitting your "preference" can border on being judgmental. Saying "Sorry, fatso, you're not my type - I prefer skinny guys, which you are most definitely not, you pig" is being nasty and judgemental. Tact is called for when presenting your "wish list" for a man.

 

Of course this is the INTERNET, and asking some people for tact is like asking Jerry Falwell to be tolerant.

[Bilbo]

I prefer redheads. And I prefer Asians (at times). As you can see, those two preferences are mutually exclusive, for the most part. Which is good for me, because it leads to my being cut off from fewer potential playmates. Cutting myself off from potential playmates is bad for me. When I was younger, if there were 15 randomly selected men naked in a room with me, I would be assured of a good playmate. Now it takes 20, sometimes more. But being cut off from others is also bad for those others. They cannot participate in the wonders that are me. And some of them feel this.

It's not bad to prefer twinks. It is borderline bad to make them the only people you play with.

And where are the Asians in our online community? The Amerindians? We used to have some Black neighbors, but we chased most of them away.

Thank goodness (for variety's sake) that we still have the Jews and the Canadians and a few European Europeans. (And one or two Aussies.) But please don't start cutting yourself off from people around here because I happen to love the variety, and you just might chase it away.

(Personally, I'm afraid I helped our friendly policeman to fade away, and I'm not proud of it.):'(

[bluenix]

Reminds me of an undergraduate English literature class where I was trying to say something scathing about The Golden Bowl.

 

"Blue," says the prof, "you needn't criticize what you simply don't prefer."

 

I think he must have been a fag.

[Will]

This may be a red herring. Most people would prefer to be rich than poor; not all people would prefer to be Democrat than Republican; not all men would prefer that other men be dark-haired or blond. So even these comparisons aren't really comparable with each other, are they? In other words, they don't belong to the same set of concepts, although you imply that they do.

 

As for "masculine is better than effeminate," that's like saying "strong is better than cowardly," not "strong is better than weak." The implication of the former is that all people have an equal opportunity to be (a) strong or (b) cowardly, and that those who chose (b) are inferior to those who chose (a). The second comparison merely says that some people are strong and others -- such as newborn infants -- weak, and that you prefer strong to weak. It doesn't call infants cowards.

 

"Masculine," after all, is a value-free adjective; "effeminate" is not a value-free adjective. A true comparison would be to pit "masculine" against "feminine." Once you substitute "effeminate" for "feminine," I say that you are making a judgment, and a negative one based on the sort of misogyny that valorizes acting-like-a-man and disparages acting-like-a-woman.

 

At the moment I cannot think of any context in which "effeminate" would be either value-free or complimentary. Of course, it might state a preference, but that's not the sense in which you've used it here.

[phage]

Excellent points and thanks for bringing them up. You are correct that it is a mishmash of concepts and was probably a sloppy set up. I was trying to make the point that I make judgements all the time about all kinds of things. The only important comparison was the masculine/effeminate one, and I was unwilling to open the Pandora’s Box of listing several similar “hot button” issues that I have made judgements about one way or the other.

 

I actually struggled with that comparison because, like you, I felt the yin and yang would be masculine and feminine, but as judgmental as I admit that I am, I didn’t want to bring women into this and appear misogynistic on top of everything else. :o Interesting that you feel it is actually more misogynous to replace “feminine” with “effeminate.”

 

I will admit that “effeminate” is a value laden adjective. I will also admit that masculinity is something I highly value, therefore, if I’m going to be honest, I have to admit that I don’t value effeminacy. (I purposely used that word again because I want to separate this from women. It’s not about women – it’s about feminine acting men.)

 

I guess this is more a judgement than a preference. But is there really that much difference? People who “prefer” one thing over another must believe it is better in some way. Isn’t that making a judgement?

 

Obviously, I am struggling with my judgmental nature but one of my questions remain. Why, as gay men, aren’t we “allowed” to be judgmental on this issue?

[Guest jeffOH]

That's how this world is set up. Black/White, Hot/Cold, Young/Old,

Big/Small, Love/Hate and on and on. Human beings have been categorizing and labeling everything they see and experience in this material world. It's a part of the Life Game. If we didn't have

Evil as the opposite of Good, how could we have an appreciation or

a "preference" for Good? Many people confuse their judgments with preferences. It's when you decide one thing is somehow better than another, when in reality your ego has the need to believe your

"preference" is better than someone else's preferences and you make a judgment about them because of their "preferences".

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

[Guest JT]

I'm not sure I understand the difficulty in differentiating between judgement and preference. When someone acknowledges his personal preferences, he does not equate his preferences with some generalized, universal "truths" or "facts".

 

For example, I prefer or like French food. There are many reasons for my preference, e.g. my upbringing, cultural background, culinary experiences and personal taste. But I would not conclude that French food is better than all other ethnic foods unless I believe my personal taste and experiences are the only criteria that matter not only for my personal decision but also others' as well.

 

JT

(Actually I enjoy many kinds of food):9

[Will]

Phage, rather than reply to your reply, which might elicit your reply to my reply to your reply to my reply to your initial post, I just thought I'd start over, as it were.

 

I share your preference regarding gendered mannerisms in men. Before I go further, though, I'd have to say that there is a very wide latitude of behavior that I'd consider "masculine," and that a very great many of so-called "masculine" escorts make me want to laugh or cringe or look the other way. The last thing they make me is desirous of wanting to have sex with them. In that, they are not unlike certain extremely effeminate men who seem to be marinating in self-hatred.

 

A lot of gay men in the U.S. eroticize the broad-chested, thick-armed, red-and-black-flannel-clad (open to the waist of course) blue-collar look. Some prefer to slather that meat with a sort of greasy urban overlay and a five-o'clock shadow and a hard hat, while others prefer a sauce that carries a whiff of the piney woods and a bristly moustache for the Paul Bunyan effect. Then there's the bow-legged Marlboro Man. But in many social contexts both here and abroad -- a cocktail party, a theater crowd, a scholarly lecture -- such a man would look silly, over the top. On the other hand, the crowd of men in a blue-collar, beer-swilling football bar might think that a quietly confident, self-assured, impeccably dressed Italian businessman who happened in to be a flaming, nelly queen. So a lot of this has to do with context.

 

Just so are feminine mannerisms. To me, the difference between "effeminate" and "feminine" is the difference between the deliberate appropriation of female mannerisms as opposed to the unconscious deployment of female mannerisms. There are gay men -- the most famous I can think of is the former porn star Rick "Humongous" Donovan -- who are powerfully attracted to effeminate men because, I think, effeminacy complements their own masculinized persona. The reason I think that the general use of the term "effeminate" is mysogynisitic is because it is a term used exclusively for men; there is no corresponding term for masculine-acting women ("butch" is slang) because it's OK for both men and women to be "masculine," but it is not OK for men to be "feminine." Why? Because "masculine" is a universal good and "feminine" is a specific good aimed primarily at making men feel more masculine.

 

To my taste the sexiest men alive are those whose erotic power doesn't seem to depend on how hard they're trying to remind me that they are men, on the one hand, or that they've got the idea that the more like a woman they seem, the more attractive they are. I'm not talking here about androgyny. I'm talking about an inner ease with oneself, something that is immensely difficult to achieve. And it is so difficult to achieve precisely because it is the expression of an integrated personality. No personality can be integrated until the sense of self-identity is consistent with the realities of the self; and until that self-identity is the one projected outwards to other people as the complex of signs telling others who we are.

 

Of course, none of that is possible without the full and even unquestioning acceptance of one's own sexual inclinations -- so accepting that one need never feel defensive about them. That is why, in my experience, the single most evil effect of homophobia is its ability to make that integration almost impossible for many gay men. Worse still is the fact that until fairly recently that integration was pretty close to impossible for the vast majority. Don't believe me? Rent THE BOYS IN THE BAND, where you will see all of this hideous tragedy played out before your very eyes.

 

I know this sounds like another one of Will's hifalutin excurses that have no place on a board for johns and hustlers. Well, there you are. You raise an issue that, I think is at the dead center of any conversation or even private ruminations about what it means to be a gay man. It is a huge, huge topic and I am grateful to you for bringing it up.

 

But, yes, I think it is still judgmental to say that I "prefer" masculine men to effeminate men because it's another way of saying that I prefer healthy men to unhealthy ones. After having written all of that, I think I've talked myself into thinking that "effeminate" is not as mysogynistic as it is homophobic. That's why it always expresses a negative judgment and never a positive preference.

[Guest JON1265]

But that is the point JT - many people do just that.

 

And lest we forget that many people think that being hetero is far superior to being homo - we are judged on a daily basis of who WE are - I think the point the poster is making is why do we turn around and do the same thing within our own community...

[Guest jeffOH]

Billy Graham Jr. has said that Islam is an evil religion. Is he expressing his "preference" for Christianity or is he making a "judgment" declaring that Christianity is better than Islam?

 

jeff4hire@aol.com

[Guest Traveler]

Wow. That was excellently stated. Couldn't have been put in a more precise manner!

[Guest Traveler]

>Billy Graham Jr. has said that Islam is an evil religion. Is

>he expressing his "preference" for Christianity or is he

>making a "judgment" declaring that Christianity is better

>than Islam?

>

>jeff4hire@aol.com

 

Both, I would say. He's also being dumb. Like all religions, Islam and Christianity have been used for good and evil. Since most wars seem to started at least in the name of a religion, I personally feel that religion does more evil than good. So my preference would be for a world religion. But I wouldn't say religion is all bad.

[+ Charlie]

The implication in the wording is that a "masculine" man is behaving naturally, while an "effeminate" man is behaving unnaturally--he is imitating femininity rather than expressing it. Given the bias in favor of "naturalness" in our culture, to refer to a man as "effeminate" is to express a judgment.

 

While most gay men would probably use these terms only to refer to someone's affect or mannerisms, many straight men also seem to see these categories in terms of activities, so that they would consider it "effeminate" to suck cock or--especially--to get fucked in the ass. I'm sure the concept of the masculine bottom, a type so often sought after on this site, is hard for them to comprehend.

[Guest Viewmaster]

>

>"Masculine," after all, is a value-free adjective;

 

I can't agree with this statment; it would depend on who was being described as masculine. Some Feminists, Lesbians, and female athletes have at times been called masculine, and I am sure that they found that desciption quite offensive.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Some Feminists, Lesbians, and

>female athletes . . .

 

Isn't this a triple redundancy?

 

>have at times been called masculine, and I

>am sure that they found that desciption quite offensive.

 

Even when - especially when - it's true.

[Guest JT]

In the original post, the following question is raised, "Why is being judgmental considered the height of bad taste in the gay community?".

 

Personally I'm not aware that being judgemental is necessarily considered good taste in the hetero community (unless we're talking about some religious communities).

 

 

>And lest we forget that many people think that being hetero

>is far superior to being homo -

 

That kind of thinking could go both ways. How about some people in the gay community feeling superior to or better than TVs and transexuals?

 

 

>we are judged on a daily

>basis of who WE are -

 

Yes we ALL do! We judge, assess and evaluate others daily. Exercising judgement is a natural and normal part of any opinion-forming and/or decision-making process. There's nothing wrong with it. It is not the same as being judgemental.

 

 

>I think the point the poster is making

>is why do we turn around and do the same thing within our

>own community...

 

There are some posters here who insist that true bisexuals do not exist. They feel that people call themselves bisexuals because they lack the courage and/or self-acceptance to admit that they're gay. They believe that they are better than the bisexuals and those who are in the closets. Why are we surprised that gay men can be judgemental? Why would we expect gays to be different than the community at large in terms of not being judgemental? Are we expecting that gays should be or are BETTER THAN others (e.g. the heteros)? Like any segments in the society, the gay community is made up of judegmental and non-judgemental individuals.

 

 

JT

[Bilbo]

If we are having trouble with 'feminine' vs. 'effeminate', partly because we're not sure we're comfortable with what use of either one says about women, why don't we use a word that takes gender out of the question? I would like to propose 'exotic'.

[CT Dick]

Will, as usual, a very thoughtful posting. Thanks.

 

I think there is another element at play here: We are all interested in MEN. Therefore, someone who exhibits the attributes of a man is attractive to us, at the initial stage. Why would someone who is sexually attracted to a man want a guy who behaves like a woman?

 

Granted, this is at the pick-up-at-the-bar level. ;-)

 

Dick

[Will]

Thanks, Dick, but in that long ramble I tried to say that "masculine" means different things to different people in different contexts. Furthermore, I think it's maybe a little circular to say that (a) since we're all interested in men, (b) no gay man would be interested in another gay man who © didn't act like a man. It sounds a little like Miss Swan's (Mad TV) description of the man who look-a like a man.

 

All I was trying to say is that in its present usage, "effeminate" behavior in men describes mannerisms that -- in the opinion of other gay men -- are different from, and inferior to, "feminine" behavior in men.

 

The major qualification I would make to your post, in fact, is that what straight men think of gay men is not only uncharted territory. I doubt that it can be charted at all because I don't think there's a "community" of straight men who hang out on boards like this, talking endlessly about what they think of gay men and what gay men think of them. If there is such a board, I would be grateful for the URL!