Is America more accepting of gay men than gay women?

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Achtung_Bebe:
if your theory is true Bubba then the majority of men are quite homophobic and that's sad. Hey here's a thought-- just drop porn altogether, that way you won't be arroused by men plus you'll have better chances at being a decent dude and future mate...
[This message has been edited by Achtung_Bebe (edited 02-27-2002).]

Hey, that's uncool. Achtung never said he looks at porn. He wasn't the one who brought up porn. He was simply trying to explain some questions about it that were brought up.
You were out of line.

[Johnny Swallow]

Originally posted by Johnny Swallow:
Narcisism huh?

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
In which case, what's the point giving yourself a thumbs up? It seems unnecessary and narcissistic.

Bubba, without commenting on the rest you wrote, everything that Whortense writes is a joke not to be taken seriously. In case you hadn't noticed, this thread was due to cause major tension. So take it for what it was meant to be: a joke.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[sulawesigirl4]

hmm. Actually, I always thought it was the opposite. I mean, gay men (when they fit our stereotype of how they should act) are "cute" and "funny" and make good "side-kicks" on TV. Lesbian women don't seem to have the same appeal. Which works better? "Will and Grace" or "Ellen"? I think the former.

About men and porn...this is something that is a mystery to me. Guys get a kick out of watching two women getting it on....but I dont know of any woman (myself included) that gets turned on by watching gay male porn. What's up with that?

All that said, I have good gay male friends while I don't yet have any close lesbian friends, so maybe it's just in my experience that the men are more accepted.

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
When watching porn, men want to A) see naked women and B) become aroused at the sight of naked women. With heterosexual porn, one runs the risk of accidentally becoming aroused by the male physique, which is definitely contrary to the intended purpose. With lesbian porn, no such risk; a male can look without fear of getting horny from seeing another male's rear.

Ah yes...the ultimate hypocrisy. Yes, Bubba, this does make a lot of sense. Thanks for bringing it up.

Anthropology, in the study of non-Western cultures that have no hang-ups on sex ingrained into their culture, came to the conclusion that most humans are likely really bisexual. "Bisexual" itself could mean anything from just incidentally attracted to men and very much attracted to women to being incidentally attracted to women and very attracted to men. There is a lot of gray area in between.

Of course, this poses a lot of trouble for the black-and-white world that *much* (not all) of Christianity demands in the Western world. However, theory gets even more troublesome, as it is believed that the most homophobic are often the most uncomfortable with their own sexuality; perhaps a bisexuality that troubles them. With a nation very uncomfortable with expressing true, raw, genuine emotion of any kind, we'll likely never solve this issue. I mean, how many "straight" men are going to admit an incidental attraction to men?

Just some thoughts of mine...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by melon:
Anthropology, in the study of non-Western cultures that have no hang-ups on sex ingrained into their culture, came to the conclusion that most humans are likely really bisexual.

melon, I've seen you bring this point up time and again as if it is proven fact. Having grown up in a non-Western, isolated native culture, I am baffled by this sweeping generalization because I have never found it to be true. In fact, in most native cultures I've had experience in, bisexuality isn't even an option and often is more taboo than in Western society.

[melon]

Originally posted by tiny dancer:
By know means no. You got people like Jerry Falwell and the Christan Coalition who are totally against them, as well as judging them.

They've cast a few too many stones in their day. Most interestingly, I believe, his speechwriter of many years, Mel White, came out as gay and broke away, starting his own more inclusive ministry. The Vatican, which is quite homophobic, has the hypocrisy of perhaps over half of the priests being gay--and this being a fact for well over 1000 years. St. Peter Damien, who lived way back then, wrote a book on the issue. The rule of celibacy, instituted by the anti-sex followers of St. Augustine, likely cemented this as a "gay profession."

The man I blame the most for modern times, however, is Sigmund Freud. In the seemingly naive Victorian Era, it was more than acceptable for men (not women, as much) to have very close male friendships. Their justification, at the time, was that they were fulfilling the early Christian concept of "agape," and they had the model of David and Jonathan in the Bible to back them up. Leave it to Freud to blanketly label it as sexually deviant and made such affection as a mental disorder.

Of course, this man was the ultimate pervert: everything we did had a sexual motivation. Hence, the 20th century and today, where sex is little more than a joke too often, and we are all emotionally uptight.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
melon, I've seen you bring this point up time and again as if it is proven fact. Having grown up in a non-Western, isolated native culture, I am baffled by this sweeping generalization because I have never found it to be true. In fact, in most native cultures I've had experience in, bisexuality isn't even an option and often is more taboo than in Western society.

Well, this depends. A lot of this study was done in Africa and in the remote Pacific islands. NOTE: I said anthropologists studied cultures with *no* built in sexual taboos. The cultures you have described have taboos already.

A theory on this was that thousands of years ago, tribal society was matriarchal. There was a mysticism surrounding the ability for women to bring on new life. Homosexuals were seen as mystical and were elevated to the status of holy men. Heterosexual men were at the bottom. However, men had brute strength on their side, got angry, and overthrew this model. To cement this model for all time, men of various world cultures created "creation myths" that cemented the position of women as always being subordinate to men and the cause of evil. Homosexuals were equally admonished as evil. Men were now the possessors of life; women just bear the incubating waters. Over the centuries, with most knowledge being passed on through oral tradition, those "myths" became seen as "truth." Hence, the structure became much of what it is today: heterosexual men on top, women subordinate, homosexuals on the bottom.

Some cultures, however, were remote enough that they were never exposed to this "coup."

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 02-27-2002).]

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Lemonite:

Now... Guys.. And here follows Rhetoric for effect.. People (myself included) become disgusted with two guys grinding on each other at a College Dance, One grabbing the other's ass.. Nasty old Men will turn, shake their heads, and just mumble Queer..
And, I'm not sure why.. But just looking at an unnecessary display of Male/Male affection, just leaves me with a sick feeling in my stomach knowing that when they go home, one of them is going to have a d#ck in his mouth (A Quote that I cannot be credited with Stating).. Sure.. It may not lead to that always, but Again.. Rhetoric for effect.

To start with, I have absolutely no problem seeing two men or two women displaying affection in public. Instead, I find the prejudice and judgmental response to this to be the only absolutely disgusting about the situation.

Also, why assume that simply because two gay men are flirting that they will automatically have sex when they go home? I'm sure this assumption isn't made when a man and woman are flirting.

As long as I don't see it, then I don't have a problem..

Yeah, you know I just can't stand to see all these straight couples holding hands on the street and hugging each other in public, even kissing each other goodbye! It's just terrible, I mean, it's their choice if they want to be straight, but do they really have to keep shoving it down everyone else's throat? Ugh. Make your own choices about your sexuality but don't make everyone else put up with it!

See how ridiculous it is when someone turns the tables and says exactly what you said about gay or lesbian couples about straight couples? Double standards. If only we could all accept that when two people love one another, that love is equally valid no matter whether it's between two men, two women or a man and a woman.

[This message has been edited by FizzingWhizzbees (edited 02-27-2002).]

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
Yeah, you know I just can't stand to see all these straight couples holding hands on the street and hugging each other in public, even kissing each other goodbye! It's just terrible, I mean, it's their choice if they want to be straight, but do they really have to keep shoving it down everyone else's throat? Ugh. Make your own choices about your sexuality but don't make everyone else put up with it!

actually, seeing two straight people going at it in public IS kinda disgusting to me. Maybe it's because where I grew up (southeast asia), public displays of affection were a HUGE no-no...it just was seen as being crass and totally lacking in manners. All that to say, I'm not a fan of seeing pda whether it be male-female, male-male or female-female. Save it for later for goodness sake.

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by melon:
Well, this depends. A lot of this study was done in Africa and in the remote Pacific islands. NOTE: I said anthropologists studied cultures with *no* built in sexual taboos. The cultures you have described have taboos already.

A theory on this was that thousands of years ago, tribal society was matriarchal. There was a mysticism surrounding the ability for women to bring on new life. Homosexuals were seen as mystical and were elevated to the status of holy men. Heterosexual men were at the bottom. However, men had brute strength on their side, got angry, and overthrew this model. To cement this model for all time, men of various world cultures created "creation myths" that cemented the position of women as always being subordinate to men and the cause of evil. Homosexuals were equally admonished as evil. Men were now the possessors of life; women just bear the incubating waters. Over the centuries, with most knowledge being passed on through oral tradition, those "myths" became seen as "truth." Hence, the structure became much of what it is today: heterosexual men on top, women subordinate, homosexuals on the bottom.

Some cultures, however, were remote enough that they were never exposed to this "coup."

Melon

Interesting hypothesis. But propounding it as a fact or even as strong as theory seems a bit much to me.

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:

Also, why assume that simply because two gay men are flirting that they will automatically have sex when they go home? I'm sure this assumption isn't made when a man and woman are flirting.

Yeah, you know I just can't stand to see all these straight couples holding hands on the street and hugging each other in public, even kissing each other goodbye! It's just terrible, I mean, it's their choice if they want to be straight, but do they really have to keep shoving it down everyone else's throat? Ugh. Make your own choices about your sexuality but don't make everyone else put up with it!

See how ridiculous it is when someone turns the tables and says exactly what you said about gay or lesbian couples about straight couples? Double standards. If only we could all accept that when two people love one another, that love is equally valid no matter whether it's between two men, two women or a man and a woman.

[This message has been edited by FizzingWhizzbees (edited 02-27-2002).]

Damn Fizzing... What is it with you and your Generalizing Accusations about people..

I never made any assumption that Gay Flirting leads to Gay Sex.. In fact, I made no reference to Flirting in my post at all.. I'd hardly call 'grinding' flirting, or a hand on an ass 'flirting', Don't put words in my mouth...

I don't have a problem with two men, or two women walking down the street just chillin', enjoying each other's company, Discretion is what I ask.. and I ask this due to my religious views... Which the majority of this country apparently shares.

Of course I'm going to make a judgemental response, because I think it is wrong, However, regardless of this point, I do not condemn it for others as they can do as they wish.. Like I said, I just don't think it is appropriate for public.. Again, according to my religious views..

You say there is a double standard.. Apparently not with me.. But of course you Knew That... I am not a partaker in PDA, nor am I 'shoving' heterosexuality down anyone's throat... I find excessive expressions of that sort to be stupid, and evidence of insecurity in relationships...Again..Of Course you know that already, because you feel you know me well enough to accuse me of a great many things... I guess you're that shady gentleman shadowing me across campus.

I apologize to interrupt this peaceful thread, but this was the second time in a week Fizzing has made specific Accusations against me, by proclaiming to know things that only my family would know about me.

L.Unplugged

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
All that to say, I'm not a fan of seeing pda whether it be male-female, male-male or female-female. Save it for later for goodness sake.

Well said, I tried to relay it coherently in my post above... Hahaha.. I realize, something that is not my strong suit.

L.Unplugged

[Johnny Swallow]

Originally posted by melon:
NOTE: I said anthropologists studied cultures with *no* built in sexual taboos. The cultures you have described have taboos already.

But Melon is it really possible to have NO built in Taboos? I mean even with other things such as racism, even among people that aren't racist there are still trace elements of it in the culture. I don't consider myself racist in the least but I still don't think that I act 100% impartial when it comes to race. It seems like even among cultures that don't have taboos there is still a bit lurking under the surface.

You think?

[melon]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
Interesting hypothesis. But propounding it as a fact or even as strong as theory seems a bit much to me.

This is a theory within anthropology. Perhaps this is my postmodernist leanings coming, but I never believe that anything is as fixed as "fact." Perceptions change through time.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

Originally posted by Johnny Swallow:
But Melon is it really possible to have NO built in Taboos? I mean even with other things such as racism, even among people that aren't racist there are still trace elements of it in the culture. I don't consider myself racist in the least but I still don't think that I act 100% impartial when it comes to race. It seems like even among cultures that don't have taboos there is still a bit lurking under the surface.

Well, let's look at America, for instance. It is socially acceptable to have a mother, father, and children. We accept that. In some cultures, however, it is acceptable and encouraged to have a same-sex relationship and then get married to someone of the opposite sex. In some cultures, it is acceptable and encouraged to get married, but then have sex with anyone you want within your tribe.

This is what I meant by "no taboos." For Christian groups to go around saying that heterosexuality is the only thing natural in nature, that is a cultural construct. This argument of theirs could work if, in visiting these same cultures with no sexual taboos, that no same-sex activity was practiced. However, that is not the case.

Of course, I must reiterate that it is all theory. I'm just posting this as my opinion, and I welcome discussion.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[melon]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
and I ask this due to my religious views... Which the majority of this country apparently shares.

If you are referring to Catholicism within America, about half support gay rights, which is obviously contrary to the Vatican.

I am not a partaker in PDA, nor am I 'shoving' heterosexuality down anyone's throat... I find excessive expressions of that sort to be stupid, and evidence of insecurity in relationships...

I agree the same. I just get infuriated with double standards. That's all. Your original post was way more inflammatory. I think if you posted like this originally, you'd have received a better response.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Hewson]

It seems that Gay women are more accepted than men. It was even somewhat "chic" to be a lesbian in recent years (look at Anne Heche and Julie Cipher going from straight to gay to straight again as a sign of some women following a "trend" with their sexuality).
Gay women are more easily accepted also due to the "Howard Stern factor", if you will...the notion that 2 beautiful lesbians will invite a man to join them. We all know this is fallicy, but it is a fantasy for many men, but you don't often hear about a woman fantasizing about joining in with 2 men.
The PDA factor also favors women...as mentioned above it is socially acceptable for 2 women to dance, hug or kiss...but not generally so for men. For the record, I'm in the group who can do without PDA's of any kind.

[Achtung Bubba]

A few replies...

Originally posted by Achtung_Bebe:
if your theory is true Bubba then the majority of men are quite homophobic and that's sad. Hey here's a thought-- just drop porn altogether, that way you won't be arroused by men plus you'll have better chances at being a decent dude and future mate...

First, I don't thinks it homophobia.

As a quick example, Christians can be very tolerant of others who believe differently but still stand behind their own beliefs. Likewise, a heterosexual may be quite tolerant of gays and still want to fanatically avoid being aroused by homosexual porn.

Second, as 80sU2 pointed out, I never said I myself watch porn. I just have this theory as to why many heterosexual men prefer lesbian porn over heterosexual porn - a theory that can be reached through just a cursory knowledge of men.

And I've already expressed this theory to my girlfriend, because I DO believe it's an accurate explanation of the phenomenon.

Originally posted by Calluna:
It may *seem* that way to you but things are not always as they appear. It *seems* to me that you are just taking unprovoked jabs at melon.

I generally don't take "things aren't always as they appear" as a sufficient explanation. If there *is* a good reason for an otherwise inexplicable act, I typically like to hear it.

Melon has since said it was a joke, and that's fine by me. It just struck me as odd enough to cause me to make mention of it.

And maybe my comment was probably unprovoked. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by z edge:
Your point dosen't really make sense to me. Why would you be afraid of something that might accidentally arouse or excite you??

That makes as much sense as defecating in your own bed.

Simple: one would fear something that might arouse you because there are things that SHOULDN'T arouse you. Examples? Your own parents, children, and animals. Sexual attraction to such things is morally abhorrent and against natural laws.

And if one subscribes to the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, it falls under the same category as incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.

(Let me be the first to say that I do believe that homosexuality is against God's plan for humanity, and thus a sin. But just as murder is worse than taking the Lord's name in vain, pedophilia is far worse than homosexuality. Murder and pedophilia should CERTAINLY be illegal; swearing and homosexuality should not. If it's between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own property (and if there's no effort to INSIST that the behavior is just as normal as heterosexual monogamy), I say, live and let live.)

Originally posted by melon:
Ah yes...the ultimate hypocrisy. Yes, Bubba, this does make a lot of sense. Thanks for bringing it up.

Okay, melon understands my theory. Everybody else should have no difficulties.

[KhanadaRhodes]

all i can say is, melon is right.

hehe but seriously...about the whole pda thing, i do think society tends to have a double standard towards it. (note i'm not referring to anyone in particular from the forum, nor am i trying to imply this.) while i don't see the problem with a little mild pda for any couple of any gender/sexuality (hand holding, and a little peck is all right, making out and groping is not) but with most people in society, straight couples seem to be able to "get away" with more pda activity than a gay couple. while it would take a heterosexual couple making out or something of the like to get an "ick" from the average person, for some, seeing so much as a gay couple holding hands can generate the same kind of "ick."
again, i'm not intending to name any names, i'm just saying if you were to, say, take a survey on what people can and can't stand seeing couples do in public. i could be wrong, but that's how it is where i live, at least.

------------------
she wore canvas shoes white canvas shoes, around her neck she wore a silver necklace...
ME! all day, every day!
"...a poptart in pants..." -- elizabeth