tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post8349185745792673116..comments2023-09-30T10:36:23.154-05:00Comments on Accidental Historian: W@H: Hot Man-on-Man ActionGedshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-42897526078303639932009-02-06T19:03:00.000-06:002009-02-06T19:03:00.000-06:00*And, yes, I know that should probably be "dominat...<I>*And, yes, I know that should probably be "dominatrices." It looks weird, though.</I><BR/><BR/>You know eventually someone will backform "dominatrissy" as the singular.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-36766461570012854872009-02-06T18:11:00.000-06:002009-02-06T18:11:00.000-06:00Umm. For obvious reasons, I'm not qualifified to ...Umm. For obvious reasons, I'm not qualifified to speak to "what do gay men fantasize about?" OTOH, I'm not particularly qualified to speak to "what do mostly straight women fantasize about?" either, except for a very limited sample. (But I think you already knew it wasn't that simple)<BR/><BR/>Still, I read a LOT of genre fiction, that being pretty much my job description, and most of it isn't genres I particularly enjoy meself, and...<BR/><BR/>well, the fact of the matter is that romance/erotica/pornography written for a gay audience (male and female) is significantly different from that written for a slash audience (that is, women who like to read about m/m and men who like to read about f/f).<BR/><BR/>I haven't ever sat down and articulated the distinction formally, but it is pretty noticeable.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it is as much to do with "gay people are different from straight people", though, as in various complicated issues involving projection, identification, and the subjective vs the objective (or even objectifying) gaze.<BR/><BR/>Which is even more of a tangent to your original point, inasmuch as Eldredge's gaze seems firmly directed towards his navel. (Or perhaps a bit lower.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-86126435641802214382009-02-06T14:01:00.000-06:002009-02-06T14:01:00.000-06:00Yeah, the thing about that is I once got a full-on...Yeah, the thing about that is I once got a full-on HoYay run-down from a girl who was in to girls and rather liked the idea of guys who were in to guys and I think it broke my brain ever so slightly. So you probably won't hear about girls who like the same-sex stuff from me. It kind of gives Nam-like flashbacks...<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, this is total blue-sky thinking here, but there may well be an element of confusion in how guys approach the idea of gay sex. I was sitting around one morning and the thought went through my head, "Do gay guys fantasize about taking it up the butt?" It seems logical to me, although I haven't exactly done a scientific survey, so who the hell knows, that the traditional tab 'n' slot architecture of the male and female body somewhat dictates how sexual fantasy plays out. So it's pretty logical to assume that, all other things of top/bottom and position aside, straight men generally put themselves in the "give" position and straight women generally put themselves in the "take" position if they're fantasizing about sexual intercourse.<BR/><BR/>The gay man (and, I suppose, the straight man who likes getting pegged) has both options. Never having sat down and discussed it with one, my brain went "Tilt" and couldn't come up with an answer. It was one of those weird points of perspective where I was simply unable to come up with anything definitive on my own.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, too, I suppose there's a point of asking who decides who gives and takes that's not as straightforward as in straight sex and probably not as big of a thing in lesbian sex. That, I would assume, is where any issues of power would originate. Your average straight guy probably knows little more about guy-on-guy sex than what shows up in prison dramas and simply can't relate.<BR/><BR/>There's an additional issue that comes in to play, too. Girls are expected to be close and get all touchy-feely with each other. Guys are expected to, um, hit each other and never reveal their emotions, I guess. It's a much easier mental leap to go from girl friends to girlfriends than to do the same with guys.<BR/><BR/>All in all, I suppose that if you add those things up, you can come to a perfectly reasonable conclusion as to why gay men would be treated differently than gay women. After that if you start adding on levels of stigma, different expectations about what the different genders may want out of the sexual relation, and all the other crap that gets kicked around, I think there's a lot more going on than a single-point explanation.<BR/><BR/>But to the original point: you won't hear me arguing that women don't get in to the idea of homosexual sex. From what I understand it's generally women who are the driving force behind slash. It was also a pretty deep and basically pointless tangent to take in a post that was already filled with long tangents. So I really didn't see it as necessary to cross every single T on that one...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-12344877745135911402009-02-06T12:26:00.000-06:002009-02-06T12:26:00.000-06:00I would respectfully request that men who talk abo...I would respectfully request that men who talk about how lesbianism is treated differently because so many men find the fantasy attractive might occasionally remember that an awful lot of women likewise find the HoYay hot indeed.<BR/><BR/>In other words, y'see, Eldredge to the contrary, boys aren't THAT different from girls.<BR/><BR/>(On t'third hand, though, I'm having a tough time thinking of women -- conservative Christian or otherwise -- who show any signs of being *threatened* by lesbianism. Generally speaking, if the woman in question has no homosexual or bisexual tendencies, her reaction is more of a "Meh. Whatever.")<BR/><BR/>All of which leads me to suspect that there is a heck of a lot more here about power relationships than sexual relationships (as far as the two can be separated.) <BR/><BR/>But maybe the people I know are weird.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-49635436845428715152009-02-06T08:53:00.000-06:002009-02-06T08:53:00.000-06:00pnr:Limiting it only to teleological arguments is ...pnr:<BR/><BR/>Limiting it only to teleological arguments is a step too far in the other direction. There are certainly those who would be against homosexuality no matter what anyone or anything they believed in said about it. There are also probably those who go around beating up gay men to overcompensate for the fact that they'd rather be doing something else with them and don't want to admit it.<BR/><BR/>But for the average believer who has nothing intrinsic against gay people and may well really like that gay couple down the street or get along famously with the woman in the next cube over who has pictures of herself and her life partner parasailing in Paraguay, I think that you have to look at it as a teleological argument. If it's simply, "The Bible says," then all the stupid arguments about why people are different follow logically (inasmuch as it's possible for logic to be applied).<BR/><BR/>I mean, even reading the Eldredge quote and realizing it's mind-numbingly stupid, I don't get the impression that he has a real bone to pick with gay men. He simply believes that all men should be like *this* and gay men are like *that* and there isn't any wiggle room in his theology. So he has to make shit up.<BR/><BR/>jessa:<BR/><BR/>Good point on the diagnostic criteria thing. I've always boggled at the idea that getting drunk, what is it, four times or more a year, makes you an alcoholic. I've always thought that you need nuance in explaining both mental illness and addiction.<BR/><BR/>If you get drunk a lot because you want to use alcohol as medication, you might be an alcoholic. If you get drunk because you get buzzed, want to keep the buzz going, and go too far, you might be a normal human being who gets a little stupid when interacting with alcohol. Similarly, if you're always unhappy for no damn good reason, you might be depressed. If you're unhappy because things are genuinely bad and don't look to be getting better, you might be a realist.<BR/><BR/>But it's kind of a crapshoot and its easier to tell people how they should be than find out why they are what they are. That might go to the perspective thing you mentioned...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-59413855893158213212009-02-06T02:01:00.000-06:002009-02-06T02:01:00.000-06:00I’ve also found the “anti-gay Christians are close...I’ve also found the “anti-gay Christians are closeted” argument unconvincing, not to mention statistically unlikely. However, I’m not sure if I agree with the “completely teleological” argument, either. It seems to make the Christian view of homosexuality a matter of reason (God says it’s bad, therefore it’s bad, regardless of my feelings on the subject), when to me it’s always seemed more like a truthy gut-feeling sort of reaction (I feel it’s bad, therefore it’s bad, regardless of what God says on the subject, so I’m glad the patriarchs and early Christians agreed with me).<BR/><BR/>What I’ve never quite understood is where that gut-level aversion to homosexuality (mostly male homosexuality) comes from. I can remember feeling it, back in my less tolerant days, but I can’t remember why. Is it just a nugget of culture, like a necronym taboo or acceptable nonverbal gestures or something, that became attached to the predominant religion? Does Christianity encourage a defined, orderly view of humanity’s place in the universe and men’s place in the family, and homosexuality disrupts that? I really don’t know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com