I know it infuriates many of you but an enormous number of men who like men want nothing to do with gay.
You can scream and shout that they are self loathing, you can deride them and call them names behind their backs (and to their faces) but your hysterical rejection of them only strengthens their resolve to have 'nothing to do with gay'.
Goy is one example, My nephew (whom I love) is open about 'dating men' but refuses the gay label and respectfully asks people not to refer to him using that word.
I think it may have to do with the idea that the 'gay population' while embracing trans, and drag and every out of sync genderfuck out there forgot to embrace the masculine.
In fact, even on this board if anyone dares call themselves masculine they are immediately touted as a 'Mary'.
As men who love men move more into the mainstream with marriage and other rights there is less need for 'gay' as a label.
Can those of you who love the word and the identity allow this gracefully, or will you go hissing into the night?
It's fine and dandy for "g0y"s of "gaybros" to identify however they want. It's their life and their choice.
However, they would do well to remember that the much larger part of the population, especially the nearly half of that population who would continue to see them as second-class and less than fully human, will actively ignore such a distinction.
OP, I truly feel bad the the wrath these queens are going to be hurling your way.
Honest to God, the so-called "masculine" gays are the biggest bunch of whiners and self-flattering drama queens seen since MichFest. Shut up about your precious masculinity, for fuck's sake. No one gives a shit.
The Goy and the gaybros:
Enough. Really, just enough.
The problem OP is that people who reject the label ARE gay. Words have meaning. Just because you do not have some of the characteristics often associated with being gay does not mean you aren't gay. I live in the South. I don't drive a truck, I'm not racist, I don't speak like a hillbilly, but I'm still a Southerner by definition.
so how does your nephew refer to his orientation?
R3 thank you for confirming my point.
Do we need to add another letter to 'GLBTQI' for this self-proclaimed masculine gay population?
So do you prefer homosexual?
Everyone knows that BIRD is the word.
R6 he says..."I am a guy who likes guys."
If the person to whom he is speaking says..."oh you're gay."
He responds. "NO, I want nothing to do with gay and all that it signifies. I am a man who wants to fully be a man who happens to like other men, I am not a 'gay'".
How ridiculous, r11!
He might as well say that he's a homophobic homosexual.
[quote]r3,thank you for confirming my point.
I didn't confirm your point, you precious martyr. Go do whatever you want to make you feel better about yourself. Call yourself the Easter Bunny if that's what you want. I don't care. No one does.
[quote]Everyone knows that BIRD is the word.
But I thought Grease is the word
In my experiences as a 60+ year old gay man who has been out since I was 19, I've found the ones most worried and fretting about "masculinity" are always anything but (except in their delusional minds). Self loathing? I don't know. Extremely insecure? Most definitely.
And I'm looking at the screaming queen at R7.
Then they can identify as queer.
Right, you're not gay, you're just an hypocrite.
I, the OP have not rejected the word gay personally as many of you assume, though I have always preferred homosexual.
I am speaking about the widespread cultural rejection that appears to be going on.
You can be as bitter and nasty as you want but gay may someday be a relic word like invert.
Can you come up with something original, OP?
[quote]My nephew (whom I love)
And there it is.
r15 nailed it.
I always have to laugh at these guys when they start complaining about how badly they're treated by "the gay community." Considering the gay social scene has always put a high premium on masculine-acting men, all I can think is, "Wow, these guys must be really, really ugly."
r11 Just, sad. Stupid, and very, very sad.
I hope you've told him about all the GAY people who've gone through this world fighting so he could make such a ridiculous statement without fear of intimidation, discrimination or violence.
Ah the joys of watching a community, who resents the thought of being made to conform, devour its own for not conforming.
[quote]He responds. "NO, I want nothing to do with gay and all that it signifies. I am a man who wants to fully be a man who happens to like other men, I am not a 'gay'".
[quote]I, the OP have not rejected the word gay personally as many of you assume, though I have always preferred homosexual.
Boy, you and your nephew must be quite the hit on Asperger's Night at the local sports bar.
[quote]I, the OP have not rejected the word gay personally as many of you assume, though I have always preferred homosexual.
Are you a real person or are you a character in a 1950s educational film?
"I am speaking about the widespread cultural rejection that appears to be going on."
Other than the fairy tale world of your mind, exactly where is this "widespread cultural rejection" going on? You can't pick up a mainstream newspaper, news web site or emag (or any other form of media in the last few weeks) without some mention of gay marriage and gay rights.
who cares, it's just a word. What does the 'gay' mean to your nephew that it wounds him so to hear it? Was he bullied or something? I mean if that's his response in R11 anytime someone associates him with being gay, that's pretty extreme and a bit sad.
[quote]Ah the joys of watching a community, who resents the thought of being made to conform, devour its own for not conforming.
Common sense would indicate that you're talking about the OP, who is attempting to tell gay men how they should refer to themselves.
Experience, plus the wounded tone of your comment, tells me that you are instead defending him from that awful, horrible, no good, hissing gay community who won't have the good grace to just stop being so gay all the time.
R24. Do you know what Aspergers is?
R26 You are correct in that the media uses this word extensively.
Take a look at the net, male dating sites, the g0y site linked here, dudes for dudes etc.
That is the cultural rejection of which I speak.
R28. No, I am referring to the attacks from the queens. Sad
R18 is right. There is a 'widespread cultural rejection' going on. It's just that gay marriage was easier than 'I'm just a guy who wants to marry another man marriage'. But the tide is turning.
OP: [quote]Goy is one example
R29: [quote]Can you come up with something original, OP?
Seriously, OP, "Goy" is, and has been, taken for centuries. And typing "0" instead of "O" just makes you sound stupider than you already are.
And FWIW, I am a gay man who agrees with you on the matter of being saddled with the "T" part of LGBT. Those people, by definition, [italic]reject[/italic] "gay."
r31, I know. And you're too dumb to even see I pointed that out to you.
How proud you must be to use a condition to ridicule someone. We should all aspire to be you.
We're the People's Front of Judea!
Judean People's Front? The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front. Splitters. And the Judean Popular People's Front. Splitters. And the People's Front of Judea. Yeah. Splitters.
-- We ARE the People's Front of Judea.
Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
-- People's Front!
Whatever happened to the Popular Front?
--He's over there.
R18/R33: Link, please. Let's see some confirmation of this. Pulling shit out of your prolapsed assholes doesn't count.
R31. Sorr, I didn't read past your "common sense" line. I stand corrected
[quote]How proud you must be to use a condition to ridicule someone. We should all aspire to be you.
You should never aspire to be me. Your chronic wounded tone and butthurt attitude would prevent it, I'm sorry to say. You'd only wind up frustrated.
Well. MORE frustrated, I suppose.
R41. Doubtful, but I'd love to play the game and see who won.
Umm R39, I'm kidding.
Gaybros identify as gay or bisexual, it's just a subculture, not an orientation, and I've found a lot of those guys who are secure in their masculinity are a heck of a lot less insecure about who and what they are. And there is no gOy movement. That whole "movement" was a little bit of a fad in the mid-2000s. Realistically, few people identify as such and it isn't mainstream nor will it ever be.
There is no real cultural rejection going on, people who are gay/bi and not closeted identify as such. Those who allow themselves to believe in stereotypes, that they can't identify as gay and be seen as real men or that gay=weak/unmanly, then they have internalized issues they need to address. Because everyone else sees them as gay.
Please don't use the word gay around us. It wounds
Why don't we come up with a new word for it? I suggest GUAY, a combination of GUy and gAY.
Then we can have Guaybros, Guay Marriage, Guay bars and Guay porn!
God I LOVE to start new trends!
Here's my new word: GAGGIT
Gays Against the Goys/Gaybros Idiot Troll
R46, I love it. The plural of Guay could be Guano!
This thread is loaded with confirmation that they will go hissing into the night.
It's just a word, invert was a word to, but people let go of it when the time came.
Amigo, R46, you might as well go with 'guey'. Which I kind of like.
Gawker did "the gheys" for awhile.
r49 too is also a word, one sorely missing from your vocabulary.
OP, how do they feel about the word "homosexual"?
[quote]He responds. "NO, I want nothing to do with gay and all that it signifies. I am a man who wants to fully be a man who happens to like other men, I am not a 'gay'".
And the other person responds: "Mary!"
I think "gay" is a very wide-ranging term. The people who reject it seem like the narrow-minded ones.
R52 I don't know every person who rejects gay, but I have not seen issue with homosexual as a word on the social sites.
R11, that's sounds pretty gay.
Let's play MadLibs! I'll start with r11:
[R6] he says..."I am a *person with dark skin*."
If the person to whom he is speaking says..."oh you're *Black*."
He responds. "NO, I want nothing to do with *Black* and all that it signifies. I am a *person* who wants to fully be a *person* who happens to *have dark skin*, I am not a *'Black'*".
Why is this even an issue? I don't get it. I honestly don't.
My only observation is this, the old Thatcher line: Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.
To interpret it in this context, you may be outwardly all you claim to be but if you have to invest a lot of time rejecting groups with which you don't identify, it seems to me that inwardly, you're nothing like what you claim.
March to your own drum. And stop boring everybody else.
R18, "wide spread cultural rejection" of the word "gay and all that it represents"? You seem very out of step with the times in which we currently live. You seem to be basing your assumptions on your cultural sampling of one, your nephew. It's like you're Peggy Noonan.
R57 African American...
Black is as gay will be.
A doctor may call his place of business a "wellness clinic" but it's still a doctor's office.
If you're looking for a job, the HR office is where they'll tell you to go, but it's still the employment office.
The g0ys are still as gay as a tree full of Christmas ornaments on Christopher Radko's condo balcony.
But a calm discussion on these points will be a huge disappointment to the OP and the "the the" genius at R2, so ----
A DOCTOR MAY CALL HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS A "WELLNESS CLINIC" BUT IT'S STILL A DOCTOR'S OFFICE, YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A JOB, THE HR OFFICE IS WHERE THEY'LL TELL YOU TO GO, BUT IT'S STILL THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, YOU IDIOTIC SCUMBUCKET!
THE G0YS ARE STILL AS GAY AS A TREE FULL OF CHRISTMAS ORNAMENTS ON CHRISTOPHER RADKO'S CONDO BALCONY, YOU PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN, AND THAT'S NO SHIT!!!!!
Does this give you the reaction you desperately crave, OP? I suspect that your "nephew" is fiction and just an attempt to add another dimension to what you knew would be a shit-stirring thread.
Invert did not just "fall out of use." It was a psychological term based on a false understanding of what homosexuality is. It was rejected as both inaccurate and detrimental.
OP, it's obvious you're at that stage well after just acknowledging to yourself that you like dick and first overreacting by being a total whore, and obnoxious twink cunt, or both, past the rainbow fag/assimilationist point, maybe a tour through jock/cub world, and you're trying on one of the countless 'post-gay' identities being bandied about in queer studies programs.
Guess what...it all leads to the same place.
The thing we all fought for (and many died for, asshole) was for every stripe to matter: the pier queens, Pines bitches, Chelsea boys, alternadudes, fashion cunts, media whores, sex pigs, jocks, nerds, homeboys and thugs, Eurofags, rice queens, power dykes, diesels, femmes, butches, queers, Cabinettes, down-low, club kids, softball leagues, etc. etc.
For a while during the AIDS crisis, 'queer' gave 'gay' a good run for the money, for different reasons (not activist enough). But eventually, we all wind up "the gays". You don't have to shut down someone else's expression of their sexuality to affirm yours. Unless you're a fundamentalist, and then you should die in a grease fire.
You're not going to succeed, because we all tried the same thing, and realized it was a waste of time, like trying to create a new Google.
Just relax, go out and suck a dick, and know your flavor of same-sex sex is part of a big-ass tapestry that society had affirmed (around the world, mind you) as gay.
Now, go be gay.
R63 Yahoo was the word, google is the word. Things change.
It's not the gay population that has failed to embrace the masculine.
It's society at large and the gay men, oh excuse me, men who like men who similarly buy into the notion that the gay population has failed to embrace the masculine.
So get the fuck over it. If you feel you are underrepresented, stand up with everyone else, come out, make yourselves known and don't blame your gay brothers.
And so was AltaVista, Webcrawler, and Excite. Many paths, with an eventual consensus and accepted shorthand to express it. And that consensus is as GAY as you are.
[quote]Can those of you who love the word and the identity allow this gracefully, or will you go hissing into the night?
This forum has become nothing but a refuge for the prissy types to hiss and hiss and hiss. They know they're not wanted anywhere else.
What do people like OP's nephew call their boyfriends when they refer to them? I mean when it gets beyond the 'dating' phase.
The worn old myth 'your gay brothers' always makes me hiss.
Then again I identify as both gay and a realist.
[quote]What do people like OP's nephew call their boyfriends when they refer to them?
I believe the correct form is to say: Please meet my man who likes men who likes me most of all men who like men.
It's a bit tricky to say quickly until you've been through enough of them.
Question: Are you a guy who likes to suck dick?
The Only Conclusion: You're gay.
OP, your nephew sounds like a precious little tool.
Please, stop the bickering. In the spirit of the Love that dare not speak it's name and the brotherhood of Datalounge, let us come up with some helpful labels that may ease their worried minds. I'll start:
[childish epithet posted by a bigoted tool]ly challenged
r71, I'd much rather be called cocksucker than gay. That way I'd be associated with a beautiful act, not a piece of trash like you.
w&w for r70 :D
also, if DL ever issues bumper stickers, I nominate r63's motto:
[quote]Just relax, go out and suck a dick.
r72, you inadvertently revealed the purpose and agenda behind this site.
[quote][R6] he says..."I am a guy who likes guys."
[quote] If the person to whom he is speaking says..."oh you're gay."
[quote] He responds. "NO, I want nothing to do with gay and all that it signifies. I am a man who wants to fully be a man who happens to like other men, I am not a 'gay'".
It should pretty much be mandated by law that anyone who hears this shit must respond with "MARY!!!"
Thanks R3. My feelings exactly.
I'm really tired of people talking shit about gaybros without any notion of what that group is about. You're not going to catch any gaybro claiming to be straight. They all openly identify as gay or bisexual.
r76, are you dense? Read what YOU wrote. It's clear that he does not want to be associated with people like YOU. And in truth, he has nothing in common with you. The real question is, why are you pretending that he does?
We need to unite under the "gay/LGBTQ" label for political expediency. As a unified group, we form a voting block that can demand legislative change and boycott homophobic businesses.
FYI - The heterosexual population doesn't care whether you're masculine, feminine, etc. - they just see you as a "faggot".
R80. My fucking god. Really?
OP if it's just a label and a word, the fact that you are this worked up over it proves people like R3 correct.
The fact that you don't see the word "gay" as embracing
"the masculine" shows that you are either ignorant about gay people or a damaged homophobe.
I'm a triathlete, box and worked in law enforcement before going to law school. My boyfriend plays rugby. Neither of us have a problem
being called gay.
It's a great word. Once you have the guts to use it to describe yourself, you'll have no problem with it.
[quote] And in truth, he has nothing in common with you.
Except for that whole cock-sucking, butt-fucking thing.
And the fact that neither of them can have his marriage recognized by federal law.
Or that either one of them can be gay bashed by a bunch of thugs on the street.
But yeah, let's divide ourselves up because some guys are so insecure with the fact that they're into that whole cock-sucking, butt-fucking thing, just the same as the "less masculine" guys are.
I found an article about them from Slate (probably already referenced.) They seem harmless. There certainly does seem to be a good shot at building an understanding social group within their ranks.
Some interesting quotes:
"As Michael Warner writes in The Trouble with Normal, “queers do not have the institutions for common memory and generational transmission around which straight culture is built. Every new wave of queer youth picks up something from its predecessors but also invents itself from scratch. Many are convinced that they have nothing to learn from old dykes and clones and trolls, and no institutions … ensure that this will happen.” Take that with the generational void caused by AIDS, and you have a perfect recipe for a generation who rejects “gay culture” while knowing little, if anything, about it."
"The group has too much potential as a lively new model for engaging with issues like coming-out, political correctness, community-building and the rest to get waylaid by the old traps of masculine privilege and Andrew Sullivan-style queer-shaming."
"Speaking of clubs, I went to a second meet-up at a busy New York gay bar a few weeks ago with the intention of snatching a few more quotes. When I pushed in to the at-capacity room, however, I realized my plan was hopeless. The Gaybros, according to their posted itinerary, were somewhere there among the queens, Brooklyn hipsters, and shirtless go-go boys, drinking and flirting and laughing and hoping. But they were indistinguishable from the rest of their brothers."
But they're NOT insecure about that r83, and you know it. You're left with projecting shit about people because you resent the truth.
Read through the thread. All the bitching is coming from effeminite types. They know their annoying act is being rejected and they're whining. There have been several threads like this lately.
I don't know why this is so hard for some of you to understand. People simply don't want to be associated with embarrassing behavior that has nothing to do with same-sex attraction.
I guess it breaks down to whether you define gay wholly by the acts that come with your sexuality.
If all it takes to be gay in the label sense of the word is cock sucking and but fucking, there's no difference between any of us. Though it doesn't seem to ring true when you're trying to get laid. Then the divisions in the ranks are quite clear.
I don't see any evidence the gaybros are denying they're gay. They're just seeking people they feel they have more in common with. There used to be a lot of approval for gays who refused to assimilate, but apparently it's only gays whose assimilation is visibly rebellious.
Narcissism of small differences.
I couldn't agree more, from a masculine gay guy who doesn't like cowards. Yes, that's you, OP.
If gay isn't the word, why didn't queer take off?
I never liked it personally... sounded way more radical than I am.
So let's change the word "gay" to "pussy" r89. Then just call people "cowards" who don't want to be known by it. Or how about "scumbucket" or "feces guzzler"? You can put any word in there you want and your assertion would be no more or less stupid. The fact is that people want to be seen as who they ARE, not who someone else is.
A male who likes males has no motivation or reason to label himself with a term that has become associated with the anti-male. I mean really, are you that fucking stupid?
Okay, you're g0y. Happy?
The only fucking stupid hypocrite here is you OP.
f90, if there ever is a word that really means natural normal guys who are attracted to natural normal guys, then the gender bending prissies will have an absolute fit and demonize it immediately, because that is exactly what they fear -- that the 98% of normal gay guys will be seen for who they are and finally represent homosexuality accurately to the general public. Then the chicks with dicks will be isolated as what they are.
The devolvement here is astounding.
OP prefers homosexual over gay, which is odd.
How so, R95?
Yes, R85, they are insecure. There is absolutely no reason to run around shouting out how masculine you are and how you and your bros just enjoy a little sexy times but in completely 'non-gay' ways. You'd just get along with it, unless of course you're looking for validation.
And R86, if you're embarrassed that's your problem. I commend the very gay men and women you hate for being who they are and what to be, without waiting for you to approve their every step. You may sit down now.
Are all you non-gays also Republican?
Please be honest.
R94 and people like you are really dumb. Just like Republicans. I don't get your fascination with victimhood, really I don't. Just like Repulicans, you assert that a small minority is controlling the way the world works, BUT salvation is at hand. It's just around the corner, everyday it draws closer...
OP does your nephew like fish sticks?
...and hissing into the night they go.
I think this generation just doesn't consider sexual orientation defining. They reject the idea that people of the same sexual orientation necessarily have anything else in common. That's a good thing.
You - and they - can call it whatever the fuck you want, but it's still self-loathing.
When you are rejecting the thing that you are and saying "It's some other thing? We're not that thing!" that is self-loathing.
No catchphrase, buzzword or social media campaign will ever make it less so.
What all these people should be embracing and emphasizing is that there are many different kinds of gay people, just as there are many different kinds of straight people.
Which is much the same idea, but doesn't require the, you know, throwing your fellow gays under the fucking train move to make it happen.
Well said R105
[quote]I think this generation just doesn't consider sexual orientation defining.
I think they do. More than ever. Maybe differently, but more than ever.
[quote] They reject the idea that people of the same sexual orientation necessarily have anything else in common.
I agree 100%. Simply sharing the fact that we all suck cock/fuck ass does not make us "brothers."
[quote] That's a good thing.
I just don't think anyone needs to stand on the shoulders - or necks - of others to do it.
I am always suspicious of anyone who seeks to elevate themselves, or make themselves seem or feel special, solely by publicly rejecting others.
I agree they don't find it defining in the cultural sense because there's just so much choice now about how you define your life and your world.
I agree they don't find it defining in the political sense because government of every stripe is so inert. Most people just take what little the process manages to spew out.
I guess in the olden days there was a sense of unity and community in those who were out, because it was such a hostile world that it was a relief to find people like you. Now it's not so hard. That phase ended, I think, longer ago than most people realized, when gay starting morphing into the hardbody, gelled hair, circuit party type life.
Now you've got a new generation breaking away from that.
I've noticed a similar trend with lesbians. Many younger, feminine gay women do not want anything to do with the term "lesbian" and its outmoded associations. They also have incredible contempt for butches.
[quote]What all these people should be embracing and emphasizing is that there are many different kinds of gay people, just as there are many different kinds of straight people.
Yes, and what about the Michfest mockers? What about the people who post 'Eeeeew, fat!' And on and on.
The bros aren't inventing disdain or division in the 'gay community.' They just seem to be touching a nerve for some odd reason.
It is not self-loathing to say liking men doesn't make you part of any particular sub-culture.
[quote]I've noticed a similar trend with lesbians. Many younger, feminine gay women do not want anything to do with the term "lesbian" and its outmoded associations. They also have incredible contempt for butches.
Same with straight women who don't call themselves feminists. They've grown up and come into adulthood with a different experience so the radical seems irrelevant and off putting to them.
There are more closeted cases than ever. Little has changed even if some in denial prefer to think differently.
OP wipes back to front.
Gay is not a sub-culture. It is an orientation.
Lots of closeted gays on DL. All actors?
[quote]'gay starting morphing into the hardbody, gelled hair, circuit party type life...Now you've got a new generation breaking away from that.'
That is only one scene and hardly the most prevalent one since about 1999. People have been breaking away from established subculture since the beginning of time. This is nothing new. Stop trying to pretend it is.
I don't think most of them feel that rejecting labels is based on hostility to others of the same sexual orientation who are different. It's based on hostility to the idea of labels.
The meaning OP gives to his nephew's behavior is all on OP. He clearly loathes any sign of femininity in men. How much of that is self-loathing depends on who OP is. We don't know and it's not really terribly important or interesting.
R111 does have a point. I don't know that the gaybros or g0ys or whatever are really any worse than anyone else around here, and they certainly have the right to call themselves and think of themselves however they want.
Yeah, back in the 50s and 60s all gays were one type...no difference between the people in the Mattachine Society and the drag queens in Greenwich Village.
More than anything else, this topic seems to be a strong indicator of the existence of evolution. The phraseology and self-awareness of being attracted to people of the same sex as oneself is evolving, that seems fairly evident. I liked the comment about words having meaning, but those same words have a variety of meanings--- for me, I cannot abide with the use of the word "dating", it just rubs me so the wrong way. But I acknowledge that it is a commonly used, acceptable turn of a phrase. I want to travel to the future and read a history of homosexuality written from the perspective of the year 2100.
There have always been men who have sex with men who refuse to identify themselves or become part of a community. The existence of a gay community is far newer.
There has always also been a coterie of people who expect a community to deliver everything to them on a platter - a perfect boyfriend, supportive friends, and no trouble along the way. When reality hits, they blame the community and its members. Guess what? You're not going to find a mommy and daddy to adore you and take care of you when you're an adult.
We are vastly outnumbered by straights. Though we seem to have their favor now, that has not always been true. If you ask me to choose alliances with people who are part of an imperfect community or the individuals who identify only by their sexual activity, why would I choose the g0ys?
When people began to use the term "GAY", it primarily meant "Same-Sex-Attracted". Most have no issue with that original, simple meaning. However, over time, -the term has taken on lots of ASSociated-baggage as a result of stigmas from stereotypes. Thus a new word, or no word at all is needed.
What evolution? If you don't accept who you are, where's the evolution? This is lot of bullshit to hide the fact that you don't accept the fact that you're gay.
"Buggerer" always sounded like "dune buggy" to me. Is it so bad?
Are you ok with homosexual? It doesn't change anything because the only point is that you like men.
Cam4 uses labels like "straight," "bi" and "gay." The newer Chaturbate has users say whether they like men, women or everyone. The emphasis has shifted from defining yourself to saying whom you're into at the moment. Seems freer to me.
I don't think I've ever seen a thread explode as quickly as this one. 10/10 OP!
Freer? What's the difference? What a bunch of hypocrites.
I identify as GAY and I am a male and I don't enjoy anal....SO? what's the difference between me and a g0y?
[quote]what's the difference between me and a g0y?
You're honest about being gay. The g0y isn't.
This is nothing new. The "straight-acting" (their word) gays have always dissed the nellies.
I respect the word because a lot of people who came before me suffered to make this a more accepting world. They chose the word "gay" because it had a positive connotation:
2) lighthearted and carefree:
"Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face"
brightly colored; showy; brilliant:
"a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas"
OP's "nephew" (if he even exists) is callow, ungrateful and disrespectful. 30 years ago he would have married a woman and fucked around on the side with men. And probably ended up with AIDS because he let someone bareback his ignorant gay ass.
Porn Star Philip Aubry has a straight, out and proud boyfriend
Haha, you're right. I also doubt that the nephew exists or mayke he exists in the contorted mind of a closeted gay.
[quote]We are vastly outnumbered by straights.
I'm gay and live in a world where I'm outnumbered by anybody.
R18, this whole label bullshit is a crock. Everything in our world has to be labeled. Do you "label" yourself "male"? Why not dispense with that label?
It's called LANGUAGE folks. It's what differentiated the human animal from all other animals and gave us a way to communicate that allowed us to evolve and our brains to grow....
That bisexual boys reject the word gay is understandable because they don't want to commit to something they are not. That they can't call themselves bisexuals because they would suffer even more discriminated than if they identified as gay is sad because it shows how prejudiced and small-minded gays have become towards bisexuals, and are no better than homophobic straights.
The word bisexual is the new gay as far as discrimination and it is mainly being perpetrated by gay males who can't stand the idea that a man can have sex with another man and enjoy it and yet still desire sex with a woman. They are like gay nazis who insist that if you like to fuck a man, it is so superior to sex with a woman, that you can't possibly ever be able to enjoy hetero sex. Get over yourselves.
The only reason this whole don't label myself bullshit came up is because words have meaning. Gay means negative things to those men who can't admit they are gay. Bisexuals means negative things to who can't admit they are bi.
The day straight is a negative word, people will not want to use it for themselves.
The real solution is not playing word games. The real solution is to dispel all the false and negative stereotypes that make people not want to label themselves accurately.
The stereotypes are not false, read the responses on this thread.
[quote]OP's "nephew" (if he even exists) is callow, ungrateful and disrespectful. 30 years ago he would have married a woman and fucked around on the side with men. And probably ended up with AIDS because he let someone bareback his ignorant gay ass.
You deduce all that from his respectfully asking people not to call him "gay" even through he's out as a homosexualist.
R138 many stereotypes are false, or do you think all gays are pervs? or want to fuck boy scouts? or are incapable of raising children or being school teachers?
[quote]Goy is one example, My nephew (whom I love) is open about 'dating men' but refuses the gay label and respectfully asks people not to refer to him using that word.
Your nephew is a self-loathing misogynist homophobe who needs to pull the stick out of his ass.
I have nothing but contempt for your nephew.
Is the nephew cute?
I'm sure that crushed him.
What would crush him is being told he is bisexual.
Will you accept a reply from a pre-gay?
I was coming of sexual age in the 1950's so yes I am an elder and proud of it.
Many words existed at that time, I think homosexual was the most common. Queen and fag were insults as was queer.
Before being 'out' we were not invisible, but we were not hated in the same way. We did not know we were naked as it were.
Men swam naked, played naked and never thought about the specter of lurking homosexuality around them.
It was free, it was affectionate and the lines were not so clearly drawn as they are now.
Close friends eventually figured things out and they would warn wives not to fix you up as you were a 'confirmed bachelor' said in a hushed tone.
Yet it made less difference in a way.
Gay liberation changed everything and marriage will change everything again.
My response to young people no matter what they call themselves...'as long as you are happy, all I want for you is for you to be happy with yourself'.
Why is that so hard for you all?
The word likely will change or there may be a lot of changes. Why do you care so much?
If you marry do you demand that others use the word spouse? or Partner? Or husband, or husbear for that matter?
I wasn't at Stonewall or Woodstock but I've lived through enough to know that you bitter bitches are the 'Marys' of this thread and of the world.
The reality is a the word is irrelevant. The word will change, but the associations won't. So it may well not be "gay" in 100 years, but it will still mean cum-guzzling dude in the general imagination. If you're fine with that, then the specific word shouldn't matter either.
[quote]My nephew (whom I love) is open about 'dating men' but refuses the gay label
Is the nephew also open about dating women? The whole way this statement is phrased leaves that possibility open, at least to me. If the nephew does date women as well, then no. He's not gay.
[quote]I have nothing but contempt for your nephew.
Why would you care one way or another about someone who you don't know, will probably never meet and who has zero impact on your life?
Except in a hundred years all the baggage will be ancient history too.
[quote]Why would you care one way or another about someone who you don't know, will probably never meet and who has zero impact on your life?
more interesting to me is why the poster imagines his contempt matters to anybody?
R145, I'm not being saracastic at all. Thank you for your comment. Thank you.
If the nephew is ALSO open about dating women is bi.
As simple as that.
R145 I love confirmed bachelor but with marriage in the works that phrase can't work.
I find it funny that people think of how it will be in a hundred years and don't take into consideration that the majority of gay people NOWADAYS deny their real sexual orientation.
R153 what do you mean?
You say gay people are denying their sexual orientation?
By using the word gay it would seem they are claiming both their orientation and all that goes with it.
I mean people who are gay but are in the closet.
If there's any "baggage" in the word, it's what YOU bring to it.
Gay means homosexual means gay. Period.
It applies to any male or female who is sexually attracted to their own sex. Period.
I'm a gay man. I am not fabulous, I couldn't decorate my way out of a wet paper bag, I couldn't care less about fashion, and I watch the superbowl every year and NOT just for the commercials. I've had dozens of people refuse to believe I was "gay", and apparently don't ping many people's gaydars (much to my chagrin). I'm not uber masculine or anything either (I don't play sports, don't hit the gym every day, or even every week or month or year).
I'm just me. I'm gay. I'm homosexual. If other people want to project things onto me because of the word "gay", well... how does that hurt me? I know it's not true.
I guess I'm just not insecure or whatever.
R156 so you found what works for you.
Can you allow others to find what works for them?
R57, it's not about "what works", it's about the definitions of words, and people's irrational hangups. Having irrational hangups is not "working". It's a sign something ISN'T working.
R111 is the epitome of the problem. He reads stereotypes on DL and thinks that defines all gay people or blocks out reality.
I stand by my previous post. This is the talk of ignorant, fearful people.
If sports are your thing, get out and meet actual gay people in the flesh. There are gay sports bars, sports teams. Hell just get off of DL for a while and you'll find gay men on other sites with interests more like your own. Or go out, be an activist, and you'll see real gay people with diverse interests who care about important things. You might even meet a few guys who may not be "masculine" in your view and find them interesting and sexy. My boyfriend and I both play sports because that's how we met; but I've been attracted to many guys who don't because masculinity is not something I feel is missing in my life.
Just get out and get over it.
And maybe you'll stop bashing a word. You know what I mean.
It's not what works for them, it's hypocrisy.
There is no doubt that OP's nephew's attitude is common among young people. There have been threads like this before and I've met young people who resist the idea of labels for their sexuality.
So, bitter ones, your theory is that the environment of increased social acceptance and respect that this generation has grown up in has lead to an epidemic of self-loathing?
I find it more plausible that you are conditioned to expect self-loathing and lack the imaginations to see how this generation's attitudes reflect more self-confidence and acceptance, not less.
I'm a young man and I don't buy your BS. You're an homophobe.
I absolutely agree with OP. I am a man who is sexually attracted to other men. Call it whatever you please. Personally, I think the word "gay" is a total misnomer on so many levels. First of all, many of you cynical bitches who post here are hardly "gay" from the point of view "joyful, lighthearted and airy." Actually, most of you exemplify the antithesis of that word.You're rather dreary. You should call yourselves "the drearies." Also, please note that the greater percentage of us in this world who are attracted to men, are not the screaming flambouyant "in your face" fem fairies that others find so distasteful.They (you) are in fact, in the minority. They (you) make the most noise, but are the fewest in number. ..Sort of like The Tea Party. I find it rather sad. Yes, I,and millions like me, am attracted to, and make love to men. However, my identity is not "gay."
You're right . The majority of gay men are cowards in the closet.
R163 exemplifies the homophobia, anti-gay hatred, contempt, and all the baggage he brings to the word. None of that is actually in the word, it's what he willfully layers on top of it.
You don't want to be associated with "those people".
Which makes you no better than any other sort of bigot.
If you were actually secure in who you were, it wouldn't matter.
R161, you're abundantly full of shit.
R163, your post reeks of internalized homophobia too.
I don't get this whole deal. If you are so "confident" and "secure" then why give a fuck what anyone calls you?
R163, that's the faggiest thing I've read on DL in ages.
"Joyful, lighthearted, and airy" (Hyacinth Bucket?)
"The drearies" (Is that Polari?)
"make love to men" (You should try fucking them)
What a fudge-packin homo.
I second R166 and call bullshit R161.
The number of people in denial about their sexuality -- you know, everyone in the closet -- were the denialists.
More and more young people today are coming out, people who are more complicated than the stereotypes portrayed around here.
Grow some balls. If you have a problem being called gay, there's something wrong with you unless you're straight or bi.
R163 here. Me, homophobe? Self-loathing? Really? Is that the best you've got? Tell that to the many beautiful and loving men that have shared my bed and my body over the years.Maybe you haven't experienced that kind of warmth and affection. Perhaps you're too busy prancing about, finger-popping and flag-waving. But if that's what works for you,so be it. I have nothing against you "gays." identify yourselves as you wish Hey, I believe in live and let live.
I am happy with, and proud of my sexuality. it's just another part of who and what I am.
You sound like Tom Bianchi.
[quote]Perhaps you're too busy prancing about, finger-popping and flag-waving.
There you go again with that finger-pointing assumption and (in your eyes) slander. Really?
If you were secure in yourself, what I do or don't do wouldn't affect you. (for the record, I do none of those things).
Your constant attacks and obsession with "stereotypically gay behavior" are a window into an ugly part of your soul.
I know because I went through that phase myself. You have some growing up yet to do, apparently.
R170, you are gay. By definition. Come on, say it with me now: "I am gay".
There, that wasn't so hard was it?
There are a million ways to be a gay man in this world. That you assume otherwise is a little piece of homophobic ignorance still stuck in your brain. The sooner you purge it, the happier you and the rest of the world will be.
If they're willing to date me why do I care what label they use?
Thank you R167. That's what I have been wondering too. For me and pretty much all my friends, it really doesn't matter. None of us are interested in putting labels on ourselves, least of all one based on something so innate as sexuality. Most of us don't feel a real connection to the gay community, but its not because we hate it or hate other gay people. We're just not into it, the same way we are not into the NASCAR culture, or golf. I didn't have a traditional upbringing, so I was always around accepting people and by the time I made it to college, being gay or bi or whatever was not that big a deal. Ive probably said, "I'm into guys" more often than saying, "I'm gay" when coming out to someone because that's what it is and wrapping it up in some old fashioned label seems so pointless. If you saying I am gay makes you happy, knock yourself out. It really doesn't matter to me. I'm secure and confident enough in myself to not worry about that sort of thing.
R111, you're the one conveniently ignoring things. You're calling for tolerance in one of the most intolerant gay environments there is. (It is amusing though.) Don't post like the gaywhatevers they are represent anymore of a problem than all the other rejection that gets rolled out around here. And what, you think these people exist only on DL? They must go into the world sometimes and their thoughts go with them. You're an idiot.
[quote] Your constant attacks and obsession with "stereotypically gay behavior" are a window into an ugly part of your soul.
R172 hit the nail on the head.
Sorry, R170. I misplaced my tamborine years ago. And no finger popping here. Though I'm waving one single finger in the air right now. Can you guess which one it is??!!????
Your words - and the ways in which you use pejorative language about other gay men - speak for themselves. Thank you for so eloquently making MY own point for me.
What R105/R166/R177 said.
What a bunch of self-loathing cowards you all are.
Fuck you R179. Seriously. I have no problem letting people know I have sex with other guys. Pretty much anyone who is important to me knows it. For real, the way some of you toss around the term self loathing its like it doesn't even mean anything anymore. You may as well have called me a printing press. It has about as much impact and is equally as meaningless.
"Self-loathing" doesn't actually mean anything anymore. Why would anyone care if a fellow queer thinks you're "self-loathing"?
It's me again R163 R170. .. Hey guys, I'm gettin' laid. Are you? .. It's only one part of my life. .. moving right along . . . .(see ya!)
This reminds me of lesbians who want to be called "gay" because they don't like the word "lesbian." Insecure, self-loathing, and stupid.
I'm a Lesbian, Dyke, Homosexual, Gay, Queer
On DL self loathing means either you don't think what I think or you're sex negative. It stopped having any similarity to a definition of human behaviour a long time ago.
I always do and I don't have problems letting people know I'm gay.
I think bi's should change their term to "stray". A mix between straight and gay. Ya'know since 90% of them are in straight relationships but they stray when they go on Grindr or Craigslist.
R181 You're right, it really doesn't have a meaning anymore. I mean its crazy. I was once called self loathing here because I made the mistake of admitting I had never seen and have no desire to see The Sound of Music. For real. Hey you know what other movie I have never seen and really don't care to watch? Weekend at Bernie's. I guess that means I have some irrational fear of death.
I am NOT Black. I a Cablinasian (Caucasian-Black-Indian-Asian).
Anything but Black.
The right definition for you is closeted gay. You're just in denial of who you are. Get over it.
Im straight. But mad respect for my GOy and Gaybros.
[quote]Ive probably said, "I'm into guys" more often than saying, "I'm gay" when coming out to someone because that's what it is and wrapping it up in some old fashioned label seems so pointless.
R175... when you're a guy saying "I'm gay", you're saying nothing more or less than "I'm into guys". Why do you think it's any different? IT'S THE SAME THING.
I don't get you or what you're saying. You're being ridiculous.
Clearly you aren't as secure as you think if you feel you aren't gay but you're into guys... because one is the other. They mean the exact same thing. It's not a "label" any more than being "into guys" is a label.
This is silliness.
One question for those of you men loving men whose identity is 'not gay'... why in God's name are you [italic]here[/italic] of all places?
Why don't you want to see SOUND OF MUSIC, R187? I'm no Musicals Queen, but I think this one is well worth not missing. Of course, my grandfather was born in Austria, so I may be biased, but musically speaking, I wouldn't want not to know the songs, at the very least.
[quote][R76], are you dense? Read what YOU wrote. It's clear that he does not want to be associated with people like YOU.
I am a woman, darlin', and you're right, if he's as old-school nelly queen as he sounds, he probably has a morbid fear and loathing of "fish" like me. But while I am woman, anyone who would get his little panties in such a bundle over being identified as gay is a much bigger girleen than I could ever be. I can call my dog a cat, but that won't change the truth. He can call his uptight, fussed-out behavior "natural masculinity" but that won't make it so. He's a Mary, Mary.
R193 may be the single most convoluted piece of writing I have ever tried to read.
"but I think this one is well worth not missing."
"I wouldn't want not to know the songs"
Hey, speaking of music you cannot avoid definitely having not to not hear:
R191 If saying "I'm gay" is the same as saying "I'm into guys" then what difference does it make, right? Straight guys say, "I like the ladies" all the time. Do you have an issue with that? Besides, I never said they were different. Nor did I ever say I'm not gay. I did say that if you calling me gay makes you happy, go for it. It really doesn't matter to me one way or another. A person can be secure about something while at the same time being indifferent about it.
If you want to have a real discussion about this, I'm all for it. But please try to read the actual words I write and not the ones you imagine are there.
R170, you continue to show your hand.
R175 is on the money. If you say IN PUBLIC -- not on a message board -- to other people you sleep with guys -- most sane people won't give a shit about your sophistry and say you're gay. It's only you who have chosen to associate something with the word gay that you clearly identify as a stereotype, and "un-masculine" when there are plenty of people probably more masculine than you who have no problem with the word.
If you don't say to other people that you sleep with guys, you're closeted. And that says it all.
Your fight over this word is ridiculous.
[quote]If saying "I'm gay" is the same as saying "I'm into guys" then what difference does it make, right?
The difference only comes in that I'll say both without a thought or care, but you shy away from and avoid one for some reason. And it's that reason you need to examine. What false assumptions, or baggage are YOU bringing to the word that makes you shun it? Why do YOU care which you use?
Fact: They are interchangeable. So the question is: Why are you against using them interchangeably? Examine THAT.
Your protestations that it doesn't really matter to you seem a little bit like a lie, because if that were true, you wouldn't be posting so much about how you won't use "gay" and instead use "I'm into guys"...
I don't think I'm the one imagining things here. I'm reading what you're writing, and what I'm seeing is "the lady doth protest a bit too much" for it to REALLY not be an issue with you.
I'm a masculine gay male. I don't go around introducing myself that way, but people have told me I'm masculine and that I read more straight than gay.
I have no problem with femme guys or drag queens (dime are quite funny) and I would never describe myself as anything but gay. I think "straight acting" is a joke. How straight are you acting with a dick in your mouth?
The posts I read describing young men who claim to "date men" but not identify as gay sound ridiculous to me. These men are not so much masculine as they are conformist, cowardly and a bit prissy. It's a word. You're gay. Get the fuck over it. If you had any balls at all you wouldn't even care what the word meant.
Laughing at "I like the ladies." What straight guys are you hanging out with, 70-year olds?
Thank you, R195.
What I said is perfectly understandable to me, though I might have edited it some if DL offered the chance. I always like to edit something in the typeface in which it will eventually appear.
Not saying what I wrote [italic]isn't[/italic] convoluted, but I am not unable to understand it.
I get confused by other people's double negatives, too.
Love you. Mean it. Whatever you decide you're not [italic]not[/italic] going to call yourself (gay, MWFM, MWGFBM, bro).
What first comes to mind is "gay + guy" combined in one word. I don't care what you intend it to mean as to one individual, such as yourself; nor the segregational patriarchs on the sham of a website you provided. However your request for validity has obviouusly been denied here, neither would any future person answer to you in this.....
You deny your very nature owing no allegiance to a woman
Ideally, your suggestion can only satisfy segregationist patriarchs.
Is this really how we should fracture as a cohesive well-intending voice attaining equality more and more as we speak? Judgment as a weapon is what you call g0y, it's nothing innovative and poignant that you use the number 0 to refer to your operandus. Go away or we'll eat you!
It's one thing to describe yourself as "into guys," but to make a huge, fussy deal about rejecting the word "gay" and refusing to let anyone else describe you that way, as the OP's alleged nephew allegedly does, is beyond ridiculous.
If you are really so wholly different from other gay guys that you need your own freaking label, shouldn't your differences be immediately apparent to anyone who meets you? Why do you even need to run around explaining that you're not one of the gays if your not-gayness is that pronounced?
R198 Again I find myself having to cite what I originally wrote because, I don't know, I must have used invisible font: I have said to people "I'm gay", so clearly using the term is not a problem for me. I have given the subject more thought. I guess I say "I'm into guys" because its more direct, kind of blunt and seems to make not as big a deal out of it. Maybe its the way I say it, but it seems to have a sort of matter of fact manner to it. And again, as I said before, straight guys say who they are into, so it just makes sense to me for me to phrase it the same way not because I am trying to imitate straight guys, but because I imagine that's how most people are used to hearing such things put. If me saying the words, "I'm gay" makes you feel better then fine. I'm gay. But nothing has changed. I don't feel any different since typing those words. No life altering event has occurred for me. And I suspect, no life altering event has occurred for you, right?
A "goy" is a non-Jew, to a Jew.
And plenty of people who've lived anywhere near New York or LA, or known any Jews at all, will laugh their fucking asses off at the idea of Gays Who Hate Being Called Gay (GWHBCG) calling themselves "goys."
The plural is "goyim," BTW.
It's about the silliest thing I've ever heard of.
God the energy OP expends worrying about this shit could power a city for months.
R193 I don't know, I just never got around to seeing it. I like classic films, but something about musicals from that time have this high gloss artificial quality to them and I find it distracting. For me, its like action stops as soon as they break out into song. And the subject seems too serious for a musical. Something like Grease or Rocky Horror is not as much an issue for me because that stuff is over the top silly anyway. But a musical with Nazis? Who knows, perhaps someday I will see it, but there are other classic films higher up on my "to watch" list.
Overall, I agree with you, R207. I find most musicals insipid, the few I like being the exception. I think I hated the idea of Sound of Music for years, and then realized how much I liked "Edelweiss" (you can't be Austrian-American and hate "Edelweiss"), and later "Climb Every Mountain" and "Do Re Mi," (which I've always known by heart because my second-grade class memorized it for a school talent show).
These are great songs, not diminished in any way for having been introduced in this admittedly sentimental musical.
I have yet to go to a singalong, but I'm not dead yet.
You can call an ice cream cone whatever you want, it's still an ice cream cone.
You can call yourself whatever you want, if you have sex with someone of the same sex, you're still gay.
[quote] When people began to use the term "GAY", it primarily meant "Same-Sex-Attracted". Most have no issue with that original, simple meaning.
Actually, same-sex-attracted seems to be a fairly recent term (which I've always felt is often used to avoid facing the fact that a person is 'homosexual').
r204 / r207 Maybe the reason you don't identify with the gay community is that you like to make things all about you, or are too busy being flip to get the point. Troll dar your posts and deny it.
The OP, who you are not, has taken use with ANY use of the word gay. Your use of the phrase "I'm into guys" isnt't "more direct". The world now knows what gay means and for guys it means as you eloquently put it that we're "into guys". So you're just wordier. And you read like a poser.
The OP's hysteria over the word "gay" (along with his nephew) is not helped by your solution. It's one thing for the President to say gay Americans should be treated equally. Saying we should treat people equally whether "men are into men or into women" is ridiculous. Yes, you could say as Kirsten Gillibrand had said we should not be discriminated against for who we love, but saying "gay Americans" isn't offensive. Apparently thanks to you and OP, it's still provocative and pisses enough homophobes off that it IS established now to make it worth using over and over.
As Kate Clinton once said when this "post-gay" movement got started, the OP and his nephew's lack of a valid reason to reject the word gay is about as "dumb as a post" gay as you can get.
And if you don't identify with the gay community, R207, it's because you don't know enough gay people, or you wouldn't describe it as some alien obsolete entity, which it never was, and still isn't. If's bigger and more diverse than ever.
[quote] Straight guys say, "I like the ladies" all the time. Do you have an issue with that?
And if you called them "straight", they also wouldn't give a shit, because that label is also accurate.
I'd like to see R204/R207 get into his convoluted semantics argument with the rest of the world and see how much traction he gains there.
Cause to the outside world, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....
[quote]Maybe the reason you don't identify with the gay community is that you like to make things all about you
Guilty. For some reason I cant understand, the environment I am comfortable in is all about me and how I feel. I know. Its shocking. Please tell me, how can I change so that I know I am pleasing strangers first?
Amen, OP! I'm glad people are realizing there's life beyond the gay ghettos.
[quote]And if you don't identify with the gay community, R207, it's because you don't know enough gay people
That maybe true. Most of my friends are not gay. My gay friends are like me. Its not that we hate gay culture (for lack of a better term) its just there are other things we like more.
I only have one male gay friend and I'm pretty much over him. He's a pothead whose content with being mediocre.
R217, what do you mean, though? I am totally sympathetic to your point of view... I get that there's more than one way to be gay and am amused by the hypocrisy on this thread.
But what are the aspects of gay culture that you're rejecting / objecting to / like less than things you like more? I am genuinely curious how it nets out. If you know you prefer something more you have to be able to explain what you prefer it above. It's your life, you're entitled to like or dislike as you please, but I'd like to know what that is in this case.
[quote]Amen, OP! I'm glad people are realizing there's life beyond the gay ghettos.
Good lord, what does that have to do with anything? Of course there is life beyond the gay ghettos, but just because you choose not to surround yourself with 24/7 gaydom doesn't mean you are not gay.
wow, over 200 posts already. DL folks really are hung up about dudes who are into dudes identifying as gay. They get upset when dudes don't reject the gay label.
It sounds much, much, much more like you're the one who is hung up on labels, r221/OP.
Most dudes will not apply "goy" to themselves either. It sounds very non-masculine, girly. Or Hebrew....
This Thread Is Dead To Me, DEAD
It's as if the OP had absolutely no idea of African-American culture and proposed that men who have sex with other men should call themselves "crackers."
OP, the irony is, for whatever implications the word "gay" your nephew rejects (whether it's a detraction from masculinity/it's too MARY, etc), the new term he assigns for himself can and most likely will be perceived by others (esp the straights) not in the way his made up descriptor intends, but be in the same light as the reasons he rejected "gay" for. For example, I roll my eyes if one calls himself Not Gay but Loves Dudes, or goy, or man lovers-- these are more cartoonish and prissy in my eyes, and I know the context why he wants to use it, what more for straights who are clueless. You should advise him that, if he disagrees with the status quo meaning of "gay", he should embrace and modify the impression of the word by being a changing example of it. For example, the word "bitch" transitioned from pejorative to empowered by examples of women who embraced and led by example. What your nephew is doing is bring fellow gays a step backwards, while looking silly doing so.
I think we should just kick that [childish epithet posted by a bigoted tool] trans shit out and live our happy gay lives. Let them have their fem-trans marriages!
r226, those are eloquent thoughts, but remember: "irony" and "descriptors" are very big words for someone who didn't know that "goy" is already taken.
If you think bitch has transitioned into something positive, you're nuts.
R228, those may be big words for someone like you, how sad. You obviously missed the point that OP's nephew can use whatever arbitrary word he likes and still fail. Taken or not, I have seen goy used in place of "gay", even here on DL.
I love that r230 is pretending he's not the OP.
r229, tell me more!!
So if I follow R228, whatever the guy calls himself he's fucked no matter what he calls himself so he may as well call himself what R228 wants him to call himself to avoid R228 rolling his eyes.
Oh, and also, something can be silly enough to be disdained, yet still so powerful as to single handedly regress an entire group of people.
Wouldn't it just have been easier to say 'you should do it my way'?
Sorry, meant R226... the whole thing left me deeply confused.
Well, Meredith, outside a Jackie Collins novel, most people consider being called a bitch less than flattering. As a rule, people don't like to hire bitches or date bitches or hang out with bitches. Because bitches, by any definition, are not pleasant people. The same goes with the male equivalent, asshole.
But each to his own. Though let me suggest you seem well suited to driving the transition of the word moron.
I love that R231 is pretending he has reading comprehension skillz!
[quote]But what are the aspects of gay culture that you're rejecting / objecting to / like less than things you like more?
Thats a good question. I think before I answer we need to make a distinction in terms, because it may lead to misunderstandings. As far as I can tell, we have the gay community, gay culture, and the gay scene. All three mean something different.
There really is nothing about gay culture or the gay community I find objectionable and reject seems so sever and final. As I said before, I dont know a real lot of gay people, so my interaction with other gay people is somewhat limited. However my friends and I do have a community of sorts among ourselves, if that means anything. But our sexuality is not the core of that and there are many who are not gay who I would also consider part of our community. As far as gay culture goes. That totally confuses me because its all over the place and much of it is not (as far as I can tell) exclusive to just gay people. I like classic film, and so do a lot of other gay men. But the biggest classic film freak I know is a straight guy. I like art, but obviously its not like only gay men go to art museums. Concerning the gay scene. Again, that confuses me because I suspect everyone has a different take on what that means, and its something that probably changes as you grow older. I will say I am not into club music. I dont hate it, but its just not my taste. If my friends (gay and straight) are going to go to a bar to hear music, chances are its to see a live band. We are into psychobilly, but again, there are gay people there too sometimes.
[quote]You can call yourself whatever you want, if you have sex with someone of the same sex, you're still gay.
And if you have sex with someone of the opposite sex, you're still straight.
Stick to your Jackie Collins novels, R235, you are not an accurate social barometer. And the female equivalent of a male asshole is also, surprise!, an asshole.
OP is the kind of person who insists that White and Black are not actual colors.
I'm guessing that everyone incensed by the OP's story is...not masculine.
It is not that I find gay culture and gay identity objectionable in an objective sense. I don't and respect people who adopt that identity. It is just that it is not me nor my identity as it is not for millions of same-sex interested dudes.
This makes no sense to me. If you're a man who is emotionally and sexual attracted to another man, you're gay. Your nephew is basically going around giving the definition, but refuses the term.
People are strange.
Not that the posters are tedious, but your thread is tedious. I'll go back later to read what my DL brothers and sisters have posted.
I am gay.
I am queer.
I am a man.
I am masculine.
I am a liberal.
I am a conservative.
I am light in my loafers.
I can be as nelly as they come.
I can handle power tools and build shit.
I cry at some musicals.
I am happy.
And FUCK YOU, YOU SANCTIMONIOUS NITWIT.
You forgot I am angry.
OP is a piece of shit. Divide and conquer, divide and conquer, pit the minorities against each other, encourage them to kill themselves, blah blah blah. It used to be a daily thing on datalounge. Let's face facts. There aren't that many people in the world of whom it can truthfully be said the world would be better off if they had never lived. But you are one of them.
If you have a problem with the way gays are represented then, perhaps, you should help to show the full range of gay culture. We are athletes, we are actors, we are doctors, poets, mechanics, we are masculine and some - not so much. One hundred years ago, blacks were presumed to be Aunt Jemima and Stepin Fetchit. Blacks didn't stand around and say I'm not black, I just happen to have dark skin - they showed the world that they are simply human.
We must all stand up for ourselves. We must show the varied and beautiful faces of gay. We must all be counted and accepted for who we are. Fighting amongst ourselves and dividing our numbers is the road to being conquered. We must stand strong and support each other. We must accept each other if we want to be accepted.
^ Oh, for God's sake.. MARY!
R233/R235, you obviously do not follow. Let me fix your post to something you can better understand, yet didn't stop you from being snippy: whatever invented word or euphemism the guy calls himself he's fucked no matter what he calls himself so he may as well call himself what the Webster Dictionary- the universal reference to word definitions-- wants him to call himself, and be an example of the positive definition he wants for that word to change it. It doesn't have anything to do with what I think, but words do have established meanings. What walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck-- don't call it 'duck', call it 'wild-swimming-bird-with-flat-bill-short-legs-and-webbed feet' but not 'duck'.
[quote]"Oh, and also, something can be silly enough to be disdained, yet still so powerful as to single handedly regress an entire group of people."
I don't care if he calls himself Sasquatch, but if the motivation is in the spirit of putting down a group and exhibited to the uninformed, homophobes and bigots, I don't think it's silly, and I never said it was. I said it is most likely futile, if not regressive.
I could trolldar and backread the thread to see what your take on this topic is, but your lazy sniping is enough to render me uninterested.
Ah, the bully threat of trolldar. Click away, click away, if you can reach the mouse from your high horse.
Take the word bromance. It sounds cool, sounds masculine. It sounds like a dude who is affectionate with a dude AND all-man, all-masculine. Perhaps, a word for dudes who date dudes can be invented that has the masculine sound of bromance, such as dudephile.
Knob-schlobber has a nice ring to it.
God these youngins make me feel old. I'm turning 30 this month and I'm so over these kids trying to reinvent the wheel.
You're gay, shut your faggot ass up. You are gay. Deal with it.
You are not straight-acting, "goy", extra-special, or more "masculine" than any other man on the planet. You are retarded however, and we'll save you a seat at the kids table while the adults are busy not caring about your new labels while "avoiding" labels.
Isn't it funny how many of these kids who want to identify as everything but gay have a million and one labels they love but still hate the word "gay". That's called self-hatred.
You're afraid, that's fine. It stops being cute when you start coming up with new shit to avoid the issue.
Say gay 10 times in a row out loud and cry a few times it get it out of your system. Now realize it's not a big deal anymore in 2013 and over-complicating it isn't necessary.
There's no better way to make yourself look like the biggest sissy around than to avoid being called gay because you're worried about how it will make you look.
Real masculine gays are out and proud. Stop over-thinking it online and live your damned life.
The older I get the less likely I'm going to be able to hold back from bitch-slapping a child who tells me not to call a spade a spade.
If you're exclusively with men you are in fact gay. If you're with both men and women you're bisexual. If you're exclusively with women you're straight.
What a hard and complicated system to work out. So many labels, lets come up with 10 better ones to avoid using those 3 because they're so horrible.
Fucking hipsters, I swear.
And then there's that
[quote]I'm turning 30 this month
YOU make ME feel old. You're a child. Be happy you're still so young.
He's grumpy like an old man, though.
But the word "gay" sounds so gay, tho.
[quote]YOU make ME feel old. You're a child. Be happy you're still so young.
I know but my dumb generation and every generation under me is always trying to reinvent, remake, and claim everything.
We're probably the least motivated and uncreative generations the world has ever known. I think I was born in the wrong decade. I can't stand being lumped in with these nitwits.
All it takes to see how dumb they are is bring up the topic of bisexuality. They'll write a 20 page thesis on how everyone is really bi and break out a Kinsey scale to tell you what you don't know about yourself.
Apparently no one is gay, but there are still straight people when everyone is bi.
I always tell them to introduce me to all of these bisexuals because I'm not seeing them. Closeted men, yes. Straight me, very many. Actual bisexuals? Can count them on one hand and even then I was unimpressed...what's so enlightened about being greedy?
Anyway I'm just tired of these dumb kids trying to kill the word gay just because they're afraid of it. I grew up when you were still allowed to fight the guy or guys picking on you. Now these pansies just run away from their problems rather than face them head on.
Internal conflict turns to changing words because they can't handle them. How cowardly and ignorant.
Judge much, R259? I assume your point of view is so specifically developed on account of all the time you spend alone, angry.
[quote]every generation under me is always trying to reinvent, remake, and claim everything.
So did every generation before you. That's what generations do.
BroSexer sounds masculine.
r259, you sound like a comic book character. Way over the top, dude. Chill....
It sounds like the name brand for a dildo, R262.
Even more dildoesque, R265.
Been following this thread all day.
Of course it's laughable to shun the word gay for... gay people. It's like restaurant. Call it a bistro, call it a gastropub... it's still a restaurant. So leave them to their silly attempts to rebrand... gay is what it is.
That said, the hostility toward those who would define themselves differently just because they want to press toward a more masculine definition of gay (in their own view) is a bit mystifying. There's pressure all around to embrace all the other forms of gay (femme, drag queen, whore). It seems like at DL if it's a rebellious form of self expression it's GOT to be endorsed. If it's conventional, it's some kind of betrayal.
My theory for the whole mess is that there's so much rejection at the foundation of gay experience... from the straight world around us, from the the gay world when we enter it... anybody who seems to threaten yet another form of rejection will be hounded.
I like "brosexual," R267. It combines the two essential elements more elegantly and eloquently than anything anyone else has come up with.
It's g0y, not goy.
The "zero" says it all.
The zero says...nothing.
R270, how do you pronounce "g0y," Geezeerowhy?
I have no idea. I just am familiar with the term and spelling.
I'm gay, in case you were wondering.
Oh, I've seen the website. Reading it, knowing it exists, etc., doesn't turn GMWHBCGM into "g0yim," though.
My theory is that there are some gay guys in the closet who are trying to legitimaze their cowardness behind word games.
[quote]My theory is that there are some gay guys in the closet who are trying to legitimaze their cowardness behind word games.
To r259 and r268 and everyone who like to portray people defending the word gay as angry... and then admitting that OP's point that started this thread is ridiculous while trying to pretend they just want freedom to call themselves something else.
This is not about telling people they can't describe themselves another way. It's about the OP's point, ridiculously defenfed here, that they have a problem being called gay... BECAUSE now that we are closer to equality they feel above the word.
It is well accepted that gay people coming out as gay are credited with changing public attitudes - centuries of brutal homophobia - by letting the world know that their family and neighbors and coworkers are gay.
And gay rights organizations who have fought for the right to be out and to describe ourselves as something other than straight have spent millions of dollars, mostly from gay people, fighting for our rights and equality AS gay rights.
And now that equality is close at hand, people here want to piss on the word "gay" to justify their disdain for the word that has been a huge part of winning their freedom.
So yes that's offensive.
Whatever you call yourself, your still gay.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a masculine gay man.
There is something a bit amiss about being a masculine gay man who is uncomfortable using the word 'gay' to describe himself.
There is something a lot amiss about being a masculine gay man who thinks his masculinity makes him not really gay.
There is something wildly delusional about a gay man who pitches a big, queeny hissy fit whenever someone else refers to him as gay, and then explains, "I don't use that word because I'm so masculine."
I think the issue is that the word "gay" means different things to different people. To some, it exclusively means any man or woman who has same sex attraction, while to others, it describes particular behavioral attributes, or a specific culture that extends far beyond just a same sex attraction. Some people just dont want to be associated with a particular culture or behavioral characteristics that they dont personally identify with, or that they may identify with in only some respects but not in others. It doesnt mean that they hate or reject or dont accept or appreciate those that do (although as you can see from the posts here there are some that do unfortunately feel this way), it simply means it doesnt feel right for some people.
I think the way the American "gay" culture and identity developed,it was skewed towards a more feminine identity than naturally exists in the general population of same-sex loving individuals because of the severe repression and stigma attached. Back then,(and still now but to a much lesser degree) most who were "masculine" enough to hide it, did, while those on the most feminine end of the spectrum may not have had that option, and were self-outed by nature of their behavior, mannerisms etc so the "out" "gay" culture may have included more feminine "gays" than would exist in a random sampling. On top of that the culture then further adopted an exaggerated femininity in certain language behaviors and rituals . This is still to a large extent the image presented as "gay" in the media and to young people growing up in American society and is still today skewed to reflect a particular "type" of individual that a lot of us just dont feel comfortable being narrowly defined by.
I couldn't agree more. Lots of Bs to excuse their inner homophobia.
Yeah, brosexual sounds cool, hip, mainstream, and VERY MASCULINE. IT is the type of word that dudes would tend to embrace. It sounds like the type of dude that shoots hoops, loves football, wears basketball shorts, and is just one of the fellas.
Lots of closeted cowards on DL.
Today's hip and cool is tomorrow's lame ass stupidity.
Obviously R283 has never learned this.
I think R283 is being sarcastic.
I think its courageous and evolved to develop a new sense of individual identity rather than merely conforming to a pre-existing one that doesnt feel fully comfortable. For some people the "gay" identity just feels right, and I applaud and support them. After being so challenged and ostracized for being themselves for so long, you would think all self-identifying gays would support others in finding and being themselves as well--why cant that support be returned instead of them doing to others what was(and still is)done to them?
Bla, bla, bla. Stop making excuses for not being able to publicly admit you're gay.
That goy.org site?
LMFAO. What a bunch of fags..
I don't even know where to begin.
I like the way Frank Ocean does it. He matter of factly says, "Look, I fell in love with a dude, and I even write songs about it." He doesn't use the word "gay" to describe himself, in fact, he never uses the word at all. It says all he ever needs to say without taking on some extrinsic cultural identity he does not appropriate for himself.
Goy is as even worse word than "gay." Goy sounds like an ugly girly guy who listens to chick music and watches Bravo.
"Goy" means gentile in Yiddish. I'm not even Jewish and I know this.
"DUDESEXUAL" sounds like a hot, masculine dude who dates chicks and dudes. It has that hot macho ring to it.
But the goy guys are so masculine, they are not gentile.
r292 Yes! Thats what I'm talking about!
And yes, the whole Goy thing is simply ridiculous, beginning and not ending with the fact that it means gentile,(oy vey...)
But it also shows that theres such a need and desire for a new paradigm that many people are willing to ascribe to this cultish silliness
"I like the way Frank Ocean does it. He matter of factly says, "Look, I fell in love with a dude, and I even write songs about it." He doesn't use the word "gay" to describe himself, in fact, he never uses the word at all."
In an interview just the other day, Snoop referred to Frank as gay.
So as someone upstream said, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....
Wow, you define yourself and other people on the basis of Snoop Dog(or is it Lion?)'s proclamations. How intelligent and evolved!
Sure, people are free to call you whatever. But it really matters most what you call yourself.
"Goys"/gays like considering themselves as intelligent and evolved but the truth is they are closeted gays in denial. End of story.
r301 = Snoop Lion
R270 R273 That's right. You can't pronounce it. Because the zero means it isn't a word.
Haha, it's always better than GOOOOYYYYY.
Come on, they can't be serious about the word "G0y?"
And yet, R305...
They are serious! There must be some PR people amongst them. They're so good at this kind of BS.
R297, Cultish silliness? Really?
For all the millions of gay people who have come out and fought for equality as gay people, I say "fuck you".
You're an insult to everyone who has fought to make us not criminals.
[quote]After being so challenged and ostracized for being themselves for so long, you would think all self-identifying gays would support others in finding and being themselves as well--why cant that support be returned instead of them doing to others what was(and still is)done to them?
Because they fear that a separate gay identity will die off with them and there will be no one to worship at the feet of their idols or maintain their shrines.
Haha, what a joke you are.
r308 I was talking about the G0YS not the gays you dumbass, everyone else seems to understand except you...so instead of haughtily speaking for them maybe you ought to learn to read
This entire goy separatist notion is a joke, R309. If you aren't gay, you don't suck cock.
Oh, you suck cock?
All you need to know:
1. "Goy" is already taken as a word.
2. "G0y" isn't a word that can be pronounced -- only keyed/typed -- so it isn't a word.
Theres not one person here defending the goys, but every time someone tries to make any kind of more general point, some idiot attacks them as if they are a member of or defending the goys.
What general point, idiot R314?
I guess the goal is to have people think "masculine" when they think "same-sex attracted." But that would require that most of the people they see and meet in that category be particularly masculine. And most gay men are not particularly masculine, including OP's nephew. Just the concern about how others are perceiving him is weak and unmasculine in itself. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to be able to accept it. And just as they aren't masculine, most gay men are also uncomfortable with their lack of masculinity, and constantly trying to overcompensate for through sad efforts like this.
Why are so many of you g0ys so desperate for approval from others? Why do so many of you crave acceptance by straights?
For Christ's sake, grow a pair already
and fuck what your straight "bros" think of you.
It's how we rolled in the past!
Exactly, R317, that's all it really is about. Approval and validation.
You're right, we don't need approval from homophobe straight people.
I think perhaps its really an issue over the different meanings the word gay has come to encompass. Generally, it means any person who has a same sex attraction. However it can also mean being part of the gay community or social scene or political movement as well. Not every gay person participates in those three, even though they may be out. I guess in their mind, they are gay in that they have sex with guys, but thats where the gayness ends.
I don't think that the people you described are out. And that's the problem.
R321 People like OP's nephew, who is open about dating guys, is out. It sounds like he's maybe the sort who feels the label gay ends with what he does in the bedroom. It sounds silly, but if thats what makes him happy...
I looked at the G0ys site. Christ, what a train wreck. Its really all over the place and there are a lot of religious and scripture citations which makes me think there is something else going on there. There was one point they make which I can agree with and that is they are troubled by how the media defines gay. I can see how one may have had that problem ten or twenty years ago. But I think today, with so many gay people of all different varieties being visible, that issue is kind of defused.
But, we should also remind ourselves there are people who are out of the closet, but not out in the bars, or pride marches or rallies.
I don't care if gay people don't go to pride marches or rallies, what I care about is being out and visibility.
You guys are seriously acting like "G0ys" are a thing beyond a few people. While many men who are attracted to men reject the gay label, very few of them identify as "goy." This is not a significant issue.
Agree, the g0y question is just ridiculous
R324 LOL you're probably right. Its probably no more than a dozen, very lonely, very frustrated men.
Thanks guys--finally some reason! I've been saying this but people have been attacking anyone who simply doesn't identify as gay as if they are a member of the ridiculous goy movement, when not one person in this entire thread has claimed to be a goy or attempted to defend their particular philosophy.
So, what's your point, exactly, R327?
R328 = too stupid to breath
R322, it's totally fine for people to limit their gayness to light petting and no buttplay if they want, but to deride other people's expression of being gay all for wishful thinking is just sad. That's my only problem with these g0ys (no matter how few in number they may be), the gaybros and all those people. Why can't they define their sexual expression without reference to how damaging the 'gay agenda' and media representations are to men's roles and whatever bullshit they come up. Why do we, regular gay people who mind our business well enough, have to bear the brunt of their self-loathing. If you don't like yourself, tough shit. Take it somewhere else, don't take it out on me. They are no different than the half-wit Right and friends.
If you're not gay, R327 -- do you *really* think you're not gay? -- and you're not goy, what are you, exactly?
I was wondering that, too. Not gay, not g0y...
Why do people have to all be "something", why cant I just be me, myself... without a neat little label to help someone else categorize?
Ok, I figured it out. Sorry, but you're just a closet case. As simple as that.
Well, if you aren't "something," R333, the boys who *are* something might not know that you'll let them play with your penis.
r335, there is a huge underground network of dudes who don't identify as gay or bisexual who interact, mostly through the internet, but also through real world social networks and associations. Moreover, a lot of these types don't find openly gay guys attractive and consider them a threat to their mainstream masculine identities, so they often aren't even looking to meet openly gay guys. I know some of these guys actually find other dudes by going to straight bars and straight clubs. It's not just a myth. You really can find some hot dudes at straight clubs who are very "open."
Sounds like Bizarro World, R336.
How do you find these people online, notreallygayexceptisuckcock.com?
Your brainwashed mind simply has to find some label to define me, or it will likely explode, but fortunately outside of your own head you don't have the power to define me, I define myself.
R338 You define yourself as a closet, self-loathing case, we know, don't worry.
[quote]You can scream and shout that they are self loathing[/quote]
R338, you go girl!
r337, I take it you are not familiar with Craigslist or apps such as Jack'd?
I'm familiar with CL. But I'm that dreadful, over-30 person no one wants to meet. And no, I've never heard of Jack'd.
r343, a lot of people want to be buff jock dudes over 30. Especially if they are bi.
R344, what does that have to do with me? I hate sports and haven't been "bi" since I was 20.
Okay. We'll need to clear up some basics. If someone from the gOY community would please step forward and address these issues, it would help us all understand you:
Mangina or Manpoon? What do you call the most manliest of your private parts? I know it won't be Mussey, but perhaps Muss-He?
Will there be gOY pride in the future? Parades or perhaps something more manly like Michfest, except gOyfest?
A hypothetical: Suppose me and my Blatino Husbear are having a cocktail at Splash and we are a little tipsy, so my Blatino Husbear sees you and starts to pick a fight and calls you a big old Gurleena. Then My husbear knocks your backwards yankee cap off of your head. Do you:
A) Get all manly and start a bar brawl in the middle of Appletini night at Splash?
B) Tell him "Bro, that is just not cool, bro."
C) Other (explain)
This will be a good start
Oh no, the Mussy Troll is posting here now. Ick
[quote]LOL you're probably right. Its probably no more than a dozen, very lonely, very frustrated men.
You must be right R326 and R324. OTOH, those dozen guys must really have a lot of e-mail addresses in order to make it look as if there are thousands more than that dozen.
A ten second search shows the following that are listed as g0y groups: G0Y-N0T-GAY_in_the_military with 2375 members, G0Y_Secrets-Hooking_Up_M2M-Insiders with 596 members, g0y_edu with 812 members, BOMbombG0Y with 905 members, 1000_Handsome_Men_and_More with 1736 members, EveryoneDoesIt-0ftenTogether-Shhhhh with 1886 members, 6-PackDifference with 2682 members, Teen_G0Y_guys with 8630 members, wake50percent with 948 members, K-RushMaleMassageTechnique with 1178 members, Guys_Gyms_And_G0YS_not_gAys with 1022 members, SubtleSameSexSeduction4men with 795 members, and there were dozens and dozens more.
Some people want to pretend that the g0ys barely exist. They're the same mental defectives who think Target and Chick-Fil-A are going out of business due to their donations to homophobic groups and that the Catholic church will shut down before Christmas due to their anti-gay rules.
If all those group members want to tell people they're g0ys, they're just fooling themselves into thinking they'll get acceptance before gays. At the end of the day, the g0ys are gay, no matter what name they claim.
"Your brainwashed mind simply has to find some label to define me, or it will likely explode, but fortunately outside of your own head you don't have the power to define me, I define myself."
Your delusional mind simply can't bear the thought of being gay. You can define yourself in your tiny little head anyway you want, but to 99.999% of the rest of the world, you're a big ole queen. You can jump up and down and scream to you're blue in the face, but the rest of the world will call it as they see it, and rightfully so.
And yet here you are, on a message board that advertises gay on the front door. Your level of cognitive dissonance is outstanding.
[quote]And yet here you are, on a message board that advertises gay on the front door.
Ugh, no, no, no. Why must that word exist? They need to change it to "get your fix of g0y gossip." They would get more people posting who don't associate with g-y but want to talk to other men who enjoy men.
[quote] You can define yourself in your tiny little head anyway you want, but to 99.999% of the rest of the world, you're a big ole queen.
Self loathing much? He's gay. There's nothing wrong with that. But if you expect other people to accord it the respect it deserves you don't go around mashing it in people's faces as being a big ole queen. Interesting you've chosen an insult to define how 99.999% of the world see gay people, because the figure must surely a good number of gay people.
R359 If your people don't want to be gay, why borrow so heavily from the word in creating "g0y"? Why not pomperfloozle? Or rontrentranard?
You know, something that actually works, which "goy" does not.
G0ys are douches
D0n't y0u mean "d0uches," R353?
Doth the Mussey still not quiver by any other name?
Doth thy boy cooter still itch y'all, no matter the owner?
Can we all at least unite and rally around our common ground, which known to all as The Damon Butt?
I'm with you OP. I like to suck cock and fuck male ass but only as a hobby.
R352 is the reincarnation of Dr. Seuss. Love it!
It's sad but not at all surprising to see that this is going to be the new flavor of Homophobia for a while - silly me to hope it might fade away.
I'm seeing it on two fronts - guys who used to be closeted are now finding it okay to be open about the fact that they sleep with men, but just so long as they're not too faggy about it. The goalpost has been moved - it's fine to be a dude who likes dude, but you have to be a dude about it. Sissies will still get beaten up, but "faggot" will no longer mean "guy who likes guys" but "guy who likes guys and acts all girly about it."
And on the Jesus front, we've moved to "Gays are called to lead celibate lives." Which, as far as I'm concerned, is not an improvement at all. We've moved from "What you are is evil and wrong and you will burn!" to "You can't choose what you are, but you can choose what you do and what you want to do is evil and wrong and you will burn!"
As usual, this will benefit the masculine white guys the most because they'll still be on the right side of things. Thanks to the sissy queers who fought for it while they were in the closet, but hey.
Nothing ever really changes.
r358, what is "new" about that?
I truly believe this world has more closeted G0ys than out gays (like 10 x 1).
So many men enjoy the mansex minus the "gay" label. It's a global epidemic.
Excellent post, R358.
[quote]Thanks to the sissy queers who fought for it while they were in the closet, but hey.
That tired unproven meme again?
Until you start seeing dudes saying they are seeking "G0ys" in personal ads such as Craigslist and Jack'd, you can bet the so-called G0ys thing is a tiny, tiny minority of people. Sure, there are many "straight for straight" types and "dudes who just happen to be into dudes" or "straight but not narrow" types on personals ads, but I have yet to see one "G0y" or anyone seeking them.
R363 G0y is not the word either.
I think the whole point is that many groups use many words but they all reject gay as THE word.
R363 SASA was so much simpler, to the point, unambiguous, whereas "g0y" goes out of its way to be incomprehensible, meaningless.
YOu can better believe that the legions of guys who reject the label "gay" while seeking dudes online and on apps will not embrace the word "g0y," partly because it is very close to the word "gay" and partly because it sounds so stupid.
Few embrace goy, it is stupid.
I don't know what the language will evolve to create but I do think gay is on the way out.
[quote]Few embrace goy, it is stupid.
You're telling me?
Well, I love being gay, calling myself gay, and changing the world because I am gay since 1977.
So, you know, call yourself whatever, but be sure you're proud of it.
Alessandro is the str8 & proud boyfriend of Phillip Aubrey
I must be old fashioned or out dated since I can’t equate the words straight and proud boyfriend together. In his twitter profile, Alessandro mentioned he was straight and was the proud boyfriend of gay porn star Phillip Aubrey.
R370, I could have written your post, right down to the year!
Well, that's embarrassing! Apparently I did.
R374, last night was rather boozy
[quote] I am a man who wants to fully be a man who happens to like other men.
A rose by any other name....
These guys are making a distinction without a difference.
I'm reminded of those who consider themselves less gay (or not gay) if they're the top instead of the bottom. They're having sex with another man. That's gay by definition. There's no point in dancing around it. It's as silly as a French philosopher parsing the difference between six of one and a half dozen of the other. In the end these arguments are trivial and pointless.
[quote]I am a man who wants to fully be a man who happens to like other men.
and what I am is an illusion.
I yam what I yam.
G0y fails because it sounds clownish and girly.
[quote]I am a man who wants to fully be a man who happens to like other men.
And calling yourself gay would prevent this ... how?
Here's the thing. The negative stereotypes, femmy behavior etc. that the g0ys, the OP's nephew and their ilk want to separate themselves from are associated just as much with the homosexual orientation itself as as with the label you chose to apply to it.
It's 2013 and anyone who's worth the time of day already knows that "the gays" are not a monolith. Reasonable people know that not all gay men look, dress, talk and act alike, or share the same interests and tastes. Reasonable people know the world includes beer-drinkin', sports-lovin' masculine gay men who can't be distinguished from their straight counterparts except by their choice of sexual/romantic partners.
As for those stupid and ignorant enough to buy into the stereotypes and believe that they apply to ALL gay men, guess what? As soon as they find out that you are a man who has sex with other men, they are going to lump you into the same category as every other man who likes men, whether or not you choose to call yourself gay. Creating a new label for yourself will not do a thing to convince people that you are different from, more masculine than, or not even a part of the rest of the gay community, once they learn that you like dick. If anything, going around giving little speeches like the one OP claims his nephew gives will likely just make people think, Geez, those fags are even prissier and more sensitive than I thought.
Everyone's assuming the objection is to feminine men. These guys could also be rejecting drugs, hypersexualization, public sex, body fascism... there's a lot more that you could reject about being gay than just some screaming queen.
Acknowledging that you are gay does not force you to partake of ANY of that, r381. And insisting that you are not gay, just a "dude who likes dudes" will not make any difference or separate you from the actions of gay men in the eyes of idiots who assume all cocksuckers are just alike.
No but if you think that's what being gay means, you're apt to reject the label.
Why's it so important what they call themselves?
Dunno, you'd have to ask them.
r381, true, but the fact is that most men who are into men who reject the term "gay" especially don't want to be associated with non-masculine attributes, they want to retain their masculine identity without any reservations. Masculinity is a major focus of most MSMs who reject "gay" identity.
Seriously, I've had this covered since the '90s.
Straight Acting Straight Appearing = SASA.
IT's just called "masculine" today.
Then why are the goyim so up in arms about changing their name?
Truly "manly" men(or ANY secure adult for that matter) would never fret or concern themselves over how others may or may not label them as long as it was true.
They simply would have the self-confidence to not give a shit.
In the category of “What Does This Mean” comes a new report out of New York City that highlights the difficulties of self-identification.
Just as it seems that some persons that call themselves “ex-gay” may be attracted only to the same sex, so too may some men who call themselves straight only have sex with other men. And not just a few of them.
To better understand disease prevention, a survey was made of 4,193 male New Yorkers consisting of 130 questions including sexual identification and sexual behavior. They found that 91.3% identify as straight, 3.7% as gay, and the rest as bisexual (1.2%), unsure (1.7%) or declined to answer (2.1%). These numbers are not significantly different from those the CDC published last year.
However, these identifiers did not align closely with actual sexual activity. For example, 9.3% of respondents indicated that they had sex with only men in the past year. Initially, we might assume that these are the gay, bisexual, unsure, etc. men. Not so.
Of the straight-identified men, 9.4% reported having sexual intercourse with at least 1 man (and no women) in the year before the survey.
[the numbers reflect a slightly different population, the second eliminates bisexuals and those who were not sexually identifiable as straight or gay and those who had sex with both men and women]
That seems like a large percentage of men who are “straight” but only doing it with guys. Our next assumption might be that these are men who don’t have an opportunity to have sex with a woman. Again, not so.
Approximately 70% of straight-identified men who have sex with men reported being married, which was substantially more than any other identity–behavior group: 54% of straight-identified men who have sex with women and only 0.2% of gay-identified men who have sex with men reported being married.
In other words, “straight” men who have sex with men (SMSM) are much more likely to be married than straight men who have sex with women.
Not surprising is that these SMSM were likely to be foreign born or part of an ethnic minority. Cultural taboos have long been understood to impact sexual orientation indentification. Just as an ex-gay may identify “as a Christian” believing that this excludes a gay identity, so too may a foreign born person identify as “a Jamaican” believing that this identity precludes being gay.
Other questions suggest that gay men had more sexual partners than SMSM and were more likely to have had an STD (although over 50% of sexually active gay men had only one partner in the past year). However SMSM were less likely to use a condom or get an HIV test.
This is an interesting study and is, of course, very important to those who seek disease prevention. But what do we make of it?
A couple of things to keep in mind in trying to understand this study are:
* This was a representative sample of NYC men, not of all men in the US or the world. NYC has both a larger gay population and a larger minority population than would be found outside of New York, which undoubtedly skews statistics. “In 2000, 36% of the population of New York City was born in countries other than the United States.”
* As we know from our ex-gay examples, being married is not an assumption of heterosexuality or of opposite-sex sexual activity. However, it is very unlikely that a significant percentage of SMSM are ex-gay and we should not assume that ex-gays are in any way reflected in the study.
* The tendency towards a single sexual partner among the SMSM studied may not be reflective of other localities. “This contrasts with findings from a convenience sample of men in Denver, Colorado, who frequented venues for anonymous sex; that study found that married men who reported having sex with men reported more partners per month than gay-identified or bisexually-identified men.”
* We don’t know if these SMSM were having lots of sex with the same guy (a form of monogamous relationship) or just having one encounter with an anonymous stranger. We know little about their spouses and whether they were aware of what was going on.
* We know little about what role these men played sexually or how they perceived themselves within the context of actual sexual action.
What we do know is that self-identifying as non-homosexual may have little correlation with attractions and/or behaviors when in a setting that strongly encourages a “straight” identity
I ran into a bro or a goy today at a sandwich counter. He was quite handsome: red hair, obsessively neatly cut; a T-shirt that proclaimed him to be a fireman in our town; not speaking gayspeak, but rather a non-ironic version of the working-class accent spoken here; not unfriendly: we spoke as we were ordering food together.
He wasn't fooling me, though. As he waited, he straightened out labels in a condiment display. And his ass twitched constantly for my attention.
Then a friend of his came by (cautious bro-hugs after looking to see who was looking) and they were talking about a disaster that had befallen either a co-worker or maybe someone they'd tried to save in a fire. Well, it was more than Mr. Macho could stand, and soon Mary and Princess were stomping and squealing like two sophomore sorority girls who hadn't seen each other all summer.
And I was worried she was one of those gays who hate gays like me for being, well, not so butch.
Inside every bro...
How about "broy"? broy = bro + goy
The same can be said for those in the elevated Kinsey ranges who call themselves gay even though they like to fuck chicks, r396.
Goy sounds weak.
Perhaps, gay can be redefined by masculine, athletic mainstream dudes coming out as gay.
R403. And kind of Yiddish. Yet not Yiddish.
I never tell sissified guys that I am gay. I ignore them completely. They'll never get my big old butch dick. That's for damn sure.
r407, "Butch" is a sissified word. You don't hear masculine mainstream dudes using it.
How can I go on with my life knowing I'll never have R407's 3 inches of tiny meat between my lips?
Should I just end it now?
Some of you really are fucking delusional!
I feel the same way. I'm a feminine lesbian, and I want nothing to do with the lesbian stereotype. I'm not butch, I don't hate men, I'm not a feminist. I just don't consider myself a lesbian at all. And this so called "community" wants nothing to do with me. So why would I consider myself as one of them just because I'm attracted to women? There's a reason I never use the word "lesbian" to describe myself.
r410, explain to us what the stereotypical lesbian community is like, and what about you dislike.
[quote]There's a reason I never use the word "lesbian" to describe myself.
You mean like how you did in your second sentience?
R410, the lesbian community hates feminine lesbians, they also hate bisexuals. Everything connected to a dick gets automatic hate. I also don't like the fact that lesbians think they are better than men. Sometimes I think that feminism is taken too far. I just don't want to be part of a community that is so hostile to certain people, especially those that actually are supposed to be part of the community.
thanks for explaining, r413. I also don't like the hostility to Christianity and people who are believers among some gay men. There is a way to oppose anti-gay political activity without being overtly hostile to Christianity.
[quote]There is a way to oppose anti-gay political activity without being overtly hostile to Christianity.
So how are we supposed to react to people who advocate killing us, tossing us out of our homes, denying us a livelihood or take our children away? I know it may sound juvenile, but the Christians started it.
Hey, R414 (and your hundred other Rs) - Fuck Christianity.
Yes there is R415. But the intelligent way to be is against all of it.
Oh, Jesus, R414, do you have to drag Jesus into EVERYTHING?
[quote]I know it may sound juvenile, but the Christians started it.
They didn't all start it. Just some of them. Hate those who hate, but the gays have plenty of allies in the faith community, and it's not right, smart or even sensible to hate them all. They are not all the same.
Well good It used to mean happy.
It's interesting that distinct tribes exist on this board. The gays of yesteryear, devoted to what gay was. The young gays who just consider it part of their identity but not the whole of it. And the ones I can't quite place, who make post after post wondering if every authority figure is closeted. We are definitely evolving as a group.
Actually, Grease is the word. Gay is what you do with it.
"This is surprising enough. But what seems more startling, at least from a Western perspective, is that some of the men having sex with other men don’t consider themselves gay. For many Saudis, the fact that a man has sex with another man has little to do with “gayness.” The act may fulfill a desire or a need, but it doesn’t constitute an identity. Nor does it strip a man of his masculinity, as long as he is in the “top,” or active, role. This attitude gives Saudi men who engage in homosexual behavior a degree of freedom. But as a more Westernized notion of gayness—a notion that stresses orientation over acts—takes hold in the country, will this delicate balance survive?"
I'm 25 and there are no distinct tribes, only closeted gays who try hard to define themselves as cool but nobody is buying their BS.
r424, the number of those type guys is huge, so if they only think of themselves and their type of cool, then they will be alright. Moreover, online so many people are looking for exactly that type, hence, the proliferation of "straight for straight" ads on m4m sites and apps. And don't even think about all the fem guys looking for trade, married men, bicurious guys, and thugs.
I agree that sadly the number of closet cases is increasing.
r426, there is no way it is increasing. of course, the number is still huge, but the overwhelming majority of men attracted to men in the past were closeted for life. at least a significant percentage are somewhat open now.
As rumors abound about the possibility of one or more active NFL players coming out as openly gay, experts are analyzing the potential impact of that news, says an April 5 story from Forbes.com. While a few may be preparing for a less-than-welcoming response, others are suggesting that openly gay players in the NFL could create an environment that gives "masculinity" a much-needed makeover.
Bob Cook, author of the Forbes.com piece, says it's really just a matter of time before a current professional male athlete comes out as being gay. It will happen, it's just a matter of when and of who goes first. And, then, there's a likely ripple effect as the sports world reacts to that announcement. Expert analysis suggests that the NFL is preparing for a player announcement in the near future; former Ravens linebacker and vocal gay rights advocate Brendon Ayanbadejo suggested this week that up to four active NFL players could coordinate their announcements in the near future.
Cook suggests that the professional sports world reaction to openly gay athletes will be the opening act for a broader reaction. Youth sports organizations across the U.S. will likely be forced to redefine masculinity and to espouse practices that are more accepting of openly gay youth. It is estimated that upwards of 44 million U.S. children participate in at least one sports team. While many of those organizations have likely already made strides to be welcoming and inclusive, there's more work to be done. The impact of openly gay NFL players on those organizations, particularly those that are traditionally thought to be masculine sports, could be particularly notable, says Cook.
"If NFL players do come out as gay, that should push any youth coach with a narrow definition to open his (or her) mind to the possibility that there is more than one path to be a tough, male athlete," says Cook.
All the football players need to do is come out as goys instead of gays, and everything will be okay. Such a mazel the football goyim will be performing for all.
This could get confusing when you get to "goy goyim"
G0ys? GayBros? Men who sleep with men? You've got to be shitting me. No amount of name change is going to change what you are so why not just call yourselves faggots? This is pathetic all this arguing amongst the fags on what to call themselves. You will always just be faggots in our eyes. I guess this is what we want, for the gay agenda to be fighting amongst themselves and tear themselves apart from within. Hahaha, silly faggots, dicks are for chicks.
People get to define who they are. Stop worrying about what others want to be.
[quote]As men who love men
Let me say as a lesbian, "thank you!" for making us look less crazy in comparison (with their obsession with renaming themselves).
I - albeit exceedingly rarely - exclusively form intense emotional attachments with other men, but, even with these individuals, I'm not interested in sexual intercourse, but only in certain forms of foreplay. Am I, a Jew, a g0y?
There was a lipstick lesbian trend at one point but the butches put an end to that.
R438, would you rather watch football or go shopping on a Sunday?
Neither, R440. I'm a baseball nut. I have season tickets & subscribe to Baseball America. Any other questions?
You're intersex. Anyway, there are lots of gay baseball fans. Cooperstown is full of them.
R443, are you R440? Because, if so, you have an interesting way of making your case. I never claimed being a baseball or sports fan in general was incompatible with being gay. I merely expressed a lack of any interest in typical gay sex - while, very rarely, forming intense emotional bonds with othe men - and asked if I could perhaps honestly identify as a g0y (which is apparently seen as a dodge here). You then asked if I prefer shopping or football watching n Sunday ... perhaps hoping I'd say the former so you could triumphantly say that I was really gay. When I respond that I'm a baseball fan you're then reduced to asserting the self-evident point that there's lots of gay baseball fans. WTF?!?
And what is "intersex"?
R444 R442 R438 First, thank you for not making me look up all your Rs.
Second, R443 is not R440. I am R440 and I am not R443. If you click on the little troll-dar link in the upper right corner, you can see who's posted what.
I was making a joke, really. The "bros" or "goys" -- I refuse to write gay with a zero in the middle -- are gay men who think they are straight, except for the fact that they like to have sex (in whatever form/to whatever degree) with men rather than women.
I'll leave it to you to research further, other than to say that one of the characteristics they promote about themselves is that they hate typically feminine things like shopping, preferring typically masculine things like sports, knives, guns, whatever.
So substitute baseball for football and call yourself whatever you like.
And leave poor R443 out of it.
And "intersex" means having (I think) physical characteristics of both males and females. But I'll let you look that one up on your own as well.
Just for my curiosity's sake, what do you like to do, sexually, when you find yourself in an "intense emotional bond" with another man?
Mostly cuddling, R445. BTW, my gay friends tell me I'm not gay.
Well, that's between you and your cuddle-partners, R446, etc.
You are gay, just a lesbian.
Gay = flamboyant
'Masculinity Defines Men, Rather Than the Reverse' - Why the 'Masculinity' Debate Is So Important
Posted: 29/05/2013 14:49
Crisis In Masculinity, Diane Abbott, Feminism, Gender-Based Violence, Masculinity, Patriarchy, Feminism, UK Lifestyle News
Diane Abbott MP spoke earlier this month of a 'crisis of masculinity', prompting a sudden flurry of media interviews with men from across the board claiming the opposite. However, many commentators have agreed that men do have issues, that the modern world creates certain pressures that affect their psyche, health, behavior, interpersonal relationships, emotional development, and well-being. GQ Magazine has questioned Diane Abbott's speech, saying that she is 'barking up the wrong trouser leg', while simultaneously acknowledging that 'men have their problems'. This analysis and the debate it has prompted is extremely important; the dominant ideal of masculinity is certainly a distinct, prescriptive and harmful stereotype.
However, the debate is far wider than simply the needs of men in relation to a 'crisis in masculinity'. The truth is that men, through socially defined 'masculinity', have always enjoyed a privileged relationship with social and economic power. Through history, the idea of 'manhood' has been centred in physical strength, toughness, earning, providing, and dominating, creating a paradigm in which we have been collectively socialised to the idea of 'masculinity' within every faculty of our psyche. Men's image defines God, their perspectives and concerns define scholarship, their lifestyles define workplace conditions and successful career paths, their physiology defines sports, their presence historically as 'provider' defines family. Thus, while the stereotype can be prescriptive and harmful, we have to acknowledge the power it has always conveyed, and we must ask who really bears the brunt of 'masculinity'?
In fact 'masculinity' can only be understood through a binary lens. It is predicated in opposition to the concept of 'femininity'; without women and children to provide for and to dominate, how can masculinity be embodied? More specifically, the maintenance of the ideal of 'masculinity' has required that women play an inferior role; domestic, passive and economically dependent. Indeed, men's superiority to women is the tenet of the world's main monotheisms, the historical foundation of so many our societies. The same GQ article went on to argue that 'we could do with a bit more machismo - we could do with more men who are protective of women and children', reasserting men into the role of 'protector' and women in the powerless position of 'protected'.
Thus, while 'masculinity' has been narrowly defined throughout history, its definition has been interlinked with unprecedented power vis-à-vis the subordination of women, so the framing of a debate around 'manhood' is incomplete without an analysis of gender relations and the polarisation of 'masculinity' in opposition to 'femininity'.
While 'masculinity' remains central to our cultural identity, the last 100 years has seen unprecedented gains in the emancipation of women. 1928 saw the closely guarded male privilege of suffrage extended to women, women entered the workforce - a previously exclusively male space - as the World War's dictated the need for female workers, cultural movements of the 1960's and 70's saw women's sexual liberation, and we are seeing women making steps toward cultural and economic parity in current times. Gender roles have shifted, but where does this leave 'masculinity'? In the absence of women occupying a traditional role, 'masculinity' can no longer be defined through the stereotyped male-female dichotomy. Thus there has emerged a distinct gap between the highly normative ideals of men as 'provider' and 'protector' and a progressive society which has seen gender roles shift beyond recognition within two or three generations. Our generation is in unchartered territory; we are what Diane Abbott described as a 'transitional generation', one that must attempt to reconcile t
Brolover, not Gay
OP, I've checked the Goy site before. Isn't it a site for Orthodox Jewish men who like other men sexually?
There may be a crisis of masculinity there in the wussy pussy UK r454, but not here in USA. Here, any man can have a gun and use it to exert his power. Wife giving you problems? Blow her away! Road rage? Blow the other driver away! Mad at the world? Take out a classroom full of kids or a movie theater! See, masculinity asserted - there's your "little more machismo".
Every 10 years, researchers in the United Kingdom publish the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). The first survey, Natsal-1, was conducted from 1990 to 1991. The second, Natsal-2, took place from 1999 to 2001. The third, taken from 2010 to 2012, was published today in The Lancet. It shows significant increases in the reported prevalence of anal sex, lesbian activity, and female intercourse before age 16. Let’s look at the numbers.
William Saletan William Saletan
Will Saletan writes about politics, science, technology, and other stuff for Slate. He’s the author of Bearing Right. Follow him on Twitter.
1. Lesbian sex. In Natsal-1, fewer than 4 percent of British women aged 16-44 said they’d had any sexual experience or contact with a partner of the same sex. In Natsal-2, that number rose to nearly 10 percent. Now it’s 16 percent. By any measure, that’s an enormous increase, more than doubling the reported rate among men. Even if you attribute most of it to changes in candor or interpretation, the willingness of so many women to admit to same-sex activity represents a big cultural shift.
That doesn’t mean these women are going all the way. When they’re asked more specifically whether they’ve had a same-sex experience that includes genital contact, only half as many say yes. But the trend line is identical, rising from 2 percent in Natsal-1 to 5 percent in Natsal-2 and 8 percent in Natsal-3. The same holds true when women are asked whether they’ve had a same-sex partner in the last 5 years. On that question, the percentage who say yes has climbed from less than 1 percent in Natsal-1 to more than 2 percent in Natsal-2 and nearly 5 percent in Natsal-3.
When you break down the latest sample by age, you see the same effect. When asked whether they’ve had any sexual experience or contact with another female, only 3 percent of women aged 65-74 say yes. That number rises to 7 percent among women aged 55-64, 9 percent among women aged 45-54, 12 percent among women 35-44, 18 percent among women 25-34, and 19 percent among women 16-24. If the prevalence of lesbian sex were constant and evenly reported, you’d expect it to increase with age, based on the accumulation of experience. Instead, the trend runs sharply the other way. Apparently, in later cohorts, it’s more common, more honestly reported, or both.
One result of this surge is that reported same-sex activity between women has eclipsed reported same-sex activity between men. The stated prevalence of same-sex experiences between men increased from Natsal-1 to Natsal-2 (the researchers note that Natsal-1 was taken at the height of the HIV epidemic), but in Natsal-3, it’s slightly down on some questions and slightly up on others. The proportion of men who report having had a same-sex experience is only about 7 percent—half the rate among women—and the share who say they’ve had a male sex partner in the last five years is only 3 percent. You can argue that lots of gay or bisexual men are concealing their experiences. But then you have to explain why so many women, at the same time, aren’t.
The numbers we’re talking about—nearly 20 percent of women younger than 35 say they’ve had a lesbian experience—are higher than I can recall in any national survey. Even if you restrict the sample to women who report having had same-sex genital contact, we’re still talking about more than 8 percent of young British women. And yet, the rate of lesbian self-identification hasn’t changed. In the latest sample, between the cohort of women aged 55-64 and the cohort aged 45-54, there’s a jump in self-declared bisexual identity. Beyond that, in younger cohorts, there’s not much difference. Among women as well as men, a fairly steady 2 to 3 percent say they’re gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Another half a percent classify themselves as “other.”
2. Anal sex. I’ve written about this topic way too often, so I’m giving it a back seat here. The British data confirm that anal intercourse, or at least willingness to report it, is spreading. From Natsal-1 to Natsal-2 to Natsal-3, the percentage of men aged 16-44 who reported having had anal sex in the last year rose from 7 to 12 to 17. The percentage of women rose almost in tandem, from 7 to 11 to 15. When you break down the Natsal-3 data by age, anal sex is the only act whose prevalence increases steadily as you move from older to younger cohorts.
On an annual basis, compared with other sex acts, the rate still isn’t very high. In Natsal-3, among all age groups (up to age 74), only 13 percent of men and 11 percent of women say they’ve had heterosexual anal intercourse in the last year. In the 16-24 age bracket, 19 percent of males and 17 percent of females say they’ve done it during that time. But the percentage who report having done it at least once in their lives is higher. Among the cohort born between 1946 and 1955, the proportion of men and women who said yes to this question by the time they were 35-44 was 20 percent. Among those born between 1956 and 1965, it was 30 percent. Among those born between 1966 and 1975, it’s nearly 40 percent. How high will it go? We just don’t know.
3. Teen sex. In Natsal-3, only 4 percent of women aged 65-74 say they had intercourse before they turned 16. Among women aged 55-64, 10 percent say they’d had sex by that age. From there, the rate rises steadily: 14 percent of women aged 45-54, 18 percent of those aged 35-44, 25 percent of those aged 25-34, and 29 percent of those aged 16-24. Maybe older women are less candid or have forgotten their wild years. (Among men, the pattern is far less dramatic.) But it’s hard to believe that a steady seven-fold increase from the oldest cohort to the youngest doesn’t reflect a real change in teen behavior.
4. Frequency. Despite the stated increases in lesbian, anal, and early teen sex, the frequency of sex overall seems to have declined. In Natsal-1, the median number of heterosexual intercourse episodes reported by men and women in the previous four weeks (that’s vaginal, oral, or anal) was 5. In Natsal-2, it was 4. Now it’s down to 3. People may be getting more adventurous, but they don’t seem to be getting hornier.
What could explain this paradox? Here’s a thought: Maybe, thanks to cultural relaxation or better survey techniques (Natsal-3 was done in people’s homes and “computer-assisted” for privacy), more people are telling the truth. They’re admitting to teen, anal, or lesbian sex. And they’re admitting that they don’t get it on as often as they once pretended. Sexual infrequency is just another secret we’re finally letting out.