67 réponses à ce sujet

[dbfandillyjam]

He's so pretty.

[hexaligned]

Creature 1 wrote...

traversc wrote...
I like how you imply that it is "harsh judgement" for a man to be called effiminate.  Maybe YOU should talk to some women and see how they feel about that?

<-Female.  It gets my hackles up.  The term "effeminate" is loaded with connotation that the person is supposed to be masculine, so if they have feminine traits there must be something wrong with them.  Because of this, the word "effeminate" cannot be applied to women--women are supposed to be feminine, so when they act feminine, they're just being proper.  Instead, when women are more masculine than is generally thought to be proper by the uptight, they're called butch. 

Among people concerned about these things, it's usually considered more strange for a man to be feminine than for a woman to be masculine.  That's because of misogyny.  In most societies women historically have been lower status than men, and remnants of this attitude remain.  Our culture's obsession with masculinity in men is a relic of misogyny.  A man who acts feminine is voluntarily giving up status, and "real men" seek to retain status, so men who have feminine traits must have something wrong with them. 

So, yes, the mere use of the word "effeminate" raises my eyebrow because it implies the person using the word is making a judgment about what is proper behavior for the male gender and that it is emphatically not acting feminine, because feminine is inferior.  

The usual terminology for this now is gender conformity, referring to how well a person matches typical behavior for their gender, but minus the implication that divergances from this type equals "deviance". 

Completely offtopic, but I disagree,  Men look and act "masculine"  for reasons beyond social acceptance.  That plays a part yes, but it isn't unusuall for men who don't, to have hormone imbalances or other genetic issues.  So there are in fact natural reasons for the aversion, even if it's on a subconcious level.  Even on the social level there are reasons beyond "guys are asses",  wasn't all that long ago that us men needed badass manly men packmembers at our back helping us fight off monsters, those primal needs are still pretty damn ingrained in the human psyche.   It's more a case of our physical evolution not keeping pace with our technological and social evolution, but, that scale will balance out eventualy, one way or another.  A big ball of fire and us living in caves again gets my vote as the most likely scenario

Modifié par relhart, 30 avril 2010 - 05:03 .

[Gilgamesh1138]

Oh, I love the sexy pic of Zev!  Nicely done, and great artwork all the way around, I love the other pics too.

[traversc]

@Creature 1

Agreed, and well said. 

Completely offtopic, but I disagree,  Men look and act "masculine"  for
reasons beyond social acceptance.  That plays a part yes, but it isn't
unusuall for men who don't, to have hormone imbalances or other genetic
issues.  So there are in fact natural reasons for the aversion, even if
it's on a subconcious level.  Even on the social level there are reasons
beyond "guys are asses",  wasn't all that long ago that us men needed
badass manly men packmembers at our back helping us fight off monsters,
those primal needs are still pretty damn ingrained in the human
psyche.   It's more a case of our physical evolution not keeping pace
with our technological and social evolution, but, that scale will
balance out eventualy, one way or another.  A big ball of fire and us
living in caves again gets my vote as the most likely scenario

If I'm reading you right, you're saying gender conformity is a holdover from more primal times. I don't think you'll disagree but I'll argue the point anyway: even if what you say is true it STILL is not justification for the gay machismo and rejection of effeminacy.  Also, I'd disagree with your term "hormone imbalance."  To me, that seems perjorative, like something is wrong, or off or worse, diseased.  Since neither homosexuality or effeminacy are diseases.

a) How aggressively you argue

and you back yourself up with wikipedia (which, both you and I know is
basically some X, Y,Z's interpretation of an issue, and therefore not
100% reliable, right?)

a) I argued no more or less aggressively than the person I quoted (which is to say, not very much). It was your post that instigated.
Strongly disagree. There was a peer reviewed that showed that wikipedia is not only more often more correct than almost everywhere on the internet. You could say the same thing about any encyclopedia: "the article is just the author's interpretation." Except in that case, it's static and can't be corrected. Furthermore, the point about citing wikipedia is that it DOES back up it's claims with sources that ARE peer reviewed. So if you disagree with the conclusion, you are ALSO disagreeing with the peer-reviewed sources that say the exact same thing. In other words, you better DAMN well provide some pretty strong evidence of your own. "LOL WIKIPEDIA" is not the correct response.

[traversc]

i) We don't know how effeminateness is related to homosexuality. There are numerous cases of it being linked to it but we don't know for sure because:
*We don't know if homosexuality is genetic or environmental (strong evidence to genetic)
*Not sure HOW MUCH effeminate behaviour is influenced by environment and how much is instinctual
ii) Masculine boys making straight men and effeminate boys making homosexual men therefore proves nothing. If this were a science then the existence of one gay masculine being would invalidate your entire argument. Fortunately, it does not work that way, and we have come to recognise that both gay and straight dudes can be either masculine or effeminate.
iii) Your evidence was unreliable: It has only been ~35 years since homosexuality has been seen in a proper light and therefore nothing is certain (as I pointed out in point ). (If you are interested in the "experiments" of this time, look up John Money; some fascinating arguments on nature vs. nurture)

i) Correct. The exact reasons for effeminacy and homosexuality are not known. But this does not change the validity of whether there is a correlation between the two.

ii) About one gay masculine "invalidating" my argument: no it doesn't. I argued from the beginning that effeminacy has a correlation. Not an equated relationship. I also stated explicitly that feminine straight men certainly do exist.


iii) When all case studies point towards the same conclusion, it is not illogical to accept the premise.

You argue that it "has been 35 years since homosexuality has been seen in a proper light" - what...? Here is a 2008 published by Cornell University study that re-iterates the same point. http://www.informawo...tent=a903783478

"The correlation between childhood gender conformity or nonconformity and adult sexual orientation is well established, but is it causal?"

In other words, correlation is an established fact, which is what I have ONLY argued. ( The REAL question is whether it is causally related? Personally, my intuition says that it isn't.)

Modifié par traversc, 30 avril 2010 - 06:04 .

[Creature 1]

relhart wrote...
Completely offtopic, but I disagree,  Men look and act "masculine"  for reasons beyond social acceptance.  That plays a part yes, but it isn't unusuall for men who don't, to have hormone imbalances or other genetic issues.  So there are in fact natural reasons for the aversion, even if it's on a subconcious level.  Even on the social level there are reasons beyond "guys are asses",  wasn't all that long ago that us men needed badass manly men packmembers at our back helping us fight off monsters, those primal needs are still pretty damn ingrained in the human psyche.   It's more a case of our physical evolution not keeping pace with our technological and social evolution, but, that scale will balance out eventualy, one way or another.  A big ball of fire and us living in caves again gets my vote as the most likely scenario

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.  I never said men act masculine solely because of peer pressure.  Men tend to be more masculine than women because of hormonal differences and differences in brain development, plus differences in socialization.  Masculinity and femininity are a composite of traits, and every person is masculine in some ways and feminine in some ways.  Neither masculinity nor femininity is superior, they're just different ways of reacting that are at times beneficial and at times detrimental. 

What is engrained socially is the opinion a lot of people have that masculinity is superior to femininity, feminine traits in men must be suppressed, and any man not ashamed to behave in a feminine way is defective or perverted. 

If I read you right you're saying it's fine to feel aversion towards feminine men??  I would vehemently disagree.  

[hexaligned]

traversc wrote...

@Creature 1

Agreed, and well said. 

Completely offtopic, but I disagree,  Men look and act "masculine"  for
reasons beyond social acceptance.  That plays a part yes, but it isn't
unusuall for men who don't, to have hormone imbalances or other genetic
issues.  So there are in fact natural reasons for the aversion, even if
it's on a subconcious level.  Even on the social level there are reasons
beyond "guys are asses",  wasn't all that long ago that us men needed
badass manly men packmembers at our back helping us fight off monsters,
those primal needs are still pretty damn ingrained in the human
psyche.   It's more a case of our physical evolution not keeping pace
with our technological and social evolution, but, that scale will
balance out eventualy, one way or another.  A big ball of fire and us
living in caves again gets my vote as the most likely scenario

If I'm reading you right, you're saying gender conformity is a holdover from more primal times. I don't think you'll disagree but I'll argue the point anyway: even if what you say is true it STILL is not justification for the gay machismo and rejection of effeminacy.  Also, I'd disagree with your term "hormone imbalance."  To me, that seems perjorative, like something is wrong, or off or worse, diseased.  Since neither homosexuality or effeminacy are diseases.

*shrugs*, I never mentioned homosexuality, I wasn't commenting on that.  I was just pointing out there were evolutionary reasons  for men to view effeminate men the way they typicaly do, not just social ones.  Wether those old instictual holdouts have a place in modern society where we don't have to kill our food with spears, or fight off wolves is debatable imo.  It isn't PC no, but I'm also a naturalist, I don't view humans losing their feral edge, so that we can fit into a social structure, that isn't exactly in our species best intrests, as a 100% good thing. 

As far as homosexuality, love em, considering how disgustingly overpopulated the world is atm, nothing would make me happier than if 75% of the human race woke up gay tomorrow, best thing that could happen for the species.

Edit:  boredom at work FTL, apologies for the offtopic rambling OP

Modifié par relhart, 30 avril 2010 - 06:51 .

[Creature 1]

relhart wrote...

*shrugs*, I never mentioned homosexuality, I wasn't commenting on that.  I was just pointing out there were evolutionary reasons  for men to view effeminate men the way they typicaly do, not just social ones.  Wether those old instictual holdouts have a place in modern society where we don't have to kill our food with spears, or fight off wolves is debatable imo.  It isn't PC no, but I'm also a naturalist, I don't view humans losing their feral edge, so that we can fit into a social structure, that isn't exactly in our species best intrests, as a 100% good thing. 

As far as homosexuality, love em, considering how disgustingly overpopulated the world is atm, nothing would make me happier than if 75% of the human race woke up gay tomorrow, best thing that could happen for the species.

Edit:  boredom at work FTL, apologies for the offtopic rambling OP

No, you pointed out potential evolutionary benefit to masculine traits (note that feminine traits also have survival value), but not a potential evolutionary benefit to aversion to feminine traits in men by other men.  That requires a lot more effort, and then once you establish a potential benefit, you have to establish that this is the real motivation for this aversion, and not the more likely result of socialization by a culture that places a high value on machismo. 

[Creature 1]

traversc wrote...
Sorry, but there IS.  There is a positive correlation between effiminacy and homosexuality. 

Does this mean that most gay guys are effiminate? No. 
Does this mean that most effiminate guys are automatically gay? No.
Does this mean that there are not straight guys who are effiminate? No. 
Does this mean that it is wrong or lesser to be effiminate? No. 

This is overall correct.  (Quibble with the word "effeminate", as previously stated.  Research shows there's a correlation between gender nonconformity and homosexuality, although as also mentioned this may not be causal.) 

But effiminate = more likely to be gay, which subconsciously turns into effiminate = you are gay.  Stereotypes, prejudice, etc. 

This is correct, with above limits. 

But to say there is no "gay" look is pure denial.  It is a fact.

This is incorrect.  You spend all the time above saying some =/= all and saying all feminine guys are gay is a stereotype, but then appear to support to the stereotype in this last part, which is why I think this whole discussion is occurring. 

Gay men may not exhibit the same extent of gender conformity that straight men do, but there are a lot of non-gender conforming men who are straight, and a lot of masculine gay men.  A correlation is a tendency, not an absolute.  Given this, its safest to wait for direct evidence regarding someone's sexual orientation before drawing a conclusion based upon their apparent gender conformity. 

Modifié par Creature 1, 30 avril 2010 - 07:16 .

[Lintanis]

 yeah anyway back to the op, Great Pic keep it up  

[traversc]

Creature 1 wrote...

This is incorrect.  You spend all the time above saying some =/= all and saying all feminine guys are gay is a stereotype, but then appear to support to the stereotype in this last part, which is why I think this whole discussion is occurring. 

Gay men may not exhibit the same extent of gender conformity that straight men do, but there are a lot of non-gender conforming men who are straight, and a lot of masculine gay men.  A correlation is a tendency, not an absolute.  Given this, its safest to wait for direct evidence regarding someone's sexual orientation before drawing a conclusion based upon their apparent gender conformity. 

I see your point: stereotypes ARE bad.  But at the same time, they also ARE. I have no problem admitting that I took the leap of faith and assumed the Zevran drawn in the picture, as the author intended, is almost probably most certainly gay (or at least bisexual/not-straight,etc).  I think you'd be lying if you did not think the same thing off the bat.  In my opinion, the correlation is strong enough and benign enough that I won't feel guilty about playing into it.  Because as I said, neither homosexuality nor effeminacy are bad or lesser in any way. 

Modifié par traversc, 30 avril 2010 - 09:54 .

[Creature 1]

traversc wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

This is incorrect.  You spend all the time above saying some =/= all and saying all feminine guys are gay is a stereotype, but then appear to support to the stereotype in this last part, which is why I think this whole discussion is occurring. 

Gay men may not exhibit the same extent of gender conformity that straight men do, but there are a lot of non-gender conforming men who are straight, and a lot of masculine gay men.  A correlation is a tendency, not an absolute.  Given this, its safest to wait for direct evidence regarding someone's sexual orientation before drawing a conclusion based upon their apparent gender conformity. 

I see your point: stereotypes ARE bad.  But at the same time, they also ARE. I have no problem admitting that I took the leap of faith and assumed the Zevran drawn in the picture, as the author intended, is almost probably most certainly gay (or at least bisexual/not-straight,etc).  I think you'd be lying if you did not think the same thing off the bat.  In my opinion, the correlation is strong enough and benign enough that I won't feel guilty about playing into it.  Because as I said, neither homosexuality nor effeminacy are bad or lesser in any way. 

Actually I thought, "That doesn't look like Zevran, he's way more masculine than that."  I already know Zevran's sexual orientation (he's bi) but I don't think that would have occurred to me anyway.  So, no, I was consistent with my stated position. 

[eucatastrophe]

Okay, at your wikipedia thing, whatever. You will keep disagreeing and I have no wish to change your mjind about it. I'll just say that it is great for things like dates, events, spellings,etc. Not so great for other things.

About your research: It is a theory. Not really sure what you and those authors are trying to prove.
If its effeminateness => gay and vice-versa, then yes, there definately seems to be a relationship between the 2. If this were true then explain men who are homosexuals and not stereotypically feminine. If you're going to make claims the way you did with the other guy, then better not say anything and everything you deem to be real. 

I think I'm done here since you obviously know you're right. Peace.

Edit: Just some closing thoughts: (since my argument has been one long ramble )
What I'm trying to get at is: It isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. If you read the article on sexuality/love Time had out (last year summer I believe), you'd probably remember the memorable story of the man who WAS the gay stereotype in his youth and now he's married to a woman and has 2 kids.

As I stated earlier it is not Black and White: This does not HAVE to mean that. Until it does get black and white, it is not entirely true to say things like all effeminate little boys will be giant flaming homos. I think we both can agree on that.

Enjoy ^^[/quote]

Modifié par eucatastrophe, 30 avril 2010 - 11:39 .

[traversc]

Creature 1 wrote...

Actually I thought, "That doesn't look like Zevran, he's way more masculine than that."  I already know Zevran's sexual orientation (he's bi) but I don't think that would have occurred to me anyway.  So, no, I was consistent with my stated position. 

Oh COME ON lol.  Now you are just dodging the issue

The point was, if you saw a person like this in real life, you'd automatically think "hey, he's gay." 

[traversc]

Until it does get black and white, it is not entirely true to say things like all effeminate little boys will be giant flaming homos.

Where the F did I say anything remotely close to this? If you're going to argue, don't fricking argue with a caricature of their argument.  All I said was that there is a correlation between effeminacy and homosexuality. 

If you read the article on sexuality/love Time had out (last year summer I believe), you'd probably remember the memorable story of the man who WAS the gay stereotype in his youth and now he's married to a woman and has 2 kids.

LOL you complain about wikipedia adn then cite Time. Hilarious.

Modifié par traversc, 01 mai 2010 - 12:52 .

[eucatastrophe]

Time is actually legit.



Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference ~ Mark Twain



I should have been wiser anyway given your conduct in the "Can 1H+Shield be DPS?"

[Creature 1]

traversc wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

Actually I thought, "That doesn't look like Zevran, he's way more masculine than that."  I already know Zevran's sexual orientation (he's bi) but I don't think that would have occurred to me anyway.  So, no, I was consistent with my stated position. 

Oh COME ON lol.  Now you are just dodging the issue

The point was, if you saw a person like this in real life, you'd automatically think "hey, he's gay." 

I would?  Why do you bother talking to people when you already know everything they would do or think? 

And again, no, I would not.  

[traversc]

eucatastrophe wrote...

Time is actually legit.

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference ~ Mark Twain

I should have been wiser anyway given your conduct in the "Can 1H+Shield be DPS?"

"Until it does get black and white, it is not entirely true to say things
like all effeminate little boys will be giant flaming homos."

^I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I said ANYTHING LIKE THAT.  Otherwise, you are flat out lying.  Worse, you are doing nothing except sitting there and insulting people.  You cannot even recognize a clear misreprenstation of another's arguments.  For starters, I TAKE OFFENSE at the term "flaming ******".  That's a perjorative in the extreme, and you should be ashamed of yourself.  



@Creature: I don't know what people think.  Don't misunderstand me.  The fact that you don't make the leap of faith is at least consistant with your argument.  To be perfectly honest, you've somewhat convinced me of your argument.  If your aren't simply being facetious, and it IS possible to look at that picture and not think "oh that elf is gay" - then you are right.  

Congrats on winning the internet.