|
#16
7th November 2004, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I didn't say that society does NOT tell us what is attractive, it certainly does. For further reading if you're interested search for "The Socially Constructed Body" by Judith Lorber and Patricia Yancey Martin. It's based on femenist theory, but I used that for a recent paper of mine with the theory that this also holds true in gay culture.
Back to what I was trying to get across. I'm only speaking on a pure animalistic attraction at an ABS. It doesn't get any simpler than that. A hot guy, culturally radioactive or not, is most likely going to be attracted to, IN THAT SITUATION, someone who is around their age group and as fit as he is. This isn't because of anything sociological, just plain biological. Let me ask you this. If you're cruising a local park or what not, do you pass up the fit hottie or go for the older, obese guy? Be honest with yourself. Also, given your screen name, are you a victim as well as what society tells us whats attractive? Are "feminine" guys unattractive to you because of a natural personal preference or because our culture, media and society tell you it's a turn off? Why do you make it a point to assert your "butchness" or "masculinity" on a sex site? No judgements, as I know why I do. It's because I want to attract the same. As far as being culturally radioactive, so are obese people. In fact, some people will live longer with HIV than people who are obese. Heart disease is a leading killer in our country and want to talk about walking time bombs, well, a candidate for a heart attack is just that. I do agree Butch with most of what you post here and understand where you're coming from. I just think we are missing a common ground here on what the issue at hand is.       |
|
#17
7th November 2004, 06:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I certainly cannot speak for him, but I can tell you that reading BMG's last contribution here didn't give me any indication that he was denying the existence of some of the more base, "animal" attractions that go on in adult book stores and other cruising venues. Seemed to me that was just backing up the theory that social standards and media saturation (to sell products and bilk people out of money) are very much a large part of what defines our sexual attractions.
We are often sexually attracted to that which we first find appealing in our youth. Very often, the sexual situation where we had the most fun during the early stages of our development is the one we use consciously and unconsciously to define our future satisfaction. We often seek out partners who emulate the partner who turned us on most when we were first exploring. This is certainly true of me. The first guy who smiled at me and kissed me was a cub-type dude -- and that's the kind of guy I like most to this day. So why didn't I go for any other type of male image? How come I never bought into what commercials or movies or TV shows indicated as prime examples of what a man should be? Probably because when I was growing up this kind of stuff was far tamer than it is today. Sex symbols were abundant and used to the advantage of advertisers and movie studios -- quite certainly. But not with such wild abandon as we see today. Advertising today contains sexual innuendo that simply was not allowed back in the 1970s. Sex has ALWAYS been used to sell products, but never in such an outrageously seductive way as it is today. MEN today are used much more, too. It used to be that more women were shown in a sexual light than men. Not anymore. More consumers today are independent women. Advertisers are targeting them for the obvious reasons -- and would be foolish NOT to. Remember when Burt Reynolds was a sex symbol? Tom Selleck? Ted Danson? How often do we EVER see a hairy man or a man with a mustache in commercial advertising today? The "real man" appeal has faded away -- we're taught by TV, movies and ads that male sexuality is now hairless, clean shaven and has some sort of ridiculous haircut that looks like a guy just got out of bed in the morning. As I was growing up, it was instilled by the media that attractive men were masculine, hairy, and often had facial hair. This was not always the case, of course -- but these guys were at least INCLUDED. We are JUST starting to see "average guys" used in ads once more. It's a slow change, though. We recently discussed average dudes in commercials in the Gay forum. We're just now starting to be told that a few day's growth of beard is sexy once again. Don Johnson and George Michael got this trend going in the 80s, but it died out fast. It's clear that culture and media have a lot to do with what we view as attractive. Today's youth have been shown a DIFFERENT kind of man. Tomorrow's youth will be shown something else. I don't think there's much argument about that. One of the youngest dudes I ever got together recently was twenty one at the time. This kid is a stocky guy. He's not disgusting, he's just big. He's also not my type, but he turned out to be a SUPREME dick sucker. I had never paid much attention to him, but one night he asked me to get together. I was hesitant because of his age -- most guys that young are both BAD in bed AND not attracted to me. But he seemed insistent, so... I agreed. He gave me tremendous head two more times after that, working my dick over for nearly two hours a pop. Then he stopped contacting me and hasn't said a word to me since. I see him in the chat room all the time, however. When he talks in chat, now and then I catch a few things he writes. His profile now indicates that he wants "a young white guy who is a thug." I am NOT young and I am NOT a "thug" by any stretch of the imagination. So why did he so enthusiastically devour my dick three times? I have no idea. If I'm not his type, he sure didn't give any indication. Is he just listing in his profile the type of guy he wants MOST? Or is he still figuring out what he likes and what he doesn't? I don't believe he was not into it the last time he was here -- if he wasn't, he gave a great performance anyway. The "young, white thug" is pretty popular as a sex symbol in the media these days... is he seeking something because TV tells him he should? No one can say for sure... but I suspect as much. It's impossible to deny media has an influence. When you see guys in Anytown, USA adopting trendy haircuts, facial hair styles, clothing, attitude, posture, etc. that is currently being blasted to us on a daily basis in the media... it becomes obvious. I don't think anyone is saying -- or has ever tried to imply here -- that we MUST be attracted to ALL types of men. This is simply not going to ever happen and it would be spurious of us to think this is mandated by virtue of our sexuality alone. Just because we can sometimes better understand the painful aspects of being excluded because we're gay, it doesn't mean we must INCLUDE all types of men in our sexual exploits. However, what is disturbing is the tremendous amount of vitriol that is exhibited toward men who are NOT the epitome of the cultural ideal. This really bothers me. I think we've all run into groups of gaggling fags who get off on making fun of anyone who doesn't suit them sexually. We've ALL heard guys talking in bars and pointing and laughing at other men in cruising places. It's as if to say "how DARE these guys come here!" As if to say: "he's unattractive to me, therefore he shouldn't be a sexual being." This is absurd, elitist, offensive, and immature. Perhaps it is naive of me, but I find beauty to be a much more internalized thing. A great looking body can still be home to an unattractive attitude. We have to be realistic on both sides of the issue. It isn't likely that all guys are going to allow for experimentation with men they do not necessarily find attractive; we cannot mandate that anyone do such a thing. We CAN encourage tolerance and kindness, however. And I think we SHOULD. At the same time, men who KNOW they may not be attractive for whatever reason to various other individuals must also accept and understand this. Guys who attempt to FORCE themselves on other guys are trolls. I believe we've defined that term many times. I think everyone here has made some valid points here, though I don't necessarily agree with every word. As times change, so do our perceptions of what is attractive and what is not. The media influences this, especially advertising. In five or ten years, there will be a NEW standard of beauty that will be emulated. It's not a sin to be overweight -- nor is it necessarily a good thing or a healthy thing. The decision to lose weight is a personal one and requires much effort. The benefits are obvious. At the same time, obsessive behavior and attitude toward fitness can result in some dangerous scenarios, both physical and mental. Despising fat folks because of their weight smacks of a puerile attitude and a weak mind. Being sexually unattracted to overweight people is not the same thing. The same applies to age: being a certain age does not preclude one from having sexual needs or being viewed as sexually desirable by some. I have seen some absolutely ridiculous statements in some online profiles: "no one over age 43." What does that MEAN? Where does this arbitrary number come from? What happens at age 44 that is so awful? How can some insipid little fool sit in front of his computer and type that? He'll fuck a 43 year old guy, but not a 44 year old guy. Huh? Damn, at least round it off! This boils down to a battle of ignorance -- on both sides. If a 300 pound guy EXPECTS that he should be getting every guy he lays eyes on to suck him off, he's clearly ignorant about the unwritten rules of sexual attraction. He might find a FEW, but he needs to realize that he may have some tough times ahead. If a group of guys stands around and makes fun of ANY man they deem as unworthy of being a sexual partner, they are clearly immature, ignorant, and not worthy of our friendship. Meet in the middle. Live and let live. We all have an unspoken "right" to seek out sexual partners -- we just don't have a right to inflict our own personal tastes on those who do not share them. |
Linear Mode
