A question for the collective…

[OldDog_NewTricks]

First, if this has been discussed before I don’t seem to find anything on the subject.

Second, this question may enter the LGTBQIA+ community (I think I that have all the letters) and I have no experience in that arena. So, if I say something that may be offensive, it is absolutely not out of spite, but out of my own ignorance. Please be patient and help educate me with that so I can better myself.

I am working on my second story, well…revising and re-writing. It isn’t necessarily about an embarrassed nude male, but more of a nervous nude male. The thought occurred to me that a woman who may flash her breasts or even her genitalia in public, may be seen by some as daring, risqué, or maybe brazen. But a man that engages in the same behavior (genitalia), will almost always be seen as sick, perverted, or deviant. Two lesbians who share a sensual loving kiss (not fiery passionate, but with a little tongue) in public are usually seen as “acceptable”, but two gay men doing the same thing are usually seen as “abhorrent”.

Why does it seem that the same behaviors and/or actions by men and women are seen as nearly polar opposites? Why does it seem that lesbians are higher on the “socially acceptable” chart than gay men? Especially from the “straight “ community perspective, or am I assuming too much?

And more for my education, if the word lesbian refers to gay women (is gay women the correct terminology?), then is there a word for gay men? And if there isn’t, why?

I guess it all just seems a bit one sided in favor of the women.

Any insight?

 

[alohadave]

And more for my education, if the word lesbian refers to gay women (is gay women the correct terminology?), then is there a word for gay men? And if there isn’t, why?

Women = Lesbian
Men = Gay

It's just one of those things. Same sex is always gay, but women get an additional label to go by.

Two lesbians who share a sensual loving kiss (not fiery passionate, but with a little tongue) in public are usually seen as “acceptable”, but two gay men doing the same thing are usually seen as “abhorrent”.

That's not really true, and responses like that say more about the person having the reaction than anything else. Many places have strong LGBTQ+ communities, and two men kissing isn't squicky unless you are extremely conservative or a homophobe.

 

[KeithD]

Perceptions are changing. (Look at TV commercials closely. They already seem to use almost exclusively mixed-race couples in one dimension. Coming along behind that, you can find TV commercials in which men kiss. That's a trend coming in and is representative of what is increasingly being seen as socially acceptable--at least if we don't take a nose dive back into the medieval era thanks to politics).

But, yes, lesbian couples started coming in before that. Lesbians are acceptable to many straight men (as in many Literotica readers) because macho straight men see two women who just need to be--and can be, by them--cured of that. They just need a good man. That's not the story with two men observed at it.

 

[AchtungNight]

I was raised by conservatives and bullied by gay bashers in my youth. Thanks to them I was confused about homosexuality before puberty and not sure I could feel positive about it. Then fate led me to the writings of Eric Lustbader, who had a tough positive bisexual heroine in Sirens- this really turned me on. So I was okay with bisexual women. Then my stepbrother came out gay after dating a succession of beautiful women in high school and not being satisfied with any of them, then finding his true desire laid in his own gender. I didn’t want to be estranged from him, I grew up living with him in my adolescence and envying him for his dating life. I know I’m not gay, but… I didn’t want to reject him just because he was, it didn’t seem right. Especially when I’m attracted to bisexual women and one I was dating at the time told me if I rejected my brother I rejected her also. I would not do that. I’ve also made a lot of friends online and admired many celebrities of the Alphabet Mafia, to use Demi Lovato’s term. To this day I am proud to hold the belief that if Heaven rejects the good people of the LGBTQ community, well, I will gladly spend my afterlife elsewhere. Writing characters of alternative sexuality and being proud of my work has only strengthened this stance.

I think a large part of the problem the OP mentions is that a lot of gay bashers out there are of the mindset “if you defend them, you must be one of them.” There are a lot of macho straight guys in this world who don’t want to be mistaken for gay and will gladly join the bashing to prove they aren’t. I used to be close to that mindset myself. These days I would rather retain my LGBTQ friends and enjoy reading about positive characters of all sexualities than the alternative. And that of course means supporting Pride and staying Awake.

 

[OldDog_NewTricks]

@alohadave I’ve never had a problem with gay men or women. To me, if you love someone, then show it. Maybe it’s just the response I see here in the rather conservative rural Midwest. Maybe someday it will be different. We can only hope. Maybe abhorrent wasn’t the right word. Aberrant might have been a better choice.

@KeithD I’ve noticed the men kissing in more recent commercials and I can say it’s about time. And a man who thinks he can “turn” a lesbian straight is delusional. I’ve wondered if straight men enjoy watching lesbians because men are more “visual”. If they enjoy watching a woman in a sexual situation, then what could be better than TWO women in a sexual situation?

I had a feeling that the “kissing” part of my question would go this route. Unfortunately, there will always be small minded and closed minded people who will equate “gay” with wrong. That’s their loss.

The “flashing” part of the question still intrigues me. Outside of the nudist community (naturist community?), why is female public nudity more acceptable than male public nudity? Paris Hilton gets notoriety for her “cootchie” flash in public, but R.E.M bassist Mike Mills (and other male celebrities) get arrested for semi public nudity. Celebrity or just regular people, why the double standard?

 

[TheLobster]

(I think I that have all the letters)

You can never have all the letters there. Every time you use this acronym, one more will be tacked at the end.

The thought occurred to me that a woman who may flash her breasts or even her genitalia in public, may be seen by some as daring, risqué, or maybe brazen. But a man that engages in the same behavior (genitalia), will almost always be seen as sick, perverted, or deviant.

Exposed female breasts have a non-sexual/erotic function. It's their primary function, in fact, and one that's acceptable to perform in public even in relatively prudish societies. The sexual connotations of female breasts are also partly cultural.

Female genitals also have a non-erotic function, albeit one that's much more intimate and only comes into play several times in woman's life. That's why the taboo of showing them off is stronger.

The only non-sexual function of male penis is related to expelling waste, which had always, and for good reasons, been taboo in more or less every culture.

Two lesbians who share a sensual loving kiss (not fiery passionate, but with a little tongue) in public are usually seen as “acceptable”, but two gay men doing the same thing are usually seen as “abhorrent”.

PDAs of any kind may be frowned upon depending on time and place. But more to the point: two women are hot to watch, two men aren't. Yes, that's a generalization. And no, I'm not adding "by straight men" to that assertion: because of the fact that it is men who are typically more visual wrt what arouses them, what they see as hot and sexy will always be the majority opinion of what's hot and sexy in general.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

Why does it seem that the same behaviors and/or actions by men and women are seen as nearly polar opposites? Why does it seem that lesbians are higher on the “socially acceptable” chart than gay men? Especially from the “straight “ community perspective, or am I assuming too much?

There is a certain sentiment going back as far as Medieval and probably back to Antiquarian times that, whatever else it might be, it wasn't really "sex" unless a dick was involved.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Because until recently it was straight men doing the judging, deciding what was acceptable on TV, in films, etc. They knew that mainstream films had to appeal to teenage boys to make the most money; newspapers had to appeal to workmen, hence tits and sport. (The top-selling UK newspapers only got rid of topless models in 2015)

Said men were terrified of being seen as less manly aka gay, hence would claim to be repulsed by anything that might suggest they were homosexual, whether they were actually repulsed or not.

Also women tend to want to see overall body shapes, topless men and men's backsides, rather than genitals. They're just more attractive. Which might have influenced films like Name of the Rose and Prince of Thieves.

Back when Brokeback Mountain came out, it was advertised here as a cowboy movie. Women, who were more used to looking for subtext to get their jollies, cottoned on immediately. Men mostly didn't. So that Valentine's Day, huge numbers of men were delighted that their girlfriends had suggested a cowboy film... I think at least a dozen relationships ended by the time the film did (half with the man storming out and the woman refusing to leave). Now, you'd probably not have the same amount of flouncing.

 

[Plathfan]

Men sending unsolicited dick pics or flashing themselves in real life is much more common. Women exposing themselves in stories is largely a male fantasy.

 

[AchtungNight]

In defense of men- I have gotten plenty of unsolicited pics of ugly women in my spam folder, many of them nude. No proof they weren’t sent by men. I also have been solicited for intimacy by unwelcome women many times in my life. Most recently at a strip club on a Friday night- excessive makeup and obvious silicone are turn-offs for me along with predatory fakery. Two women that night there had natural beauty and good attitude, they earned dances from me that were worth the money. I rejected at least seven others, and yes, I know they were just doing their jobs. I saw them earn money from other men. I have also suffered gossip, hyped flattery I can’t back up, and arrogance from women in my life. And at no time have they apologized for any of it. Misogyny is automatically condemned in our society, misandrists are often praised. I try to be respectful, chivalrous, but sometimes… I have never given in to hatred and prejudice, condemning all women because of the bad examples. I am always grateful for the women out there who pay me welcome positive attention.

I wish more women would feel the same way towards men. This is why I always try to portray women realistically and positively in my stories, even with the cautionary tales. I don’t see enough of that in erotica and I prefer positive characters over negative. I’m trying to be the chivalrous gentleman I want to see more of out there while still enjoying life and being an ethical slut. Yes, I wish more people, men especially, would act similar. I know I’m fighting a losing battle, though, so I wont say much more.

I will close with this though. Seeing dating sites overrun with scammers and stupid ads about body part sizes and deviant behavior is as appalling to me as it is to every woman I’ve heard condemn such things.

 

[KeithD]

Because until recently it was straight men doing the judging, deciding what was acceptable on TV, in films, etc. They knew that mainstream films had to appeal to teenage boys to make the most money; newspapers had to appeal to workmen, hence tits and sport. (The top-selling UK newspapers only got rid of topless models in 2015)

This reminds me of short stints I've had in working in the movie industry. It was a revelation to me to hear discussion--and see work output--of "How can we give this Jewish and gay connotation while making it all appear straight and Protestant to straight Protestants?" And nearly everyone I saw in the industry who had control over this was Jewish and/or gay. So often now when I look into a really creative person's background, I see Jewish and/or gay--and I laugh a politically incorrect laugh.

 

[Bramblethorn]

First, if this has been discussed before I don’t seem to find anything on the subject.

Second, this question may enter the LGTBQIA+ community (I think I that have all the letters) and I have no experience in that arena. So, if I say something that may be offensive, it is absolutely not out of spite, but out of my own ignorance. Please be patient and help educate me with that so I can better myself.

I am working on my second story, well…revising and re-writing. It isn’t necessarily about an embarrassed nude male, but more of a nervous nude male. The thought occurred to me that a woman who may flash her breasts or even her genitalia in public, may be seen by some as daring, risqué, or maybe brazen. But a man that engages in the same behavior (genitalia), will almost always be seen as sick, perverted, or deviant. Two lesbians who share a sensual loving kiss (not fiery passionate, but with a little tongue) in public are usually seen as “acceptable”, but two gay men doing the same thing are usually seen as “abhorrent”.

Why does it seem that the same behaviors and/or actions by men and women are seen as nearly polar opposites? Why does it seem that lesbians are higher on the “socially acceptable” chart than gay men? Especially from the “straight “ community perspective, or am I assuming too much?

Complicated question with a lot of different answers.

Part of it is that a lot of people simply don't take female sexuality as seriously as male sexuality. For instance, just about daily I get spam offering treatments for male impotence/dick lengthening/semen enhancement/etc.; I can't remember ever getting spam advertising treatments for any of the sexual dysfunctions that commonly afflict women. The closest I can think of is occasional "learn to squirt" and I'd still consider that to be more about impressing said woman's partner than her own pleasure.

So lesbian relationships are often considered somehow less substantial, less important, than relationships involving a man. There's an exchange in "Tipping the Velvet" where Nan learns that her lover is engaged to a man (or something like that, it's been years) and confronts him about it:

Nan: Don't you know? Hasn't she told you about us?
Walter: I know that you were sweethearts of a kind.
Nan: Of a kind? The kind that hold hands? Didn't she tell you that we fuck each other?!
Walter Bliss: I don't care to use such language Nan. And if I did, I wouldn't use it for anything a pair of girls could do, you need a man for that I think you'll find.

There's a thing that happens fairly open with male-female couples exploring polyamory: the guy will tell his partner he's okay with her sleeping with other women, but not with other men. Again, that usually seems to come from seeing a male-female relationship as more "real" than female-female. He could imagine his partner leaving him for another guy, but not for another woman, and often he assumes that any woman sleeping with his partner will also be available to him.

(And then some of those guys end up being unpleasantly surprised...)

I'd also note that the tolerance you see towards lesbian sexuality tends to be extended most freely to those who are young and conventionally attractive. Two old fat butch lesbians kissing one another in public...maybe not so much, as compared to say a similar-looking straight couple.

And more for my education, if the word lesbian refers to gay women (is gay women the correct terminology?), then is there a word for gay men? And if there isn’t, why?

There are a lot of terms, and like everything sexuality-related they all come with some baggage, but either "lesbian" or "gay woman" is generally fine for women who are are exclusively or near-exclusively attracted to women. (There's some fuzziness around just where those borders are drawn, but that's another conversation.)

On its own, "gay" sometimes means specifically gay men, and especially so when it's used in "gay and lesbian" etc.

Historically, "Uranian" (based in a classical myth, not an "anus" joke) was used for men who were attracted to other men, but that one's pretty archaic today.

I guess it all just seems a bit one sided in favor of the women.

Any insight?

Yes and no.

It can mean greater tolerance for female-female relationships than for male-male, but that's often a superficial kind of tolerance that comes from not taking the relationship seriously, and while having one's relationship not taken seriously might be a good thing when there's a violent homophobe in the room, there are other times when it can really suck.

There are quite a few historical biographies which read like "these two ladies remained close friends through their entire lives, and somehow they never managed to find themselves husbands so they ended up just living together, isn't it nice that they had such a great friendship!"...and sure, maybe some of those couples really were Just Good Friends. But seems pretty likely that some of them were lovers, and while it's nice that those couples managed to fly under the radar and make a life together, that kind of erasure is still sad. It can also have really awful consequences when the relationship ends, in death or otherwise, because people who didn't take the relationship seriously won't take the grief seriously either.

When she realised she was bi, my partner mustered up the courage to tell her mother about it...and then years later she had to do it all over again, because her mother didn't take her seriously. "Oh, I thought you were just saying that because it was fashionable these days." It certainly beats "you're out of the family" but it still isn't a great feeling to have your relationships dismissed by people who are close to you.

You can never have all the letters there. Every time you use this acronym, one more will be tacked at the end.

We add two more every time somebody complains about it.

 

[THBGato]

I wonder if the history of aesthetics comes into it? What was it Guerrilla Girls say? 85% of the nudes in the Met Museum are female. Something like that.

My point is Western Aesthetics hold up the female form as being beautiful and worthy of admiration, especially when nude. Seeing as that probably permeates our education system, I wonder if we're just indoctrinated to find nude women more attractive (and therefore less transgressive/offensive) than nude men.

 

[StillStunned]

A while ago - I'm trying to remember when, and I'm shocked to realise it must be 30 years ago or more - I read a quote somewhere saying something like, "A woman can kiss another woman and still be just as feminine. A man can't kiss another man without being less masculine."

That was probably the mentality that prevailed at the time, and I think it still lingers on with many people.

 

[TheLobster]

My point is Western Aesthetics hold up the female form as being beautiful and worthy of admiration, especially when nude.

To me, this doesn't check out at all. The aesthetic ideal of human body had pretty much always been a nude male.

Greek and Roman athletes embodied the physical ideal of human body and they always competed in the nude.
Medieval and renaissance depictions of biblical or mythological themes, like David or Laocoon and His Sons, permitted male nudity much more often than female.
Vitruvian man.
Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
...and of course, @MyBareTorso

Up until modern times, female nudity was generally seen as sinful and thus not worthy of depiction in the arts.

A while ago - I'm trying to remember when, and I'm shocked to realise it must be 30 years ago or more - I read a quote somewhere saying something like, "A woman can kiss another woman and still be just as feminine. A man can't kiss another man without being less masculine."

That was probably the mentality that prevailed at the time, and I think it still lingers on with many people.

"At the time" might be as old as the Roman Empire here. It strikes me as very similar to the ancient Roman view on homosexual relations between man. Engaging in it didn't make you less manly at all, but only if you weren't the one being penetrated. Kissing isn't quite the same as sex, of course, but much of the same dynamics exist; the orifices and protrusions are just slightly different

 

[KeithD]

This does seem to be settling on personal preference/perspective being falsely posed as a generalization.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

This reminds me of short stints I've had in working in the movie industry. It was a revelation to me to hear discussion--and see work output--of "How can we give this Jewish and gay connotation while making it all appear straight and Protestant to straight Protestants?" And nearly everyone I saw in the industry who had control over this was Jewish and/or gay. So often now when I look into a really creative person's background, I see Jewish and/or gay--and I laugh a politically incorrect laugh.

Something I noticed when watching the one and only episode I ever watched of Amish Mafia. I immediately knew how fake it was because of how badly the religious angle was handled.

For all practical purposes (general worldview and outlook), hardcore Calvinism is probably form of mainstream belief with which the Amish have the most in common. They're not all that different from other "English"/Modern conservative Calvinist American Midwesterners, and their entire attitude towards religion and religious adherence is thus completely different from that of, say, Catholics or Jews. Even those who disregard or entirely dispense with their faith are still going to be remarkably different from those of lapsed Catholics or secular Jews.

Compare to Hollywood, where if anyone is even slightly religious, it's probably one of those. From what little I saw of the series, it was very obvious that, if anyone involved in producing it was religious at all, none of them were Calvinists.

 

[OffNSFW]

The ick about PDAs between men is homophobia. Plain and simple.

Of course, the titillating connotation of PDAs between women is its own form of dehumanization. Maybe not as fraught with danger, but still insidious.

 

[lovecraft68]

Once again, no one here thinks anyone who leans left politically-or has no religious affiliation- can hate and be intolerant to gay/lesbian folks.

Must be an amazing thing to be so judgmental of one type of person, and so willfully ignorant about 'your type' of person.

Also, dangerous in many ways, but that's a reality few want to live in.

 

[KeithD]

The ick about PDAs between men is homophobia. Plain and simple.

Of course, the titillating connotation of PDAs between women is its own form of dehumanization. Maybe not as fraught with danger, but still insidious.

What's a PDA? Too many unexplained acronyms are creeping into this thread.

 

[TheLobster]

What's a PDA? Too many unexplained acronyms are creeping into this thread.

Portable Digital Assistant, of course.

In this context, though, it’s Public Display of Affection.

 

[StillStunned]

Once again, no one here thinks anyone who leans left politically-or has no religious affiliation- can hate and be intolerant to gay/lesbian folks.

Must be an amazing thing to be so judgmental of one type of person, and so willfully ignorant about 'your type' of person.

Also, dangerous in many ways, but that's a reality few want to live in.

Speaking of reality, where has anyone in this thread said anything about politics? It seems to me it's all been about personal or historical or societal openness and tolerance, or the lack of them (bringing in conservative religion once).

Or is this just your daily rant? If so, please start highlighting them. That will save us all a lot of bother.

 

[Britva415]

You can never have all the letters there. Every time you use this acronym, one more will be tacked at the end.

Sometimes I wish the “Q” were the only letter, for this reason.

Even the nouveau “GSRM” isn’t perfect, though I couldn’t say who it leaves out. I’m sure it’s somebody, thouh.

 

[OffNSFW]

Sometimes I wish the “Q” were the only letter, for this reason.

Even the nouveau “GSRM” isn’t perfect, though I couldn’t say who it leaves out. I’m sure it’s somebody, thouh.

A friend of mine used the word "quiltbag" as a mnemonic device.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Once again, no one here thinks anyone who leans left politically-or has no religious affiliation- can hate and be intolerant to gay/lesbian folks.

Where are you seeing this in the discussion above? I've reread all the posts before yours and I can't figure out what you're responding to.

The only thing I can see before your post that could be taken as a mention of left/right politics was OP's "it’s just the response I see here in the rather conservative rural Midwest". Which still isn't anywhere near "nobody on the left is homophobic".