Linked these videos to my straight female friend, she thinks these videos are unfunny and unsexy. I'm quite interested to know why is it that you think you're attracted to men dancing like women? Perhaps the movements this Chris Koo is performing are actually universal and unisex at their very core but our cultures have distorted our view and raised us to think only women are meant to act like this? But the body language is extremely effeminate, is it not? The movements seem to convey submission to me. Compare it to this video
Another thought I wanted to share. I did not think any
of the videos of dancing men were sexy. I think male dancers who dance in a non-provocative way are pretty fucking sexy, but when they strip down and show their rippling muscles, or when they dance in an overtly sexual way, it grosses me out. So neither of the original two links posted, or the Magic Mike thing appealed to me. If women were doing the same thing, I'd think it was pretty awesome.
It could be because for a man to strip himself down so much and put himself in these positions is incredibly unusual to me. I tend to think of men as staying dressed while the women get naked, standing still while the women dance. To have that flipped around could be jarring.
Or it could be that, as a bisexual, I am much more aesthetically attracted to women (and I am) and seeing men in most situations where they're trying
to be sexy doesn't much appeal to me. There are exceptions.
From my experience lesbians tend to look more androgynous while the more feminine women are more likely to be strictly straight but there are exceptions, of course.
I find that actually, when you take a step and become acquainted with queer culture in some ways, your mind is opened up to more. An average heterosexual woman who mostly just hangs out with other heterosexual men and women probably doesn't spend as much time thinking about how they could, conceivably, dress like a boy. If they wanted to. Because that's not a part of their daily conversation. On the other hand, I've found that my original identity of bisexuality and the search for information and support has led me to discover that I don't always need to dress femininely and that I don't necessarily have to love just one person, etc. Exposure to these things, because of my initial identity of nonhetero
, has led me to become more open-minded, which could lead me to be a bit more androgynous. That is the correlation I think exists. I think that many more people would fall in different places on the spectrums if they were exposed to it more regularly and understood that it was okay.
While I understand your perspective, I tend to agree with Sheoldred on a more practical level.
It's easy to espouse these egalitarian views on a theoretical level, but in practice, a "straight feminine man" is only fooling himself if he actually believes that the majority of feminist women (or women in general, for that matter) are so open-minded as to not factor in traits of "masculinity" in their own dating partners. I'm certain many will disagree with me on a philosophical level - which I agree, is quite unfortunate for the more effeminate straight men out there. While one could certainly make the case that this is due to deeply internalized gender roles even among feminist women, it is my belief that many women simply tend to find traditionally masculine traits as "attractive" (and why should that be discouraged if that is their preference?). As was mentioned, there are certainly women who are exceptions to this rule, but suggesting that these individuals represent a true diversity of thought only trivializes how rare it actually is for women to actively 'seek out' effeminate, straight men as a first choice.
How much of this is due to societal influence is often a point of contention. Purely my personal thoughts - I am not quite sure this can be entirely attributed to social factors alone, though it most certainly plays a significant role.
Being queer is a lot like this, I think. I wouldn't say being a bit effeminate makes a straight male queer, but that's just how the world works. The majority of people go with the flow of society and don't consider living any other way. When I realized I was bisexual, my dating options did not grow
, conversely to the beliefs of many, but they shrank. And I certainly don't feel I have many options of dating women, when most of my options are still men. When I realized I was polyamorous, my options shrank even more. The more unique my identity becomes, the less I fit in with that flow, the less dating options I have. If you differ from the norm, you're going to have less options. That's just reality.
So, yeah. I think feminine men are going to find that their options become a bit more limited, if they're trying to play the game of heteronormativity (not 100% sure if that's the right word to use there). It's unfortunate, and hopefully society can change a bit more to accommodate the differences and true uniqueness of character there is around the world.
For example, I doubt most men would mind if their potential mate was just a nurse, waitress or a book keeper or heck, even still lived with their mother despite being past their 25. Would that be true in case of women? If she had a choice, how much of a difference would it make to a woman if she could choose a male with a highly successful career, a doctor or a businessman, or a guy still stuck living with his parents or working in McDonald's.
I'm dubious about this in its full sentiment. I think there is something to be said about the societal roles of men as the providers and women as provided for. But let's be honest — living at home or working at McDonalds tends not to be a selling point for anybody
, and as an unemployed 21 year old living at home, I hardly feel comforted that I'm a woman, as if that makes it look better. If that makes any sense?
Or as another example a friend mentioned - a strong, muscular man wrapping his arms around her, making her feel protected, often can end up making her wet.
Second of all, I was always under the impression that "what causes us to become physically aroused is biological." In other words, we can't change what makes us aroused. This was the rationale that was thankfully used to gain greater tolerance and acceptance of LGBT individuals.
For the first part, I want to say that physical contact and someone's embrace around the body has a lot to do with... Well, physical contact. Are guys who are attracted to women not at all affected when their lover wraps him in a hug? I also personally enjoy anybody whose voice isn't annoying. Some people have better voices than others.
I actually made a thread here at E
celebrating the new things people have gotten into since being at E. I have noticed the things that arouse me have, in fact, changed drastically over time, based on my experience with them. I also actively make an effort to modify the things that bother me (aka, making ons out of offs, because it's inconvenient to be repulsed by something so common as anal. Still working on that one.)
Again, this is very much a gender issue. "Confidence" - which is what I essentially meant by self-assurance is predominantly an important trait that women look for in men, and far less frequently the other way around. By and large, women - even extremely professionally successful women - are drawn to men who exhibit natural leadership qualities. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but we need to accept these realities if we are discussing this topic in any accurate sense.
Ahahahaha. God, I wish. Okay, within the context of the second half, I gather you might be saying something different than what I took, but... One of the things I hate about society is that we are bombarded with things to feel insecure about... and then told that insecurity is unattractive. How often do you hear that men like "a woman who knows what she wants" and a "strong, confident woman"? Yeah. My personal experience may not be representative of the whole, but I don't think it's a gender thing, there. I am actually extremely frustrated with the bad rep that insecurity gets, because my insecurities have been something that I have to hide to appear more attractive. There is another expectation put on me to pretend that I always love my body and I always know what I'm doing and I don't ever worry if a guy is actually interested in me and his actions are making me feel unsteady. It's generally not okay for me to express emotional vulnerability, because guys don't want to deal with that.Confidence is sexy!
Likewise, I think guys deal with the same shit. I think that when a guy is uncertain and unsure of himself, he gets a lot of shit for it. Maybe a bit more, because guys have the pressure of not being emotional and to express what is perceived as weakness is an even bigger crime. But I don't think that gap is as big as the perception I took from this quote, or at least it's not quite so easy to say, "Men don't look for confidence in women as much as women look for confidence in men."
That's true, but I think you're overestimating the capacities of the brain. Well, perhaps in theory anybody could become a rocket scientist if the right methods are applied and whatnot but in the end, as far as I know from my genetics classes, an alarming number of traits are inherited, and while you can become better at math and all that, IQ is fairly genetic. Psychologists have done tests with twins to confirm this.
The only thing that is extremely flexible is memory which is why you can sometimes meet people with a PhD that make you wonder how did they ever make it.
Also generally untrue, I think. I'm not yet decided on this. I think some people may still have more capacity than others if the same effort was applied, but...
Maybe some day we should write a roleplay together.
In summary, I've been a bit nitpicky about specific points, while sometimes agreeing with some of the concepts behind them. So I want to apologize for that, because I'm not just trying to pick apart everyone's every statement
, but when I saw something and thought, "That doesn't sound right to me," I interjected. So, you know. May or may not actually
contribute to the conversation. I also realize most of these topics abandoned objectification and we're mostly talking gender roles and the typical experiences of each gender.