BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Things that you find really attractive/exciting that aren't the 'hey bits!' norm

 
  

Page: 123(4)56

 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
15:07 / 02.02.06
Pants brigade: Dude, read past the seventh word of the title?

? I thought we just weren't talking about typical "body parts" stuff?

Sorry if it's so boringly "norm" that I like awkward poor girls who smell like they've been jogging and are good at meeting facilitation. I guess that is more or less everyone's taste and could have just been shortened to "T&A!".
 
 
lord nuneaton savage
15:08 / 02.02.06
Don't worry oldsters, I shall attempt to make it part of the collective vocabulary for the youth of today.
 
 
lord nuneaton savage
15:09 / 02.02.06
"Clubable" that is...
 
 
lord nuneaton savage
15:15 / 02.02.06
Oh, and, Mr Disco; Hair lying on a pillow isn't a body part. 'Tis a combination of two things, one of which is stuffed with feathers.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
15:18 / 02.02.06
Oh dear.

I really wasn't sure if starting this thread was a terrible idea or not. I'm still not.

There seem to be some unpleasant traits emerging: allowing 'women' to do certain things if they're the right sort of woman is one. I'm interested that there doesn't seem to be any female>equivalent: ie no-one has identified as female and talked about how watching him smoke is grand, as long as he's not a 'chav'.

And also the shading-into-something I specifically excluded, which was typical physical cues.

In my op, that doesn't just exclude the 'great boobs' comments, it's a prod to think about the more intangible stuff about how people aat, what they do.

I'm with MD on the het panic tone of some of these posts. Is it neccessary to specify who is doing those things? Why?

And nun, to me, yr comment about 'ladies hair' does sound a bit like a shot from a 70s softcore fim.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:18 / 02.02.06
? I thought we just weren't talking about typical "body parts" stuff?

I was thinking more of "hands, feet, hair". Having said which, just hands, feet and hair and nothing else would be pretty good at meeting facilitation. Because a gronk.

Be still, my beating heartses.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:21 / 02.02.06
I'm interested that there doesn't seem to be any female>equivalent: ie no-one has identified as female and talked about how watching him smoke is grand, as long as he's not a 'chav'.

Hmmm. The closest comparison is probably Whisky P and the het boys snnogging, but that does feel very different. And hot.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
15:23 / 02.02.06
On the other hand, so it's not all bitching, I will say there are some lovely evocative posts.

And I stand firmly behind Disco when ze says:

something unbearably sexy about physical awkwardness. A particular kind of awkward, nervous self-consciousness, especially in people who are usually tough and difficult to 'crack'. Boys and butches, in particular. It makes me feel predatory and protective all at the same time

Oh YES.
 
 
Char Aina
15:28 / 02.02.06
it made me wanna kiss a man for her.
because whisky is different.
and hot.

Is it neccessary to specify who is doing those things? Why?

for the same reaosn that any accusation is better when specific. a vague assertion that some people are in a het panic is very difficult to disprove.
see "barbelith is full of snobs" and other arguments.

also, those who are blind to their own faults will probably continue to be so, and those who self examine are likely to assume you mean them. i dont see that as helpful.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
15:30 / 02.02.06
I was thinking more of "hands, feet, hair".

Fair enough. Though other people had already mentioned hands and hair and I've been told that liking feet makes me "kinky" and was therefore not Normal.

Also I think at that point in the post I was paying less attention to the title and more to the thread, in which it had been asked what traits het guys might like in either sex, and I was blindly and clumsily listing stuff that came to mind.
 
 
Char Aina
15:34 / 02.02.06
i think i may have misread you, GGM.
the 'who' was reffering to the smoking etc, not to the perptrators of hetpanic.
apologies for the confusion.
 
 
Chiropteran
15:40 / 02.02.06
...something I specifically excluded, which was typical physical cues....In my op, that doesn't just exclude the 'great boobs' comments

Fair enough - I originally read 'bits' more narrowly as directly sex-related/strongly-sexualized physical attributes (the latter, I concede, still leaves 'hands' in a grey area).

To extrapolate from my earlier post about hands, the thing about the strength, callouses, etc., is the exciting suggestion that the person with such hands is active in some manual activity, be it sculpting, bass playing, or brush-clearing. They give the appearance of being capable (which is, as many have noted, terribly appealing), and may* suggest a level of commitment to that activity which is also very attractive (i.e., in the referenced line from CTHD, the appeal isn't the roughness of Yu Shu Lien's hands, for its own sake, but that fact that they are rough from her constant saber practice).

*it varies, of course, how much of this is just fantasy-projection ('he has a musician's hands') and how much is based on actual knowledge of the person ('she goes out rock-climbing every weekend').
 
 
Sniv
15:45 / 02.02.06
"I like a girl with a dirty mouth,
Someone who I can believe," (name the song/artist, pop-pickers).

After my contributions in page three, I was thinking at work about what I can find attractive in men, and I've come to the decision that, for me, tattoos are sexier on men than women. I have lots of friends with some awesome tats, and I think that properly done, they can look amazing. Hmm, now this thread has made me think about what makes me man-crush. Thanks Barb, you made me gay *pokes out tongue in mock-disgust*
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
15:47 / 02.02.06
Oh gawd, I think I may have been a bit too crude in my post above, posted quickly and annoyed, shouldn't have done.

I shouldn't have suggested that I meant that talking about any physial cues was verboten. As far as I was concerned, it was an invitation to think about different attractive features.

Personally, I loved your post about hands: the detail, the fact that you specified that this could cross your sexuality-identification etc.
 
 
Chiropteran
16:02 / 02.02.06
I really wasn't sure if starting this thread was a terrible idea or not. I'm still not.

It may not be the thread you had intended, but I'm finding it very interesting, in large part because of the sometimes unpleasant assumptions (and the-hopefully ongoing-challenging thereof), my own included.

What is clear, from many of the posts, is that there is a tension between perceived societal norms (re: gender) and the characteristics/activities/'moments' many of us profess to be attracted to. What I'm curious about (and I'm asking myself this question, too) is how much of the *spark* of this type of attraction is based in the attribute itself, and how much comes from the 'break-from-the-norm?' Is behavior x so attractive in this person for its own sake, or because this person isn't 'supposed' to be exhibiting it ("it's refreshing/edgy/taboo/entertaining to find a ____ who does x, unlike all those other _____s")? Or, would "a female guitarist who really rocks out," or whatever, be differently-attractive if it wasn't seen as unusual?

I'm not sure I'm putting this well.
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
16:19 / 02.02.06
I'm with MD on the het panic tone of some of these posts. Is it neccessary to specify who is doing those things? Why?

One would imagine that before posting responses a lot of people are visualising them. This leads me to a few questions:

For us monosexuals is it actually HET PANIC to describe what we see? And futher is it actually HET PANIC to not consider alternative genders.

Isn't the term "person" not only lacking in clarity but for some of us a little on the clinical, dull, unsexy side?

Wouldn't it be a tad condescending for those monosexuals among us to modify our language from x doing y to a person doing y, just because of some potentially perceived negative interpretation?

This is an issue of monosexuality rather than heterosexuality. Why then are the hetero's the evil ones?
 
 
Dead Megatron
16:28 / 02.02.06
Because maybe they (sorry, "we") have been in charge of deciding the rules of the game for far too long, thus repressing any other [insert prefix here]sexuality???

just wondering
 
 
Chiropteran
16:36 / 02.02.06
Hmm, now this thread has made me think about what makes me man-crush. Thanks Barb

Thanks, indeed. ; )
 
 
Dead Megatron
16:36 / 02.02.06
btw, I still stand by my two first posts in this thread, way back then before this whole debate began:

1- I like women who sing

2- I like the taste of cigarretes in a kiss (from a woman) when I'm feeling eeeeevil

If they sound "heteropanic", that's because I'm afraid I might be the last one left.

Any subject can start a discussion in Barbelith. That's sooooo cool.
 
 
Chiropteran
16:57 / 02.02.06
If they sound "heteropanic", that's because I'm afraid I might be the last one left.

That does sound pretty panicked, actually.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, DM, but fer crying out loud, people can only say "think before you post" so many times before they begin to suspect you aren't listening....
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
17:04 / 02.02.06
Thinking before you post is OK but while this is barbelith, this is also the conversation and it isn't strictly conducive to pondering heavily on how one might be interpreted or perceived on innocent answers to simple questions.

Right now the desire to coin the term quet-panic is rising.
 
 
Chiropteran
17:27 / 02.02.06
It wasn't the "innocent answers to simple questions," it was the "last [heterosexual] left." As I said, I don't think that DM intended that to be a serious comment, but it's still a hell of a thing to drop into a thread that has gone in the direction this one has -- regardless of what forum it's in.

DM, I'm sorry if my initial response was rude, but your comment (even in jest) really caught me wrong, and I doubt I'm the only one. That sentiment -- the "sometimes I feel like everyone is gay these days, and I'm the only red-blooded Straight Man left" -- is something I encounter, in various forms, on a regular basis, and it's often accompanied by hate-speech and attitudes of the ugliest sort ("Gay Conspiracy to Corrupt Our Children" stuff). I'm not at all saying that you hold those same attitudes, but the comment was a bit of a red-button for me. Nothing personal, DM.

(If I'm over-reacting, someone please call me on it, seriously.)
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:35 / 02.02.06
OK, I'll be clear: of course it was a joke. Maybe not a good one, but, c'mon, I thought it was obvious I could not be serious with that comment. Does everything has to become a fierce argument on "why is other people fucked up" around here? geeeez
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:56 / 02.02.06
And I don't thing there's a gay conspiracy to corrupt our children. I think there's a children conspiracy to corrput our gays...

see, that's a joke...
 
 
Char Aina
17:58 / 02.02.06
i dont think you are over reacting, if that helps.
one may be the only heterosexual in some places, but the world, the internet and even barbelith aint them.
 
 
Char Aina
18:02 / 02.02.06
DM, i think the thing is not that it wasnt obviously a joke(i felt it was) but that it was a crap joke and one in the wrong place.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:08 / 02.02.06
Well, ok, I apologise if my jest offended anyone, but one should be able to proudly state their sexual preference, be it whatever it may be, without being judged for it.

This thread, I guess, is a bit about fetishization (which, in this case, means what attract us without having a logical reason for such attraction), andbeing the subconscious the source of all fetishes, it's expect them to be amoral and often not nice to the object of fetishization (in which case many call it "objectification", a term I find incredibly precise).
 
 
Axolotl
18:17 / 02.02.06
GGM: I think you did the right thing in starting this thread, at least as far as I'm concerned. If nothing else it has got me doing a bit of self-examination.
I agree with Lepidopteran wrt to the thread summary, I read it as things beyond the typically sexualised characteristics, be they physical or mental.
The various comments about x doing y has got me thinking about why I find women (and it is exclusively women) doing doing typically male things attractive. Is it the contrast? Is it the adoption of a certain element of maleness? The unusualness? And that's even before it's got me thinking about the implications it has about my views on gender roles.
As for the man-crushes I've had, they've definitely tended towards the homosocial, wanting to be the guy concerned, rather than the homosexual. I'm trying to analyse what exactly it is provoked them, but I'm finding it difficult to pin down a common theme.
Hmmm, as I said earlier, the thread's definitely got me thinking.
 
 
*
18:17 / 02.02.06
In his defense, DM can't be that heteropanicked, did you not see him flirting with me earlier this thread? (Unless he thinks I'm a laydee, which is only not amusing because of my overexposure to the phenomenon.)

More things-- I like to see people standing calmly and stoically in the rain. (If it's a gentle rain. I'm not a sadist. Well, not much.) I like the physical appearance of the beading water on people's hair, clothing, and eyelashes, and the combination of quiet dignity and both vulnerability to the elements and their lack of effect, as if to say "Yes, I can be touched by rain, but I can't be touched by rain."

I like to see men near tears. Again, not because I'm a sadist; it can be happy tears or just being moved by a sad movie. And yes, this is a gender-specific one, although I suspect it would also work with a woman I thought of as particularly hard.

Speaking of which, Haus, you said: In which context, the reprivileging of the physical body through the back door - by specifying the gender of the person in whom you find that behaviour attractive - might be seen as significant. But that's assuming that for all the posters, gender = physical body (or more exactly, physical body -> gender). For me, unless I specifically say "non-trans men" or "male-assigned men" or something similar, when I say "men" it means man-identified people regardless of their body type (although obviously attraction is trickier than that). I hope that's true for at least one or two others here who have gender-specific attractions. It may be a slim hope, however. Even though for many posters gender ambiguity seems to be an attraction in certain contexts, it has to be a safe kind of gender ambiguity, accompanied by all the "right" physical cues. For example, a woman who is read as a trans woman, cursing, downing pints, and smoking a cigarette, even if she is attractive and seems wealthy or classy or whatever the other criteria, might not be considered attractive in the same way-- her gender ambiguity is contextualized differently. This is a really common double standard applied to trans people. Men who are gentle are defying gender stereotypes; trans men who are gentle are simply falling prey to their female conditioning.

Ooh, sorry, this is convo, isn't it? I also like people who speak languages I don't understand.
 
 
electric monk
18:19 / 02.02.06
No one's judging your orientation, man. We're judging the quality of your contributed content. No biggie. Reasses and try again if things aren't working out.
 
 
electric monk
18:20 / 02.02.06
That wuz at DM, obv.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:30 / 02.02.06
continuing: so, judging people for their fetishes is a bit pointless, since they have little or no control over them. And, since this is a thread about fetishes, we shoud, at least this once, take a leave on our tendence to judge others, and simply open our hearts and admit our own shit (which is exaclty what I did when I "confessed" my cigarrete-taste fetish) and realize we're all the same, deep down, find our common ground and come out of it better people, instead of simply do a lot of "finger-pointing". Y'know, just like teraphy.
 
 
waxy dan
18:41 / 02.02.06
Sorry, I'm coming into this late, and possibly bringing this waaay too far back...

The 'wrong' gender Disco? Pray tell, please elaborate on this rather negative implication..
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:44 / 02.02.06
In his defense, DM can't be that heteropanicked, did you not see him flirting with me earlier this thread? (Unless he thinks I'm a laydee, which is only not amusing because of my overexposure to the phenomenon.)

No, id, I just have the feeling you're very gorgeous ans sexy, no matter what gender you were born into. AND I'm attracted to you mind.

How much of an "ally" that makes me? [inside joke refering to another thread]

PS. I'm historically straigh, but that's only because I find women to be very beatiful and men very ugly, but it never was a "moral" mandate for me to date only the opposite sex. I do it because, well, that's what hits the spot for me. As a result, I find myself objectifying women much more than men (and I kinda like when they objectify me in return, but that's just another of my fetishes. The list is long)
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:45 / 02.02.06
AND I speak Portuguese...
 
  

Page: 123(4)56

 
  
Add Your Reply