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

Underground > Conversation >

Homo 101

Page: 1 2 3 4(5)6

12:19 / 08.05.06

I've just had to listen to yet another dumb-het conversation about gay culture in which one of the participants decided that he could legitimately poke fun at the tendency within gay culture to catagorise gay men (Seal, Cub, Bear, Chicken, etc...), claiming that he would hate to be so defined as he was an (yawn) "individual". Now, obviously I would've had a little more sympathy with his position if he wasn't a)heterosexual b)less of a moron, but it got me to thinking, why are these catagories so important?

I can imagine a few answers but I'd really like the opinion of someone who is, you know, actually gay and might be possession of some real live facts and/or informed thoughts.

Goodness Gracious Meme

12:35 / 08.05.06

This is a fascinating turn, and I'd like to take my hat off to the contributors, for the level of compassion, complexity and communication going on here.

Like 'nesh, I find myself connecting this issue to other sexual practices that involve certain calculated risks which others might consider foolhardy - and which, following your reasoning, I'd be losing nothing by avoiding, by 'giving up'. I think I would lose out, though: in surrendering aspects of my fetish life, I'd be losing part of my sexuality. .

In the back of my mind, I have, which is possibly off-topic, the contrast in SM/leather/kink between codes of behaviour summed up as Safe, Safe Consensual(wikipeida link, worksafe) and 'Risk Aware Consensual Kink'(ditto), where proponents seem to be having a comparable discussion about desire, danger and safety.

Informed Consent, a UK-based SM community resource and as such may NOT be worksafe has definitions of SSC and here, and an essay entitled SSC vs RACK RACK, which might provide an interesting analogue.

Goodness Gracious Meme

12:52 / 08.05.06

Well, as a non-homo but fellow carbon-based life-form, my response would be to point out all the ways in which your workmate isn't such a special snowflake, and does in fact fit into some groups with labels?

Mind, knowing you, I'm pretty sure you did this. But someone will be along with a dececent answer in a minute.

12:59 / 08.05.06

As this is a 101 thread I'm going to ask an entry level question that I know the answer to.

Why do people keep using this word "identify"? Surely you are gay/lesbian.

(Gonna post the same question over in the Bi thread)

18:53 / 08.05.06

I have a question that might not be easy to answer, and it might verge into the anecdotal or opinion.

How important is marriage to gay couples? Not civil union, not common-in-law, but an actual marriage. Does it depend on the couple?

When I say "important," I mean, how bad do you want to get married?

I don't really need marriage as either het or gay. In my opinion, I don't need something external to validate my love or committment to another person. I don't need a church to confess my love for somebody, or a piece of paper, or a priest, or a Justice of the Peace.

Disclaimer: whether or not I believe in marriage as an institution is irrelevant to the question. To paraphrase someone, I don't really care for marriage, but I will fight for everybody's right to it. So full disclosure: IMO: if you want marriage, you should have it. It's a right, so the question is: how important is it to you to exercise it?

22:08 / 08.05.06

I've just had to listen to yet another dumb-het conversation about gay culture in which one of the participants decided that he could legitimately poke fun at the tendency within gay culture to catagorise gay men (Seal, Cub, Bear, Chicken, etc...), claiming that he would hate to be so defined as he was an (yawn) "individual". Now, obviously I would've had a little more sympathy with his position if he wasn't a)heterosexual b)less of a moron, but it got me to thinking, why are these catagories so important?

Well, one might equally ask why straight men insist on categorising their objects of desire: Blondes, Brunettes, Redheads, etc. One might also ask why straight people in general divide themselves into particular groupings: Housewives, Fathers, Yummy Mummies, and so on.

Okay, I'm being a bit facetious - but I'm also making the point that, in 'default' heterosexual-assumed society, there are a multitude of ready-made ways of defining/labelling oneself based on one's heterosexuality or the assumed implications of one's heterosexuality (opposite-sex partners, marriage, children). For gay people, there's no such off-the-peg rulebook; we have to make it up as we go along.

Another possible reason for the tribalism often observed in large concentrations of gay men (doesn't happen so much outside urban centres) is the historical necessity for same-sex liaisons to be conducted covertly. This meant a whole set of codes and a dialect (polari) arose to allow gay men to communicate without 'scaring the horses'.

A third reason might centre around the idea of men wanting to meet men who share their tastes and particular kinks/fetishes. Identifying oneself as a "cub", for example, is shorthand for saying one is a young(ish), possibly slim(mish) male who's attracted to older, bulkier, hairier males ("bears") - thus one can quickly and easily communicate what one wants from a partnership or encounter.

(I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what a "seal" is, though...)

22:10 / 08.05.06

Isn't a seal a hairless bear?

22:14 / 08.05.06

I kind of thought that was an "otter".

22:22 / 08.05.06

Matt:
How important is marriage to gay couples? Not civil union, not common-in-law, but an actual marriage. Does it depend on the couple?

Yes, it's going to depend on the couple. Those of a religious bent, or who are intent on the particular trappings of the marriage ceremony for other reasons are likely to see marriage as more important than those who aren't at all religious and don't want 'all the trimmings'.

When I say "important," I mean, how bad do you want to get married?

I don't want to get married at all. Several of us discuss this in more detail here and here.

22:24 / 08.05.06

Of "otter", wiki says "a man who is hairy, but is not large or stocky - typically thinner, or with lean muscle."

This lead me back to the definition of "cub":"a younger (or younger looking) version of a bear, typically but not always with a smaller frame. The term is sometimes used to imply the passive partner in a relationship."

No definition of "seal", though. I can't wrap my head around the idea of a hairless bear anyway. Surely the presence of body hair is what categorises bear culture? Therefore a hairless bear is what exactly?
Seal=smooth bodied guy who's likes bears, maybe?

22:29 / 08.05.06

If that illustrates anything, Shrug, it's the fact that the supposed categorisations are not hard-and-fast definitions used across the entirety of gay people, but shifting approximations applied by different subgroups to mean slightly different things.

22:39 / 08.05.06

Thanks for the links Ganesh. I will read them and perhaps have something of value to contribute.

22:39 / 08.05.06

I have just realised that we have a friend who's a seal pup though, G. Tiny little seal. Cheers, Boboss. You're more down wit da homo homies than am I, 'twould seem.

22:47 / 08.05.06

Hmmm, yes, cheers, that makes more sense. Language (slang especially) being reasonably malleable and all that. I'm liking that reasoning.
[tangential threadrot]That's, just, made me think of those people in Gulliver's Travels who, as they had no language, had to carry any item they might need to refer to around on their backs.[/tangential threadrot]

23:19 / 08.05.06

What does my tendency to turn the otter cheek say about me?

(Full disclosure: I tried this same otter pun in the lateshift last night, and it fell completely flat. I obviously have no shame.)

23:23 / 08.05.06

You otter be ashamed of yourself, Alas.

(Oookay, shall we institute a No Extended Sequences Of Punning rule for the 101 threads? Before someone loses an eye?)

23:34 / 08.05.06

Can we seal this rule...with a kiss? (on the otter's cheek, of course.) Your place ermine? ...ok ok ok I'll stop already. Promise.

00:14 / 09.05.06

I truly cannot bear this any longer.

Huh?

Goodness Gracious Meme

00:25 / 09.05.06

time for a cull, methinks.

06:29 / 09.05.06

Why do people keep using this word "identify"? Surely you are gay/lesbian.

I think it's partly a nod toward the validity of self-labelling rather than being labelled by others, and partly an acknowledgement that these labels are approximations, even shifting approximations. For example, I have previously had sexual relationships with women and it could be argued that this makes me technically bisexual. In fact, I have variously identified as straight, bisexual and gay. Similarly, one could argue that the men who 'cottage' are homosexual or bisexual, based on their sexual behaviour, but they identify as heterosexual.

11:20 / 09.05.06

Well I think all that qualifies as a raft of brilliant answers. I'm rather keen on Ganesh's explanation of "identify" - not seen it's use described so elegantly.

As for Seal, I think refers to particularly hairless guys.

Disco is My Class War

11:57 / 09.05.06

Boboss and Ganesh: I wouldn't necessarily agree that people who 'cottage' are any sexuality at all. Or, perhaps they're both homo and hetero at the same time, at which point naming their preference as "being gay or bi" becomes meaningless.

If someone identifies themselves as heterosexual, that's the name under which they claim representation. I think the claim of representation is generally about disavowing another option or an identity category. Ie, as a man, if you had to say you were heterosexual (even though you knew you were attracted to men, and sometimes fucked them) then you wouldn't necessarily talking about your sexual practices at all. You would be claiming heterosexuality in order to disavow the threat or the possibility of being labelled as homosexual.

Maybe this means that claiming an identity is always different, depending on the identity, and that no universal law about 'being' and 'identifying' can be found?

13:28 / 09.05.06

Boboss and Ganesh: I wouldn't necessarily agree that people who 'cottage' are any sexuality at all. Or, perhaps they're both homo and hetero at the same time, at which point naming their preference as "being gay or bi" becomes meaningless.

Well, I know at least two men who 'cottage' who identify as gay and are exclusively attracted to men - so they'd be considered to be possessed of a sexuality in pretty much anyone's book, I should think. My point in using the 'cottaging' example was to demonstrate the gap between self-identification labelling and labelling from others based on one's behaviour; my point wasn't to attempt to pin down the (usually fairly complex) sexuality of men who 'cottage'.

I agree with your point that one might well have other reasons for identifying as X than being attracted to a particular sex of partner. For example, I suspect that a percentage of those males who embrace aspects of urban 'gay' lifestyle are rather asexual, and have other motivations for assuming an ostensibly homosexual identity.

*

13:55 / 09.05.06

Hey, this is 101, right? Um, what's "cottaging"?

14:17 / 09.05.06

Ahh, 'cottaging' is probably a UK-specific term, right enough. It's slang for seeking (semi-)anonymous sex in public toilets. Interestingly, what little research has been carried out on those who 'cottage' suggests that a large proportion of them identify as heterosexual - so they might be viewed as MSM (men who have sex with men).

A 'tea-room' was another old term for a particularly popular public convenience, I think.

14:28 / 09.05.06

Good ol' Wikipedia...

*

14:33 / 09.05.06

Ah, thanks for indulging my laziness.

14:47 / 09.05.06

Ahh, 'cottaging' is probably a UK-specific term, right enough. It's slang for seeking (semi-)anonymous sex in public toilets.
I read about this in Basketball Diaries. It was in NY though, so the word 'cottaging' wasn't used.

14:50 / 09.05.06

Labels are used in the gay community to find like-minded mates and fellow-travellers.

In the same way an indie kid might go into a club and point out "goths", "crusties", "emo", or "hessians", I can go into the Eagle on a pleasant Sunday afternoon and identify Bears, cubs, otters, etc. It is almost entirely a subjective categorization and, while many folks do identify themselves in one of these "cliques", it seems to me that this is done more for the sake of convenience and camp than anything else.

That said, I have been seen sporting a Bear Magazine t-shirt for ease of identification when cruising: "Naked Hairy Homo Smut"!

00:01 / 10.05.06

How important is marriage to gay couples? Not civil union, not common-in-law, but an actual marriage. Does it depend on the couple?

Experience form my life. My brother and his boyfriend are basically a married couple. They have been monogomous since the day they met and that was 5 years ago. I don't know if they want to be 'married' or not. I think they would like the legal rights het couples get. Cam actually said he would get married, but only if it was 'real'. In a church with a priest and legal. All of which is not possible in Australia.

Oh, and as a point of reference 'cottaging' is called doing 'beats' in Australia. I think Mr Disco or Jackie refered to it earlier in the thread...

Disco is My Class War

07:07 / 10.05.06

Ganesh said:
Well, I know at least two men who 'cottage' who identify as gay and are exclusively attracted to men - so they'd be considered to be possessed of a sexuality in pretty much anyone's book, I should think. My point in using the 'cottaging' example was to demonstrate the gap between self-identification labelling and labelling from others based on one's behaviour; my point wasn't to attempt to pin down the (usually fairly complex) sexuality of men who 'cottage'.

Oh, okay. I thought you were clouding a distinction between men who have sex with men, and gay. I thnk I may know some men who use beats who identify as gay, too, oddly enough

This is why I hate the labels. I'm much more intrested in people's practices than the identities they use to decribe themselves.

09:01 / 10.05.06

I am too - but I'm also interested in the gaps between the label someone chooses to describe himself and what he actually does in terms of sexual behaviours.

09:33 / 10.05.06

Gore Vidal underlines this point through much of his work - the distinction between "homosexual" as a noun and an adjective is an important one for him since he believes that there is "no such thing as a homosexual".

09:35 / 10.05.06

Well... only in the way that there is no such thing as a heterosexual. I agree with him that the word itself is misused as a noun, frequently by me.

09:52 / 10.05.06

As I understand it, heterosexuality didn't exist as a noun either before the invention of homosexuality as noun. This was conceived by people to demonise same sex relations, and heterosexuality (as noun) became the opposing "default" as a consequence.

I agree that there is a distinction between noun and adj but have heard some church groups espouse this as a way of "curing" the people who practice homosexuality (as opposed to the homosexuals who are presumably less likely to change their ways), so not really sure how helpful it is.

Page: 1 2 3 4(5)6