| |
|
We've gone 20 posts without mentioning the word 'gaydar', so I won't sully things by mentioning it.
Ooops.
While self-identification is obviously primary (in terms of what you look for, and therefore what happens in your life) there are plenty of situations in which that would come into conflict with other people's ideas about one's sexuality- I'm thinking particularly of bi/trans identification here, which as we've seen on recent threads just won't be tied down.
quote: Originally posted by SFD:
as a generalisation, i have found many gay men to have had what i call the 'macho gene' removed - that is, the aggression and hostility. is this born or made?
Good question, though I know several gay men who are incredibly competitive- down the gym, on the dancefloor, in conversation. As regards aggro and hostility, I would imagine that there's plenty who get enough of that from their daily lives, and like to leave it out of their private lives. That's different to the 'softness' you're talking about though, isn't it? I always used to think of that as a 'hippy thing.' I've met enough people of various genders and orientations without the 'macho gene' to make me think it's not exclusively an expression of sexuality. Know what you mean, though. I think. Anyway, apologies all for an entire para of generalisation. hoom.
hypothesis: visible queerness arises from a process of creative self-identification, whereas visible straightness arises from a process of identification through conformity. In other words, queerness is high-quality sociobiological street art in a space labelled 'Danger-UnStraight Ontological Territory!' -the blank spaces around heteronormative culture. So it's spottable because it's unusual and it's designed to clash with the institutional decor. |
|
|
