|
|
|
Great post!
Eragon: Worst. Movie. Ever.
Boyish Types: Totally hot.
Seriously though, I'm a deep believer in introspection and self analysis, and It's great that you're taking a look at these things though.
The answer that I've found when I asked the same questions (Am I just a chubby bear? Why? ... ...) is that my *look* is not as important as whether or not my look is genuine. You seem to be coming to some of these same questions "... so I guess I've tried to act the part."
The trouble here is that word "act." Don't act. Be yourself, whoever that is. If you find yourself effecting a mannerism that doesn't speak to who you really are eliminate it ruthlessly. Find out who it is you really are and give yourself THAT look.
A lot of techniques that come down to the concepts of personal branding are really helpful here. Behave, speak, gesture, move, dress, and groom yourself in the way that reflects your personal sense of who you are.
This will change and evolve over time, but that's what makes it interesting. Seeing yourself evolving over time creates a sense of real attention and a personal worth.
theo |
Homepage |
12.05.07 - 9:39 am | #
|
|
As more than one contributor has made reference to the idea that gay men are quite shallow when it comes ot the dating scene, I'll throw out another obvious generalization: men in general are more shallow about their expectations and guidelines for looking for a potential partner...or one night stand for that matter. we all know you see many more couples of hot women with not-so-hot men than the other way around. men, no matter where they are on that beautiful spectrum we have, in general, as a stereoptype, a generalization (there's my freakin disclaimer), are more influenced by the physical aspect.
and from what i've seen, two men together can sometimes make it even more brutal.
residentgringa |
12.21.07 - 5:24 pm | #
|
|
this is why i have lesbian envy
toughstuff |
Homepage |
12.21.07 - 11:55 pm | #
|
|
I've never understood men, nor male sexuality. And Goodness knows, I've tried, and have had more opportunity than most women. I had more incentive to too, trying to fake it.
Having said that... who should you be? Yourself. But who is that? You have to find out for yourself, and it isn't nearly as easy as it sounds for someone not fitting the standard pre-manufactured template for gender that society provides. I'm still working on it myself.
If I had any advice, it would be to just be. Relax. "There is no try". Let instinct be your guide. "Use the Force Lu..." no, no need to take it that far. By all means let your conscious intellect monitor and make observations, but don't put it in control. From a CompSci viewpoint, most of our cognition, most of the computational processing, is subconscious anyway. It can be more in tune with your body than you think. This is no NewAge Touchy-Feely thing, it's evidence-based. You just have to learn to let go.
Zoe Brain |
Homepage |
12.27.07 - 3:26 am | #
|
|
I was going to comment on this post, "do, not try" but it seems Zoe has already covered where I was coming from in her own comments.
Then it occurred to me what was niggling at my brain about this post. This is a gender blog, and you're talking about being a man attracted to men. Do you also happen to be trans? (no need to answer this if you don't want to)
The reason I ask, is that being a man who happens to be trans and dates men, and what way you do or do not alter your body to fit your internal gender, can seriously impact all these things as well. It would be interesting to hear from that stance.
Sean-Michael |
Homepage |
02.14.08 - 4:44 pm | #
|
|
These are great spot-on observations about how we gays tend to compartmentalize all men into types. Do heteros do that? I suppose they do. I think it does, in some regards, help when a person's "look" matches thier personality and self-identity. Those people attacted to the "type" they project onto you based on initial appearance and first impressions of mannerisms and personality will spot you and seek you out. All is well, if however, you are like me (and probably most people) this way of locating men that "do it for you" can lead to problems...You see, I look like a ruffian in some regards...I am highly tattooed, and cut my hair in a military high-and-tight...This makes people think I am a certain kind of man. Dimples, a big toothy smile, and a sort of "Princees Di shyness" convey a different concept of what I am. Combine all of that with a sort of less-than-butch, artsy personality, and I think you get the point. Men see me and assume I will be one way, interact a little, and think I am something else, interact a lot and find that I am still something else. Still, men will always make instant decisions based on appearance. It seems we are designed that way...I guess it would be logical to try to make the shell better reflect the inside, but that seems more fake to me. To my mind, I look the way I want to, so it's not a lie or trick...It's just that I am made up of many aspects, and my physicality doesn't show it all. I judge others in all the same ways. It seems we have to start with some criteria for deciding the liklihood that a man might be a match, and appearance is just the first on that list...Scary though, to ponder how often we are wrong in our assessments because we don't see what individuals really are.
Michael Travis Jasper
author of the novel, "To Be Chosen"
Michael Travis Jasper |
03.19.08 - 6:19 am | #
|
|
Thanks for all your responses, everyone. I really do think that my post (whether I intended to do it or not) kind of shows how "typing" when it comes to developing systems of attraction and dating, is something that is often socialized (for me, it started happening, I think, when I came out and people started typing ME as a boy...before I even knew that was a "type").
I -don't- think that most heteros type to the degree that gay guys do (lesbos do to an extent, but it's not as widespread as with gay guys), but I DO think that heteros do it on some very important level. Short girls, tall girls, skinny girls, voluptuous; tall guys, buff guys, skinny rocker guys, etc. The reality, though, with heteros, is that for 95% of them...the male/female-top/bottom "type" pervasively exists...it's not even QUESTIONED. It's so deeply engrained in sexuality that typing already exists on some level. It's for this reason that it's hard for me to imagine a sexual schema without typing of some sort. But the equality-minded person in me wants to believe that there is a narrative out there that's a bit more relaxed. So if you're out there, send me an email and write for us! 
ts |
Homepage |
03.19.08 - 9:37 am | #
|
|
你好,似乎有道理。I'm a Chinese senior,find your page by accident,I wanna be your friend please e-mail me if you like or what...
dxinfang1314@sina.com.cn
Amon |
04.30.08 - 1:54 am | #
|
|
nice
Amon |
04.30.08 - 1:58 am | #
|
|
|
Commenting by HaloScan
|