How come straight guys can't say another guy's attractive?

Being bisexual, I find not being attracted to an entire sex an alien, and, subjectively, abnormal thing. But there you go.

Now that I find intresting. I am not attracted to women in anyway, however I do enjoy looking at them for their beauty. Kindda like a sunset or a flower you don't think of them in a sexual way but you do appreciate the sheer beauty of the creature/object.

I hate you so much Catherine Zeta-Jones...

*ahem* Pardon me.

I prefer red-headed elves myself ;p

Or when they do, they follow up and say, "and I'm straight."

Straight women do it all the time about other women. It's meant as a compliment (or jealousy), not a desire to jump on their bones (to put it crudely).

Strangely, I don't find this to be the case at all among my friends and acquaintances. Sure, I've seen it among a few tensely homophobic guys... but that's a minority.

I'm afraid I'm hijacking this thread to talk about game. How come guys don't react to other male creatures high charisma? We got a recurring villain whose a satyr, and our general gave my cleric strange looks and no small amount of crap when she got charmed by the handsome fiend. Out of character I had to remind him, "dude, charisma over 30, think about it."

Just frustrating is all... there, I've said my peace.

I'm afraid I'm hijacking this thread to talk about game. How come guys don't react to other male creatures high charisma? We got a recurring villain whose a satyr, and our general gave my cleric strange looks and no small amount of crap when she got charmed by the handsome fiend. Out of character I had to remind him, "dude, charisma over 30, think about it."

Just frustrating is all... there, I've said my peace.

For sure. But then me seeing a 30 charisma satyr doesn't mean I want to do him, just that I'm drawn to, or find him appealing.

You know: bromance.

I dont know any guys that get hung up on commenting that another guy is good looking; its not like its an invitation or something.

"I don't wanna sound like a queer or nuthin' but I think unicorns are kick ass!"

I'm actually studying a topic called "Queering Texts" at university. Essentially theory is heteronormative practices operate by suppressing anything homoerotic. To successfully practice heterosexuality in society, it becomes necessary to make sure homosexuality is other. These concepts are slowly changing and evolving over time, but that's the basis. (End Lecture).

Suffice to say, I've never had a problem with telling a dude he looks good (or Fancy as we say in my circles). Although to be honest I think we prefer it coming from a pretty lady.

1) Ties are women paying us back for underwire bras and corsets.

2) I don't have an issue with noting an attractive man, whether it be through physical presense, vocal cues (Keith Hamilton Cobb) or just raw Charisma (John Barrowman). Took me a long time to get comfortable with myself to say that.

3) Maybe it's a tribal thing, by admitting another male is superior in any way, we admit he's better breeding material than us. (face it ladies, would you rather have Gerard Buttler in bed beside you or my pasty white aft?)

4) I never understood the 'animals do it so it's fine' defense of homosexuality. I mean animals beat each other up, take the loser's mates, kill their cubs and fling poo, are those automatically acceptable because 'animals do it'?

5) I find it funny that a thread asking why religious folks think homosexuality is wrong gets locked down, but this thread talking about a group's (straight guys) behaviour keeps going.

6) As for lesbians... Really? I could care less. My ex-wife thought all women were bi to some extent. She also thought stepping out behind my back was fine, so take that as you will.

wow talk about thread necromancy. I had forgotten about this topic until just now when it showed back up.

As far as the other thread that got locked down I am not sure why they did it but I believe that any time you have a religious disscussion about sexuality it can very quickly degenerate into something negative so they wanted to pull the plug before it did that. After reading some of the other threads I can see why they did this and applaude it even if that specific topic was IMO being very civil.

As for #4 in your list. That one I can give a very good reason for. The argument is that homosexual behavior is "unnatural" therefore I and many others use the behavior found in nature,IE the animal kingdom, as a direct counter to that argument. The argument of it's against "GODS" design also falls into that catergory. If "GOD" designed "Some" animals to seek same gender realationships why would he not do the same with some humans. It's not so much a belief as much as a counter to a illogical statement. After all who can know the mind of god?, in whatever form she takes.

Sorry to hear about your ex though. Some people just shouldn't be married if their not really ready to commit to one person.

Or when they do, they follow up and say, "and I'm straight."

Straight women do it all the time about other women. It's meant as a compliment (or jealousy), not a desire to jump on their bones (to put it crudely).

Because it's what men say about women, and saying it about another guy is implying a "womanish" quality to him. In other words it's perceived as an attack on his manhood. So following up with an "I'm straight" statement is not only not helping, but twisting the knife.

3) Maybe it's a tribal thing, by admitting another male is superior in any way, we admit he's better breeding material than us. (face it ladies, would you rather have Gerard Buttler in bed beside you or my pasty white aft?)

Hey, when I say I think another man looks good, I’m not saying I think he looks better than me. … alright, maybe Gerard Butler looks better than me in a loincloth and a cloak …

5) I find it funny that a thread asking why religious folks think homosexuality is wrong gets locked down, but this thread talking about a group's (straight guys) behaviour keeps going.

Hmmm, one thread that potentially encourages people to post their thoughts and justifications on why they believe a segment of the population is abhorrent or unnatural, and a thread about a particular social behavior. I’m not sure I really see the parallels.

6) As for lesbians... Really? I could care less. My ex-wife thought all women were bi to some extent. She also thought stepping out behind my back was fine, so take that as you will.

Sorry to hear that one man. That is rough under any circumstance.

In schools, current theory I have read has it like this:

Little boys know they are supposed to become men.

They also find the world bewilderingly complex and seek simple rules to impose order on the world so that they can begin exploring it in a non-terrifying way.

They don't have the facility to be men yet, they cannot actually be masculine until puberty.

So they adopt hyper-masculine behaviour.

It lets them be 'men' and allows them to set very clear, strong lines between things like boy/girl.

Hyper-masculine includes pretending to be soldiers, cowboys and the like.

They also prove they are masculine (which, according to most simple social environments includes bedding women) by using gay as an insult. They are reinforcing their own heterosexuality in the only way they can.

Then these little boys do that until they're 12/13, which is a long time to reinforce such behaviour. Often it continues after that.

And then when they're in their 20s they've so conditioned themselves to reject homosexual behaviour that, even though they are relaxed with homosexuality amongst their friends, peers, relatives, whatever, they are still uncomfortable with behaviour in themselves which their 12 year-old self regarded as crossing the boy/girl and straight/gay lines.

And it is reflected in light, instinctive things like a quick compliment rather more than in big important things that they might actually have to think about. The man who can't compliment his attractive friend is falling back to early-years Hyper-masculine behaviour.

slightly off-track but illustrative:

Thank you both, Gentlemen,

Steven,

I just find it amusing in our over sensitive society. I mean here the title of the thread is why straight men can't as if it's a statement of fact. Some might find it offensive, sterotypical and, well, sexist. I mean 'why can't women just men oggle at them' would be offensive and locked down, I'd assume if it didn't descend into stupidity. But then I don't try to claim any right to 'free speech' on someone else's board. "You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to my bullhorn."

I'll spoilerize my reply though.

Mothman,

Maybe not intentionally, but you are noting/sizing someone up, in comparing yourself to them. Now unlike animals, we don't show our throat to another man with apparently superior attributes, or challenge them to a duel. (damnit) But we do evaluate other men, even if we don't tell them.

And I do see some parallels between being able to say 'group X is unable to not engage in behaviour I find unacceptable', and 'group Y is unable to engage in a behaviour I find acceptable'.

*shrug*

Edit: (for GeraintElberion)

I am not convinced that one can state the title of this thread with certainty.
It might be true for a lot of cases but not for even more.
Generalizing is unscientific and should be avoided.
[For instance can you talk about all men worldwide when most people on this site are English speaking Americans?]
Also I think if you are 0k with your sexuality you can comment about anything regarding another same-sex person.
Then there are matters of one actually being shy in social behavior(that covers most comments too)etc.

In schools, current theory I have read has it like this:

Little boys know they are supposed to become men.

They also find the world bewilderingly complex and seek simple rules to impose order on the world so that they can begin exploring it in a non-terrifying way.

They don't have the facility to be men yet, they cannot actually be masculine until puberty.

So they adopt hyper-masculine behaviour.

It lets them be 'men' and allows them to set very clear, strong lines between things like boy/girl.

Hyper-masculine includes pretending to be soldiers, cowboys and the like.

They also prove they are masculine (which, according to most simple social environments includes bedding women) by using gay as an insult. They are reinforcing their own heterosexuality in the only way they can.

Then these little boys do that until they're 12/13, which is a long time to reinforce such behaviour. Often it continues after that.

And then when they're in their 20s they've so conditioned themselves to reject homosexual behaviour that, even though they are relaxed with homosexuality amongst their friends, peers, relatives, whatever, they are still uncomfortable with behaviour in themselves which their 12 year-old self regarded as crossing the boy/girl and straight/gay lines.

And it is reflected in light, instinctive things like a quick compliment rather more than in big important things that they might actually have to think about. The man who can't compliment his attractive friend is falling back to early-years Hyper-masculine behaviour.

slightly off-track but illustrative:
** spoiler omitted **...

Fascinating all-around.

Maybe not intentionally, but you are noting/sizing someone up, in comparing yourself to them.

Yes, I was being intentionally flippant in my response for purpose of humour. Obviously there are an awful lot of men out there that I think are far better looking than I am, and there’s definitely an element of ‘sizing up the competition’ going on, either at a conscious or an unconscious level when men are checking each other out.

or challenge them to a duel.

I’m not an advocate of violence or ‘might makes right’ or reverting to a more primitive society, but sometimes I think this would be cool and save a lot of crap.

Some good and interesting stuff.

My son is 4 and is probably yet to learn a lot of that ‘masculine’ behaviour, but it does start to manifest itself pretty early. For example, from a really early age he was fascinated with cars to the point of obsession, something that he certainly didn’t get from me! By now he’s at the stage where he distinguishes between ‘boys toys’ and ‘girls toys’ for example (and is quite contemptuous of the later). He’s quite happy to play with a socialise with girls, but his manner of play and social interaction is very different with girls than with boys – with other boys he’ll be really active, loud, sometimes rough and sometimes rude and silly, whereas with girls he’s typically very gentle and often very protective of them (for example, he frequently stands up to this 5 year old bully in his daycare group to protect a smaller girl that the bully likes to make cry).

Interestingly, he likes to hug his friends in greetings and goodbyes, both male and female. Some of his male friends (even at age 4) were initially somewhat bewildered or put off by this, but now they all do it. I like seeing the innocence of this, although I somewhat fear that it might, before too long, see him targeted or picked on by his peers as ‘gay’, or be discouraged by the school when he goes next year or the following one – a lot of schools have a very strict ‘no touching’ policy which, while I understand the reasons behind it, I think is vey sad, and amongst other things encourages this ‘masculine’ attitude amongst boys and discourages empathy between kids.

Or when they do, they follow up and say, "and I'm straight."

Straight women do it all the time about other women. It's meant as a compliment (or jealousy), not a desire to jump on their bones (to put it crudely).

There's no angle in it. It doesn't aid The Quest in any way whatsoever.

joela wrote:

Or when they do, they follow up and say, "and I'm straight."

Straight women do it all the time about other women. It's meant as a compliment (or jealousy), not a desire to jump on their bones (to put it crudely).

There's no angle in it. It doesn't aid The Quest in any way whatsoever.

Unless....doing so makes the "hansome" guy nervous.
Then, that helps The Quest.

You're looking particularly handsome today Spanky.

Matthew Morris wrote:

Maybe not intentionally, but you are noting/sizing someone up, in comparing yourself to them.

Yes, I was being intentionally flippant in my response for purpose of humour. Obviously there are an awful lot of men out there that I think are far better looking than I am, and there’s definitely an element of ‘sizing up the competition’ going on, either at a conscious or an unconscious level when men are checking each other out.

Matthew Morris wrote:

or challenge them to a duel.

I’m not an advocate of violence or ‘might makes right’ or reverting to a more primitive society, but sometimes I think this would be cool and save a lot of crap.

I am ALL FOR bringing back some type of organized, legitimate system of dueling. High school would have gone a lot smoother.

Mothman wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

Maybe not intentionally, but you are noting/sizing someone up, in comparing yourself to them.

Yes, I was being intentionally flippant in my response for purpose of humour. Obviously there are an awful lot of men out there that I think are far better looking than I am, and there’s definitely an element of ‘sizing up the competition’ going on, either at a conscious or an unconscious level when men are checking each other out.

Matthew Morris wrote:

or challenge them to a duel.

I’m not an advocate of violence or ‘might makes right’ or reverting to a more primitive society, but sometimes I think this would be cool and save a lot of crap.

I am ALL FOR bringing back some type of organized, legitimate system of dueling. High school would have gone a lot smoother.

+1 Speaking as a former high school bully I would be all for being able to duel. There is only so much you can get away with by beating up some wimp that annoys you but with dueling you can really let'em have it and it'll be all leagal and stuff. My reign of terror would have then been the stuff of legend. I still hold the county record for the most expulsions and still gradueateing.

Freehold DM wrote:

Mothman wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

Maybe not intentionally, but you are noting/sizing someone up, in comparing yourself to them.

Yes, I was being intentionally flippant in my response for purpose of humour. Obviously there are an awful lot of men out there that I think are far better looking than I am, and there’s definitely an element of ‘sizing up the competition’ going on, either at a conscious or an unconscious level when men are checking each other out.

Matthew Morris wrote:

or challenge them to a duel.

I’m not an advocate of violence or ‘might makes right’ or reverting to a more primitive society, but sometimes I think this would be cool and save a lot of crap.

I am ALL FOR bringing back some type of organized, legitimate system of dueling. High school would have gone a lot smoother.

+1 Speaking as a former high school bully I would be all for being able to duel. There is only so much you can get away with by beating up some wimp that annoys you but with dueling you can really let'em have it and it'll be all leagal and stuff. My reign of terror would have then been the stuff of legend. I still hold the county record for the most expulsions and still gradueateing.

low whistle Glad we didn't go to the same school in this duel-happy fantasy world. We'd either have dueling scars named after one another. I'm sure there is a correlation between the end of organized legal duels and an increase in overall bullying.

low whistle Glad we didn't go to the same school in this duel-happy fantasy world. We'd either have dueling scars named after one another. I'm sure there is a correlation between the end of organized legal duels and an increase in overall bullying.

Heh, So am I. Big burly guy challenges me, I'll take pistols. little skinny guy challgenges me, I'll take 10 lbs sledge hammers.

Of course I got out of fights by realizing that I <b>couldn't</b> fight, so I'd have to just kill. It's amazing how a bully will stand down when you calmly, emotionlessly, and rationally explain that your first shot will shatter his already crippled knee, or how you could take two or three punches to get your hands around the throat of the kid and squeeze...

Only kid who ever took me up on it was small enough to get in reach. I just scooped him up in a bear hug and squeezed... he hit fast, but not exceptionally hard, and being fat has its merits ;-)

[Heh, So am I. Big burly guy challenges me, I'll take pistols. little skinny guy challgenges me, I'll take 10 lbs sledge hammers.

No more tiiiimmmmiiinng each tear that falls from my eyes, I'm not hiiiiiiddiiiing the remedy to cure this 'ol heart o' mine...

Did this trigger the same movie reference for anyone else?

Freehold DM wrote:

low whistle Glad we didn't go to the same school in this duel-happy fantasy world. We'd either have dueling scars named after one another. I'm sure there is a correlation between the end of organized legal duels and an increase in overall bullying.

Heh, So am I. Big burly guy challenges me, I'll take pistols. little skinny guy challgenges me, I'll take 10 lbs sledge hammers.

Of course I got out of fights by realizing that I <b>couldn't</b> fight, so I'd have to just kill. It's amazing how a bully will stand down when you calmly, emotionlessly, and rationally explain that your first shot will shatter his already crippled knee, or how you could take two or three punches to get your hands around the throat of the kid and squeeze...

Only kid who ever took me up on it was small enough to get in reach. I just scooped him up in a bear hug and squeezed... he hit fast, but not exceptionally hard, and being fat has its merits ;-)

Unfortunately, a legitimate/organized system of dueling would cripple the latter fighting style and people could refuse you in the former. I still think you'd occasionally get a good saber duel in every now and again, and I'm sure only the incredibly foolish would even consider taking you on in boxing.

Matthew Morris wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

low whistle Glad we didn't go to the same school in this duel-happy fantasy world. We'd either have dueling scars named after one another. I'm sure there is a correlation between the end of organized legal duels and an increase in overall bullying.

Heh, So am I. Big burly guy challenges me, I'll take pistols. little skinny guy challgenges me, I'll take 10 lbs sledge hammers.

Of course I got out of fights by realizing that I <b>couldn't</b> fight, so I'd have to just kill. It's amazing how a bully will stand down when you calmly, emotionlessly, and rationally explain that your first shot will shatter his already crippled knee, or how you could take two or three punches to get your hands around the throat of the kid and squeeze...

Only kid who ever took me up on it was small enough to get in reach. I just scooped him up in a bear hug and squeezed... he hit fast, but not exceptionally hard, and being fat has its merits ;-)

Unfortunately, a legitimate/organized system of dueling would cripple the latter fighting style and people could refuse you in the former. I still think you'd occasionally get a good saber duel in every now and again, and I'm sure only the incredibly foolish would even consider taking you on in boxing.

Guys you know that duelling would be nerfed by the authorities if it were allowed today. It would be a bowl of custard at twenty paces or squaring off against your opponent armed only with a sardine, or a game of Snakes (shoots) & Ladders.

Hu5tru wrote:

I'm afraid I'm hijacking this thread to talk about game. How come guys don't react to other male creatures high charisma? We got a recurring villain whose a satyr, and our general gave my cleric strange looks and no small amount of crap when she got charmed by the handsome fiend. Out of character I had to remind him, "dude, charisma over 30, think about it."

Just frustrating is all... there, I've said my peace.

For sure. But then me seeing a 30 charisma satyr doesn't mean I want to do him, just that I'm drawn to, or find him appealing.

You know: bromance.

Man, why you gotta run around these boards being all sexy and s$*%?

Hu5tru wrote:

I'm afraid I'm hijacking this thread to talk about game. How come guys don't react to other male creatures high charisma? We got a recurring villain whose a satyr, and our general gave my cleric strange looks and no small amount of crap when she got charmed by the handsome fiend. Out of character I had to remind him, "dude, charisma over 30, think about it."

Just frustrating is all... there, I've said my peace.

For sure. But then me seeing a 30 charisma satyr doesn't mean I want to do him, just that I'm drawn to, or find him appealing.

You know: bromance.

Man, why you gotta run around these boards being all sexy and s%#*?

Freehold DM wrote:

Mothman wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

Maybe not intentionally, but you are noting/sizing someone up, in comparing yourself to them.

Yes, I was being intentionally flippant in my response for purpose of humour. Obviously there are an awful lot of men out there that I think are far better looking than I am, and there’s definitely an element of ‘sizing up the competition’ going on, either at a conscious or an unconscious level when men are checking each other out.

Matthew Morris wrote:

or challenge them to a duel.

I’m not an advocate of violence or ‘might makes right’ or reverting to a more primitive society, but sometimes I think this would be cool and save a lot of crap.

I am ALL FOR bringing back some type of organized, legitimate system of dueling. High school would have gone a lot smoother.

+1 Speaking as a former high school bully I would be all for being able to duel. There is only so much you can get away with by beating up some wimp that annoys you but with dueling you can really let'em have it and it'll be all leagal and stuff. My reign of terror would have then been the stuff of legend. I still hold the county record for the most expulsions and still gradueateing.

I had a special Louisville Slugger for bullies. Didn't care for them much, and a lot of their victims were gaming buddies of mine.

Of course I got out of fights by realizing that I <b>couldn't</b> fight, so I'd have to just kill. It's amazing how a bully will stand down when you calmly, emotionlessly, and rationally explain that your first shot will shatter his already crippled knee, or how you could take two or three punches to get your hands around the throat of the kid and squeeze...

Only kid who ever took me up on it was small enough to get in reach. I just scooped him up in a bear hug and squeezed... he hit fast, but not exceptionally hard, and being fat has its merits ;-)

Ha I did the same thing :) I used to explain how much strenght you actually need to perfurate soft tissue with something sharp. Even more fun cause I coud say really wrong stuff and the idiots never figured out... I ended up cultivating the fame of being a sociopath.

To follow up on the original poster: It's a cultural thing. Men are culturally discouraged from doing all sorts of traditional female tasks, mannerisms, including, and especially, looking at another man.

The cultural assumption is, if a man is looking at another man, the looker is gay and is "checking him out" for sexual purposes. Note: gay men also make this assumption.

The other possibilities: an artist studying musculature, an anthropologist studying primate behavior, a psychologist watching body language, an author doing any and all of these as part of the "people watching" necessary for accurate characterization? Not considered as possibilities. People outside these professions are generally oblivious, either willfully or otherwise.

The "But I'm not gay" is a ritual denial given because cultural approval has not been given for non-gay men to do these things. It also saves time and bother. It lets the straight guys who are uncomfortable with gay guys checking them out know that this is not what is occurring at the moment; it also signals to the gay guys who are comfortable with gay guys checking them out that this is not actually occurring and is thus a false alarm; and finally, it signals to straight women that the straight male speaker is in fact knowingly transgressing into cultural "women's territory" but while happy to be accepted as "one of the girls" for this conversation is still in fact "one of the boys" and would like to be considered as such for all future sexual politics.

Note: This is just the outskirts of "women's territory." For men to hear the way women talk among themselves about men, they either have to have exceedingly sharp memories of childhood and the conversations of female relatives who ignore males below a certain age, or else luck into overhearing the conversations of a group of women who didn't realize there was a man around the corner.

Ill say it the guy from the OLD SPICE ad is good looking.

Got to say, while I wouldn't "jump his bones" I think Captain Jack Harkness is one of the hotter men on the time/space continuum.

Now that I find intresting. I am not attracted to women in anyway, however I do enjoy looking at them for their beauty. Kindda like a sunset or a flower you don't think of them in a sexual way but you do appreciate the sheer beauty of the creature/object.

Men on the other hand are for straight up sex. Maybe thats just me?

As a straight (and married) man I must say there are many women I meet that I would like to see naked simply to marvel at their bodies. I don't necessarily want to have sex with them -- I simply believe that the female body is a beautiful work of art and well worth admiration. Unfortunately it is a hard concept to explain with out being met with a great deal of skepticism. Many times I honestly wished I had some talent at drawing or painting simply to capture these images, and have a means to convey my intend other than simply going, "Excuse me -- I find you mind blowingly beautiful -- may I simply stand here and admire you for the next several minutes?"

Ill say it the guy from the OLD SPICE ad is good looking.

Which ad?

This is still around??

Got to say, while I wouldn't "jump his bones" I think Captain Jack Harkness is one of the hotter men on the time/space continuum.

Steven Tindall wrote:

Now that I find intresting. I am not attracted to women in anyway, however I do enjoy looking at them for their beauty. Kindda like a sunset or a flower you don't think of them in a sexual way but you do appreciate the sheer beauty of the creature/object.

Men on the other hand are for straight up sex. Maybe thats just me?

As a straight (and married) man I must say there are many women I meet that I would like to see naked simply to marvel at their bodies. I don't necessarily want to have sex with them -- I simply believe that the female body is a beautiful work of art and well worth admiration. Unfortunately it is a hard concept to explain with out being met with a great deal of skepticism. Many times I honestly wished I had some talent at drawing or painting simply to capture these images, and have a means to convey my intend other than simply going, "Excuse me -- I find you mind blowingly beautiful -- may I simply stand here and admire you for the next several minutes?"

You, Sir, are a rare gem.

Have you considered photography?

yellowdingo wrote:

Ill say it the guy from the OLD SPICE ad is good looking.

Which ad?

dont say grover...dont say grover...dont say grover...

"Grover!" Yeagh! Idiot! I'm Sorry! I was cornered...

Studpuffin wrote:

yellowdingo wrote:

Ill say it the guy from the OLD SPICE ad is good looking.

Which ad?

dont say grover...dont say grover...dont say grover...

"Grover!"

???????

Go outside. Get fresh air.

"I don't wanna sound like a queer or nuthin' but I think unicorns are kick ass!"

I'm actually studying a topic called "Queering Texts" at university. Essentially theory is heteronormative practices operate by suppressing anything homoerotic. To successfully practice heterosexuality in society, it becomes necessary to make sure homosexuality is other. These concepts are slowly changing and evolving over time, but that's the basis. (End Lecture).

Suffice to say, I've never had a problem with telling a dude he looks good (or Fancy as we say in my circles). Although to be honest I think we prefer it coming from a pretty lady.

Hehe. Lit degree. Been there.

Man, why you gotta run around these boards being all sexy and s&!~?

So true that Gary's code made you say it twice.

...

You're kinda cute in an insectoid BDSM kind of way.

Now I got a cuke in my pocket.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Got to say, while I wouldn't "jump his bones" I think Captain Jack Harkness is one of the hotter men on the time/space continuum.

Steven Tindall wrote:

Now that I find intresting. I am not attracted to women in anyway, however I do enjoy looking at them for their beauty. Kindda like a sunset or a flower you don't think of them in a sexual way but you do appreciate the sheer beauty of the creature/object.

Men on the other hand are for straight up sex. Maybe thats just me?

As a straight (and married) man I must say there are many women I meet that I would like to see naked simply to marvel at their bodies. I don't necessarily want to have sex with them -- I simply believe that the female body is a beautiful work of art and well worth admiration. Unfortunately it is a hard concept to explain with out being met with a great deal of skepticism. Many times I honestly wished I had some talent at drawing or painting simply to capture these images, and have a means to convey my intend other than simply going, "Excuse me -- I find you mind blowingly beautiful -- may I simply stand here and admire you for the next several minutes?"

You, Sir, are a rare gem.

Have you considered photography?

I honestly hadn't -- I've got issues with photography and hate having my own picture taken -- as such I don't feel right asking others to allow me to take theirs. Beyond that though it is an excellent idea.

To follow up on the original poster: It's a cultural thing. Men are culturally discouraged from doing all sorts of traditional female tasks, mannerisms, including, and especially, looking at another man.

The cultural assumption is, if a man is looking at another man, the looker is gay and is "checking him out" for sexual purposes. Note: gay men also make this assumption.

The other possibilities: an artist studying musculature, an anthropologist studying primate behavior, a psychologist watching body language, an author doing any and all of these as part of the "people watching" necessary for accurate characterization? Not considered as possibilities. People outside these professions are generally oblivious, either willfully or otherwise.

This reminds me of an online conversation I had with a crossdressing friend.

Nebulous_Mistress wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Got to say, while I wouldn't "jump his bones" I think Captain Jack Harkness is one of the hotter men on the time/space continuum.

Steven Tindall wrote:

Now that I find intresting. I am not attracted to women in anyway, however I do enjoy looking at them for their beauty. Kindda like a sunset or a flower you don't think of them in a sexual way but you do appreciate the sheer beauty of the creature/object.

Men on the other hand are for straight up sex. Maybe thats just me?

As a straight (and married) man I must say there are many women I meet that I would like to see naked simply to marvel at their bodies. I don't necessarily want to have sex with them -- I simply believe that the female body is a beautiful work of art and well worth admiration. Unfortunately it is a hard concept to explain with out being met with a great deal of skepticism. Many times I honestly wished I had some talent at drawing or painting simply to capture these images, and have a means to convey my intend other than simply going, "Excuse me -- I find you mind blowingly beautiful -- may I simply stand here and admire you for the next several minutes?"

That sounds way cool, good luck on the new hobby.

You, Sir, are a rare gem.

Have you considered photography?

I honestly hadn't -- I've got issues with photography and hate having my own picture taken -- as such I don't feel right asking others to allow me to take theirs. Beyond that though it is an excellent idea.

Since homosexuals were once not nearly so prevalent as they are today,

There's no factual basis for such a statement if any indication of some of the things we've been finding out of some our most famous "he-men" of the past if of any indication.

It's more of a change in climate in that revealing your homosexual orientation no longer subjects you to immediate arrest under the now-repealed sodomy laws. One only has to look back as far as Deuteronomy to find ancient proscriptions against homosexuality, or classical Rome and Greece to fine acknowledgement of it's existence.

The genetic orientation towards homosexual behavior is more than likely no more common today than it has been in the past. The repression of such behavior however has eased to a minor degree.

Don't have time to read through everything yet as I'm about to head off home but I wanted to at least state that I compliment other guys if I think they look nice.

My wife hears me say all the time if I think another guy is attractive or more attractive then me (looking at you, Jensen Ackles). She quickly falls up with "No they aren't" (such a sweet, naive wife. It's fricken Jensen Ackles!) but in any case I've never cared if anyone thought any which way about me. I'm not trying to impress anyone. Hell I know at work it's a running gag that I am gay since I don't hide whatever feminine side I have, I don't like sports, and I like looking nice (why does that last part count?)

To answer your question as to WHY men can't ... they can. Nothing stops them except some sort of misplaced pride I guess. Alpha male syndrome or something I guess. I'll let the rest of the male population fight over that title. I'm good, thanks.

HOWEVER, sometimes I think the "I'm straight" part can be added after the compliment as a comedic thing. I've seen it done before and it can work. Too much though and you're just forcing it.

And the last reason I can see is that maybe it's just i(e?)ngrained in some people even if they don't want it to be. Example being is I still use "that's gay" to describe something even though I've tried so damn hard to cut that from my vocab. I've made a lot of progress but it still slips out for some stupid reason, much to my dismay.

Mothman wrote:

...

You're kinda cute in an insectoid BDSM kind of way.

Now I got a cuke in my pocket.

Thanks dude.

Hmmm ... I wonder if I could get a costume made of this avatar ... in latex ...

.
..
...
....
.....

Hail Off Topic Forums!

Yes yes, it is I, your humble all-powerful leader, recently liberated from my Jungle Fortress located deep/back and to the left of the.. jungly.. bits.. of Taiwan..

...wipe aside those salty tears of joy and slap your peepers on this wide boy. Yo.

*insert generic cool-hands dominated standing pose here*

::

To business!

This thread has come to the attention of our BIFTech Engineers.

Please find enclosed one regulation topic-relative link:

TOPIC RELATIVE LINK - WARNING: CONTAINS SINGING

::

You are all sexy sexy people, regardless of shape/form/gender/atomic structure.

::

Thank you for your time.

*shakes Off Topic fist*

ok lets try this again shall we, what I was trying to reply to earlier was.
to Abraham spalding,
Good luck on the new hobby of photography. I hope you enjoy it.

In schools, current theory I have read has it like this:

Little boys know they are supposed to become men.

They also find the world bewilderingly complex and seek simple rules to impose order on the world so that they can begin exploring it in a non-terrifying way.

They don't have the facility to be men yet, they cannot actually be masculine until puberty.

So they adopt hyper-masculine behaviour.

It lets them be 'men' and allows them to set very clear, strong lines between things like boy/girl.

Hyper-masculine includes pretending to be soldiers, cowboys and the like.

They also prove they are masculine (which, according to most simple social environments includes bedding women) by using gay as an insult. They are reinforcing their own heterosexuality in the only way they can.

Then these little boys do that until they're 12/13, which is a long time to reinforce such behaviour. Often it continues after that.

And then when they're in their 20s they've so conditioned themselves to reject homosexual behaviour that, even though they are relaxed with homosexuality amongst their friends, peers, relatives, whatever, they are still uncomfortable with behaviour in themselves which their 12 year-old self regarded as crossing the boy/girl and straight/gay lines.

And it is reflected in light, instinctive things like a quick compliment rather more than in big important things that they might actually have to think about. The man who can't compliment his attractive friend is falling back to early-years Hyper-masculine behaviour.

Not sure how much I buy this. Its very social constructionist. Under this paradigm no one is gay because the little boys teach themselves or are taught not to be. Since that is patently not true there is something flawed in this model. I'm not taking the other extreme either since its pretty clear that kids these days use 'gay' as a derogatory term while their older peers do not hence things are definitely taught.

This model has basically been in vogue in primary education since the '70s at least (it probably really begins with B.F. Skinner) and its been possible to poke holes in it almost from the beginning and certainly since Chomsky (among others) essentially debunked Skinner and ushered in Cognitive Psychology.

The odd thing is the model won't die...social constructionism just gets repeated again and again as fact by people being trained to teach children. Its philosophical foundations went down with Skinner. They've never been replaced so far as I am aware. So we are left with an orthodoxy bereft of any actual ideology.