Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Huh?

[Truean]

Turns out some people don't like to practice what they preach.

People are so funny.

Gays, our troubles with women are of a decidedly different nature, as there is no sexual tension. We might be scared the girl could, intentionally or unintentionally, out us, before we are ready for this. Other than that we will typically happily be friends, it shall be fabulous. Though it is worth noting that I've actually seen some gays be sexist towards women, though I have no god damn idea why, at all.

Wouldn't gay people just go in "comfy" or "uncomfy" as well, depending on how they feel about women?

The "huh?" are, as their name implies, quite clueless and oblivious to just about everything. "Huh?s" are not always male and indeed can be just about any type of person.

So in your list of how types of men feel about/act around, you have a group for people who do not need to be men and do not have to fit a type?
Huh.

The difference between "gays" and "comfy" is that while gays usually are comfy, not all comfies are gay. That is, if you are totally gay, not bi or anything, then there's no sexual tension between you and the opposite sex. Additionally, gays have a few worries with women other people don't (see: being outed unintentionally by a girlfriend).

As for the "huh?s," I think those are more just the people who are clueless. The "are not always male and indeed can be just about any type of person," was me trying not to say only men can be clueless. There are plenty of clueless people out there regardless of any defining trait.

"Huh?s" basically are just oblivious. They aren't comfortable, uncomfortable, or sexist. They are mostly unaware.

[scriver]

The difference between "gays" and "comfy" is that while gays usually are comfy, not all comfies are gay.

Which is why the gay people who are comfortable would be grouped under "comfies" together with straight and bi and asexual people. Regardless of sexual preference. Unless you're trying to define the reasons for people being or not being comfortable, in which case just "comfies" and "uncomfies" are far too simplified and meaningless.

That is, if you are totally gay, not bi or anything, then there's no sexual tension between you and the opposite sex. Additionally, gays have a few worries with women other people don't (see: being outed unintentionally by a girlfriend). .

However, sexual tension is far from the only thing that makes men uncomfortable with women (or any other group with any other group). I mean, I'm almost completely straight and I have a lot easier time hanging around women than men, mostly due to social pressure. And even if it were about that, you would do better to call the group "asexuals", seeing as that is what they are in this context and it includes other asexual people. It just seems redundant to have such a grouping when it basically just creates a Scotsman fallacy for no discernible reason.

The "huh" thing was just me being silly, though. Oh, and I'm sorry for nitpicking your definitions. Just some things that came to my mind.

[kaijyuu]

IMO you're oversimplifying. I really don't think you can group everyone's reasons for social awkwardness (or lack thereof) concerning gender into 5 groups (or even 20).


Now if you're just listing common causes then sure.

[Truean]

The difference between "gays" and "comfy" is that while gays usually are comfy, not all comfies are gay.

Which is why the gay people who are comfortable would be grouped under "comfies" together with straight and bi and asexual people. Regardless of sexual preference. Unless you're trying to define the reasons for people being or not being comfortable, in which case just "comfies" and "uncomfies" are far too simplified and meaningless.

That is, if you are totally gay, not bi or anything, then there's no sexual tension between you and the opposite sex. Additionally, gays have a few worries with women other people don't (see: being outed unintentionally by a girlfriend). .

However, sexual tension is far from the only thing that makes men uncomfortable with women (or any other group with any other group). I mean, I'm almost completely straight and I have a lot easier time hanging around women than men, mostly due to social pressure. And even if it were about that, you would do better to call the group "asexuals", seeing as that is what they are in this context and it includes other asexual people. It just seems redundant to have such a grouping when it basically just creates a Scotsman fallacy for no discernible reason.

The "huh" thing was just me being silly, though. Oh, and I'm sorry for nitpicking your definitions. Just some things that came to my mind.

IMO you're oversimplifying. I really don't think you can group everyone's reasons for social awkwardness (or lack thereof) concerning gender into 5 groups (or even 20).


Now if you're just listing common causes then sure.

"There seem to generally be five types of guys as they deal with females" Yup. Anything and everything anyone says about human nature is going to be an oversimplification. Truthfully, I'm not sure you could do it with 1000 groups and... O well. I never claimed to be writing a definitive tome on how males see females, just broad strokes that are common enough causes.

"Comfies" and "uncomfies" are far too simplified and meaningless:
No, there's tons of meaning right there; in fact, it's nothing but useful. Are you, as a male comfortable around females or not, generally. I'm not trying to get an encyclopedia answer, in detail or certainly not in length, out of anyone. All the same, it's a question to ask yourself. It's a "yes or no" answer with qualifiers. The "yes or no" is for your reference to see how serious a problem you think you have, and from there, the qualifiers tell you problem areas you might consider working on or in the case of a "no" answer the good spots you can work from:

"Yes, unless there's someone I think is cute."
"Yes, unless there's feminist in the room, or someone from the opposite political party, or an ex."
"No, unless I know the girl really well."
"No, because I'm scared I'll look stupid."

See how that is an incredibly useful thing to ask yourself? Categorical statements help a lot. Are you depressed? (Implied yes, or no), anxious? tired? I could write a book on any of these oversimplified catagories, but saying "Yes I'm depressed except around my boy/girlfriend." tells you something. <---- This statement both is admitting you're depressed and giving a key piece of information.

As for the "gays" as a separate category, we're different enough and have different underlying motivations to warrant our own category in my view. Screws and bolts are both fasteners and good but they are different, not better, not worse, different, with different concerns about their use and application (you often have to drill holes in wood for bolts whereas screws... screw right in). If it's a question of being more inclusive with other groups then fine but I was just simplifying it because it gets ridiculous if you don't. GLBTAQCGQIA: Gay, Lesbian, bisexual, Transgender, Asexual, Questioning, Curious, GenderQueer,Intersex, Allies. <--- See that? It's getting out of hand with everyone wanting their own letter in the alphabet soup. I can't pronounce that, and that is when its time to stop using acronyms and come up with a better all inclusive term. Until and unless we do, I'm using gay. Though I've been told I'm not gay myself because I'm trans? [confused look]. The only practical way to be all inclusive would be to come up with a new term that everyone can latch onto.

In summation, yup, it's oversimplified. It kind of has to be, because if you even could accurately write it all out about humanity, we'd be talking about a multi set, multi volume encyclopedia with each book larger than I am tall. Thus, yeah, I really wish I could write that, but I don't think I could in my lifetime to be perfectly honest.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16309/lgbt-alphabet-soup-discuss-at-ones-own-risk-because-its-about-a-much-larger-conversation
http://ourcommunitycalendar.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/%E2%80%9Clgbtqrstuvwxyz-gay-rights-movement-or-alphabet-soup%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-by-eric-marcus/

[JoshuaFH]

I didn't know you were trans Truean, because I just realized I don't actually know what the term means. You don't mind if I ask, do you?

BTW, Wikipedia is needlessly confusing on the subject.

[Rose]

I didn't know you were trans Truean, because I just realized I don't actually know what the term means. You don't mind if I ask, do you?

BTW, Wikipedia is needlessly confusing on the subject.

Far as I understand it, it means a girl born with the wrong parts.

Or possibly a guy that thinks he's a girl, depending on how you go about it.

[JoshuaFH]

Actually, by trans, did you mean transgender, or transexual? That's probably an important detail I overlooked initially.

Me = Embarrassed.

[scriver]

As for the "gays" as a separate category, we're different enough and have different underlying motivations to warrant our own category in my view. Screws and bolts are both fasteners and good but they are different, not better, not worse, different, with different concerns about their use and application (you often have to drill holes in wood for bolts whereas screws... screw right in).

I don't understand why you assume this kind of behaviour is all about sex.

Furthermore, it's still mixing up reasons for being un/comfy (I'm gay, so I don't care) with how they "deal with females" - that is, the consequences of those reasons (I'm comfortable/uncomfortable/I don't care). Would a gay man who is uncomfortable around women because of non-sexual issues (same as many straight men) be put in "gays" or "uncomfies"?

If it's a question of being more inclusive with other groups then fine but I was just simplifying it because it gets ridiculous if you don't. GLBTAQCGQIA: Gay, Lesbian, bisexual, Transgender, Asexual, Questioning, Curious, GenderQueer,Intersex, Allies. <--- See that? It's getting out of hand with everyone wanting their own letter in the alphabet soup. I can't pronounce that, and that is when its time to stop using acronyms and come up with a better all inclusive term. Until and unless we do, I'm using gay. Though I've been told I'm not gay myself because I'm trans? [confused look]. The only practical way to be all inclusive would be to come up with a new term that everyone can latch onto.

Except that is completely irrelevant. You are not trying to use an all inclusive term. What you want is a term that describes people who have no sexual interest in girls. I e, in context, asexuals.

...Maybe we are derailing too much. I just couldn't stop myself from answering again.

[Virex]

The only practical way to be all inclusive would be to come up with a new term that everyone can latch onto.

Sexually Atypical?

[Truean]

Actually, by trans, did you mean transgender, or transexual? That's probably an important detail I overlooked initially.

Me = Embarrassed.

It's ok; no problems. . Thank you for being considerate.
Transgender, general umbrella term for variation from the two gender norm.
Transsexual, a more specific term for someone who wants to be the other sex (FtM or MtF), though this can be with or without the final [ahem] genital surgery, it is usually with. Usually this is a reference to "Gender Identity Disorder" as defined by the APA's DSM IV TR (like a physician's desk reference for mental illnesses).

I pretty much should've been born a girl, though I know certain things about being a girl suck, my life would've been 100x better as one.

As for the "gays" as a separate category, we're different enough and have different underlying motivations to warrant our own category in my view. Screws and bolts are both fasteners and good but they are different, not better, not worse, different, with different concerns about their use and application (you often have to drill holes in wood for bolts whereas screws... screw right in).

I don't understand why you assume this kind of behaviour is all about sex.

Furthermore, it's still mixing up reasons for being un/comfy (I'm gay, so I don't care) with how they "deal with females" - that is, the consequences of those reasons (I'm comfortable/uncomfortable/I don't care). Would a gay man who is uncomfortable around women because of non-sexual issues (same as many straight men) be put in "gays" or "uncomfies"?

If it's a question of being more inclusive with other groups then fine but I was just simplifying it because it gets ridiculous if you don't. GLBTAQCGQIA: Gay, Lesbian, bisexual, Transgender, Asexual, Questioning, Curious, GenderQueer,Intersex, Allies. <--- See that? It's getting out of hand with everyone wanting their own letter in the alphabet soup. I can't pronounce that, and that is when its time to stop using acronyms and come up with a better all inclusive term. Until and unless we do, I'm using gay. Though I've been told I'm not gay myself because I'm trans? [confused look]. The only practical way to be all inclusive would be to come up with a new term that everyone can latch onto.

Except that is completely irrelevant. You are not trying to use an all inclusive term. What you want is a term that describes people who have no sexual interest in girls. I e, in context, asexuals.

...Maybe we are derailing too much. I just couldn't stop myself from answering again.

I think you might be getting a little ahead of yourself, honestly. Though first and foremost, "asexual" does not mean "doesn't like girls." That means, doesn't like sex, at all, doesn't like boys or girls or anything. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asexual . That's too wide a term.

Basics:
The purpose of the "5 groups" was to have males self identify their comfort level with women and the underlying reasons why they feel as they do. If I'm determining comfort, then "comfortable and uncomfortable" work for broad categories. Go deeper, see the reasons why a person feels a given way. This is the overarching reason for the last three categories: sexists, gays, and "huh?". It makes sense to group them broadly as such, because of their different, general underlying motivations, problems etc. Sexist, has a whole slew of problems special and apart from the other groups. Gay, also has a whole slew of problems special and apart from the other groups. Huhs simply aren't aware, at all. See how my categorization works?

Overarching:
The goal is to help males feel more comfortable around women and to do that, you need to get into nuts and bolts as to why they feel a certain way. The categories are soft, mixable, overlapping and beyond all else about identifying common themes to help people work on reaching the goal of just being comfortable around the opposite sex.

Your example:
Specific to your example, that gay person would be placed in the "gay" category, specifically because he isn't comfortable with women for non sexual reasons. I wouldn't waste my time with him trying to deal with sexual feelings towards women he doesn't have.

GLBT alphabet soup:
It totally is not irrelevant, and you simply didn't see why.We were talking about how I was being way too general and not including the full range of humanity and its reasons for not getting along with women. This is specifically relevant here, because it was both majorly serving as an example for why being general is good sometimes and only slightly serving as a reason why one of the catagories was called "gays."

The only practical way to be all inclusive would be to come up with a new term that everyone can latch onto.

Sexually Atypical?

"Non strictly hetro?" [shrugs] Yeah I have no idea.

[Vector]

Create a new, broad category of all societally permitted sexualities, and do away with the notion of strictly state-sanctioned heterosexuality.

That's where I believe we're moving, anyhow.

[Truean]

Create a new, broad category of all societally permitted sexualities, and do away with the notion of strictly state-sanctioned heterosexuality.

That's where I believe we're moving, anyhow.

What would be really cool, is if we just got over this whole "thing" and just said, "I prefer men/women, both, [insert preference range here]."

Then we could all get back to doing.... The hell were we doing again?

[Vector]

Or just "I like you a lot," because we'd have done away with binary gender by then, and if they want to find out if they can copulate they go get tests at a medical center.

[Truean]

Or just "I like you a lot," because we'd have done away with binary gender by then, and if they want to find out if they can copulate they go get tests at a medical center.

Hum, this is where I often respectfully disagree with most feminists. We don't need to get rid of gender in language or reality; it would be far easier to show equal respect for it than eliminate or drastically alter it.

It'd be awesome if we got rid of the value judgments, especially the negative ones. Everyone thinks I'm crazy for liking skirts. I think they're crazy for attaching such strong meanings to a piece of cloth that at the atomic, molecular, and fiber level, is the same as pants, but just cut differently. No need to change the skirt, just don't look down at it. [shrugs]