Conference quark::human_relations-v1

<     This leads me to the strange and curious thought that it is more
<    'socially acceptable' for a woman to indulge in homosexual activity
<    than it is for a man.  Have other people noticed this?  Discussion?
    
    I would say yes, it is. Men's soft-porn (PLAYBOY etc) often shows
    pictures of women together. I think men are turned on by the idea as
    long as they think the women will drop each other for the man. It
    also involves less physical (how to say this) um, commitment for two
    women to engage in sex then for two men to do the same. It's less
    intrusive to say the least.

    I suspect men are much harsher with men who would indulge in
    homosexuality than women are. And since men still control much of
    what this culture thinks their bias is the prevalent one. liesl

>     This leads me to the strange and curious thought that it is more
>    'socially acceptable' for a woman to indulge in homosexual activity
>    than it is for a man.  Have other people noticed this?  Discussion?

 It is definitely more socially acceptable for a woman to experiment with
alternative sexual lifestyles than it is for a man. Men who are homosexuals
are viewed as being less than men. Homos. Faggots. Certainly nothing to be
emulated. Something to be avoided at all costs. "I'm no queer."

 Lesbians are looked down upon, but less so than gay men. They are still viewed
as potentially salvageable by some men. Plus many men fantasize about "doing
it" with two women at once, so obviously the two women would have to be
comfortable with being naked around one another (so lesbians potentially fit 
the bill).

 These are my perceptions of the amorphous entity known as society, and do not
correspond to my personal views. If you disagree with these expressions, please
understand that you are disagreeing with my perceptions rather than my views
and couch objections appropriately.

 The Doctah

    I agree it's far more acceptable for women to admit they have
    "dabbled", but that may just result in men not admitting they've
    "dabbled" as often (and I know some who have, and are VERY quiet about
    it, unsurprisingly).
    
    I think our society thinks of women as more sensitive, and sensual, adn
    sensuous, and all those nice S words.  That makes it more acceptable
    for them to touch one another (even just handholding or
    arm-over-shoulder or hug in public) than men.  And the softporn mags
    show women-on-women more often than women-on-men, presumably because it
    brings the sensuality and heat of women to the forethoughts of the men. 
    I think men think normally heterosexual women dabbling sexually with
    other women is "titillating" and "naughty" in many cases, where they
    might think heterosexual men dabbling sexually with other men is "sick"
    or "wrong" or "bad".  As for homosexual people doing things with other
    homosexual/gay/word-of-your-choice people - I don't think one can call
    it dabbling anymore.  It's their preference.  And I agree that people
    may find lesbianity more palateable than homosexuality....
    
    -Jody
    

<It is definitely more socially acceptable for a woman to experiment with
<alternative sexual lifestyles than it is for a man.

    This isn't directed at you doctah, but at a cultural truth this
    statement reminded me of.
    
    The exception to this is if the woman experiments with many men.
    Then she's a slut, right? We wouldn't want our women having too many
    other males to compare us to would we? The corresponding male would
    be called a stud and have an aura of the heroic about him. Unless he
    was a stud with men of course. liesl

    It's terrible, but I thought it wasn't actually an issue anymore.
    
    Every person I know and have discussed this with feel that it is true: It
    is acceptable (or at least less unacceptable) for women to partake in
    homosexual activity than it is for men to do so.
    
    But, if a woman is only homosexual, that is, she does not have sex with men,
    just other women, then most men will put her down. That is the way that
    we (or most of us) think. It is something that is programmed into us
    from just after birth. Our society has adopted it, and only a small
    handful of people actually question any of the things that fall into
    THAT category.
    
    Men that try homosexuality (though it seems an odd thing to TRY) are
    branded as homosexuals for life if word gets out. Men that have sex
    with women and other men seem to get put into an even lower place
    because most people see them as gays that are contaminating the women
    that "real men" are having sex with.
    
    I think that obviously all homosexuality is against any religion, and
    that the sexual side of the attitude from a religious aspect is that
    you should only have sex with whomever it is that you are married to.
    
    To look at it from even further out into the biased, sexist (and
    whatever else it may be: unfair, cruel, etc...) world, you grew up for
    the first few years, you learned, you developed. Then, you work and
    began to feel the earth-shaking effect that hormones can have on you.
    You should not have sex until you get married. This was tipped a little
    when you consdier chastity belts and such other mentalities. Hell, if a
    woman had sex with a man before she got married, and especially if it
    was with a man that she would not be marrying, then off with her head.
    
    Men worked while (now bear with me, I'm just repeating some once common
    sentiments) the women stayed home barefoot, pregnant, etc. If the women
    weren't married yet, then they worked around the house and waited for
    the men to come home.
    
    Now, I wonder if the men would look the other way at women having sex
    since it was not with another man (thus no one is really doing anything
    with anyone else's 'property'). This may have been a necessary evil.
    It's just a theory-- I do not subscribe to it.
    
    This is one of those things that evolved (in my opinion) due to macho
    attitudes. Men, however, are not the only ones to have macho attitudes. 
    Macho is the same as 'cool'. Anyone who is desirable because of various
    traits. These traits usually are essentially BS. The traits go back to
    (I think) a time when survival meant being manly, big, strong, etc.
    Now, you really need to have a brain to survive, and being big and
    strong without a brain will not go very far. But, the related instincts
    have not died off for the most part.
    
    Whew! That was a mouthful. Don't mind me. I just thought that this
    topic really merited a response. I'll keep watching.
    
    						- Kamal

    I could have gone into my bit about women, but there are two reasons
    for not doing so:
    
    	1. I would definitely tick off a number of people, especially
    	   women.
    
    	2. It would be long and essentially garbled out of context. Plus
    	   I'd probably start repeating myself and bore you all to death.
    
    
    						- Kamal
    
    Hey! Isn's it at all possible that women could have had something to do
    with the idea that men should not have sex with other men? That keeps
    the men from enjoying what the women have been. (IF it's a pleasure)

    Personally, I am not a homophobe, or afraid, intimidated, offended, or
    anything else by gays. I feel that if a person is gay, they have every
    right that I do, or any other person for that matter.
    
    I will admit, though, seeing men have sex with other men does sort of
    put me off because I have no interest in seeing it, or partaking in it.
    
    And, true to what others have said here (942.*), I have no problems
    seeing women have sex with other women. In fact, it is interesting to
    watch. But, one thing I notice when watching is that women (discarding
    obvious anatomical reasons) have sex with other women a bit differently
    than a man would have sex with the same woman. A man (or at least
    myself) tries to see what it is that drew one woman to the other. Is
    there something that one woman is doing to the other better than a man
    could do it. It is almost like a learning session. I am not sick, mind
    you. But this does bring a couple of things to mind.
    
    I happen to derive a GREAT deal of pleasure from satisfying a woman
    (emotionally and sexually). Some men do not. Perhaps it is the latter
    of the two types of men that does not care to watch, or is
    disinterested in (or even disgusted by) the idea of two women together.
    
    Do women who take great joy in satisfying a man (emotionally and
    sexually) care to know about, or watch two men have sex, in the
    interest of seeing what makes the man feel good. That is the equivalent
    to a man observing two women, isn't it? Can it be an educational
    experience?
    
    After all: only a woman can know exactly what another woman can feel
    and only a man can know exactly what another man can feel. This seems
    to hold especially true for emotions, but physical feelings as well.

I have some comments based on real data, but not about anyone in particular,
I say this to ensure confidentiality. I am not really talking about folk who
see 'gay' as their proper lifestyle, so men means 'heterosexual' men.

	1. A large number of men DO have some homosexual experimentation.

	2. Many young men have strong feelings which are suppressed because
	   of 'social pressure'.

	3. Very few men admit this to their family or other 'straight' friends.

	4. Often they reject the event(s) through fear, even to the point of
	   denial to themselves, and acn lead to homophobia.

In my view this is just exploring yourself and how you react and feel about
another person.

Lesbian activity, amoung straight women, is also quite common, but is
very often not even labeled.  Affection between women can be quite
open, even in public.  As there is much less pre-progammed guilt it is
less of a 'problem'.

To me watching/fantasizing about other folk making love is up to the
watcher, what 'turns them on' is a personal thing.

Enough chat from me...

Best ... Trevor

RE:  .7  Jain

>>  Personally, I am not a homophobe, or afraid, intimidated, offended, or
    
>>  And, true to what others have said here (942.*), I have no problems
    seeing women have sex with other women. In fact, it is interesting to
    watch. 


Hey, I can relate.  When I was a kid, about 7 years old, I remember riding my 
bike down past a dairy farm and I saw this bull getting his joys with all these
cows!  Of course, I was interested and amazed!  Now I wasn't scared, as long
as that bull was on the other side of the fence!  And I didn't grow up with any
problems that concerned cows.  I was just curious.

-dwight

PS:  Now I have heard some guys tell interesting stories about sheep....

    No way is lesbianism more socially acceptable than male homosexuality
    in my very small part of the world (lower middle class). Any form of
    sexual behavior other than heterosexual is very suspect. I think it's
    more that it "doesn't count." 
    
    The attitude I hear is "It's only some screwed-up women, we can enjoy
    watching them. What they need is a real man to straighten them out (make 
    them normal make them het)." 
    
    Not my opinion, but the one I hear loud and clear outside of DEC.
    
    Estelle

    The statistics I've seen bear out the personal view in 942.8 -
    experimentation is common for both sexes and rarely admitted to
    (except to statisticians, apparently).
    
    To a certain extent, doesn't everyone have to discover their own sexual
    orientation through experimentation?  It's not something that you can
    derive theoretically, after all.  It's just because certain experiments
    turn out more successfully than others that one can be certain that one
    is gay, bi, or hetero (OK, I guess most people default to that one),
    that one likes short dark men or tall pale women, or prefers silk
    bandannas to handcuffs...
    
    Or am I showing my "naughty '70s" background again? 
    
    Ray

    .7 -
    
�    Do women who take great joy in satisfying a man (emotionally and
�    sexually) care to know about, or watch two men have sex, in the
�    interest of seeing what makes the man feel good. That is the equivalent
    
    I've known several women who got a kick out of gay male porn.  (Joanna
    Russ, in one of her essays on feminism and pornography, points out that
    a fair number of women _write_ what looks like gay male porn.)
    
    I don't think it was for research, though.  The fact is that taking
    notes on what lesbians do isn't necessarily going to make a man a
    better lover since it's unlikely that he'll ever be involved with a
    lesbian.  Same goes for watching gay men (think about some typical gay
    porn action and you'll see what I mean).
    
    I think it's more the fascination of only getting "the good stuff"
    instead of having a gender that you're not turned on by obstructing the
    view.  One of the many interesting complications of heterosexuality...
    
    Ray

    I guess it all comes down to the fact that we are sexual creatures.
    
    I agree with a previous entry  that if one is courious about their
    orietation then experimentation would be just.
    
    If you ask me, we are all horny as heck.  I'm sure alot of us
    macho creeps would never admit to checking out an occaisional
    guy - - the "competition" maybe??? - - but socially we have all
    this crap crammed down our throats.  Ya know the peer pressure
    growing up - - imagine how difficult it is for a young adult who
    inately feels homosexual urges to come to terms with it in a 
    society that (genreally) treats it as some kind of oddity?
    
    I would say that socially, lesbianism between straight ladies
    is viewed by us macho creeps as rather hip and exciting.  
    But lesbianism as a lifestyle is not so - - but I may end up
    repeating the past twelve replies...a good discussion though...
    
    just gettting my thoughts out...
    joe p

    re:.12
    
    There is a sub-group in Star Trek fandom that read and write their
    own fiction involving the Trek characters. Within this sub-group
    is a sub-sub-group that read or write their own fiction in which
    there is depicted or implied a homosexual relationship between
    Kirk and Spock (seriously!). The vast majority of fans in this
    sub-sub-group are heterosexual women.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .14, I've always suspected as much about Spock and Kirk.  :-)
     But, I think they are actually *in love*.  All my life I've been
    looking for a man who would care as much about me as Spock does
    about Kirk. :-)  (Of course, Kirk is obviously both bi and completely
    faithless because of all the women he's also always messing around
    with.)
    
    Lorna
    

    The Kinsey report, old as it is, describes a continuum between
    heterosexuality and homosexuality and suggests that very few people are
    at the extreme ends of the scale. I believe there is a figure in the
    report that somewhere around 50% of males have "experimented" at one
    time or another. And if you travel at all outside the USA you will
    eventually come to the conclusion that, despite the pornography etc.,
    the US is more hungup than most on straight sex, let alone homosexual
    sex.
    
    I believe that most men (and women) would be in the bisexual part of the 
    Kinsey scale (1 thru 5 - see below ) except that the prevailing
    Puritan-bred christian orientation is heavily reinforced by the rugged
    individualist macho attitude and people are psychologically reinforced
    to abhor any and all homosexualism whether it is a part of their animal
    nature or not.
    
    regards,
    Dj
    
    
    Kinsey:
    0 - homosexual
    1 - primarily homosexual - incidentally heterosexual
    2 - homosexual but more than incidentally heterosexual
    3 - "purely" ( truly 50/50 ) bisexual
    4 - heterosexual but more than incidentally homosexual
    5 - primarily heterosexual - incidentally homosexual
    6 - heterosexual

    I don't have any books here, but I think you have the kinsey scale
    backwards.  I think it goes from heterosexual=0 to homosexual=6, or
    whatever.  Could someone please verify whichever's right?
    
    -Jody
    

>    I don't have any books here, but I think you have the kinsey scale
>    backwards.  I think it goes from heterosexual=0 to homosexual=6, or
>    whatever.  Could someone please verify whichever's right?
 
Yes, Jody, you are right.

Also, the previous note got the Kinsey scale wrong.  It doesn't measure
how homosexual or heterosexual a person *is*, it measure's the relative
percentages of their actual experience.  So, f'rinstance, a woman who ws
married for 10 years before she realized or accepted that she was a 
Lesbian, then gets divorced and has one or two minor sexual experiences
with other women would be a Kinsey 1 or 2 or so, despite the fact that she
*feels* 100% Lesbian.  The Kinsay scale has been criticized pretty
harshly for this; it ignores how people feel or label themselves, and
people with *no* sexual experience can't be classified on the scale at
all.  His choice makes sense though, because Kinsey's studies measured
purely behavior, and that was the data he had to work with.

Here is the Kinsey scale, alone with Kinsey's data on how many fall into
the categories, from Human_Sexuality, by Luria, Friedman and Rose. 
(remember, these are percentages of sexual *acts*, not fantasies.)

                                                       Males      Females
point           Description                              (%)        (%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
0      Exclusively heterosexual behavior		52-92      61-90
1      Incidental homosexual behavior			18-42      11-20
2      More than incidental homosexual behavior         13-38      6-14
3      Equal amount of homosexual and         
            heterosexual behavior			9-32	   4-11
4	More than incidental heterosexual behavior	7-26	   3-8
5	Incidental heterosexual behavior		5-22	   2-6
6	Exclusively homosexual behavior			3-16	   1-3

(Feel free to take these statistics with large grains of salt. After all,
they are only statistics.  And Kinsey's methods are often criticized for
being non-representative samples. Nevertheless, he conducted the largest
and most comprehenisve of such surveys to date.)

D!

    oops, I plead dislexic sexuality. It's been so long since I read the
    stuff I occaisionally turn the scale around. 
    
    Dj

    Since Kinsey was breaking new ground, he pretty much had to limit
    himself to what people were actually doing.  Only after he had
    established that could he go on to examine how they felt about
    what they were doing.
    
    Kinsey also had to deal with a large disrepancy between what
    people do and what people say they do -- for instance, married men
    who engaged in frequent homosexual encounters and considered
    themselves 100% heterosexual.
    
    --bonnie

I find it easy to empathize with lesbians, after all, we both like women!

I find it harder to empathize with gays, in that I'm not attracted to the
same things they are attracted to.

Bisexuals on the third hand, I feel like they just have widers tastes then
I....

Jim.

re .22

	Um, didn't I just read that in 940.32?

-greg b

RE. 23

   Didn't I just read that in 940.33?



:^)


Jim

    re: last few....
    
    Stereo!!!!