I too would like to complement you, cuauhtemoc. That’s a great example.
I think the problem, PG, is that you’re asking for a definition of something that can’t be defined. Masculinity or femininity is just something you sense, the way some people claim to sense auras. It can’t be quantified or set out in a checklist; it just is.
Typical gender stereotypes don’t have anything to do with it; if they did, DrJ and I would probably fare rather badly. Neither of us come anywhere near fitting the stereotypical behaviors or attitudes for our genders, but we are unmistakably masculine and feminine, respectively. I can’t explain it to you any more than I can explain to him how I know the difference between mauve and fuschia. It’s all just pink to him, but I know the difference almost instinctively.
As for the original question, for me, love, lust, and friendship can be separate or together, and being in love is a whole other matter. I feel friendship for the people I work with. We have wonderful conversations and have fun together, but I don’t love them. I lust after Tom Cruise; I have no emotional connection to him at all, but boy I’d love to grab that ass. I love my parents and my pets and my close friends. We can stay up till all hours of the night, laughing and talking and just enjoying being together, but I have no sexual feelings at all for them.
I’m also not in love with any of them. Never do I get the urge to just gently touch their faces, or lean my head on their shoulders and listen to their breathing and heartbeat the way I do with DrJ. I’ve never had those sorts of feelings toward any woman, nor toward the vast majority of men I’ve known. Even male friends I’ve loved as friends and desired physically didn’t stir those feelings in me all the time. I don’t know why they didn’t, they just didn’t, and so I could never have a romantic relationship with them.
Does refusing to have a romantic relationship with someone who doesn’t stir up those “in-love” feelings make me shallow? Possibly, although I tend to think it just makes me human.
I also think that a lot of perceived shallowness comes from how things are phrased. Refusing to date women in general tends to be phrased as “I’m just not into chicks,” which comes across as a matter of simple non-attraction. “I’d never date a fat chick,” however, has undertones of condescension and judgement, setting of a lot of people’s asshole detectors. Or am I the only one who sees a difference between “I’m not into fat chicks” and I’d never date a fat chick"?
I beg to differ. None of Billy Tipton’s wives or children could sense it.
What, you mean they didn’t sense that she was masculine? Women can be masculine, just as men can be feminine. I think you’re confusing sex with gender. Sex is the plumbing you have, gender is how you identify, how you see yourself and live your life. Billie Tipton was a biological female, living a man’s life. Billie’s sex was female (though I suspect that would have been different had sex reassignment been available at the time), but his gender was masculine.
Sex is quantifiable, for the most part. Gender, however, isn’t.
Oh, and since we’re now discussing the biological and psychological concepts of sex vs. gender, let’s all try to be nice. I’d rather this didn’t turn into another woman sperm debacle.
My point. It’s all physical. The non-physical parts aren’t just undefined, but undefinable, and thus may as well be non-existent. So why should they matter in your choice of partner?
If everybody’s shallow, I can handle that. If romantic love and sex cannot be separated, I can handle that. If it’s all pheromones, I can handle that. I’ve been offered those answers and accepted them.
But I do not believe in “essential masculinity” or “essential femininity”, since I’ve seen no evidence that they exist.
On preview: what woman sperm debacle?
To sum up, we have a trio of posters here who live in a non-traditional family unit. One of them is a pre-operative MTF transsexual who knocked up the bio female in the family. There was a pit thread where people were all showing their asses (as required in the Pit), and the bio female made reference to her girlfriend’s woman sperm. People who don’t know them were understandably confused, and things just got uglier and uglier from there.
Oh, and I’ve got one more question for you before I go to bed. If something which cannot be defined, like masculinity or femininity, might as well be non-existent and isn’t important, what about that “click”? What is it about someone that makes you like them enough to want to sleep with them? Can you define it and quantify it, or is it something you just feel? If you can’t define it and quantify it, you might as well just sleep with every single person you meet, since you’re using some indefinable and therefore pointless criteria. Right?
First of all, I do not need the click to want to have sex. I just need the click to want to have a romantic relationship. I could have sex with anyone I like the look of.
But second of all, you bring up a good point. What is it about someone that gives you the click? That question is much broader than just gender.
So, why do straight males only get the click from women? “Because they’re straight” is begging the question. I know I’m biased by my own proclivities, but it seems to me like it’s all a social convention. Can you honestly say that if all women died right now, that the boys growing up in an all-male environment would not turn to each other for romantic love, rather living in celibate for their entire lives?
I think a lot of the problem with this discussion is the same trouble I have discussing colors with my husband. Essentially, most of the rest of us are talking about mauve and fuschia and a few shades in between, and you’re saying “What the hell are you talking about? It’s all pink!” Maybe it’s something you can only see clearly if you strongly identify with one gender or the other.
OK, I understand that the discussion has veered sharply away from the original premise (i.e., that straight and gay people are “shallow” for only wanting to date people of their preferred gender) and is now bashing itself against the rocks in an attempt to define what are the essential, non-physical differences betwen men and women.
However, I really think that it’s rather irrelevant (not to mention impossible) to come up with any set of essential, non-physical differences.
We all pick our partners based on a number of factors. Physical attraction is certainly one important aspect (for most of us, at least), but I’m willing to admit that we can be fooled. Anyone see “The Crying Game”? Sure, that’s a movie, but I have seen enough extremely effeminate men in my life to accept that I could be fooled into being physically attracted (at least at the onset) to a man that I thought was a woman. And there are sure as heck plenty of masculine-looking women out there that I would NEVER consider dating no matter how much you paid me.
In addition to physical attraction, however, there are also cultural norms that most of us accept as “proper,” and the “values” instilled in us by our families, peers, etc., also play an important part. The fact is, being a straight male I am physically and mentally repulsed at the thought of having sex with another man. That repulsion stems partly because of how I am hardwired (which is why masculine looking individuals of either sex do not appeal to me), and partly because of how I was raised (which is why I couldn’t have sex with a “she-male” no matter how attractive I thought he/she was).
The fact that I am simply not attracted to anybody who looks like a guy is not, in my opinion, “shallow” – it’s just who I am. The fact that I wouldn’t consider dating somebody I did find attractive but who turned out to actually be a man may perhaps be considered shallow, but it’s so deeply ingrained in me that, once again, there’s not a lot that can be done about it. It may not be innate to my being, but it is still who I am.
Regards,
Barry
Well, godzillatemple, it appears that we’ve reached a common ground. Whaddaya know, the time of miracles isn’t over.
Well, most “straight” guys I know would never in a million years admit that they could possibly be attracted to a man, even if that man was the most effeminate man that walked the earth and was wearing makeup, a wig, had fake breasts, and dressed like a sexpot. Oh no, they would be able to just “tell” he was really a man – to suggest otherwise would be to somehow suggest that they weren’t “real” men or something.
Well, I personally think that’s hogwash. I do think there are certain indefinable things that make a man a man and a woman a woman, but it’s all on a sliding scale and our senses can be fooled. I only take offense at being called “shallow” for saying that I prefer women to men (and only certain women at that).
Regards,
Barry
I apologize. I did believe that the common view was that someone who would not date persons of certain physical characteristics would be shallow. My question was basically “if that is shallow, why not this?”. If that isn’t considered shallow, and apparently it isn’t by most people around here, the point is moot.
Enjoyable discussion, anyway.
Indeed. Spoken like a true gentleman 
Barry
Look: If you can’t stand looking at someone because they look retarded… Then why stay w/them?
Why do I get the impression that you’re not reading for comprehension?
Right. We’re all dancing around the issue, keeping you the heart of the matter with our strange, abstract concepts.
What is a “straight answer” exactly? Your question has been answered in several different ways, from several different points of perspective, but if a “straight answer” to you is a bulleted list of easily quantifiable attributes, then I’m afraid you’ll just have to be disappointed.
Let’s come at it a different way. To fit into human society, one must subscribe to certain roles. Some examples of these roles might be: friend, mother, lover, worker, leader, teacher, student, man, and woman.
Whether or not you subscribe to any particular role depends on a combination of the circumstance of your life and your personal choice. If you’re tall, for instance, you may want to subscribe to the role of “basketball player”. If you’re short, you might have the option of subscribing to the role of “jockey”.
If you were born with a penis and testicles, you would generally want to subscribe to the role of “man”. On the other hand, if you were born with a vagina, you might be more comfortable fitting into society in the role of “woman”.
The particulars of the “man” and “woman” roles are more fluid than ever before. They mean different things to different people. However, the definitions are still clear enough that over 99% of people in the world (including you, I suspect) know the difference between one and the other. Also, over 99% of people in the world (even you) identify with one or the other of these two very special roles.
For the purposes of dating and falling in love, an overwhelming majority of the world’s population subscribes to the “man/woman” theory of human classification. Most likely, this is partly instinctual and involuntary. But it’s also partly a choice to fit into our relationships - and society - in a “gendered” way.
People who couldn’t or wouldn’t subscribe to the traditional roles have traditionally been treated badly. This is shameful, but it’s changing. As for the rest of us, for whom “manhood” and “womanhood” seems perfectly natural to us, we’ll continue to choose our dating and sexual partners based on gender.
Now go ahead. Read the first few sentences of this post, ignore the rest, and respond that a straight answer is a straight answer and you’ll know one when you see it. :rolleyes:
Reading this again, I’m concerned that my tone is a little cranky. Don’t take offense, Priceguy, I’m just trying to demonstrate my position effectively.
I’ve realised that. But then I wonder why people kept insisting that these differences existed. And I can’t help noticing that you didn’t answer either “yes” or “no” to my seemingly straight question. But to hell with that now.
I’ve left a long part unquoted here, mainly because I don’t dispute it. I can now add “social construction” to shallowness, love-sex connection and pheromones, for four valid answers in total.
Come on. I’m a little hurt now. Whether you know it or not, I’ve really tried to see your point of view. I’ve really tried to understand. Is it so unreasonable to expect a yes or no to a yes/no question? And what post parts have I ignored?
OK, none taken.
Sorry for not asking this earlier, but maybe you could clarify your question a little.
You’re asking for “non-physical” differences between the genders. But you’re also stipulating that they must be “externally detectable”.
I don’t know how you detect things about other people from an external standpoint, but I use my five major senses - sight, smell, sound, taste, touch. They depend on the physical properties of the people I’m detecting.
Now, with this in mind, are you sure you didn’t load this question up when you came up with it? How can something be both “externally detectable” and “non-physical”? How can any characteristic of any individual be evident from the outside, but completely independent of the physical properties of matter we humans use our senses to detect?
Are you talking about personality traits? In that case, you know damn well there are no personality traits common to every single member of a particular gender. So why ask the question?
You gave “attitude toward strawberries” as an example. Are you talking about opinions? Subjective preferences for certain things over others? Once again, you know damn well that there are no opinions about anything specific only to men or women. So again, why ask the question?
Are you talking about “aura”? That’s non-physical, and many people claim to be able to detect it. But, as I assume you’re well aware, we can’t exactly prove it exists. So, one more time, why ask the question?
When someone asks a question, the only possible answer to which is “no”, you can’t blame people for suspecting there’s an agenda there, conscious or unconscious. So, I ask again, are you sure you didn’t presuppose the answer “no” and formulate the question based on that?
Or, am I misinterpreting some of your terms?
cuauhtemoc: If I may be so bold as to say, I think the point has been mooted at this point.
The OP’s original question was based on an assumption that everybody here would consider it horrifically shallow if a man said that he wouldn’t date any woman with a particular physical characteristic (e.g., being fat). therefore, since the OP also strongly believes that gender is nothing more than a physical characteristic, he wanted to know why it’s not considered equally as shallow for a straight person to refuse to date people of the same gender (or for gay people to refuse to date people of the opposite gender).
Well, we can argue until the cows come home whether or not gender is, in fact, nothing more than a physical characteristic, but in This Thread it has been demonstrated that everyone here doesn’t think it is necessarily shallow for somebody to refuse to date people who have specific physical characteristics. And, since that behavior is not generally regarded as being shallow, it becomes irrelevant whether it is “also” shallow to reject relationships based on gender.
Having said all that, and just in case you really want to pursue the whole idea of whether gender is solely a matter of physical characteristics or not, I offer my own opinion on the matter:
Gender is determined by the type of genitalia a person has. Men have penises, women have vaginas. Period. Beyond that, there is a whole slew of secondary physical characters that contribute to a person’s perceived gender that may or may not have anything to do with their actual gender. As a straight male I am, by definition, attracted to people who exhibit feminine secondary sexual characterisitcs, such as slender hips, full lips, long hair, smooth skin, large breasts, etc. At the same time, I am not attracted to people who have an overabundance of masculine secondary sexual characteristics (facial hair, large muscles, stocky builds, etc.) This is the case whether the person in question is “really” male or female. I am not, nor will I ever be, attracted to a so-called “butch” woman, regardless of the “aura” she may give off, simply because, to me, she doesn’t look like a woman. Similarly, I have seen transvestites who I thought were pretty darn good looking and who certainly got my juices flowing until I found out that they are really men.
Once we get beyond the attraction caused by these secondary characteristics, it is primarily my upbringing that determines whether I could be physically attracted to somebody. Once I find out that an attractive “woman” is rreally a male, any attraction I might have felt immediately disappears and is replaced with repugnance. This is not because the person’s “aura” suddenly changed or because he suddenly stopped having attractive features – it’s purely because I have been conditioned to believe that having sex with another man is wrong, unnatural, and generally a pretty icky thing to even contemplate.
Gay men presumably are attracted to people who exhibit greater masculine secondary characteristics than feminine. I’ve never asked a gay person this, but I wonder whether any would admit to being attracted, at least initially, to a very “butch” looking woman.
This is, of course, all my “humble opinion”…
Regards,
Barry