Sexual interests?

[dondigitalia 0]

Reading this thread makes me have to ask: are there more gay men than lesbian women? It seems like the percentage is higher for males than females.

I don't really know about that. I think women are more prone to be fluid with their sexuality than men are. There have actually been studies done on this.

One that I read about showed gay and straight pornography to men who self-identified as gay and straight, and the measurements showed that their arousal was perfectly aligned with their orientation. The same procedure was done with women, who were aroused by all pornography, regardless of their orientation. I don't recall where the study was published, however. I doubt it would be too hard to find with a Google search though.

Gay men tend to have much more "out there" lifestyles though. There is a joke among gays: What do lesbians do on a second date? Rent a U-haul. It implies that lesbians are more apt to settle down and start nesting right away, whereas gay men tend to have a more active culture later in life, which gives the impression that there are more of us. We're just more visible than they are, I think.

[Scott A. 0]

In my experience, you are right with respect to the sexual relationship of the men involved. We actually use the labels "top," "bottom" or "versatile" to describe a man's preferred role, although that role can change depending on a whole bunch of factors that can come into play in any given relationship. In this respect, homosexual relationships are much, much more complicated than heterosexual relationships.

Oftentimes, psychologically, the men fall into roles that are aligned with their sexual roles, but this isn't always the case. Some men prefer that kind of relationship, whereas others prefer a relationship that is more dynamic, where neither partner is the one who is "in charge." Still others prefer a relationship where one is "in charge" sometimes and the other is "in charge" other times. In this respect also, homosexual relationships are a lot more complicated.

My own preference (psychologically; I'll keep the other side of my preferences private ) is more of an even playing field, with occasional lapses of one or the other partner taking charge. I wouldn't want to be with a man who is submissive all the time (I don't think I could fully respect him), but at the same time, I'm too aggressive and strong a personality to be submissive all the time, but I do find pleasure in adopting either role from time to time.

Thanks for your insights, Don. I think your post raises some important issues. A primary one for me is that this thread has focused on dominance in terms of the specific act of sex. However, this is just one aspect of a relationship in which dominance plays out. There are many other aspects of relationships in which one person tends to take the lead, and it isn't always the same person who takes the lead in sex. This being said, another speculation I have is that the person in a homosexual relationship who, on balance, takes the lead in most things will also take the lead (dominate) in sex. What do you and others think?

[dondigitalia 0]

This being said, another speculation I have is that the person in a homosexual relationship who, on balance, takes the lead in most things will also take the lead (dominate) in sex. What do you and others think?

Although I think that is the case in many cases, I don't think it is enough to be considered a norm of any sort. There is an extremely wide variance in the way homosexual relationship work. Sexuality is a complex issue to begin with. Toss in all the other complexities involved in homosexuality (not that heterosexual relationships aren't complex; they are, but in a vastly different way that doesn't have as direct a relationship to sexuality) and it complicates the issue even more.

It's something that would require an extremely skilled psychologist to study. And I think such a psychologist would have to be gay himself to interpret his findings correctly. In addition, I don't think psychology is advanced enough yet to engage in a study rigorous enough to yield anything worthwhile on this issue either, but you would probably know better than I do on that last point, as I'm just beginning to explore psychology enough to identify problems in philosophy of psychology, much less draw any conclusions about what a proper methodology would entail.

[dondigitalia 0]

Thanks for your insights, Don. I think your post raises some important issues. A primary one for me is that this thread has focused on dominance in terms of the specific act of sex. However, this is just one aspect of a relationship in which dominance plays out. There are many other aspects of relationships in which one person tends to take the lead, and it isn't always the same person who takes the lead in sex. This being said, another speculation I have is that the person in a homosexual relationship who, on balance, takes the lead in most things will also take the lead (dominate) in sex. What do you and others think?

Just to give some insight as to how widely gay relationships can vary, I know more than a few couples were both partners are exclusive "tops" or both are exclusive "bottoms." In such relationships, the psychological aspects vary just as much as the others.

[bborg 0]

The problem is that the scene with Roark and Dominique was possible only within the context of fiction. Roark knew, even as Dominique fought against him, that she wanted it. He knew it because we knew it. In reality, a man who forces himself on a woman while she fights him is called a rapist, and rightly so. This kind of fantasy is just not possible in the real world; it would require mind-reading for a moral man to take that kind of action.

Even in the real world Roark would not have needed mind-reading since Dominique's behavior communicated desire and consent in a dozen ways. See my analysis of the beginning of Roark and Dominique's relationship here.

The scene was foreign to me when I first read it, and still foreign to me now. In Roark's position, I would have left Dominique to her games. Maybe I'm just not a typical guy, or I'm not "masculine", but in real life I expect a girl to show that she's interested, not try to make me chase after her. Women have this odd way of expecting the guy to make a move even when she's the one with eyes on him. I find it aggravating as hell. I'm bad enough at introducing myself, without all the missed opportunities I don't know about because some otherwise great girl was interested but didn't do anything about it because she thought that was my job. Maybe that's why I'm still single!

[Paul's Here 0]

--------------

---------------

Dominance is an issue because, as I said in reply to bborg, it is one of optional, but quite common, ways that couples choose to emphasize and celebrate their individual sexual differences.

There are many ways to celebrate differences. Sex, for heterosexuals, is a celebration of differences. So exactly what does dominance mean, in fact, during the act? Getting thrown around the bed? Against the walls? Walking away with a bleeding lip (or other body part) from being bitten? Being tied up with handcuffs? What's the difference between dominance and just enjoying having sex with your partner or enjoying letting your partner give you pleasure? What, to you, does sexual pleasure and enjoyment without dominance mean? Certainly, a woman can be dominant during certain positions in sex while the man just lays back and enjoys what she's doing.

In either case of who's dominant, I don't see that it is the dominance that is being enjoyed, it is the sex that is being enjoyed. If dominance is the primary issue, then why not when you're at work, or shopping at the store, or any other relationship with men?

[bborg 0]

In either case of who's dominant, I don't see that it is the dominance that is being enjoyed, it is the sex that is being enjoyed. If dominance is the primary issue, then why not when you're at work, or shopping at the store, or any other relationship with men?

This I have a better understanding of. It isn’t dominance in the way you describe. From the comments I’ve read here, I would say a woman may enjoy being physically overpowered because this is a way in which she experiences the masculinity of her partner. Only in a sexual context does that matter. And it isn't just the enjoyment of whatever physical position you're in, it's the enjoyment of the sexual nature of the partner. I think that's probably what makes gay relationships so complicated - the sexual nature of the partners isn't so clear-cut.

[Paul's Here 0]

The problem is that the scene with Roark and Dominique was possible only within the context of fiction. Roark knew, even as Dominique fought against him, that she wanted it. He knew it because we knew it. In reality, a man who forces himself on a woman while she fights him is called a rapist, and rightly so. This kind of fantasy is just not possible in the real world; it would require mind-reading for a moral man to take that kind of action.

Even in the real world Roark would not have needed mind-reading since Dominique's behavior communicated desire and consent in a dozen ways. See my analysis of the beginning of Roark and Dominique's relationship here.

The scene was foreign to me when I first read it, and still foreign to me now. In Roark's position, I would have left Dominique to her games. Maybe I'm just not a typical guy, or I'm not "masculine", but in real life I expect a girl to show that she's interested, not try to make me chase after her.

If you expect a girl to show that she's interested, why is she not entitled to think that you should show that you're intrested? It's not a matter of who expects whom to go after what. It's a matter of you recognizing that you are a causal agent and you must act to achieve your values.

Women have this odd way of expecting the guy to make a move even when she's the one with eyes on him. I find it aggravating as hell. I'm bad enough at introducing myself, without all the missed opportunities I don't know about because some otherwise great girl was interested but didn't do anything about it because she thought that was my job. Maybe that's why I'm still single!

What would you say to a girl who did show interest in you and took the first step? If you expect the girl to introduce herself to you, think of what you'd like her to say to you to introduce herself. Then find a girl that you are interested in and use the same introduction on her from your perspective.

What's the worst that can happen? She's not interested in you, and you're in the same position you were before the interaction. But you've learned something about her and yourself. Practice makes perfect.

[bborg 0]

If you expect a girl to show that she's interested, why is she not entitled to think that you should show that you're intrested? It's not a matter of who expects whom to go after what. It's a matter of you recognizing that you are a causal agent and you must act to achieve your values.

Of course she should expect that if I’m interested, I show it. I do try. I’m just tired, that’s all, and wish it wasn’t so hard. I just find that the only girls to initiate a conversation with me, and for that matter the only girls who seem attracted to me, have been otherwise committed to a boyfriend or husband. It’s not great on my confidence. I find meeting women to be largely unrewarding work.

But I didn’t mean to hijack the thread. My only point was that I never did identify with the Roark/Dominique relationship.

[JRoberts 0]

I agree. I did not mean to completey discount the "nurture" part of it; from what I've read, it's a combination of both. Anecdotally, I know what many gays and lesbians come from "broken" homes where at least one parent was out of the picture during important stages of childhood development. As for my own case, my parents have been married 30+ years and couldn't be happier, nor I with the pleasure of knowing them as adults. From a very early age, I recall an attraction to the same sex. How much this had to do with my parents, I won't speculate except to say that I had a very safe, loving childhood.

As I understand it, a massive study of identitcal twins is under way to perhaps shed some light on this very issue.

Maybe the problem is our definition of the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual"? These terms did not exist until the 19th century, and sometimes (not being post-modern here) language has the powerful ability to create artificial constructs, imposing certain ideas upon humans when it should not. Kinsey was not as prone to speak of people as homosexual or heterosexual, noticing in his studies that human sexuality existed on a continuum, where most "homosexuals" were a 6 and most "heterosexuals" were a 4 (I hope I represented that correctly!).

[dondigitalia 0]

To this day she cannot grasp why I don't support all these leftist causes and candidates on the theory that I am a "tratitor." She actually gets angry that I'm so calm and reasonable. Gays should be ACTIVISTS according to her.

That's just silly. The only areas I think gays would have any reason to be activists are in regard to gay marriage and gay men being able to give blood. Both are extremely low on my list of priorities.

[JRoberts 0]

On the topic of gay sex roles, I have found two interesting stereotypes over the years that I have wondered about:

1) Height differences between two male partners.

As a shorter man, I have had a couple relationships with taller men. One was some years older than I am and one some years younger. Many many people commented that I must be the "submissive" type because I was dating men a half foot or more taller than I am. This puzzled me because I am definitely not submissive in any sense. I just happened to have been attracted to these particular men who were taller than I was.

I think the size factor comes from the artificial constructions (though biologically determined) of gender created by the heterosexual community applied to the homosexual community, where the "dominant" is supposed to be larger, stronger, taller, more "rough" looking, etc., while the "submissive" is supposed to be smaller, weaker, more manicured, smoother, more "curvy", etc. It makes sense if most people would view it this way, because our constructions of gender are based upon these (biologically determined) views. Thus, when a person tries to understand your relationship, they start from their own level of understanding and try to apply it to your situation.

2) Age differences in two male partners.

In gay circles, there is this phenomenon whereby an older man enters into relationships ONLY with men much much younger. In some cases, I've seen men in their 50s or even 60s dating 21-year-olds. Now I have no personal objection to this arrangement if it's consensual. What I find puzzling is WHY older men do this. I suppose the idea of being a mentor or "daddy" (the common word for it) appeals to them, but my knowledge of good relationships is both parties need to have common values to bring to the table. A much older man is far more developed in that sense. Wouldn't he get bored with a young guy barely into adulthood?

These are just a couple notions I've wondered about. Perhaps some of our other gay members (or anyone really) can offer some explanations that I'm not seeing.

As to age difference, I agree with Pkrembs in regards to the "Trophy Wife" syndrome. This phenomena is not exclusive to the homosexual community, but is very common in the heterosexual community (hence the term "sugar daddy").

[JRoberts 0]

Although, I think there is another element at work here which reaks of the type of pederasty practiced in Classical Greece or perhaps even early Gnostics, whereby the knowledge and experiences, particularly of living as a gay man are transferred to an insecure, less experienced man as a result of living in a society which, for the most part, disapproves of homosexuality.

I do not understand what you are saying here. The Greek (not the Roman) pederastic tradition was a highly monitored yet very important tradition in the Classical Greek world, a society in which homosexuality was oftentimes seen as superior to heterosexuality. But this culture is starkly different from our own. What exactly do you mean by this?

[jasonlockwood 0]

I think the size factor comes from the artificial constructions (though biologically determined) of gender created by the heterosexual community applied to the homosexual community, where the "dominant" is supposed to be larger, stronger, taller, more "rough" looking, etc., while the "submissive" is supposed to be smaller, weaker, more manicured, smoother, more "curvy", etc. It makes sense if most people would view it this way, because our constructions of gender are based upon these (biologically determined) views. Thus, when a person tries to understand your relationship, they start from their own level of understanding and try to apply it to your situation.

This makes some sense to me. Maybe I just need to start dating guys who are 5' tall.

[RayK 0]

If you expect a girl to show that she's interested, why is she not entitled to think that you should show that you're intrested? It's not a matter of who expects whom to go after what. It's a matter of you recognizing that you are a causal agent and you must act to achieve your values.

Of course she should expect that if I’m interested, I show it. I do try. I’m just tired, that’s all, and wish it wasn’t so hard. I just find that the only girls to initiate a conversation with me, and for that matter the only girls who seem attracted to me, have been otherwise committed to a boyfriend or husband. It’s not great on my confidence. I find meeting women to be largely unrewarding work.

But I didn’t mean to hijack the thread. My only point was that I never did identify with the Roark/Dominique relationship.

I do not want to higack this thread either, so I will make my comments short.

Why would you not want a woman that is hard and demanding to achieve as your girl friend or lover? Would you want a job that did not challenge you? Do you enjoy trying to solve problems or overcoming hardships that are not challenging? I have never been able to understand that type of mentality as I have never been able to get excited to do anything that was easy, including achieving a lover. I will concede that it is difficult to obtain a romantic relationship, but that is one of the things that can also make it so rewarding.

[JRoberts 0]

Digression aside, all my best relationships have been with men who had similarly good childhoods. Good relationships can be difficult to come by, regardless of sexual orientation. The lack of rationality just means gays have to try harder due to the sheer reduced number of potential partners out there. A sad commentary on contemporary culture, but nevertheless I have done well so far, so I remain optimistic about my chances in my new life in Sydney.

I completely agree! In fact, when I started dating again after a horrible breakup, I made a firm commitment to myself that not only would I look at the person, but I would pay very close attention to their family. Sure enough, I've been in a strong relationship for two years now and I absolutely love his family.

I think that the largest problem in the gay community lies not so much with the lack of rationality as it does with the hedonistic and superficials tendencies that the culture itself promotes.

[JRoberts 0]

I think I understand what you're saying, but let me put it in my own words to make sure. Basically, you're saying that because both men in a homosexual relationship can penetrate the other (and gain pleasure either way), the issue of "dominance" becomes psychological rather than physical. This differs from heterosexual sex because men are, biologically, always the penetrators in this case (i.e., dominance is primarily physical).

Almost correct. With the heterosexual male, however, I would not concede dominance fully or primarily to the physical attributes of penetration. I just mean that their psychological dominance is grounded more in a physical element than homosexuals.

I can see this, but I do wonder how often that kind of "role-switching" actually occurs among gay men. Without any real evidence to back this up, my hunch would be that the men who submit do so the majority of the time, and the men who penetrate do so the majority of the time. That is, I think they would probably fall into roles that align with their preferences for pleasure. In this sense, I could see the psychology becoming very similar to heterosexuals. But maybe someone can support or refute my speculation on this?

In general, I agree that there are some psychological differences regarding sex between heterosexual and homosexual couples. What I'm unsure about is the extent to which it differs, or for how long.

I would say that it really depends upon the psychology of the individuals. There are some people, called "power-bottoms", who are so completely submissive that they aggressively seek submission. They tend to be very messed up emotionally, very weak, depressed, second-handed, etc. However, in a "healthy" homosexual relationship, I would say that the flip-flopping occurs to the extent that the two individuals are constrained by the traditional gender archetypes. If a relationship is trying very hard to actualize their psychological status according to the heterosexual gender constructs (ie., John is a psychological "bottom", so he makes himself act more effeminately, chooses to watch HGTV over Football, and always demands to be a "bottom"), then I think that not a lot of "flip-flopping" will occur. If a relationship does not try to define itself by these archetypes, however, then I think that the relationship will "flip-flop" much more, as they both are seeking varying and different ways to please their partners.

[JRoberts 0]

My own preference (psychologically; I'll keep the other side of my preferences private ) is more of an even playing field, with occasional lapses of one or the other partner taking charge. I wouldn't want to be with a man who is submissive all the time (I don't think I could fully respect him), but at the same time, I'm too aggressive and strong a personality to be submissive all the time, but I do find pleasure in adopting either role from time to time.

Could it be possible that you are conflating unhealthy submissive psychology with healthy submissive psychology? I would say that Dagny, for example, was submissive (observe her in relation to Galt), yet she was not in any way weak, depraved, disgusting, etc.

[bborg 0]

I do not want to higack this thread either, so I will make my comments short.

Why would you not want a woman that is hard and demanding to achieve as your girl friend or lover? Would you want a job that did not challenge you? Do you enjoy trying to solve problems or overcoming hardships that are not challenging? I have never been able to understand that type of mentality as I have never been able to get excited to do anything that was easy, including achieving a lover. I will concede that it is difficult to obtain a romantic relationship, but that is one of the things that can also make it so rewarding.

I don’t see dating women who are not interested in me, who share none of my interests or whose conversations put me to sleep as a “challenge”. I see it as a pretty big reason to not want to bother, and focus instead on activities where there are actual rewards. Believe me I love a challenge if I think there’s something to be gained. So far, I’ve seen absolutely nothing to look forward to in the relationship department. Maybe that sounds a bit too self-pitying, but I really try not to dwell on it.

[RayK 0]

I do not want to higack this thread either, so I will make my comments short.

Why would you not want a woman that is hard and demanding to achieve as your girl friend or lover? Would you want a job that did not challenge you? Do you enjoy trying to solve problems or overcoming hardships that are not challenging? I have never been able to understand that type of mentality as I have never been able to get excited to do anything that was easy, including achieving a lover. I will concede that it is difficult to obtain a romantic relationship, but that is one of the things that can also make it so rewarding.

I don’t see dating women who are not interested in me, who share none of my interests or whose conversations put me to sleep as a “challenge”. I see it as a pretty big reason to not want to bother, and focus instead on activities where there are actual rewards. Believe me I love a challenge if I think there’s something to be gained. So far, I’ve seen absolutely nothing to look forward to in the relationship department. Maybe that sounds a bit too self-pitying, but I really try not to dwell on it.

I did not mean for you to go after women that you have nothing in common with. Let me try this from a different angle. If you are going to demonstrate to a woman that you are worthy, you have to do just that, demonstrate it. Be a living, talking, walking human example of your values and virtues. If you agree with having courage, get up and show it to her by asking her on a date. Will you be uncomfortable the first time or even the first ten time? No. But, to be a hero or have courage means that you do that which others do not. Obviously you would do this for your primary benefit, but she will never know you are there unless you exemplify that which you state you stand for.

[JRoberts 0]

In general, I think almost everything in human psychology is a combination of all three, at least going from what I can gather from introspection. I think I've talked to you (and to Jason) about this before; it's the reason I consider the standard experimental model to be inappropriate for psychology (free will is a variable that cannot, in principle, be held constant). That's a different topic altogether, though...

I think this highlights the dangers of artificially creating the archetypes "homosexual" and "heterosexual". I believe that some homosexuals have a biological predisposition towards members of their sex, some are drawn towards same sex relationships for psychological reasons (I have read that some women who were sexually abused as children find comfort in relationships with other women because of the horrors they experienced at the hands of "men"), some are drawn towards homosexuality because of curiosity, etc. I have met a few "straight" males who, for some reason or another, had little forays or "crushes" on members of their own sex, and because of this became highly disturbed. Since our modern culture places sexual orientation as an essential attribute of one's self, these "forays" cause immense psychological problems because the person's own identity is seen to be in jeopardy. The person who is normally or biologically attracted to the opposite sex, but has an occasional "crush" or interest with a member of their own sex, thinks that he must automatically be lumped together with the person who was born with a predisposition to members of the same sex.

[RayK 0]

Will you be uncomfortable the first time or even the first ten time? No.

Sorry, the quote from above should read:

Will you be uncomfortable the first time or even the first ten times? Yes.

[JRoberts 0]

Thanks for your insights, Don. I think your post raises some important issues. A primary one for me is that this thread has focused on dominance in terms of the specific act of sex. However, this is just one aspect of a relationship in which dominance plays out. There are many other aspects of relationships in which one person tends to take the lead, and it isn't always the same person who takes the lead in sex. This being said, another speculation I have is that the person in a homosexual relationship who, on balance, takes the lead in most things will also take the lead (dominate) in sex. What do you and others think?

I think this tends to be true. I do not think that it depends upon minor things, such as who chooses where to go out to eat, but rather who is the emotionally dominant individual. I really like Ayn Rand's description of this in her article concerning a female president. While both individuals in a relationship can be strong or healthy, the dominant individuals tends to be the one who does not need to psychologically rely on the strength of another, whereas the more submissive individual tends to need the emotional and psychological strength of the dominant individual. This tends to be played out in emergencies or crisis situations the best.

[bborg 0]

I did not mean for you to go after women that you have nothing in common with. Let me try this from a different angle. If you are going to demonstrate to a woman that you are worthy, you have to do just that, demonstrate it. Be a living, talking, walking human example of your values and virtues. If you agree with having courage, get up and show it to her by asking her on a date. Will you be uncomfortable the first time or even the first ten time? No. But, to be a hero or have courage means that you do that which others do not. Obviously you would do this for your primary benefit, but she will never know you are there unless you exemplify that which you state you stand for.

Well, I don't know how it was for you, but such women don't just fall from the sky into your lap, they're hidden within billions of uninteresting people you have to weed through first. Also, most of them are unavailable. I haven't had a serious love interest in years. But hey, if you can point me in Mrs. bborg's direction, it would be much appreciated.

Anyway, this is a lot more than I had intended to say on the subject. It's a personal matter that hasn't been resolved after many conversations with friends, and it won't be resolved here.

[dondigitalia 0]

Could it be possible that you are conflating unhealthy submissive psychology with healthy submissive psychology? I would say that Dagny, for example, was submissive (observe her in relation to Galt), yet she was not in any way weak, depraved, disgusting, etc.

No. I recognize the difference. I don't view a healthy submissive psychology as weak, depraved, what-have-you; it's just not what I want in a partner. I can see how others would, though. My own psychology would prevent me from fully respecting such a person as a lover. By the same token, though, my own psychology prevents me from taking a submissive role all the time either. But there are times when I want my (hypothetical) partner to make the final decisions and act as a leader, just as there are times when I really have to be in control.