primitive brings up gay stereotypes

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113734488

Oh my.

I wonder why Wills, the "William769" primitive, didn't post this first, as it seems something right up his one-issue one-track alley.

Anyway, of course read the post, but at the same time, what's said in the post isn't the reason I brought this over; I brought this over because of the term in bold near the end.

xchrom (99,296 posts)    Tue Jan 14, 2014, 08:41 AM

Penis politics: Sex, size and stereotypes in the gay community

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/penis_politics_sex_size_and_stereotypes_in_the_gay_community/
 
Recent studies have shown that actual penis size is smaller than men are claiming. According to the Journal of Sexual Medicine, the average male penis measures 5.6 inches when erect; the Journal of Urology puts it at a slightly smaller 5.08 inches. This is considerably smaller than previous numbers from Alfred Kinsey, Durex and the Definitive Penis study, which averaged 6.25 inches in their estimates. The difference between the two estimates: surveys like Durex’s rely on self-reporting, and men are likely to overestimate. As Tom Hickman wrote in “God’s Doodle”: “What is incontrovertible is that where men and their penises are concerned there are lies, damned lies, and self measurements.”
 
Just ask any gay man looking for a hook-up on Grindr. “If a guy tells you his size and you meet up, you realize he must have a different ruler,” said Noah Michelson, editor of The Huffington Post’s Gay Voices section. Michelson believes that the reason men are likely to overreport their penis size is because of the “cultural currency” the gay community places on having a large penis. “I think there’s something to do with internalized homophobia or insecurities about being a man,” Michelson said. “You want to have a big dick and you want to be with a big dick. You want to be with a ‘man.’”
 
Michelson argued it’s not just about having a large penis; it’s what that penis signifies. “Having a big dick means that you’re ‘masculine’ and you wield a lot of power, because we assign so much power to the phallus itself,” he told me. “You’re a dominator and a conqueror.” Michelson said that this idea is largely informed by pornography, a strong force in shaping desire in the gay community; but for those who don’t fit into that “porn culture,” it leads to a feeling of being left out. “It’s totally a lottery,” Michelson explained. “And you either win it or you don’t.”
 
According to Jaime Woo, author of the book “Meet Grindr,” which explores how men interact on mobile hookup applications, that game can have very negative consequences for queer men who find themselves on the losing side. That’s why the size issue can seem even more fraught in the gay community than among heterosexuals. “In gay male culture, your sexual worth is very tied to your worth in the community overall,” Woo said. “We don’t have a lot of structure in place for men who aren’t sexually valuable, and they disappear into the background. Gay men have enough issues already, and this is just another way for them to feel bad about themselves, if they’re not packing eight inches under their pants.”

For some reason, the term in bold, well, it sort of upsets me.

What is this "sexually valuable" thing?

I suspect it implies that gay men are interested in only one thing.

[Big Dog]

That was more information about homosexuals than I ever needed to know.

[franksolich]

That was more information about homosexuals than I ever needed to know.

Yeah.

But I'm greatly disturbed at this idea of "sexually valuable," as if people are commodities only for sex, and nothing more.

That term, "sexually valuable," for some reason bothers me.

[Dori]

That term, "sexually valuable," for some reason bothers me.

A lot of that community is very promiscuous.  It doesn't surprise me that they only value each other according to their physical attributes.

Gross. 

[franksolich]

A lot of that community is very promiscuous.  It doesn't surprise me that they only value each other according to their physical attributes.

Gross. 

I was never one of those who figured that gays were interested in only one thing; I just generally assumed that like all other people, while of course they had their sexual preferences, they had other interests in life too.

And I'm saying this as someone who's known gay people.

I've held onto that attitude even though one-track, one-issue Wills, the "William769" primitive, has been doing his best to prove me wrong; that gays are interested in only one thing.

Now comes this term, "sexually valuable."

<<<has never even thought of women in this way.

So perhaps the critics of gays are right; they're interested in only one thing, and one thing only, nothing else.

[Big Dog]

The Ku Klux Klams should turn their gaze to the sexual objectification of homosexual men by other homosexual men.

[BattleHymn]

That thread is pretty gay.

[JohnnyReb]

Next question, is Obama sexually valuable?....Nawh....I don't think so.

[Freeper]

Next question, is Obama sexually valuable?....Nawh....I don't think so.

Considering he's the one screwing us, it's not relevant anyway.

[Big Dog]

Next question, is Obama sexually valuable?....Nawh....I don't think so.

King Hussein serves his purpose.

Some are the train, and some are the tunnel.

[Big Dog]

Considering he's the one screwing us, it's not relevant anyway.

[JohnnyReb]

If "IT" is that long, I imagine "IT" makes a lot of difference.

[Big Dog]

If "IT" is that long, I imagine "IT" makes a lot of difference.

I believe 'IT' would qualify as sexually valuable.