Actually she looks like butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth, though the quarter of an inch haircut doesn’t help. Oh, and I neglected to say she rides a Harley. (really)
I’ll start with the sibling thing. My brother is straight and homophobic. Though, he did handle my coming out to him better than I expected. It consisted of two questions: 1. How long have you known? 2. How did mom react when she found out? After that, he asked me about the rest of my travel plans for my vacation back in the States. Come to think of it, maybe he was subtly telling me he wanted me to leave town as soon as possible. 
My bf’s cousin (on his father’s side) is gay. And, there is one cousin on his mother’s side I think might be. However, my bf doesn’t agree and thinks it might just be because I think he’s a cutey. 
As for “metrosexuals” being real or not… I think they are. However, they didn’t start in NYC or anywhere else in the West. From what I’ve seen, they’ve been here in Taiwan (and probably Asia) for years. Just look at how many straight guys carry “purse-like” bags, use products from places like Body Shop, wear designer clothes, etc…
In my opinion, culturally, the Taiwanese (Chinese? Asians?) have a less distinct concept of the difference between what is “masculine” and what is “feminine” than the West. So, what for many years was considered “girly” for straight, western guys, was/is considered normal for straight guys here. Therefore, the emergence of the, basically, “gay-acting straight guy” or metrosexual in the West has been met with some astonishment and fanfare, since it is such a “different” concept.
Finally, Magnolia, I think the reason that “gay” and “queer” don’t bother me as much, aside from the fact that I heard them less growing up, is that they have meanings other than as references to homosexuals. Gay, of course, originally meant happy, fun, etc… “We had a very gay time tonight, thanks.” And, as was mentioned in the article, queer meant strange or odd.
However, in the US at least, we don’t think of “fag” having any other meaning. I know in the UK it is sort of a slang for cigarette. And, the longer version, “faggot,” meaning a bunch of sticks (though, do you still use it that way?). These words are rarely if ever used those ways.
Now… a question of my own for anyone who can answer it. “Homosexual” is, of course, used to refer to both men and women. “Queer,” as well, is used for both sexes. “Lesbian,” as we know, is used for women only. Growing up, I always thought “gay” was for men only. However, recently it seems that gay can, and is, used to refer to both men and women. Magnolia even used it in his post, referring to him and his sister being gay.
Why is it that “gay” has turned into a general word and there is no longer an exclusive single word for gay men? I know it doesn’t really matter. But, I guess my question is really: If gay is now a general term, why do we usually refer to lesbians and gay men? Why not gay women and gay men? Or, why don’t we come up with another (non-derogatory) word for men? We could have lesbians and nesbians? Or, some such? :? Just wondering…
By the way… my bf’s cousin’s bf (did you get that?) refuses to call himself “gay.” He says, “I am not gay, I am a Ho-mo-sex-ual.” He even draws out the word like that. We’ve never been able to get a straight (pardon the use of that word 
) answer out of him as to why. Needless to say, whatever he calls himself, he seems to like… ah… penis as much as the next gay man. 
If the ad-agency-fabrication ‘metrosexual’ is being used, as much as I hate it, as a term for straight men who indulge in stereotypically homosexual behavior, (not unline so-called ‘wiggers’, aka white guys who try to look and behave according to black stereotypes), then what is the term, if there is one, for homosexual men who don’t engage in stereotypically homosexual behavior, i.e. the vast majority of homosexuals?
As for terminology, I personally have always preferred ‘mo’. As either an adjective or noun, it works.
[quote=“Poagao”]If the ad-agency-fabrication ‘metrosexual’ is being used, as much as I hate it, as a term for straight men who indulge in stereotypically homosexual behavior, (not unline so-called ‘wiggers’, aka white guys who try to look and behave according to black stereotypes), then what is the term, if there is one, for homosexual men who don’t engage in stereotypically homosexual behavior, i.e. the vast majority of homosexuals?
As for terminology, I personally have always preferred ‘mo’. As either an adjective or noun, it works.[/quote]
Does anyone know why they use “metrosexual,” other than the obvious similarity to “heterosexual?” I heard it was because the trend supposedly started (or was first noticed) in the greater NYC metropolitan area. Though, Poagao, I’m sure you are right.
I never received my “Gay Man’s Handbook and Dictionary” when I “joined up.” 
I’ve had to learn a lot of terms, and such, through experience. So, I may have missed something. However, my friends and I always referred to straight men who engaged in stereotypical gay behavior as “gay-acting straight men.” Conversely, gay men who acted less stereotypical and more “straight” were referred to as straight-acting gay men. In fact, in many online profiles, chatrooms, etc… many guys will make a point of stating how “straight-acting” they are. It’s really annoying.
Maybe Mags and CQ have different terms I don’t know about. We could, I guess, always coin something. Maybe we’ll start a trend. How about GASMs and SAGMs (pronounced Sag-ums)?
[quote=“QuietMountain”] In fact, in many online profiles, chatrooms, etc… many guys will make a point of stating how “straight-acting” they are. It’s really annoying.
[/quote]
Yes, and then you meet them and they are just as queeny and closeted as can be.
I don’t see the need, most of the time, to connect effeminate behavior with sexuality. Yeah, sure, a lot of mo’s are effeminate, but then so are a lot of 'teros. Same goes for so-called ‘butch’ behavior. People are people; you get all types. I never tell anyone that I’m ‘straight-acting’; anyone who saw me in that play I did once can tell you I’m a terrible actor.
[quote=“Poagao”]I don’t see the need, most of the time, to connect effeminate behavior with sexuality.[quote]
Well, I usually don’t see the need to connect any type of behavior with sexuality. The behaviors that most people associate with either gay or straight men (and women) are just stereotypes anyway. Sure, there are those who act that way. However, there are just as many who don’t.
You asked for a term, though, so I was just trying to fill your request.
My point exactly.
By the way, my favorite term for straight people, though I only use it in jest, is “breeder.” A lesbian friend of mine used to refer to straights that way. Always made me chuckle. 
Yeah, I know, I wasn’t trying to be argumentative. Sorry if it seemed that way. It was more of a rhetorical question; I should have written it in a clearer fashion. My whole point on the ‘metrosexual’ thing is: why pander to stereotypes on either side?
I didn’t think you were trying to argumentative. 
But, I completely missed the rhetorical thing. :? As for the pandering… I can only speak for the US. We love to pander… it’s one of the things we do best.
I, on the other hand, love pandas… well, actually, most types of bears. And, I ain’t talking about the kind you find in the woods. If ya know what I mean, Ms. Thang.
Sheesh… I didn’t mean to bring this thread to a screeching halt. It’s been like 2 days without a post. :shock:
The mods will definitely not let us have a gay/lesbian forum if all conversation just stops. 
So, let me see if I can regenerate it.
As I said, I never received my handbook and dicktionary when I “signed up.” So, please help me update my dicktionary. Here are some words I already know:
- Bear - hairy man; usually taller and of muscular, stocky, chubby or fat build.
- Otter - hairy man; usually of lean to slim build.
- Cub - hairy man; usually younger and/or shorter in statue, but the build of a bear.
- Panda - the rare, but existent, Asian bear; usually with a build similar to a bear, though generally less hair (though, hairy for the average asian). This is my own word, I think. But, I could have heard it from somewhere, I guess.
- Rice - An Asian man
- Potato - A Caucasian man
- Rice Queen - a non-Asian man, usually white, who likes Asian men exclusively.
- Potato Queen - a man, usually, but not always, non-Caucasian, who likes Caucasian men exclusively.
- Sticky Rice - an Asian man who likes other Asian men exclusively.
- Rootbeer - A same-sex couple consisting of an Asian and a Caucasian. Comes from Asian & White = A&W = A&W Rootbeer (in America) = Rootbeer. Again, my own creation… as far as I know.
Ok… add your own. However, remember there are ladies present (though, they aren’t always women ). So, be careful of your language.
[quote=“QuietMountain”]As I said, I never received my handbook and dicktionary when I “signed up.” So, please help me update my dicktionary. Here are some words I already know:
- Bear - hairy man; usually taller and of muscular, stocky, chubby or fat build.
- Otter - hairy man; usually of lean to slim build.
- Cub - hairy man; usually younger and/or shorter in statue, but the build of a bear.
- Panda - the rare, but existent, Asian bear; usually with a build similar to a bear, though generally less hair (though, hairy for the average Asian). This is my own word, I think. But, I could have heard it from somewhere, I guess.
- Rice - An Asian man
- Potato - A Caucasian man
- Rice Queen - a non-Asian man, usually white, who likes Asian men exclusively.
- Potato Queen - a man, usually, but not always, non-Caucasian, who likes Caucasian men exclusively.
- Sticky Rice - an Asian man who likes other Asian men exclusively.
- Rootbeer - A same-sex couple consisting of an Asian and a Caucasian. Comes from Asian & White = A&W = A&W Rootbeer (in America) = Rootbeer. Again, my own creation… as far as I know.
Ok… add your own. However, remember there are ladies present (though, they aren’t always women ). So, be careful of your language. :P[/quote]
Be glad you never got your handbook, because I think labels such as these are incredibly shallow and stupid. My definition of Potato Queen, Rice Queen or Sticky Rice would all be “neurotic and shallow gay man who needs to get out and experience more”. Bear, however, does seem to have a nice, universal vibe to it.
But, since we are going to use labels, perhaps someone can clue me in on labels for these types that I’ve noticed:
-
Older 30-40 somethings that date Taiwanese guys in their 20s. 30s-40s seems too young to call them chickenhawks. Cradlerobbers sounds too hetero.
-
Taiwanese gay men that have maybe been abroad once in their life, but are totally infatuated with Western everything, speak English, and go out of their way to befriend every single male foreignor they see. I know in Chinese there’s a word for it, but can’t remember it.
Totally agree about the labels. (yawn). Boring. I remember straight classmates in college asking me about the liner notes to Henry David Hwang’s (sp?) M Butterfly (in which he gives the definitions for Rice Queen etc.). I remember being mortified. And that was like 10 years ago.
These definitions were created by people who were obviously upset about not getting any play. (ie: GWM#1 berates GWM#2 for dating a GAM because GWM#1 wants to be with GWM#2, who is not interested. Hence the birth of “Rice Queen”).
These terms are particularly silly in Taiwan, where white men are most likely going to be with Asian men. That’s pure statistics. It would suck to be a foreigner here and not be attracted to Asians at all. AND… speaking from personal experience, I haven’t exactly met a huge number of quality white guys who were (1) gay, (2) interested in me.
[quote=“Flicka”]But, since we are going to use labels, perhaps someone can clue me in on labels for these types that I’ve noticed:
-
Older 30-40 somethings that date Taiwanese guys in their 20s. 30s-40s seems too young to call them chickenhawks. Cradlerobbers sounds too hetero.
-
Taiwanese gay men that have maybe been abroad once in their life, but are totally infatuated with Western everything, speak English, and go out of their way to befriend every single male foreignor they see. I know in Chinese there’s a word for it, but can’t remember it.[/quote]
How about the white guys in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s (gasp!) who I’ve seen out and about with guys who look no older than 15 or 16 … what would you call that, other than “illegal”? :shock:
As for number two, the only Chinese term I can think of would be
Sheesh… With all the strong feelings, I’m almost sorry I mentioned it. 
But, at least it got you all talking again.
Let me ask you Flicka, why do you say that people who use or go by these terms are "neurotic and shallow’ and “need (sic) to get out and experience more?” Isn’t that a little judgemental of you to assume that someone who uses a label, for whatever reason is inexperienced, neurotic and shallow? Just asking, 'cause that statement seems pretty shallow to me.
[quote]Bear, however, does seem to have a nice, universal vibe to it.
But, since we are going to use labels, perhaps someone can clue me in on labels for these types that I’ve noticed:
-
Older 30-40 somethings that date Taiwanese guys in their 20s. 30s-40s seems too young to call them chickenhawks. Cradlerobbers sounds too hetero.
-
Taiwanese gay men that have maybe been abroad once in their life, but are totally infatuated with Western everything, speak English, and go out of their way to befriend every single male foreignor they see. I know in Chinese there’s a word for it, but can’t remember it.[/quote]
I’m also curious as to why, if labels bother you so much, you think "bear’ has a “vibe to it.” :?: What makes that label different from all the rest. And, again, if you don’t care for labels. Why in the hell would you care what the “types” you’ve noticed are called? And, the excuse, “But, since we are going to use labels…” does not work. If you truly hated labels and thought their use was “neurotic and shallow” you wouldn’t need to know.
Finally, why do you hate labels so much? Haven’t you realized that we label and categorize people every day? What do you think “foreigner,” “Taiwanese”, “gay”, “straight” and even, “neurotic” and “shallow” are? Labels… ways of organzing and ordering the world and/or of making it easier to communicate.
For example, it is not… “See that guy over there who is not an original inhabitant of this island, nor is he biologically related to the later inhabitants of this island, most of whom came here from China?” But, “See that foreign guy over there?” Categories and labels are used constantly, everyday. It’s just that 'foreigner," “Taiwnese”, etc… are more common so you don’t even think about them.
Mortified? 
Ok, I’ll give you the advice a drag queen once gave me: Jeez… lighten up!
I posted these for fun. You know… F-U-N!!! While some may, and probably do, take them too seriously, they are and can be used for fun. Just like when you make some comment about your friend’s clothes and he calls you a “bitch.”
Well, that’s cynical. Does it matter why they were created?
This quote and the above “not getting any play quote” make me wonder if you are a GWM (which is gasp :shock: a label itself) who was spurned by a “rice queen” you were interested in. Or, a GAM who is just bitter that all the “rice queens” in Taiwan aren’t interested in him.
But, that’s not important… Though your observation about the statistics of white men vs. asian men, and the ensuing need for white guys to date asian guys is “on the money,” as they say, I don’t think the terms are silly for Taiwan.
As I told Flicka, these terms, like other labels, can make communication easier. If a foreign friend shows interest in an asian guy, I can just say to him “sticky” and he knows what I mean. I don’t have to say, “Sorry, John, don’t waste your time. He only likes other Asian guys.” Or, if I ask a Taiwanese friend what kind of foreigner he likes, he can say, “bear.” And, I’ll have a good idea of his type, without him having to go into a long description.
Now, before anyone protests, I’m not saying that these terms describe the totality of a person. As human beings we all are more complex then just one or two terms can ever hope to describe us. I am not just “gay.” I am not just a “bear.” I am not just a “foreigner.” I am all those things and more. In general, I don’t like labelling people anymore than you all seem to. But, it does make things easier. And, again, it can be F-U-N… FUN!!!
I was mortified because the thought of bunches of straight people running around saying “He’s a rice queen”, “He’s a potato queen” is pretty disturbing.
Fun is fine. I have fun. This is not fun. Labels are never productive. And they are only fun when you are doing the labeling. Think outside of the box, QM! Live outside of the box! Think/live outside of the labels!
Of course. Does it matter why the word “queer” was created?
[quote]This quote and the above “not getting any play quote” make me wonder if you are a GWM (which is gasp :shock: a label itself) who was spurned by a “rice queen” you were interested in. Or, a GAM who is just bitter that all the “rice queens” in Taiwan aren’t interested in him.
[/quote]
Wrong, and wrong again. If you re-read my post, you’ll discover that I’m someone who is often labeled incorrectly. I’m happily involved in a 5 year relationship, though, so I don’t care as much these days. But it still does irk me when people insinuate that I am with my bf because of the color of his skin and my “preference” (or he is with me because of the color of my skin and his “preference.”) Very, very boring. In the US I was attracted to (and sometimes with) black/white/Asian/hispanic men. Nobody ever assumed I was with these men because of any reason other than we liked one another and were attracted to one another.
Yes, GWM and GAM are labels. But I used them in a hypothetical situation, not to refer to actual people.
Sure. If you label someone correctly. But what if you don’t? What if people don’t fit in the labels? Get to know people better and you won’t need labels. Until then, have as much F-U-N as you want! 
Would you have found it as disturbing if gay people were saying it? Or, do you always find it disturbing, no matter who?
I disagree, I think labels can have a use and a place. The problem comes when we use that one label as the be-all-end-all definition of who someone is. As I said earlier, we are too complex for that.
Just because I don’t find labels as distasteful as you, that doesn’t mean I live “inside a box.” That’s a value judgement on your part based on your own background and beliefs. Why must you judge me as being more sheltered, or less open-minded, or less flexible in my thinking, etc… just because I don’t agree with you that labels are the “scourge of the universe.” Yeah, yeah… I know you didn’t say it that way. Just using “literary license.”
Of course. Does it matter why the word “queer” was created?[/quote]
First of all, “queer” was created to mean “strange or odd.” Queer was co-opted to mean gay later. However, I get your point. Though, I’m still not sure I agree with it. Queer is a term that was chosen to be derogatory by straight people that were uncomfortable with gay people. The other terms we have been mentioning were created by other gay people. And, though they can be fun to use (at least I think so), they were not created to (necessarily) make fun of others. Though, I do admit they can be used that way. It’s the same as why n****r is ok for one black person to call another, but not alright for a white person to call a black person.
I’m not sure whether you meant to say I should re-read your posts or post. 'Cause I just re-read your first post on this topic, and I still don’t see where you say you are often mis-labeled. Maybe I missed something, living in my box. Perhaps you meant all of your previous posts over the last few weeks/months.
If these people thought that you were only with your bf because of his skin color or because you preferred a certain ethnic group, then I can see why it irks you. Though, are you saying that you do not have preferences when it comes to ethnicity of your potential partners? If so, you are unusual among most people (gay and straight) I meet. I think everyone has preferences to some degree. All else being equal, we’d probably chose one ethnic group over another.
However, they are just that… preferences… and, all things are never equal. So, being open to someone, even though he (or she) is not within your normal preferences (whether that is ethnicity or hair color) is certainly a positive thing.
A flawed and, yes, irksome assumption, to say the least.
You’ve never used them… ever? So, how do you refer to actual people? 'Cause I also said that “gay”, “straight”, “foreigner”, etc… are also labels. Which labels, in your mind, are considered acceptable and which aren’t. And, if none of them are acceptable to you… how do you communicate?
Yes, I agree, you should get to know people better. However, I don’t think knowing people better will remove the need for labels. In fact, you should only use labels to describe someone you know well. That way you can ensure that the labels are more accurate. You should never label someone you don’t know. That’s just silly.
Besides, as I’ve tried to say, we use labels everyday in so many ways. The point is to not define someone’s totality by labels. And, when evidence arises to contradict a label you may have in your mind for someone, get rid of that label and/or change it.
Scooter, I am not trying to be argumentative or difficult. And, if you think I’ve been insulting to you or your beliefs anywhere in here (or that I’ve labeled you incorrectly), I apologize. I am asking this to find out more about you and the way you think. To find out why you feel that labels are so horrible. Despite what you may think from my post, I don’t go around thinking of people as a bunch of labels. However, I’m not above using them, if I know the person well enough to know the label fits and it makes it easier to describe someone and/or communicate.
Labels can be difficult, but you just have to learn to accept it and not take it too seriously. Case in point … my BF has never dated a white guy before me, and was never really interested in them except for pointing at advertisements and saying “oh, he’s hot!”. So now, with me, he’s constantly worried that his friends are going to think he’s just with me because I’m a white guy or to show me off. I think the fact that he’s dated lots of Taiwanese guys and never a white guy before should be enough for them to realize that’s not the case … but Taiwanese gay guys can be pretty shallow. Also, he looooves calling me his “attogah” (which I would find offensive from your everyday betel nut chewing yokel, but from him it sounds cute and endaring), and I have a variety of names I call him … sure they’re labels, but when they’re meant to be endearing or affectionate, they don’t have to always be insulting … like the Taiwanese love to say “bie xiang tai duo! (don’t think too much!)” 
I’ll let you know later. I am really hungover right now. Oh, now I remember. It bothers me when people assume I only like Asians just because I am in Asia. I don’t like being pigeonholed. All men are hot no matter what the color. And I don’t think humans are that simple.
Perhaps it is just me. The terms “potato” and “rice” just remind of the lame people I used to hang around with here when I was in my 20s, you know, in the days of Tchaikovsky. Or maybe Rice Queen and Potato, Stick Rice, etc., just reminds of Taiwanese men who throw around these words in front of foreigners to show that they are (erroneously) in on gay speak.
Bear seems to be like a universal term that does not denote race. But I think Camille Paglia said it best: “In their defiant hirsutism, gay bears are more virile than the generic bubble-butt junior stud, since body hair is stimulated by testosterone. But the bears’ fatness resembles not the warlike Viking mass of a Hell’s angel but the capacious bosom of the earth mother. The gay Bear is simultaneously animalistic and nurturing, a romp in the wild followed by nap time on a comfy cushion.”
Yes, I know. But for some reason “Rice Queen” and “Potato Queen” seems so silly. How about “he prefers Asians”? Or how about just not saying anything? I think labels such as these are not being used to organize and order the world, but to spread hate and separation.
Calling someone neurotic for being infatuated with only one type of race is a different matter. It is the brain that counts the most in sex and relationships, not the color of skin it is housed in.
Labels make it easier to communicate but also make it easy to convey the wrong information. How many people have called me a “Rice Queen” when I am anything but?