Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: I want/need emotions Message-ID: <1658@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Fri, 3-Jan-86 11:57:10 EST Article-I.D.: bbncca.1658 Posted: Fri Jan 3 11:57:10 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jan-86 05:20:18 EST References: <227@decwrl.DEC.COM> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 26 Frankly, I think this description of emotional inhibition applies to gay men as well, though maybe with lesser force for some. It can be seen in a lot of behavior in public (bars, social events, meetings, etc.) and private (please fill in here). More importantly, it goes deeper than surface conduct and affects things that underlie personalities (basic attitudes, drives, potentials): I think many of the manifold problems that typically affect/afflict gay male relationships, parti- cularly intimate ones, ultimately stem from the constraints of the male version of gender role, ie, a gay male relationship is problematic precisely because men are difficult to relate to. Period. You all know of gay male friends who at various points in their lives have opted to live or primarily associate with a woman (women). These relationships often are fairly intense emotionally, and even sexual. While the most often cited justification for them may be to be temporarily free of the sexual tension and conflict generated by the company of other gay males, I think an equally (more?) important reason is to lessen the difficulty of achieving emotional intimacy by choosing a partner (female) much more adept at intimacy and emotional expression. And I don't think that even a ferocious adoption of androgyny, drag, gender fuck, etc. necessarily frees an individual of the strongest constraints of the male role. It goes much deeper than mere "acting out." Certainly simply being PC won't do the trick, either. Cheers, Ron Rizzo