Writer's Block Daily

... the only thing I can say is that the taste of gay men and weird girls are different. I learned that from Sakimichan and a lot of gay friends I have...

Sakimichan is boring... They said...

>_>

<_<

Now, being honest, interesting topic Kegi.

Quoting because pagebottomer.

Even when female characters are increasingly gaining agency, their sexuality seems to be mostly of the passive kind. Part of why I want to give more consent to their sexuality.

A sentence you made is interesting, though. "It's difficult for many people to figure out what sexualization would look like for men, because we see it so rarely." Does that mean male characters are rarely placed in situations where they show sexuality/sexiness without their consent, the way female characters are?

edited 10th Jun '16 9:14:07 PM by hellomoto

To be fair, that "male sexuality" looks more like Naked People Are Funny to me.

edited 10th Jun '16 10:40:33 PM by Tomodachi

As someone who comes from a place where Tom of Finland rivals Mickey Mouse in the abundant merchandise department I don't see male sexualisation that rarely and I do actually know what it looks like. Well, a certain kind of male sexualisation, anyway.

In a way, yes, but in a way, no.

It's also important to note that what the genders find sexy is different as well, which actually goes a fair way to explaining the divide. Not to generalize, but the most common case is that men find physicality and physical features sexy(Which is why "She's there" is sort of enough), whereas women need a bit more emotional investment. I'm inclined to think that a degree of that applies for Gay Men as well.

Now, bear in mind that's what I learned from a 6th grade health class, so it may be a bit bullshit. That having been said, if you look at things like Hot Ryu, it becomes clear that there is more to it than just physical attractiveness. So with that in mind, it could be said that men are placed in a position where their sexiness is on display fairly often, because an element of their sexiness comes from their personality.

It's the physicality that doesn't come into play so much. When men have muscles, the focus tends to be on their power, rather than their sexuality. So in the respect that they're being sexualized/objectified, no, I don't think that comes up very much. An exception to this could be seen in Nightwing. Nightwing wears a skin-tight onsie, and is regularly posed and lit in ways that draw the attention to his groin. Not to mention often partaking in back-breaking feats of acrobatics, which gets some people going in its own right. Even then, it doesn't quite reach the levels of female objectification, which might look something more like this (Warning: Slightly NSFW. No nudity, but sexiness, obvs)

The idea of sexualising someone is about seeing them as a sex object. Looking at gay men is probably not the right place for this, because they are likely to be embracing their sexuality rather than simply being subjected to it. You know, it being imposed upon them by society.

That said, I have always seen there to be two different ways guys can be sexualised. Brawny, like the paper towel mascot, rustic lumberjack with muscles to spare, capable and friendly. And bishie, or androgynous, with both prettiness and handsomeness and a mixed personality.

And I think it does happen quite often. Both types of sexualisation become apparent with the Walking Shirtless Scene.

I also think that being feminine and demonstrating female personality traits is also part of (normal) female sexualisation. Only a small number want to do it with a mannequin. Unfortunately, being submissive is one of these stereotypes. But it is not just 'being there'.

I don't believe in differences between the genders. If there are differences between how the genders sexualise each other, it is not wrong to assume that I am willfully ignoring them.

edited 11th Jun '16 4:39:31 AM by war877

Well, I don't think it's a matter of inherent difference so much as socialization, as far as that goes. That is to say, men are generally taught to focus on one thing and women(And I guess gay men by proxy) on another, in the same way that what physical features find attractive is not inherent(mostly), but learned and cultural.

First thing that comes to my mind is yaoi. Or gay porn that's written for straight females. I may be wrong, but it was the first thought.

Agreed - I believe gender differences are largely a cultural and societal thing.

I've been trying to touch on the differences between how sexualities of females and males are different, but it's hard when many of them feel so natural after years of conditioning...

edited 11th Jun '16 6:09:05 AM by hellomoto

, Was I born and raised under a rock? I have such a non-standard view on the world.

Fictional gay people may very well have gender stereotypes applied to them. It is the real world gay men who I was saying are likely to embrace their identity.

Speaking as another person with... similar tastes to Kegisak, I think it's worth examining the difference in the fetishisation of the (hyper)masculine male body and that of more androgynous male bodies in greater depth. Both have long histories, within and without the niche area of queer male desire in the modern Western world, and both reflect different societies' ideas about gender and sexuality in their own ways, but are more sharply distinct than most comparably different objectifying sexual portrayals of women.

Being a straight woman with a pretty high threshold for fanservice, I agree with war877. There's a growing trend people have noticed that unless there's women or obliging men on the creative team who know that women like fanservice as much as men, we basically have to scavenge for it.

A shocking amount of the US media still thinks that All Women Are Prudes, if they even think about women's desires at all. At best, people kill two birds with one stone and go "time for the training montage—hey, [Actor], take your shirt off for the ladies!" At worst, they don't even realize that women have sex drives (re: All Women Are Prudes) and the training montage is just a training montage, but with a bonus for those who like watching hot guys work up a sweat. That's probably why a lot of Fanservice scenes about men have the guy actually doing things. Meanwhile, fanservice about women at its most gratuitous falls into "ridiculous close-ups" or "oh, the guys are staring at [Actress]'s butt/legs/chest—free bathroom break!"

edited 15th Jun '16 2:05:32 PM by Sharysa

Trying to find a way to give a couple lots of chemistry as friends, but little to no romantic chemistry, so that when they try romance and break it off because they both think they're Better as Friends, it feels plausible.

They share hobbies and have similar personalities. They bonded over the hobbies first. They hate each other's taste in cooking and entertainment and interior decor.

That's it. I don't really know the difference between romantic and non-romantic interest.

Would a Like Brother and Sister vibe work?

I recently read a Kafka short story. "The truth about Sancho Panza". In it, he said that it was Sancho who put Alonso Quijano in his madness, giving him the books so he could go mad, because Alonso Quijano was a demon.

I kinda read it like a silly creepypasta. Truly, Kafka liked his comedy just like us.

edited 17th Jun '16 1:36:52 PM by Tomodachi

I've been gone for a while.

If my post that could've explained it hadn't been thumped, it would be much easier to explain why.

But it was, so I'll just have to say it was because I almost died IRL.

Edit: In my last post, I mentioned I never learned TVT's code language or etiquette because I have a case of Bipolar Disorder that's so bad, I can easily die from exhaustion if I don't regulate it well enough, so I often disappear from web communities for long periods of time at random. I believe it was thumped because the mods thought I was insulting This Wiki. Nope. That's just a thing that literally happens sometimes.

I spent a lot of the last two weeks in the hospital.

edited 20th Jun '16 4:23:59 AM by Wheezy

I'm sorry things ended that way, but what do you mean by 'code language'? The unspoken rules of a community? Something else?

TV Tropes's markup is sort of a punctuation-based Wingdinglish, so I'm always forgetting how many apostrophes and brackets go where.

This makes it hard for me to write "tone of voice" in my posts without having to resort to potholing things like Sarcasm Mode and Sincerity Mode. And I haven't done a Wiki Walk in years, so my knowledge of what to pothole stops somewhere around 2011.

...So I usually don't bother, which is often misinterpreted or seen as rude. (E.g.: Everyone thinking I was just being a Jerkass when I said I refuse to argue about my religious beliefs on forums because it always causes Internet Backdraft.)

edited 20th Jun '16 4:35:21 AM by Wheezy

The thumps were not because you were seen as insulting the wiki. If you look back, those posts that said you are better than this explained the reason.

Anyway, if you want to get dramatic, you can just drop the occasional emoticon.

Sorry to hear about that. Glad to hear you are ok!

Saw 10 Cloverfield Lane. It's good and scary. How scary? It can make the image of John Goodman with ice cream one of the most unnerving things ever.

: Thanks.

I refuse to use emoticons because I'm a strange form of Grammar Nazi, but I should probably just resist the temptation to post Flame Bait from now on.

edited 24th Jun '16 6:16:16 AM by Wheezy

I'm great at making characters and settings, but I have a really rough time coming up with compelling plots and conflicts. Yeah, I think about what the characters want and things I can use from the setting, but the plots I think of are dull and/or stupidly simple. Argh.

I have a similar problem, which usually results in me having like twenty different characters without knowing how any of them factor into the plot. I'm slowly figuring out how I want things to go, though, and I've actually started outlining the story.

Simple plots are perfectly OK, and even preferable in certain action-oriented genres.