Beta NF and being gay

[Satan]

So on stickam today there were all these Beta NFs .. mostly INFps, except one ENFj.

And so I was thinking, sometimes it seems like INFp guys are kind of "gay" in a way that's kind of "acceptable" - but like association wise, it seems to keep coming back to this.

So anyway -

All you male NFs out there - would you consider yourself gay? How do you feel about other people seeing you, or considering you as gay. Do you find that you get closer to other guys than others, and that because of such people can consider you gay?

[07490]

So on stickam today there were all these Beta NFs .. mostly INFps, except one ENFj.

And so I was thinking, sometimes it seems like INFp guys are kind of "gay" in a way that's kind of "acceptable" - but like association wise, it seems to keep coming back to this.

So anyway -

All you male NFs out there - would you consider yourself gay? How do you feel about other people seeing you, or considering you as gay. Do you find that you get closer to other guys than others, and that because of such people can consider you gay?

Well I do not care being label gay if I am one, you almost certainly need to be honest to yourself about your feeling. I think Beta NF have a thiner psychological barrier when it comes to non-traditional things because NI tell us the overall picture of the situations, and there no shame to hide it. it is just a struggle to mask your true identity. and of course the Fe emotions will show you how we feel.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Everybody's gay, silly. It's just a matter of degree. I'd say beta nf might be the obviously gay or something. I don't know. I think people have preconceived notions of me. I was told how feminine my mannerisms are. Well gay men are probably born with different brains. I don't know. I get confused messages from straight people. Like 'you don't look gay or talk gay.' But then 'You walk gay.' I'm just acting like myself, I don't know what to tell people. =)

Gay men are most likely a third gender though, neither feminine or masculine.... I think it's a beast on its own. I think that term is the most accurate.

And so I was thinking, sometimes it seems like INFp guys are kind of "gay" in a way that's kind of "acceptable"

What are you talking about exactly? Being gay is still not acceptable somewhere? Give me their address so I can beat them up.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Well I do not care being label gay if I am one, you almost certainly need to be honest to yourself about your feeling. I think Beta NF have a thiner psychological barrier when it comes to non-traditional things because NI tell us the overall picture of the situations, and there no shame to hide it. it is just a struggle to mask your true identity. and of course the Fe emotions will show you how we feel.

That's not a bad way to look at it.

And I'm not trying to be difficult here, but it's homophobic to refer to homosexuality as a 'non-traditional' thing because we've been here since before the word 'tradition' was thought up. I get what you mean though.

[Elro]

What are you talking about exactly? Being gay is still not acceptable somewhere? Give me their address so I can beat them up.

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Haha.

I'll call Larry Kramer and his boys up right now.

[dbmmama]

Everybody's gay, silly. It's just a matter of degree.

+1

[JuJu]

So on stickam today there were all these Beta NFs .. mostly INFps, except one ENFj.

And so I was thinking, sometimes it seems like INFp guys are kind of "gay" in a way that's kind of "acceptable" - but like association wise, it seems to keep coming back to this.

So anyway -

All you male NFs out there - would you consider yourself gay? How do you feel about other people seeing you, or considering you as gay. Do you find that you get closer to other guys than others, and that because of such people can consider you gay?

If by "gay," you mean artistic, empathetic, and somewhat emo... Yeah, I agree... Beta NFs are probably the types most often associated with this behavior, (along w/ ISFps.)

If by gay you mean, not attracted to women--disagree.

I don't care if ppl consider me gay... At all... I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay in either way described... I don't identify with 'gay,' but I don't identify w/ any label like that.... It's too limiting.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Satan]

Hmm. I'm not. Even a little. Maybe you mean that in some way that I don't understand, but I think of being gay as being sexually attracted in some way to your same sex. I don't have any feelings that way for women, and never have.

Have you ever kissed another girl?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Park]

nope.

Are you interested (in progress)?

[Trevor]

yeah, INFps are in some way gayish. Of course, this doesn't mean that they are gays.

[JuJu]

lol, the gay thing on stickam was fun.

Honestly, I do think a lot of IEI's give off the 'gay' vibe, including the females. I don't know why, but they just do. Maybe its because IEI's seem so unlimited and open with emotion and expression. IEI's also have a tendency to be touchy-feely with everyone. The males are usually attractive in an almost femininely beautiful way, and the females have that strangely mysterious air that lingers about them, like you'd just question their sexuality along with everything else. Same goes for EIE males, but with EIE females not so much.

I've never been attracted to woman, myself, and I could never see myself with one. Simply put, the sexual feelings are just totally absent when it comes to girls. I develop strong friendships with them, and that's as far as it goes; it's what they're there for; otherwise it'd feel wrong and awkward. If I found one attractive enough to date for some reason, I doubt I'd have an issue with it, but that's never happened. A lot of people have assumed that I was gay/bi; I think for some reason I give off that vibe. People joke about my sexuality a lot, and I don't have a problem with it. I've been hit on by a lot of lesbians (lol, gay bars), and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't awkward to be hit on by a woman as if she were a guy, but I was always polite about it. I've never seen anything wrong with homosexuality; I mean, whatever floats your boat.

This is really well-put. (Hi Starfall!)

Are you interested (in progress)?

LOL!! Reminds me of a quote I saw yesterday... "Call me retro; I'm still hetero." -- David Lee Roth.

[Khola aka Bee]

Merky just wants all the beta NF men to be gay for his own devices. Oh snap.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Diana and Allie: You can find your own body attractive can't you? Technically maybe it's so small you don't even notice it or feel it and can't be conscience of it. But our DNA is closest to the bonobos who are innately bisexual in nature (not civilization) so to me that is the most correct. But as soon as you build any sort of politics or laws, sexuality is gonna get fucked up.

If by "gay," you mean artistic, empathetic, and somewhat emo... Yeah, I agree... Beta NFs are probably the types most often associated with this behavior, (along w/ ISFps.)

I'm not artistic by any stretch of the imagination, but I am definitely empathetic and somewhat emo. And lol juju you're too hot for me not to have a gay boycrush on you. Please be my online boyfriend. NOM NOM NOM NOM.

I'm a big tease though, I'm not ready to commit. To be honest I just want you for your hot ass.

[Creepy-]

I say the guy she's describing is INFp

[JuJu]

Please be my online boyfriend. NOM NOM NOM NOM.

I'll be your online boyfriend... Just don't tell my IRL gf.

And yeah, it's cool if it's just sex. (DL) I don't need a commitment

[Park]

alexandra shutup

[Park]

Everyone is clever!

Even gay girls?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Katy Perry? Her songs suck. They have no emotional content whatsoever, and are pretty vapid. She has no talent what to speak of really. They're good for jokes I guess, but I just hate stuff with empty emotional content.

And that's not so much IEI-bashing as it is man-bashing. She practicies misandry.

[jessica129]

Honestly, I do think a lot of IEI's give off the 'gay' vibe, including the females. I don't know why, but they just do. Maybe its because IEI's seem so unlimited and open with emotion and expression. IEI's also have a tendency to be touchy-feely with everyone. The males are usually attractive in an almost femininely beautiful way, and the females have that strangely mysterious air that lingers about them, like you'd just question their sexuality along with everything else.

That's exactly how I view it.

[thePirate]

So on stickam today there were all these Beta NFs .. mostly INFps, except one ENFj.

And so I was thinking, sometimes it seems like INFp guys are kind of "gay" in a way that's kind of "acceptable" - but like association wise, it seems to keep coming back to this.

So anyway -

All you male NFs out there - would you consider yourself gay? How do you feel about other people seeing you, or considering you as gay. Do you find that you get closer to other guys than others, and that because of such people can consider you gay?

Gay? lol, not at all. I dont know why feminine is equated with gay, the two are completely different. I get closer to PEOPLE IN GENERAL, I find the whole feminine vibe is somewhat comforting to people. Its not like its completely feminine either, its a mixture of both. Everyone has both sides to them, problem is alot don't embrace either because its not really socially acceptable yet.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It's funny how straight people tend to view gay men as touchy/feely because usually, gay men themselves tend to view straight guys as the more outgoing/touchy ones and gay guys as being too uptight.

I suppose this is because when you get gay guys together, we usually don't want somebody to hit on us just because we're all gay and single. It might be equivalent to a straight girl acting quiet around a potential straight guy that could be interested in her, then goofy/affectionate with her friends. I'm much more goofy around straight people for some reason. If I'm with somebody I know is gay, I end up acting more serious, probably because I'm scanning them to see what they're all about in case I get interested.

I dont know why feminine is equated with gay, the two are completely different.

Eh, somewhat. I was the typical gay man growing up that played with dolls. I instinctively went after the dolls not trucks. I also didn't like roughhousing and stuff. Well that's not totally true. I wrestled with other boys when I was younger and stuff, and had a male friend I did a lot of 'guy things' with. Actually I've always been like completely in the middle really. But when I realized I was gay, I kinda distanced myself around guys because I knew other people would have a hard time with it and I didn't want conflict.

[Trevor]

I dont know why feminine is equated with gay, the two are completely different

You can not deny that the correlation between being gay(a passive one) and being feminine exists. Of course it isn't one on one but it's a good one.

[crazedrat]

Everybody's gay, silly. It's just a matter of degree.

I hear this all the time. It's an accepted fact or something. I don't think it's true at all. Granted, many people are repressed homosexuals. But not everyone, and I wouldn't say it's just a matter of degree. Everything does not occur on nice, gradual spectrums. The thought of males literally kills my boner. Occasionally penises in male/female porn make me go limp and I have to find different porn. That's especially true if it's difficult to phase out the penis, because it's somehow emphasized. Also when they show the female sucking dicks I typically can't enjoy it because, aside from not being able to phase out the penis, I know it's not my dick, and I actually get annoyed by that fact. The perfect male in a porno is the one you can completely forget about, and focus on the female. I think this is true for many straight males.

[UDP]

What I don't particularly understand is this stereotype that gay men are better at understanding relationships. I've been around some gay men this semester, and they seem absolutely terrible at relationships. They just seem to be able to girl talk with women more so than straight guys.

I see gay men as not really having any better relationship skills than straight men, really. It sort of made me lose respect for that image of the all knowing relationship guru gay guy. They just act like any other guy, with the same sort of male problems and issues when it comes to relationships, albeit sometimes more internal and more an IEI male way of going about things (if they are IEIs, of course). But they certainly don't see things or approach things like women do. It's just a guy, who's attracted to other guys. They are still guys, and still have rather male approaches to things, it seems.

I'd like to hear comments about what I said, because, it was kind of a surprising discovery - I'd never really seen how gay men operate in relationships up close until recently, so I was kind of 'surprised', i suppose.

[silverchris9]

Hmmm... I was going to write a diatribe about gender roles and perceived masculinity/femininity, but suffice to say, I act effete and write poetry and act in plays and sing, but I'm not gay. Shrug. Such is life.

We're gradually forming a stereotype of the feminine-ish emo straight guy (think Jared Leto, pretty much any punk-rock singer) which has no association with homosexuality, mostly because of the stereotype's association with something that cultures have decided to appropriate as masculine (rock music), despite the fact that on the basis of the idea that artistic endeavors are feminine and practical/physical pursuits are masculine, all rock musicians ought to be considered feminine. Of course, this is really just the "beautiful boy" stereotype/archetype that has existed in various forms throughout history. What I mean to imply by bringing up this stereotype-in-the-making is that whether or not certain traits are associated with masculinity/femininity, homosexuality/heterosexuality, etc., has more to do with the state of a culture at a particular moment than anything inherent in men or women. Sometimes extroversion is masculine (rock musicians), sometimes extroversion is feminine (the "men are reserved/women talk" stereotype).Sometimes anger/rage is masculine (Achilles, maybe?), sometimes anger/rage is feminine (Klytaemestra, Medea). It all has more to do with the poetry of the age and how that is affecting culture than anything else at all really. What I mean by this is that the artsy-and-emotionally-expressive-equals-feminine-or-gay stereotype is the result of a combination of lingering Victorianism and Hart Crane's association of his homosexuality with his poetic vocation + Walt Whitman's association of his poetry with the profoundly homoerotic "adhesiveness" of the "Calamus" poems. So, in summary, just because a few IEIs who were really good at writing were gay and somewhat effeminate, doesn't mean that it is just or logical to associate IEI behavior with homosexuality or femininity.

They just act like any other guy, with the same sort of male problems and issues when it comes to relationships, albeit sometimes more internal and more an IEI male way of going about things (if they are IEIs, of course). But they certainly don't see things or approach things like women do.

I kinda don't believe in these. I think they're generally culturally overdetermined and largely conventional as opposed to natural, i.e., bs. My evidence for this is the way in which assumptions about how men and women handle relationships have varied wildly, even switched metaphorical positions, quite often. In the 18th century, the women are sex-obsessed (the original meaning of the term hysteria involved women who hadn't had orgasms or something), the men are self-controlled, now men are sex-obsessed and spend all our time begging sexually-indifferent women for sex, in Aristophanes EVERYONE is sex-obsessed, the women completely equally with the men. I think there are some inherent differences between men and women... but I couldn't for the life of me tell you what they are.

@crazedat, you are aware that scales have extreme degrees, no? Perhaps this is the case with you? I generally accept the Kinsey scale. Also, I think that sexuality is often psychologically overdetermined in highly complex ways that only Shakespeare understood.

...whaddya know, I did end up writing a diatribe. Oh well.

[Gilly]

Katy Perry? Her songs suck. They have no emotional content whatsoever, and are pretty vapid. She has no talent what to speak of really. They're good for jokes I guess, but I just hate stuff with empty emotional content.

And that's not so much IEI-bashing as it is man-bashing. She practicies misandry.

To me it just sounds like some dude didn't want her as bad as she wanted him, and he was kind of effeminate so she decided to write a trashy song about him to make herself feel better. *shrug*

[Gilly]

And yeah, people ask me if I'm gay sometimes. Actor, writes poetry, long hair, skinny...I'm pretty much a walking target

[Mediator Kam]

Sometimes people say to me, "I can't read you," to which I say "What"? They refer to if I am gay or straight. It doesn't bother me at all because when they say that, I feel special cuz people usually act like a guy or girl, not a mixture or neither.

I assume I am attracted to girls who look like guys in a way though. On three separate occasions, I have said, "That girl looks really androgynous, that is rly hot," and the girl is actually a guy. :|

[redbaron]

Also when they show the female sucking dicks I typically can't enjoy it because, aside from not being able to phase out the penis, I know it's not my dick, and I actually get annoyed by that fact.

I could totally see getting annoyed by that.

fwiw, my brother is IEI and he does come across much more effeminate than most. But he's straight. (married to SLE woman)

[redbaron]

both of my parents have asked me if i'm gay before, lol.

really?????

[jughead]

Gay dudes are like women in mens bodies.
Or something different. Stupid, and or inexpirenced people
might assume IEI's to be gay because of stupid stereotypes.Ex: Men who express emotion=gay.Those people who think that are Fags.
Please refer to the Harley episode of Southpark if you need further clairification. This stereotype reminds me of stupid and inexpireinced people thinking Native Americans were dumb savages and that
we should civilize them or kill them and
their tree hugging nature ways. Fags.
I haven't met any intelligent gay dudes around here
(my university and life in general) so thats throwing my skew.
Ethical gay dudes seem to stick out,
or maybe its the gay flamboyant subculture.
I know esfp,isfp, esfj.
The esfp and isfp are flamboyant club goers,
buying into the maximal gay flamboyantness.
However I've met a few who aren't flamboyant and blantatantly "gay".
Thus you can shove that stereotype up ur ass too.

[crazedrat]

@crazedat, you are aware that scales have extreme degrees, no? Perhaps this is the case with you? I generally accept the Kinsey scale. Also, I think that sexuality is often psychologically overdetermined in highly complex ways that only Shakespeare understood.

Yes. Of course I am aware of that. Do you think I'm mentally retarded? Why do you think I acknowledged but everything does not occur on spectrums.. Why would I say that if I wasn't aware of the possibility of a spectrum?
I had a conversation with my IEI brother which was similar to this. Here is a summary:

His idea was that if a nuclear bomb was going to hit our city and kill everyone, and he was aware of this beforehand as it was coming, then he would have no hesitation to take an uzi and mow down everyone he saw. I told him this was immoral, and he disagreed with me. Now, we know that I was right. Let's examine why I was right.

I understand there is no consequence to killing the people, but there's no consequence to me getting out of bed right now and taking a shit then smearing it around then cleaning it up and making it look like nothing happened. So why don't I go do that right now? Because I have no motivated reason to do that. In the uzi example the presence of such motivation indicates immorality on an intrinsic level, as a form of action potential inherent to the individual.

Now how does this relate to the gays? It shows a difference between motivated action and being a byproduct of perception. I am not gay until I have a drive toward gayness. Even passively experiencing a gay thought is not enough to qualify a person as gay. Whatever kind of psychobabble justification you can give on how everyone has gay awareness in their unconscious is not enough. To be gay, a person must be motivated toward gayness. If they aren't, they aren't gay. There is no need for a scale. Would I make a scale about how likely I am to smear shit on the walls and clean it up again and make it look like nothing happened? And then compare other people to myself on this scale? Despite me knowing none of us will do it at all? What would this scale really measure? Generalized okayness with the idea of shit smearing? What this will show, among other things, is how disgusted by shit I am. But it shows nothing on me being a shit smearer; the Kinsey scale shows nothing on gayness, because does not account for motivation at all. Infact, I'm going out on a limb and saying Kinsey was a clear fag himself. The Kinsey scale probably shows homophobia level, to some degree.

And now it follows for you to say homophobia indicates repressed gayness. No, it doesn't. It indicates the experience of homosexual tension, just like being disgusted by shit will indicate a hypersensitivity to how shit is disgusting. But does me not wanting to touch and smell and smear my shit mean I actually want to?

I hope this is clear to you now, and you will not try to use this sort of byproduct / motivation confused argument anymore.

[strrrng]

That was lovely.

[silverchris9]

Yes. Of course I am aware of that. Do you think I'm mentally retarded? Why do you think I acknowledged but everything does not occur on spectrums.. Why would I say that if I wasn't aware of the possibility of a spectrum?
I had a conversation with my IEI brother which was similar to this. Here is a summary:

His idea was that if a nuclear bomb was going to hit our city and kill everyone, and he was aware of this beforehand as it was coming, then he would have no hesitation to take an uzi and mow down everyone he saw. I told him this was immoral, and he disagreed with me. Now, we know that I was right. Let's examine why I was right.

I understand there is no consequence to killing the people, but there's no consequence to me getting out of bed right now and taking a shit then smearing it around then cleaning it up and making it look like nothing happened. So why don't I go do that right now? Because I have no motivated reason to do that. In the uzi example the presence of such motivation indicates immorality on an intrinsic level, as a form of action potential inherent to the individual.

Now how does this relate to the gays? It shows a difference between motivated action and being a byproduct of perception. I am not gay until I have a drive toward gayness. Even passively experiencing a gay thought is not enough to qualify a person as gay. Whatever kind of psychobabble justification you can give on how everyone has gay awareness in their unconscious is not enough. To be gay, a person must be motivated toward gayness. If they aren't, they aren't gay. There is no need for a scale. Would I make a scale about how likely I am to smear shit on the walls and clean it up again and make it look like nothing happened? And then compare other people to myself on this scale? Despite me knowing none of us will do it at all? What would this scale really measure? Generalized okayness with the idea of shit smearing? What this will show, among other things, is how disgusted by shit I am. But it shows nothing on me being a shit smearer; the Kinsey scale shows nothing on gayness, because does not account for motivation at all. Infact, I'm going out on a limb and saying Kinsey was a clear fag himself. The Kinsey scale probably shows homophobia level, to some degree.

I still don't understand how this invalidates the scale idea. It just shifts it to motivation: if Bob has more motivation to have sex with another guy than Susan has motivation to have sex with another girl, then Bob is further along the scale (if further means, crudely, "more gay"), regardless of either Bob or Susan's actions. Motivations and predispositions exist independently of actions; they must, or anything one was motivated to do, one would do, and anything one was predisposed towards one would automatically act upon. So yes, the scale would have no relationship to action, but it would quantify or represent one of the many factors that goes into the decision to make or not make a specific action, i.e., something sexual with a person of the same sex.

To me, the crux of your argument is:

To be gay, a person must be motivated toward gayness. If they aren't, they aren't gay.

You can establish a sharp dichotomy like that if you want, since it turns on your definition of terms (I suppose under your definition "gay" means "in any way motivated towards homosexuality", while "straight" means "not in any way motivated towards homosexuality"), but I find it more interesting to think of things along a continuum; I think that a continuum has more explanatory scope and power. I also reject your idea that the scale is useless because it measures "generalized okayness"; it doesn't measure generalized okayness, it measures, as you say, motivation (I would prefer the word "desire", but "motivation" is fine too). Now, I'm honestly not sure how the Kinsey scale worked, so maybe it was stupid of me to use the Kinsey scale as an example. But that doesn't invalidate the idea that there is some sort of continuum between complete homosexuality and complete heterosexuality, rather than an (I think) needless dichotomy between the two. Kinsey himself, according to Wikipedia, source of all knowledge in the universe, was probably bisexual.

Also, no, I don't think you're mentally retarded. I was just playing up what seemed to me to be an obvious flaw in your reasoning. . Also, while it's probably true that not everything occurs on a spectrum, I find that many, if not most, things can be productively viewed along a spectrum. I gladly concede that a spectrum is just a conceptual framework that we apply to real-life things, rather than a real-life thing in and of itself. I just think it's a very valuable conceptual framework.

Also, I think that the fact that your brother is an extreme consequentialist ethics-wise has little to nothing to do with the fact that he's IEI. Also also, I suspect that our disagreement may have to do with you focusing on the homosexual act and me focusing on the homosexual desire. Maybe the shit-smearing scale wouldn't tell you anything about how likely a person is to take a certain action, but it would tell you something about the person, which I think is a good in itself.

And now it follows for you to say homophobia indicates repressed gayness. No, it doesn't. It indicates the experience of homosexual tension, just like being disgusted by shit will indicate a hypersensitivity to how shit is disgusting. But does me not wanting to touch and smell and smear my shit mean I actually want to?

Actually I wasn't going to argue that at all. One can be scared of homosexuality and homosexuals (which, by the way, you don't appear to be) without being scared of a homosexual element within themselves. While certainly that sort of thing is the sort of psychological defense people use all the time, it doesn't follow that in every case of homophobia, the homophobic individual is attacking an exterior manifestation of an undesirable element in him-or-herself.

I hope this is clear to you now, and you will not try to use this sort of byproduct / motivation confused argument anymore.

Huh? I don't get what you're saying here. How did I confuse byproducts (presumably meaning actions) and motivations?

[strrrng]

motherfuck. crazed's idea is quite clear, and I cannot see how he could have laid it out in more concise terms.

"Inner Gayness" or whatever, is equivalent to smearing shit and cleaning it up, because they both are recursive and self-eliminating notions. Thus, a "measurement" of gayness along a spectrum, says nothing more than a measure of the cleanliness of the room, after the shit has been cleaned.

Being motivated toward gayness does not = having an internal/unconscious gay button that is somewhat pressed, at certain times; it means having a directly manifest desire toward homosexual acts.

[sigma]

And so I was thinking, sometimes it seems like INFp guys are kind of "gay" in a way that's kind of "acceptable" - but like association wise, it seems to keep coming back to this.

I think that IEI guys have a higher degree of feminine energy. Accepting, reacting, flowing.
Actually I think this might be more visible in the IEI but I think it is a Ni characteristic (Victim)

[Gilly]

That guy's body language reminds me of Ashton.