I have wondered what impact the Kinsey report had. Prior to that men seemed comfortable to show affection to other men, especially in all-male company, military service, wartime, sport, etc. All humans need affestion, though men often seem to express a wanting of sex rather than affection - sex has always been a way to receive and give a…
I have wondered what impact the Kinsey report had. Prior to that men seemed comfortable to show affection to other men, especially in all-male company, military service, wartime, sport, etc. All humans need affestion, though men often seem to express a wanting of sex rather than affection - sex has always been a way to receive and give affection. In times when fathers were expected not to "soften" their sons with hugs, kisses and cuddles many boys would get affection from friends and brothers. I am greatly in favour of feminism but the introduction of women into previously all-male situations may have reduced male-male affection. I am 77 and British. Casual male nudity was not erotic for me into my teens but seeing an erection from the age of 14 upwards did arouse me.. Also, until I was 14, boys could have their arms around the shoulders or waists of other boys in friendship. Suddenly, in my schooldays, boys older than 13 were taunted with being gay if they persisted in doing this with friends.
My only question regarding the effect of the Kinsey Report is that men have always known that some men are attracted to other men. I'd also hazard that most men were aware if you had a group of 20 men, 2 or 3 would be at least open to male-male affection. By the same token, the timing suggests the Kinsey Report must have had some impact.
If I had to pick I'd say women entering all-male spaces had a greater impact. There's a you tuber who discusses the decline of all-male spaces combined with the departure feminism has made from Its initial equal rights goal have had a negative impact on the development of young men. They're sort of op-ed pieces combined with photo montages. I don't always agree with what he says but it's always time well spent.
I agree the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. I worked in colleges until Covid and twenty-somethings are much less concerned with who's gay. The definition has even relaxed a bit. A guy who's widely known to only pursue women is regarded as straight. Hopping into bed with a man while in between girlfriends does not change that.
Thank you Anton.The idea of homosexuality (a word, roughly 100 years old) is quite recent. Same-sex activities didn't define or identify a person. A man might prefer having sex and sexually intimate relationships with women but would not rule out a same-sex occasion.
The idea of someone exclusively preferring same-sex acts and relationships was regarded as rare and rather weird. Moral and legal constraints tended to mean that gay men were discreet about their preferences and, indeed, vary many were married to women and fathered children. Consequently, it was only "feminine" men that caught publoc attention (in fact, it might be better applied to gender expression or gender identity rather than sexual orientation as such).
It was thought by many that men who preferred sex with other men were much less than 1% of the population. Homosexual and heterosexual were seen as mutually exclusive categories. Yes, many men realised that occasional masturbation or blowjobs with close friends (even though less commonly anal sex) took place but it wasn't labelled as homosexual. We now have a return in some circles that brojobs, and friendly handjobs can be OK between bros and homies and doen't mean that the men are gay or homosexual. Kinsey and his colleagues described a c ontinuu, between exclusive heterosexeulity and exclusive homosexuality. They were no longer seen as watertight boxes. Published just after the WW2, in which many men were fightling and living closely with other men resulted in affection and intimate sexual needs being provided by friends and comrades in arms. the report became a psychological bombshell. People were confused between same-sex affection, sexual incidents and sexual orientation. Was the report saying that many men were sort-of gay?
I think you are right that women entering all-male areas in the 60s onwards had more social impact. I agree that younger men (no doubt some older men, too) seem to accept that occasional same-sex acts ("as long as you keep your socks on") doesn't make you gay if you are more attracted to women.
I come back to what I liked about Clints photo compilations. Any of us can love anybody and give and receive physical affection with anyone. This may include orgasmic activities for some people but doesn't define sexual preferences or orientations.
I hope that younger people are giving themselves "permission" to regard physical affection and sexual intimacy as part of our inbuilt social adhesive needs as human beings.
I am sorry if this seems to be me unnecessarily being a teacher. I am meaning to agree and reininforce your point of view.
Dr. Kinsey's report has been cited as a big turning point. Not always for the better. I go back to physics and remember Newton's third law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It applies to human psychology and sexuality too I think. History is a pendulm...always swinging. :-)
I have wondered what impact the Kinsey report had. Prior to that men seemed comfortable to show affection to other men, especially in all-male company, military service, wartime, sport, etc. All humans need affestion, though men often seem to express a wanting of sex rather than affection - sex has always been a way to receive and give affection. In times when fathers were expected not to "soften" their sons with hugs, kisses and cuddles many boys would get affection from friends and brothers. I am greatly in favour of feminism but the introduction of women into previously all-male situations may have reduced male-male affection. I am 77 and British. Casual male nudity was not erotic for me into my teens but seeing an erection from the age of 14 upwards did arouse me.. Also, until I was 14, boys could have their arms around the shoulders or waists of other boys in friendship. Suddenly, in my schooldays, boys older than 13 were taunted with being gay if they persisted in doing this with friends.
My only question regarding the effect of the Kinsey Report is that men have always known that some men are attracted to other men. I'd also hazard that most men were aware if you had a group of 20 men, 2 or 3 would be at least open to male-male affection. By the same token, the timing suggests the Kinsey Report must have had some impact.
If I had to pick I'd say women entering all-male spaces had a greater impact. There's a you tuber who discusses the decline of all-male spaces combined with the departure feminism has made from Its initial equal rights goal have had a negative impact on the development of young men. They're sort of op-ed pieces combined with photo montages. I don't always agree with what he says but it's always time well spent.
I agree the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. I worked in colleges until Covid and twenty-somethings are much less concerned with who's gay. The definition has even relaxed a bit. A guy who's widely known to only pursue women is regarded as straight. Hopping into bed with a man while in between girlfriends does not change that.
Thank you Anton.The idea of homosexuality (a word, roughly 100 years old) is quite recent. Same-sex activities didn't define or identify a person. A man might prefer having sex and sexually intimate relationships with women but would not rule out a same-sex occasion.
The idea of someone exclusively preferring same-sex acts and relationships was regarded as rare and rather weird. Moral and legal constraints tended to mean that gay men were discreet about their preferences and, indeed, vary many were married to women and fathered children. Consequently, it was only "feminine" men that caught publoc attention (in fact, it might be better applied to gender expression or gender identity rather than sexual orientation as such).
It was thought by many that men who preferred sex with other men were much less than 1% of the population. Homosexual and heterosexual were seen as mutually exclusive categories. Yes, many men realised that occasional masturbation or blowjobs with close friends (even though less commonly anal sex) took place but it wasn't labelled as homosexual. We now have a return in some circles that brojobs, and friendly handjobs can be OK between bros and homies and doen't mean that the men are gay or homosexual. Kinsey and his colleagues described a c ontinuu, between exclusive heterosexeulity and exclusive homosexuality. They were no longer seen as watertight boxes. Published just after the WW2, in which many men were fightling and living closely with other men resulted in affection and intimate sexual needs being provided by friends and comrades in arms. the report became a psychological bombshell. People were confused between same-sex affection, sexual incidents and sexual orientation. Was the report saying that many men were sort-of gay?
I think you are right that women entering all-male areas in the 60s onwards had more social impact. I agree that younger men (no doubt some older men, too) seem to accept that occasional same-sex acts ("as long as you keep your socks on") doesn't make you gay if you are more attracted to women.
I come back to what I liked about Clints photo compilations. Any of us can love anybody and give and receive physical affection with anyone. This may include orgasmic activities for some people but doesn't define sexual preferences or orientations.
I hope that younger people are giving themselves "permission" to regard physical affection and sexual intimacy as part of our inbuilt social adhesive needs as human beings.
I am sorry if this seems to be me unnecessarily being a teacher. I am meaning to agree and reininforce your point of view.
Dr. Kinsey's report has been cited as a big turning point. Not always for the better. I go back to physics and remember Newton's third law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It applies to human psychology and sexuality too I think. History is a pendulm...always swinging. :-)