Clint, You are not being overfamiliar. My doctorate and professorial title are irrelevant to who I am and where I am as a retired person in Thailand, having left the UK 22 years ago. In any case, unless a student was newly arrived and was trying to be polite and official,no one called me anything but Ray (unless I had reason to discipline them perhaps).
You are being a great friend and supporter, so I thank you.
I find the the video from Substack too verbose. In any case, I wrote a lengthy introduction already. I wanted it to be published but it was classed as a draft as far as I can tell. The page is unresponsive and although I am requested to click "Wait"several times it remains unopened for very many minutes - I tried opening it on 8 different occasions with the same non-response.
I will keep trying. I send my love.
I have begun to re-write it but it too has been relegated to the unresponsive page status.
At a tangent, I have taken on board Clint's suggestion that I write on substack. If I've done it correctly I have written an introduction and intend posting my fantasy story books about LGBTQ+ characters with magic. My uncertainty about successfully posting is that I said that I wanted no payment and perhaps substack wishes me to have paying subscribers. I reach a page that will not open and asks me to wait or cancel. If you - Clint and Anton - wish to read my introduction then maybe you might find it against my name.
Hi, Dr. Ray (please correct me if that's too familiar)! I just took a look and I only see a "coming soon" message. Chances are good the post is in your "drafts" folder.
I recommend you watch this short "masterclass" Substack made...it's one I've referred to several times and is a great how-to for things big and small on the platform:
When most of these pics were taken neither nudity around other men nor casual physical contact were things guys gave any thought to. Through my middle-aged gay eyes I see art, affection, or puppies playing, cuddling, etc. It's sweet, cute, and practically wholesome. The subtle erotica of other pics is nice as well. Sad that to many younger guys this all screams 'GAY! '.
One pic in particular caught my eye. There're 4 guys, presumably just out of the shower in locker room standing next to an older guy, perhaps a coach. They're laughing about something. Today that pic would cause massive pearl clutching but I'm also sure all five of the men would laugh at the idea that the pic suggested anything untoward.
Clint, I have appreciated your YT videos displaying affection and love between men. For me love is love, whether sexual or not. Many men today avoid physical displays of such affection because they don't want to be labeled as gay (not that there is anything wrong with being gay or bisexual)
I came to your substack because I dislike the weird US attitude about nudity (why do people focus on nipple, buttock cracks, pubic hair and flaccid cocks?). In the days when men were showering in the nude, swimming in the nude, we gays were being censored and called porny for producing athletic, body-building, photos which had to use cock socks or something (which in fact drew extra attention to the crotch). Nudity (male or female) for me has always been common in art for centuries. It can be erotic but is rarely pornographic. I dislike censorship, in this case on YT. I can see that we should not expose porn to children but this prudity, much more common in the US - unlike Europe - unnecessary and outdated, in my opinion. If I want erotic stimulation, porn is readily accessible for free. I am not seeking it in the artistic and tender images of your video complilations of photos. Yes, uncensored images including cocks are nice, too, but for me it is the absence of censorship that is the greater attraction. Much love.
Thank you, Dr. Lightbrown! Like yourself, I grew up around nudity and it was never a big deal. We're all literally born nude, so the prudes (mostly religious types...oy) confused me. I get some people being uncomfortable being nude themselves (I am) but trying to control what other folks do? Nope. Not gonna fly in my world. As I like to say, "Do you, boo...I'll do me." Laissez faire is just plain fair in my book. Thanks for subscribing and feel free to comment anytime. I may not always be able to reply, but I'll do my best. Cheers
I am not obligating you to reply - merely offering support and encouragement. As I am indeed older, I was encouraged by "Hair" and the hippy movement to try to be comfortable without clothes ("How dare they try to end this beauity") and trained in massage as a hobby. Spending many days and nights naked (we all slept on the massage mattresses on the floor) with men and women of many ages, enabled me to feel comfortable naked. I avoid nudity mainly to conform and avoid embarrassing others. I was a cliical psychologist, psychotherapist and professor dealing with sexuality and gender problems (most of which shouldn't have been problems were it not "phobic" discrimination.
It seems to me most guys are wired to enjoy being naked. Reluctance is usually from not wanting to deal with negative repercussions from somenthord party. The person is usually a woman.
Thank you, Dr. Ray (if I may). Your experience and insight are definitely a welcome breath of fresh air. If you don't already have your own Substack, I encourage you to consider starting one. Folks like myself are in need of your kinda stories. Too many didn't survive the 80s and 90s to share theirs. And coming from a rather phobic, prudish family (except my dad...he let is all fly and gave no zucks), your kind of the kind of apple a day stories so many of us gays need. In my opinion. :-)
This prudish attitude toward nudity and obsession with things being 'gay' is actually rather recent. Most American men more than 40 or so years old grew up with casual nudity in locker rooms, skinny dipping if no girls were around, and weren't afraid of skin contact. I'm 60 and things were a bit more casual. I think I was in my 30's when one day I found out that Speedos were 'gay'. So you have company, this aversion many young men have to nudity is equally puzzling to us older American gents.
I'm just slightly younger than you, Anton, but it's puzzling to me too. The pendulum swing of history from tender masculinity to toxic masculinity (including the "no homo" bater bros now so common on Xitter they're a parody of themselves imo) seems on the verge of swinging back to tender masculinity. I think. I hope. :-)
Personally I don't see a conflict between being a 'bator bro' and having romantic interest solely in women. There were some cultures (before western religion corrupted them) in which it was thought unusual for a single/widowed man NOT to have sex with his same-age friends. The thinking was 'how else is a guy supposed to stay calm and logical?'
I think we'll see this trend grow as dating has become more expensive and more difficult for young men. The difficulties of dating has moved out of the 'manosphere' and into mainstream media. Apparently several peer reviewed studies have been done which show that roughly 75% of women are only interested in the 'top' 25% of men and ignore the rest.
To approach it from another angle, google or do a YT search for 'straight guys/men gay sex'.
To your point, I agree. I think the pendulum has started swinging away from 'toxic' to 'tender' masculinity.
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. :-)
Clint, this makes me so happy! Your work and art deserves all of this love and more.
As a side note, I was wondering why I was suddenly getting such a boost in subscribers the last couple days, and they were all recs from you. Now I know why! Thanks for sharing space and helping our lovely queer community grow.
Woot woot! I’m so glad some of the new folks are finding your lovely self too. I’m a bit overwhelmed by the shift, so if you have any quick recommendations (or resources) feel free to slide in my DMs. No pressure. I know you’re running your own Substack empire. What a trip (and godsend) this platform has become. 🌈✌️
Clint, You are not being overfamiliar. My doctorate and professorial title are irrelevant to who I am and where I am as a retired person in Thailand, having left the UK 22 years ago. In any case, unless a student was newly arrived and was trying to be polite and official,no one called me anything but Ray (unless I had reason to discipline them perhaps).
You are being a great friend and supporter, so I thank you.
I find the the video from Substack too verbose. In any case, I wrote a lengthy introduction already. I wanted it to be published but it was classed as a draft as far as I can tell. The page is unresponsive and although I am requested to click "Wait"several times it remains unopened for very many minutes - I tried opening it on 8 different occasions with the same non-response.
I will keep trying. I send my love.
I have begun to re-write it but it too has been relegated to the unresponsive page status.
I just checked and looks like you more than figured it out. Congratulations! Good to see you sharing your stories and experience. Cheers!
At a tangent, I have taken on board Clint's suggestion that I write on substack. If I've done it correctly I have written an introduction and intend posting my fantasy story books about LGBTQ+ characters with magic. My uncertainty about successfully posting is that I said that I wanted no payment and perhaps substack wishes me to have paying subscribers. I reach a page that will not open and asks me to wait or cancel. If you - Clint and Anton - wish to read my introduction then maybe you might find it against my name.
Hi, Dr. Ray (please correct me if that's too familiar)! I just took a look and I only see a "coming soon" message. Chances are good the post is in your "drafts" folder.
URL should be: https://drraylightbown.substack.com/publish/posts/drafts
NOTE: No one has access to this but you.
I recommend you watch this short "masterclass" Substack made...it's one I've referred to several times and is a great how-to for things big and small on the platform:
https://on.substack.com/p/masterclass-everything-bloggers-and
When most of these pics were taken neither nudity around other men nor casual physical contact were things guys gave any thought to. Through my middle-aged gay eyes I see art, affection, or puppies playing, cuddling, etc. It's sweet, cute, and practically wholesome. The subtle erotica of other pics is nice as well. Sad that to many younger guys this all screams 'GAY! '.
One pic in particular caught my eye. There're 4 guys, presumably just out of the shower in locker room standing next to an older guy, perhaps a coach. They're laughing about something. Today that pic would cause massive pearl clutching but I'm also sure all five of the men would laugh at the idea that the pic suggested anything untoward.
Thank you again for your work.
Clint, I have appreciated your YT videos displaying affection and love between men. For me love is love, whether sexual or not. Many men today avoid physical displays of such affection because they don't want to be labeled as gay (not that there is anything wrong with being gay or bisexual)
I came to your substack because I dislike the weird US attitude about nudity (why do people focus on nipple, buttock cracks, pubic hair and flaccid cocks?). In the days when men were showering in the nude, swimming in the nude, we gays were being censored and called porny for producing athletic, body-building, photos which had to use cock socks or something (which in fact drew extra attention to the crotch). Nudity (male or female) for me has always been common in art for centuries. It can be erotic but is rarely pornographic. I dislike censorship, in this case on YT. I can see that we should not expose porn to children but this prudity, much more common in the US - unlike Europe - unnecessary and outdated, in my opinion. If I want erotic stimulation, porn is readily accessible for free. I am not seeking it in the artistic and tender images of your video complilations of photos. Yes, uncensored images including cocks are nice, too, but for me it is the absence of censorship that is the greater attraction. Much love.
Thank you, Dr. Lightbrown! Like yourself, I grew up around nudity and it was never a big deal. We're all literally born nude, so the prudes (mostly religious types...oy) confused me. I get some people being uncomfortable being nude themselves (I am) but trying to control what other folks do? Nope. Not gonna fly in my world. As I like to say, "Do you, boo...I'll do me." Laissez faire is just plain fair in my book. Thanks for subscribing and feel free to comment anytime. I may not always be able to reply, but I'll do my best. Cheers
I am not obligating you to reply - merely offering support and encouragement. As I am indeed older, I was encouraged by "Hair" and the hippy movement to try to be comfortable without clothes ("How dare they try to end this beauity") and trained in massage as a hobby. Spending many days and nights naked (we all slept on the massage mattresses on the floor) with men and women of many ages, enabled me to feel comfortable naked. I avoid nudity mainly to conform and avoid embarrassing others. I was a cliical psychologist, psychotherapist and professor dealing with sexuality and gender problems (most of which shouldn't have been problems were it not "phobic" discrimination.
It seems to me most guys are wired to enjoy being naked. Reluctance is usually from not wanting to deal with negative repercussions from somenthord party. The person is usually a woman.
Thank you, Dr. Ray (if I may). Your experience and insight are definitely a welcome breath of fresh air. If you don't already have your own Substack, I encourage you to consider starting one. Folks like myself are in need of your kinda stories. Too many didn't survive the 80s and 90s to share theirs. And coming from a rather phobic, prudish family (except my dad...he let is all fly and gave no zucks), your kind of the kind of apple a day stories so many of us gays need. In my opinion. :-)
This prudish attitude toward nudity and obsession with things being 'gay' is actually rather recent. Most American men more than 40 or so years old grew up with casual nudity in locker rooms, skinny dipping if no girls were around, and weren't afraid of skin contact. I'm 60 and things were a bit more casual. I think I was in my 30's when one day I found out that Speedos were 'gay'. So you have company, this aversion many young men have to nudity is equally puzzling to us older American gents.
I'm just slightly younger than you, Anton, but it's puzzling to me too. The pendulum swing of history from tender masculinity to toxic masculinity (including the "no homo" bater bros now so common on Xitter they're a parody of themselves imo) seems on the verge of swinging back to tender masculinity. I think. I hope. :-)
Personally I don't see a conflict between being a 'bator bro' and having romantic interest solely in women. There were some cultures (before western religion corrupted them) in which it was thought unusual for a single/widowed man NOT to have sex with his same-age friends. The thinking was 'how else is a guy supposed to stay calm and logical?'
I think we'll see this trend grow as dating has become more expensive and more difficult for young men. The difficulties of dating has moved out of the 'manosphere' and into mainstream media. Apparently several peer reviewed studies have been done which show that roughly 75% of women are only interested in the 'top' 25% of men and ignore the rest.
To approach it from another angle, google or do a YT search for 'straight guys/men gay sex'.
To your point, I agree. I think the pendulum has started swinging away from 'toxic' to 'tender' masculinity.
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. :-)
Clint, this makes me so happy! Your work and art deserves all of this love and more.
As a side note, I was wondering why I was suddenly getting such a boost in subscribers the last couple days, and they were all recs from you. Now I know why! Thanks for sharing space and helping our lovely queer community grow.
Woot woot! I’m so glad some of the new folks are finding your lovely self too. I’m a bit overwhelmed by the shift, so if you have any quick recommendations (or resources) feel free to slide in my DMs. No pressure. I know you’re running your own Substack empire. What a trip (and godsend) this platform has become. 🌈✌️