midlifebear
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Posts
- 5,789
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 174
- Points
- 133
- Location
- Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Let me see, hmmm. . . as a general rule of thumb, these are the shallow parameters currently observed in Gay Kulture:
Under 18 = Chicken, pederasts of all ages tend to seek out those under the age of consent or those who have just turned 18.
18 to 30 years old = Twinkies, (smooth on the outside, creamy on the inside) those years when we presume to possess wisdom, spend lots of party tickets and consider people over 30 to be "ancient."
30 to 40 years old = a "guppy" if your lucky,"(gay upwardly mobile urban type) or some such nonsense during which "nesting" is supposed to be a serious preoccupation.
40 to 50 = being perceived as a "daddy" if you appear aggressive and über masculine. With sub categories of "bears" for those who have fully blossomed beards, gained a few pounds (or heavy muscles) especially if you have more hair on your ass than you do on your head. Does not, however, indicate whether your a "bottom" or a "top" -- as if it really matters, and to many I supposed it does.
50 years on up = mature daddy (or mature bear, with regard to the hair thing), can be either bottom or top. Toss a coin.
60 years on up = grandpas and/or polar bears (again with the hair thing and tossing of coins).
The above generalizations do not include young, hairy "cubs" in their late 20's through their 30's or "otters", supposedly young men in their late 20's through their 30's who are not hairy, otherwise buff, but isexually attracted to older, hairy men who qualify as bears. And of course, there are the many and various fetishes of leather daddies, tattooed/pierced sex pigs, and the plucky S and M crowds.
Then there are the chubby chasers and the chubs, one of my favorite categories, for it shows that not all good-looking young men are turned on by just buff, toned, men and prefer their sex partners on the obese side. As a very obese friend explained to me: "Why buy a water bed? They can just use me." He may not be my idea of a turn on, but he's definitely well-centered and at ease with himself.
And what does all this mean? Well, I suppose it's just an indication there are some generalizations that can be used for the pupose of sterotyping. But I personally find it terribly unreliable.
Well, when I was in my teens and 20's I preferred mature men (Sean Connery types) in their 40s. Strangely enough, I still do. Until I turned 50 all of my male lovers were older than me. And imagine how happy I was to realize I had grown into the type of masculine, virile, horny male I found to be a turn on as a youth. Then imagine how disappointed I was to discover that men my "type" seem more interested in younger men looking for a "daddy." When I complained to a friend one day, "Where are all the good-looking daddies?" he pointed out that younger men were hoarding them all (jokingly, of course). So, now I find myself in a relationship with a younger, muscle bear who seems quite content to hold onto me all night long like a Koala. It must be love, because I find his loud snoring very soothing.
As for the categorization of gay male "types"; to me it's still all bull shit (except that underage means UNDERAGE! Do not touch!). These gay generalizations always annoy me. For example, I wear a red bandana in my right back Levi's pocket because that's where it's easiest for me to keep it. One day I had a black bandana in my right back pocket and some guy asked me "What does that mean?" I answered truthfully, "It means I like to blow my nose." However, it's rare that I ever use a bandana for anything except to wipe the sweat off my forehead when frolicking about in the heat and humidity of BsAs -- which is like living at the bottom of the ocean.
I'm certain one can find a Wikipedia entry covering this sort of need by the gay community to label and categorize everything. After all, without order one only has chaos -- or some such crap.
Wishing everyone an exceptional life-experience and if you shoot anything shoot only positive karmic bullets.
I need a beer.
Under 18 = Chicken, pederasts of all ages tend to seek out those under the age of consent or those who have just turned 18.
18 to 30 years old = Twinkies, (smooth on the outside, creamy on the inside) those years when we presume to possess wisdom, spend lots of party tickets and consider people over 30 to be "ancient."
30 to 40 years old = a "guppy" if your lucky,"(gay upwardly mobile urban type) or some such nonsense during which "nesting" is supposed to be a serious preoccupation.
40 to 50 = being perceived as a "daddy" if you appear aggressive and über masculine. With sub categories of "bears" for those who have fully blossomed beards, gained a few pounds (or heavy muscles) especially if you have more hair on your ass than you do on your head. Does not, however, indicate whether your a "bottom" or a "top" -- as if it really matters, and to many I supposed it does.
50 years on up = mature daddy (or mature bear, with regard to the hair thing), can be either bottom or top. Toss a coin.
60 years on up = grandpas and/or polar bears (again with the hair thing and tossing of coins).
The above generalizations do not include young, hairy "cubs" in their late 20's through their 30's or "otters", supposedly young men in their late 20's through their 30's who are not hairy, otherwise buff, but isexually attracted to older, hairy men who qualify as bears. And of course, there are the many and various fetishes of leather daddies, tattooed/pierced sex pigs, and the plucky S and M crowds.
Then there are the chubby chasers and the chubs, one of my favorite categories, for it shows that not all good-looking young men are turned on by just buff, toned, men and prefer their sex partners on the obese side. As a very obese friend explained to me: "Why buy a water bed? They can just use me." He may not be my idea of a turn on, but he's definitely well-centered and at ease with himself.
And what does all this mean? Well, I suppose it's just an indication there are some generalizations that can be used for the pupose of sterotyping. But I personally find it terribly unreliable.
Well, when I was in my teens and 20's I preferred mature men (Sean Connery types) in their 40s. Strangely enough, I still do. Until I turned 50 all of my male lovers were older than me. And imagine how happy I was to realize I had grown into the type of masculine, virile, horny male I found to be a turn on as a youth. Then imagine how disappointed I was to discover that men my "type" seem more interested in younger men looking for a "daddy." When I complained to a friend one day, "Where are all the good-looking daddies?" he pointed out that younger men were hoarding them all (jokingly, of course). So, now I find myself in a relationship with a younger, muscle bear who seems quite content to hold onto me all night long like a Koala. It must be love, because I find his loud snoring very soothing.
As for the categorization of gay male "types"; to me it's still all bull shit (except that underage means UNDERAGE! Do not touch!). These gay generalizations always annoy me. For example, I wear a red bandana in my right back Levi's pocket because that's where it's easiest for me to keep it. One day I had a black bandana in my right back pocket and some guy asked me "What does that mean?" I answered truthfully, "It means I like to blow my nose." However, it's rare that I ever use a bandana for anything except to wipe the sweat off my forehead when frolicking about in the heat and humidity of BsAs -- which is like living at the bottom of the ocean.
I'm certain one can find a Wikipedia entry covering this sort of need by the gay community to label and categorize everything. After all, without order one only has chaos -- or some such crap.
Wishing everyone an exceptional life-experience and if you shoot anything shoot only positive karmic bullets.
I need a beer.