Gay behavior insults not like Lesbian behavior insults

[Rhea]

I was reading the comments section of an article about Shawn Hannity shilling for Donald trump and it struck me that there's a very big difference in how these insults are used.


When a woman shows subservience to a more powerful woman (say, Wasserman-Schultz to Clinton), people don't throw sexual submission jokes at her.

But when one man shows subservience to another (Hannity to Trump) it's all about "bet his asshole hurts," and "it's hard to speak clearly when your mouth is wrapped around your boss' organ"

Do you suppose this is because people envision lesbian sex as being an endeavor between equals, or possibly role-switching, but they envision gay sex as _always_ one of a dominant and a submissive?

(I don't think this is true of homosexual sex, although I really wouldn't know; I just assume it is as diverse as hetero sex in terms of the lack of prevalence of stereotype adherence.)

But do you suppose that's why this language comes out strong in the case of male-to-male submission (beta/subservient, whatevs) discussion versus female to female?

Obviously, when a female is metaphorically sucking up to a male of higher status, the subservient sex jokes come out, we know that's the assumed stereotype. And when a male does it to a higher-ranked female, sexual jokes aren't the language of disdain, usually.


Anyway, piqued my interest this morning.

 

[Playball40]

I was reading the comments section of an article about Shawn Hannity shilling for Donald trump and it struck me that there's a very big difference in how these insults are used.


When a woman shows subservience to a more powerful woman (say, Wasserman-Schultz to Clinton), people don't throw sexual submission jokes at her.

But when one man shows subservience to another (Hannity to Trump) it's all about "bet his asshole hurts," and "it's hard to speak clearly when your mouth is wrapped around your boss' organ"

Do you suppose this is because people envision lesbian sex as being an endeavor between equals, or possibly role-switching, but they envision gay sex as _always_ one of a dominant and a submissive?

(I don't think this is true of homosexual sex, although I really wouldn't know; I just assume it is as diverse as hetero sex in terms of the lack of prevalence of stereotype adherence.)

But do you suppose that's why this language comes out strong in the case of male-to-male submission (beta/subservient, whatevs) discussion versus female to female?

Obviously, when a female is metaphorically sucking up to a male of higher status, the subservient sex jokes come out, we know that's the assumed stereotype. And when a male does it to a higher-ranked female, sexual jokes aren't the language of disdain, usually.


Anyway, piqued my interest this morning.

The criticism of strong/powerful women is often 'bitch, bossy, demanding' and the go-to "joke" is they don't like sex or men - so it makes sense that the default won't go there. Somehow straight stupid men stereotype gay men as effeminate, weak, subservient. Of course that couldn't be further from the truth, so, in my opinion, their "jokes" fall flat. (Although probably not to each other).

 

[Bronzeage]

Gay behavior insults are more about a power relationship than about a sexual relationship. It's good if the cocksucker enjoys his work, but it's not necessary to the process. The insult is one about metaphorical submission, and not really anything to do with sex or gay behavior.

Insults which invoke lesbianism are more often about a woman who is impervious to any man's attraction or dominance. If the woman in question is in a position over other women, the same dominant/submissive jokes will appear, but just with the lesbian twist.

 

[prideandfall]

Anyway, piqued my interest this morning.

i could be wrong here since i know i'm necessarily biased and inexperienced in the subject since i'm a male, but my initial reaction to the thought is that the primary difference is that being called gay is perceived as being far more insulting to straight men than it is to straight women - so it's used as a slag against men because it's quick, easy, and effective.

as a general rule people will go immediately to the most physically obvious target when it comes to lobbying an insult or slight against someone, which is why things like racial slurs are so prevalent.
in terms of any male-male relationship regardless of the nature or context, gay panic is the most expedient reference you can make to incite a sense of insult, so i think it just gets used because it's the fastest and laziest method.

 

[Playball40]

Anyway, piqued my interest this morning.

i could be wrong here since i know i'm necessarily biased and inexperienced in the subject since i'm a male, but my initial reaction to the thought is that the primary difference is that being called gay is perceived as being far more insulting to straight men than it is to straight women - so it's used as a slag against men because it's quick, easy, and effective.

as a general rule people will go immediately to the most physically obvious target when it comes to lobbying an insult or slight against someone, which is why things like racial slurs are so prevalent.
in terms of any male-male relationship regardless of the nature or context, gay panic is the most expedient reference you can make to incite a sense of insult, so i think it just gets used because it's the fastest and laziest method.

I would agree with this!

 

[Rhea]

Anyway, piqued my interest this morning.

i could be wrong here since i know i'm necessarily biased and inexperienced in the subject since i'm a male, but my initial reaction to the thought is that the primary difference is that being called gay is perceived as being far more insulting to straight men than it is to straight women - so it's used as a slag against men because it's quick, easy, and effective.

as a general rule people will go immediately to the most physically obvious target when it comes to lobbying an insult or slight against someone, which is why things like racial slurs are so prevalent.
in terms of any male-male relationship regardless of the nature or context, gay panic is the most expedient reference you can make to incite a sense of insult, so i think it just gets used because it's the fastest and laziest method.

That makes good sense. The way you've analyzed it fits what I see.

 

[repoman]

on a side note, gay men can be the most intense misogynists because they are afraid of offending potential partners. Same for lesbians being intense misandrists. For them men are just in the way.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think it's about most heterosexual men finding the notion of having another man's dick in their mouth or ass to be very unpleasant. Thus, the act of allowing someone to do this gross unpleasant thing to you for their one-sided pleasure shows extreme submissiveness to that person.

So, it isn't about Hannity being gay, but rather that he is a cowardly submissive to allow Trump to penetrate him. The insult is greater under the assumption that Hannity is not gay and does it anyway.

Beyond that, there is a more general sense in which having oneself or one's property "penetrated" by another person is an act of submission or at least yielding to them.
If they penetrate your boarders, or your home, it is a sign of weakness. Allowing them to penetrate your body, especially an orifice less "fitted" to elicit pleasure for the receiver, is the ultimate symbolism for this.
This is why their is a connotation of subservience equal when it is a woman doing the sucking or allowing anal penetration, moreso than vaginal sex.