| One of my gay friends likes the less fanservicy yaoi, but most yaoi is either the bishounen yaoi for straight girls, or the girly trap yaoi for straight guys. |
 |
Pullman said: Possibly because of all the rapey vibes and extremely formulaic seme/uke stereotypes. Most Yaoi is pure fetishization, like loli gangrape doujins. Why would a loli read loli gangrape doujins? Why would gay men read manga where aggressive gay men rape shy men until they admit they're also gay and submit to the aggressive man. I wouldn't like Yaoi if I was gay. At least most of it, I'm sure there's a handful of titles out there that doesn't rely on fetishization and shitty archetypes and rape vibes, but so far even the ones that get anime adaptions are basically exclusively like this. If there were more like Doukyousei that would be nice, but as far as I can tell it still is the exception between all the Love Stages, Super Lovers or Junjou Romantica who still heavily rely on seme/uke, rape vibes and other stereotypes/fetishizations. To summarize: The fetishization of 'A' will most likely not appeal to people who belong to the group 'A'. For Yaoi to appeal to gay men it would have to go beyond smut, which it almost never does. Ahh I get it, I can relate to this. While yes, as a gay male, I do dislike the fetishization that is very often present in yaoi/BL, I think the idea of watching a story of love between two men is what draws me into it. I see ups and downs in yaoi. I'm only speaking for myself though. Seiya said: I watch a bit of Yaoi myself, but I'm not into Bara at all, because the guys look manly, and that grosses me out. I don't mind if the guys are like flower boys, but the fact that majority of the men in bara are like straight up bears drives my interest away from it. (also like I said, I'm not into hentai either and a lot of bara is hentai LOL) |
| I dislike romance in general and BL doesn't tend to be much better than the typical boring romance manga. I wouldn't mind if it has a good story though like Tezuka's MW or mixed with other genres I tend to like such as Lychee Hikari Club (psychological, horror). I don't think any of the straight up BL/yaoi that is written by women for women has ever appealed to me as a straight man though. |
 "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
Pullman said: Possibly because of all the rapey vibes and extremely formulaic seme/uke stereotypes. Agreed. That "rapey" vibe made me cringe when I watched Sekaiichi. The formulaic stuff was there too, but more in a way that it felt like I was watching the same episodes on repeat. |
Willow_Folk said: ahoyanen said: Well I did not go into details but for the sake of this "provocation" I will. :) I will explain it from engineering perspective since it is the most solid way. Gender identity is a pre-programming. It is part of brain function. In most cases it corresponds with genetic gender assignment (genitalia), while in few cases it does not. One's physical gender assignment plays no role in one's sexual orientation as it is pure brain function aspect. Sexual attraction is also part of brain function. While it may be pure pre-programming or also influenced by the environment during growing up is not completely clear and is irrelevant in this case anyway. So the combinations of these two brain functions (gender identity and sexual attraction - see original post) determine whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual. Right ... I'm just a little confused by your wording, that's all. Doesn't 'sex' or 'biological/chromosomal sex' achieve the same end? "Gender Identity" implies ambiguity; identity a psychology simply not befitting of scientific categorization. I understand all too well i may be playing the part of a "grammar nazi" with nothing better to do than provoke but my true intentions couldn't be further removed from this view. I'm an avid reader of scientific journals and i think many academics would agree that your phrasing is in fact the "provocation." Whether you intended to (admittedly or not) imply that a psychology (identity) "explains scientifically" gender - you still did. I'm far from an expert in this field but i can spot red-flags of people who aren't either a mile away. For instance they (you) substitute the proper/technical terms as though they apply all the same. For instance - 'Engineering.' which to me is lazy terminology highly indicative of a rudimentary understanding at best. How it is you expect to pose a scientific explanation without even: 1. Citing the scientific field itself (No, Engineering isn't a biologic field ... Neurology?) 2. Citing the area under examination itself (No, Brain-Function or Genitalia isn't the area/organ and won't suffice. At least cite which part of the brain you're discussing. I'd like to confess again, i'm not an expert. But it's easy to spot charlatans who think they are. I even agree with some points you raised, but honesty ... you don't seem fit to speak on the subject with authority. I'd stick to copy/pasting professionals or at least conducting your 'scientific explanations' at an acceptable standard. Well to be honest, the initial classification was logic and linguistic rather than scientific. As for the details I given after the initial post, I was not speaking from scientific perspective. I clearly said I was speaking from engineering perspective. I gave an educated guess based on my area of expertise (robotics and computational neuroscience) and established theories and behavioural observations in cognitive sciences. The simple reason why I can only give you an engineering explanation and not scientific is that our current brain function understanding is just way too limited. Although we know the basic structure of brain (neurons) we know too little about the programs the neural networks contain. Even in engineering, when you have a trained artificial neural network without the knowledge of the purpose for which it was trained (what program it contains), you can essentially only guess by input-output relation observation. Many studies in medical branches of neuroscience are usually based on observing merely input-output relations (blackbox treatment of the system) and as such cannot give any definitive answers. Computational neuroscience tries to explain the function with models but it is still based on input-output relation observation to confirm the models and essentially a guess again. Unless we somehow extract the "source code" of the brain function everything will be just a theory. |
ahoyanen said: Willow_Folk said: Right ... I'm just a little confused by your wording, that's all. Doesn't 'sex' or 'biological/chromosomal sex' achieve the same end? "Gender Identity" implies ambiguity; identity a psychology simply not befitting of scientific categorization. I understand all too well i may be playing the part of a "grammar nazi" with nothing better to do than provoke but my true intentions couldn't be further removed from this view. I'm an avid reader of scientific journals and i think many academics would agree that your phrasing is in fact the "provocation." Whether you intended to (admittedly or not) imply that a psychology (identity) "explains scientifically" gender - you still did. I'm far from an expert in this field but i can spot red-flags of people who aren't either a mile away. For instance they (you) substitute the proper/technical terms as though they apply all the same. For instance - 'Engineering.' which to me is lazy terminology highly indicative of a rudimentary understanding at best. How it is you expect to pose a scientific explanation without even: 1. Citing the scientific field itself (No, Engineering isn't a biologic field ... Neurology?) 2. Citing the area under examination itself (No, Brain-Function or Genitalia isn't the area/organ and won't suffice. At least cite which part of the brain you're discussing. I'd like to confess again, i'm not an expert. But it's easy to spot charlatans who think they are. I even agree with some points you raised, but honesty ... you don't seem fit to speak on the subject with authority. I'd stick to copy/pasting professionals or at least conducting your 'scientific explanations' at an acceptable standard. Well to be honest, the initial classification was logic and linguistic rather than scientific. As for the details I given after the initial post, I was not speaking from scientific perspective. I clearly said I was speaking from engineering perspective. I gave an educated guess based on my area of expertise (robotics and computational neuroscience) and established theories and behavioural observations in cognitive sciences. The simple reason why I can only give you an engineering explanation and not scientific is that our current brain function understanding is just way too limited ... i stopped reading here because it seemed to have little relevance to our dispute. Your admission that it isn't a scientific explanation was all i cared to hear. You made a claim. You corrected yourself. I suppose if you've majored in one strand of Neuroscience surely you've come to learn that the "we just don't understand the brain" is at best an admission of defeat and not always the case ... or at worst a logical fallacy. I'm afraid i'm still lost and would love for you to clarify your position. Could it be that you believe the Brain (and behavior induced) reflects on sexual orientation and sex? Why else would you go into any neuroscientific depth? I'd like to urge consistency, please. |
“Join my wander, to a yonder. In search of the meaning from mystery & wonder ... And when tragedy finds us, and breaks our bodies, we'll find peace in one shared mind.”  |
Willow_Folk said: ahoyanen said: Well to be honest, the initial classification was logic and linguistic rather than scientific. As for the details I given after the initial post, I was not speaking from scientific perspective. I clearly said I was speaking from engineering perspective. I gave an educated guess based on my area of expertise (robotics and computational neuroscience) and established theories and behavioural observations in cognitive sciences. The simple reason why I can only give you an engineering explanation and not scientific is that our current brain function understanding is just way too limited ... i stopped reading here because it seemed to have little relevance to our dispute. Your admission that it isn't a scientific explanation was all i cared to hear. You made a claim. You corrected yourself. I suppose if you've majored in one strand of Neuroscience surely you've come to learn that the "we just don't understand the brain" is at best an admission of defeat and not always the case ... or at worst a logical fallacy. I'm afraid i'm still lost and would love for you to clarify your position. Could it be that you believe the Brain (and behavior induced) reflects on sexual orientation and sex? Why else would you go into any neuroscientific depth? I'd like to urge consistency, please. Human (motor and cognitive) behaviour is controlled by central nervous system. Sexual orientation and sex (behaviour aspect of it) is therefore controlled by CNS too. There must be a function/program encoded in the neural networks in the brain related to control of each. In the part after where you stopped reading, I explained that (to the best of my knowledge) state-of-the-art cannot yet describe these kind of complex functions/programs in mathematical or algorithmic form. Being able to describe things in mathematical or algorithmic form is in my opinion the stage where you can say you have a proper understanding and you can actually model and replicate the system properly. To achieve that, in-depth understanding is essential. Treating a system as a blackbox, measuring input-output relations and making statistics may be considered science but in my opinion it is not a proper understanding of the system. And I have no idea where were you aiming with the "admission of defeat". Assessing the state-of-the-art realistically is by no means an admission of defeat. It is being reasonable. And lack of current understanding should not be seen as defeat, but as motivation and goal that can drive us to understand. |
man_of_cultureFeb 26, 2017 4:48 AM
ahoyanen said: And I have no idea where were you aiming with the "admission of defeat". Assessing the state-of-the-art realistically is by no means an admission of defeat. It is being reasonable. And lack of current understanding should not be seen as defeat, but as motivation and goal that can drive us to understand. See ... the position you're trying to defend is not even the one we're disputing. Sex. Biologic Sex assigned months before birth - before the brain's even developed to such a stage TO BEHAVE. This is our quarrel, at least the one i'm trying to have but you keep retracting back to Behavior. To clarify ... what's your position on gender. Definitive, scientific gender. I'm not asking after an identity even though you may think it's related to behavior it's quite obvious which arises first. I'll happily concede that sexual orientation is relative to an identity/psychology but that's not what i'm asking. |
“Join my wander, to a yonder. In search of the meaning from mystery & wonder ... And when tragedy finds us, and breaks our bodies, we'll find peace in one shared mind.” |
Kakaomon said: Pullman said: To summarize: The fetishization of 'A' will most likely not appeal to people who belong to the group 'A'. For Yaoi to appeal to gay men it would have to go beyond smut, which it almost never does. Ahh I get it, I can relate to this. While yes, as a gay male, I do dislike the fetishization that is very often present in yaoi/BL, I think the idea of watching a story of love between two men is what draws me into it. I see ups and downs in yaoi. I'm only speaking for myself though. From my experience with both 'demographics', bara tend to focus a lot more on smut and fetishization than yaoi (at least when it comes to bodies and masculinity), so to me it says wonders about gay men's interest in it. I don't know a lot of bara manga though. I think it has more to do with preconceptions/assumptions about gay life and gay interests than fetishization when it comes to yaoi driving away gay men as fans. That says, I actually know a few gay men who enjoy yaoi and BL because of its more romantic storylines. Yaoi and BL manga are pretty wide markets and there's a little bit of everything. The rapey vibe was very 'in' for a while, but a lot of manga has distanced itself from that trope in the last decade. That doesn't mean it's not present anymore, but it's definitely not as prevalent. Also, many gay men are interested in the yaoi aspect of fandom more so than in original BL works sometimes. You can find many male fans who have m/m ships from non-BL anime shows and actively draw fanart/write fanfic more than reading BL manga. |
密室殺人はなぜ美しいのか。 |
Willow_Folk said: To clarify ... what's your position on gender. Definitive, scientific gender. I'm not asking after an identity even though you may think it's related to behavior it's quite obvious which arises first. I'll happily concede that sexual orientation is relative to an identity/psychology but that's not what i'm asking. My position on gender is that it is defined by two factors (on equal terms). The first is the genetic factor that determines the body development (genitalia, etc.). The second is brain function development factor. Now since you tried to label only the first as "biological", I have to stress that both are biological, as brain function is a biological process as well. The genetic factor is clearly easily observable and can already provide a scientifically definitive measure of sex allocation within the current state-of-the-art. On the other hand, brain function factor is still not well understood (as I said, there is no mathematical or algorithmic formulation for majority of complex brain functions) and one cannot give a scientifically definitive measure of sex based on this factor. However, just because it is not well understood yet it does not mean it does not exist. I believe that developments of brain functions/programs related to sex orientation and gender identity (i.e. neural network formation) are both obviously highly influenced by the genetic sex allocation in order for each function/program to fulfil its purpose in evolution. However, it is also obvious that there are deviations in the intended function/program formation for sexual orientation (example, gay male or lesbian female), and in intended function/program formation for sex allocation (example, people who feel they are the opposite sex of the genetically allocated). Also judging from your last sentence you do not seem to distinguish between brain function related to sex orientation and gender identity. I believe those two are two separate functions/programs and they (sexual orientation and sex allocation, both in terms of brain function) can also be further unrelated to each other. The example are people who change their sex in terms of genitalia (they feel their sex is different from genetically defined one due to the deviating brain function/program) but are still attracted to the sex opposite of their own genetically determined. Based on the state of the two brain functions/programs (and disregarding the genetically defined gender) you can get the four combinations of whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual that I stated in my first post. Willow_Folk said: Sex. Biologic Sex assigned months before birth - before the brain's even developed to such a stage TO BEHAVE. This is our quarrel, at least the one i'm trying to have but you keep retracting back to Behavior. Based on what assumption you conclude that brain functions/programs (that will eventually control the behaviour) are not already in development way before the actual birth? |
man_of_cultureFeb 26, 2017 6:51 AM
Retro_Chocolate said: As a bisexual, I personally hate Yaoi. It always involves really feminine guys (I want manly men, if I wanted girly guys, I'd just look for traps and futas) with a really cheesy love story. Seriously, I don't give a shit about that, just get into the blowjobs and ass fucking (with good art. Another problem is Yaoi manga looks awful). And as a side note, there aren't that many bara manga, bara characters tend to WAAAAAY to much muscle, and I've never seen a bara anime before. You should try reading something from Harada or Ogeretsu Tanaka, pretty art, good balance between story and smut. And for if you want smutty well drown bara (mostly one-shots) > Mentaiko Itto. There are a lot of awesome BL mangakas out there, you just have to find them o/ |
| I'm a gay man and started watching anime because a lot of my female friends were really into anime, especially yaoi. There are definitely some themes that I dislike: the fetishization, rape, seme/uke narration... But every once in a while I find a story I really like and to be honest, yaoi/BL is sort of my guilty pleasure. Sometimes I just want to watch something cute with an uncomplicated plot. I have no problem admitting it on the internet but I have avoided talking about yaoi at conventions, the fanbase can be a little... eh, obsessive at times. ^^ |
| Yaoi is made more for a female demographic and generally not made for gay men. |
doriander said: I'm a gay man and started watching anime because a lot of my female friends were really into anime, especially yaoi. There are definitely some themes that I dislike: the fetishization, rape, seme/uke narration... But every once in a while I find a story I really like and to be honest, yaoi/BL is sort of my guilty pleasure. Sometimes I just want to watch something cute with an uncomplicated plot. I have no problem admitting it on the internet but I have avoided talking about yaoi at conventions, the fanbase can be a little... eh, obsessive at times. ^^ I've only been to 2 cons ever, and they were both pretty small, but I totally get what you mean about this LOL. |
| Bara are yaoi with muscular guys, not necessarily yaoi with "sex sex sex," OP. Well, yaoi is guy on guy sex, and shounen-ai is not sexual. There are certainly gay and bisexual males who like yaoi, having met some, myself. They like it for the same reasons I do. It isn't rocket science. Females tend to prefer yaoi with bishounen, rather than the bara guys. There are some, myself included, who like shota best. |
YaoiMasterFeb 26, 2017 1:27 PM
  WORK IN PROGRESS ~The frog leapt forth to my lilypad memory.~ I was indoctrinated by an inamorata rabbit, Adenomata affronted. It was the verecund, dismissed creatures That I jubilated in most. This rabbit I would nurture, At the aiguille of esse, The anneal of noblesse. ❤️ Birdie ❤️ |
| I'm a gay man who dislikes the tropes of both yaoi and bara. They are both go to extremes, when all I want are normal looking guys who act like real people... which is why if I'm gonna watch anything gay it's going to be some tasteful BL, which barely exists. Or that's how it seems, I'm not that experienced with this stuff. Doukyusei is my shit, though. |
GoldNautilusFeb 26, 2017 7:10 PM
More topics from this board
» ❄️ Anime Winter 2024 Male Characters Tournament ( 1 2 3 4 )ISeeLifePeople - Apr 14 |
180 |
by Shizuna
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Anime Misandry ( 1 2 )ColourWheel - Apr 21 |
96 |
by DigiCat
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» Has the isekai bubble finally burstEastIndiaCompany - Yesterday |
23 |
by Ex-Aid
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» Is "Magnetic Rose" considered a masterpiece?Alpha_1_Zero - 19 minutes ago |
0 |
by Alpha_1_Zero
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever come across anime-related fakes?RobertBobert - Yesterday |
11 |
by Ex-Aid
»»
30 minutes ago |