Grizzly, Grizzled, Great
First, we should acknowledge that there are two separate qualities under consideration here, which often - but not always - overlap.
The Bear tradition came about sometime during the 1980s in Western gay male culture. Following the advances of the gay liberation movement of the previous decade, organisations and venues became more widespread, at least in urban locations within Europe and the US.
Emerging from isolation and into a stereotype-laden new consciousness, many of these men adopted feminine styles of appearance and behaviour (up to and including actual cross-dressing). Not everyone fitted this mold, of course (the vast majority of gay men are no more feminine or flamboyant than their heterosexual fellows) but nevertheless this signature style predominated. Why? Probably because many preferred being 'obvious' to being invisible.
Stereotypes can be very influential and self-perpetuating. The word 'gay' itself is rooted in feminisation; it was coined during the early 20th century as a euphemism for prostitutes. These 'ladies of the night' wore brightly-coloured makeup to attract customers, hence the label "gay women" ... The more recognisable members of the male homosexual segment of society likewise made sure they stood out from the crowd
By the 1980s, with increased openness and general awareness of sexual diversity, the distinction between gay and transvestite/transgender became less blurred. The old clichés persisted, though, and effeminacy continued to be the hallmark of gay men. This encompassed not only mannerisms and styles of dress but also a physical ideal of beauty that venerated eternal youth: more boy than man. Slender, clean-shaven, well-groomed (muscles were appreciated, however). The accompanying expectations that came along with this image were those of traditional femininity: non-assertiveness, acquiesence, compliance. Pretty but weak.
Eventually there came a point where gay men who did not typify this model began to push back. The extreme opposite was the Leatherman; ultramasculine and rebellious, traditionally linked with sadomadochism. In between these two extremes, however, were those who were still overlooked: the "regular guys"...
Not girly but also not overly "butch". Not skinny but also not superbly muscular. Not really interested in wearing the latest fashions. Not interested in shaving their torsos as bodybuilders do (in order to show off their chiselled pectorals). In other words, guys who pretty much looked like your average straight men.
A bulging belly had no place in the prevailing gay scene, but there were those who liked big men and found fur - on the face and/or the body - to be attractive. Gradually the new archetype came into being. More and more guys began to identify as "Bears" - chunky, hairy, not necessarily young - and associate with each other and those who found them appealing.
For many guys the appeal of Bears is a type of masculinity that dispels stereotypes and celebrates natural qualities: both liberating and relaxing. Bear gatherings are also a safe space where body positivity (no fat-shaming allowed) is a central feature.
The 'Daddy' concept - as we think of it today - developed alongside the emergence of the Bears. The overlap is obvious; a subculture that does not limit its adoration only to slim, smooth, pretty boys will be open to the appreciation of mature men. The attraction is often more than physical as increased years also bring with them a maturity of attitudes and experiences: confidence, assuredness and wisdom... in theory, at least. These qualities are prized by many, particularly by younger men who themselves have a more mature, intellectual or alternative outlook and find guys their own age to be shallow, predictable and dull.
So far, so enlightening. This is a story of diversity, open-mindedness and courage triumphing over prejudice, conceit and marginalisation. Love wins...
The reality, of course, is not quite so neat and tidy. Yes, human beings can be ingenious in finding ways to overcome injustices in the world. They can also be equally adept at finding ways to ensure that other injustices stay firmly in place.
The Bear scene, when it first came into being, was a safe space for chubby gay men but it was not long before reverse chauvinism came into play. Slimmer guys looking for a chunky lover might find themselves derided by the big boys, who would tell them "You're not a REAL Bear."
Then there was the misogyny, which went beyond the desire to create a supportive domain for a certain type of guy. Men-only associations have their place, as do women-only associations, but when this spills over into firing insults at any woman - straight or queer - who, for whatever reason, finds herself in your sights - this exposes the gender divide that has plagued "the gay scene" in general for a very long time.
Related to the slighting of actual women is the attitude that masculinity is superior to any type of femininity in men. Here we see a very regrettable and embarrassing trait at play: one group of gay men believing themselves to be better than another group of gay men on the basis of being "less gay" / "more manly" than the latter. This attitude is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is the horrifying image of an oppressed group internalising the very ideas that have been used against them and then using those ideas to turn around and - essentially - oppress each other.
It also displays a spectacular failure of insight. What does "masculine" even mean? For men of any orientation, the definition is all too often an extremely superficial one. We saw this in the 1980s with the popularity of the moustache on the Western gay scene. Many a "clone" was - quite rightly - ridiculed for thinking himself mucho macho just for sprouting hair on his upper lip, whilst still speaking and walking with the exact camp/nelly mannerisms of the very drag queens he disparaged.
What makes you a "real man"? Yes, you can put on a leather jacket, but can you change the fuse in a plug?
This attitude persisted as the concept of "straight-acting" which - on the surface - did not sound so bad: Most gay men are not effeminate and should not feel as if they have to emulate particular modes of behaviour just to fit in. Wonderful, but it did not stop there with many guys, it went to the extreme of putting heterosexual men on a pedestal as icons of what a man should be, with a whole host of sexist and homophobic baggage included in the mix.
Then there is the racism, another thorn in the side of gay liberation. As in society at large, it is not always overt, manifesting instead in more insidious forms such as objectification (black guys are well-endowed stallions to be lusted after; east Asian boys are submissive gold-diggers looking for a rich white Daddy for mutual exploitation, etc.). All too often it emerges as a simple lack of inclusivity: only white men featured as the poster boys for your party or nighclub. This is ironically criminal with regard to Bears because there are SO many non-white men who fill the boots wonderfully: big, hairy, handsome and unconventional.
And even the ups have downs... There is an irony at the heart of this story when we see what should be a breath of fresh air for the "ugly ducklings" of the scene all too often turn full circle into a whole new type of restriction. Liberated from the shadows of indifference, these furry, full-figured fellows may now find themselves facing the opposite problem: objectification. The curse of those considered to be physically attractive - to be treated as *things of beauty, rather than human beings - results in doors being closed as well as opened.
Whatever else it may be, the word "Bear" is a *label. Stick a label on something and you are not just giving it meanings, you are also taking them away. Stick a label on a *person and you reduce him to a two-dimensional figure bereft of complexity.
Are we describing just an attractive physical type, like a straight guy professing a preference for "blondes", essentially classifying people based on their superficial appearance? That in itself might not be too bad, but psychology has shown us that humans have a tendency to lump together all manner of preconceptions about other people based upon the flimsiest pieces of evidence. It is called the Halo Effect.
Dumb blondes? Fiery redheads? Butch bears?
It's all starting to sound depressingly familiar.
When is a Bear not a Bear? That bulky, furry guy you see from a distance and like the look of *might not even be gay.* Nevertheless, he ticks all the outward boxes. But he's just eye candy.
Or - shock, horror - he might be gay but *is not attracted to bulky, furry guys!* Sometimes opposites do actually attract.
It's almost as if human beings are complicated, unpredictable and don't fit obligingly into conveniently simplistic pigeon holes.
The "Daddy" thing also has its own troubling aspects, depending on the definitions.
Is older always wiser? If only. It is easy to see how someone (especially someone younger, perhaps lacking in the confidence gained by more experience) may look up to a man they view as totally having his shit together. The classic cliché here is a young dude with "daddy issues" looking for someone to give him the support and affirmation he did not receive from his own father. The problem comes when this is little more than plain, old-fashioned projection: we see what we want to see in others. We see someone who looks good and we assume that he is probably good in every other way that we want him to be.
Romantic relationships with a large age gap are nothing new and the double standard is well known: an older man with a younger woman is generally accepted as being part of the natural order... not all that surprising given how relatively little time has passed since women were regarded as little more than chattel. An older woman with a younger man raises considerably more eyebrows. What is wrong with the man, why can't he get a girl his own age (our younger)? What is wrong with the woman, is she (shock horror) selecting a partner on the basis of sexual attraction?!
With same-sex relationships there are also power dynamics, usually centered around social/economic factors ... and race. Again. Usually, not always by usually, the older person has more money. If they are from different countries, the older one will be from the one that is better off. If they are of different races, the older person is probably gonna be white.
This is not to say that any of those factors necessarily preclude a healthy, genuine relationship with equal respect between partners. Those self-perpetuating stereotypes can certainly muddy the waters, however. There is a powerful push to behave in ways that other people expect you to, especially if you do not see many examples of alternative ways of doing things. Cynicism can make for a shallow mutually beneficial arrangement... not inevitable, but certainly something to be aware of and guard against.
Recent years have seen many advances. Bear groups and clubs welcome and include "otters" and "chasers". Straight women and lesbians often party right alongside them. All races are invited. Transgender and non-binary people are also among the crowd. Intergenerational relationships are taken at face value without innuendo.
We have come a long way, but that does not mean that we should forget the journey it took to get here. Success is not final, just as failure is not permanent. As time goes by, every community is maintained by its new arrivals. By remembering the long, winding roads we took to get where we are, we can help guide them. It also keeps us grounded to recall the mistakes of the past and help us to move forward in the right direction.
STURDY
Comments
Post a Comment