Is the Correct Word, "Bear" or "Boor"?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary (the online version) defines the word, "Boor" as:

Definition of BOOR
1: peasant
2: a rude or insensitive person
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boor

Wikipedia explanation of the term, 'Bear':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture)

Bears are heavy-set men and are often characterized as having hairy bodies and facial hair; some are also muscular; some attempt to project an image of rugged masculinity in their grooming and appearance. Some Bears place importance on presenting a hyper masculine image and may shun interaction with, and even disdain, men who exhibit effeminacy. The Bear concept can function as an identity, an affiliation, and there is ongoing debate in bear communities about what constitutes a Bear, however a consensus exists THAT INCLUSION IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE BEAR COMMUNITY.

Bears are almost always gay or bisexual men. Increasingly, transgender or transsexual men (trans men) and those who shun labels for gender and sexuality are also included within bear communities.

Younger or smaller men who identify with bear culture may also be labelled as cubs.


From the GROWLR homepage:

Description
More Bears in more places... GROWLr is the complete mobile app for gay Bears.

What's a Bear? A Bear is a masculine gay man who belongs to a very INCLUSIVE part the gay community. Some are hairy, some are muscular, and some are heavy-set. ...And SOME ARE NONE OF THOSE THINGS. Being a Bear is about being yourself, and being accepted for it, and we are all amazing no matter how we are labeled.

Visit us on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/growlrapp

Or on the web:
http://www.growlrapp.com

Okay, so why does it seem like I am inserting a list of definitions on the origin of the, 'Bear Community'? And what is it with the capitalization and colorized text, especially when the word, 'inclusion' appears?

I'll tell ya...I get frustrated and tired of people who wear the title of, "Bear" as if it was a crucifix, and who, being a 'true believer', insist on dictating to others, who or what is a Bear.

I know, I know, many of you, my faithful readers, will know I've written on this topic before. But, like all blogs, which tend to be screeds on topics and opinions near and dear to the hearts of the authors, THIS DADDY is my blog and I can right about what I want....so THERE!

So what brought this bout of grumpiness on? Sigh, I was on the aforementioned app, "Growlr" this morning, when I received the following, unsolicited IM, "just curious... If your (sic) not into bears or cubs and are looking for the smooth version of an offer (Author's Note: I assume he meant, 'Otter') (which would be known as a seal) then why are you on an app that is specifically (sic) for the BEAR community? You might want to try grinder (Author's Note: I assume he means, 'Grindr')."

Why is it that the Bear community is the only of the gay, 'silos' in which it is expected, no, not expected, required that for 'participation' one must not only BE a Bear, but one must also only desire to f*ck (or for those bottoms out there, be f*cked by) other Bears? To me, this way of thinking is beyond reason.

As I've written before, in most of the other 'silos', opposites are encouraged to participate and to interact with each other. Oh, but not in the Bear community. In my experience, most of those who describe themselves as being Bears, think that being heavyset, older, and hairy is not only typical but required. If this is the case, then these guys clearly (based on the information above) these guys are wrong. And if they don't even know what a Bear is, how in the heck can they call themselves one, let alone dictate to others what being a Bear means?

Being stocky, hairy, older, I clearly fall within the bounds of beardom. So, if being a Bear is all about acceptance and inclusion, shouldn't I be welcome in both the cyber world and real world in locals designated as Bear-friendly? And, if I am welcome, shouldn't those 'opposites' who have an affinity for Bears be welcomed as well? Apparently not. It is narrow-minded to insist that the admirers and friends of Bears can only be and must be other Bears. It makes a mockery of the idea that the Bear community is 'inclusive' when there is major lack of acceptance in that community for those who don't meet some arbitrary standards or think in lock step. That sounds way more, 'exclusive' to me than 'inclusive.'

I chat on many sites, Daddyhunt, Manhunt, Silverdaddies, Adam4Adam, and I use gay 'dating' apps, Grindr, Scruff, Growlr. Yet, it is only on those sites that have a large contingent of Bears where I find folks who feel so free to IM me and berate me for my use, membership, or participation.

I do often get, 'wait, you are fat, hairy, old dude, isn't it hypocritical of you to not find other fat, hairy, old dudes appealing.' But then, if you've read my blog with any regularity, you've read my writings on this question before. While I've been asked that, nobody on any of the sites I regularly visit has ever questioned my presence. They may have questioned my tastes and such, but the mere fact of my presence, never. Personally, I would never dare to do such. It would never dawn on me to dictate to anyone as to which places (cyber or real-world) they should be allowed to visit or in which they should be allowed to participate or socialize. Don't get me wrong, I am just as judgmental and opinionated as the next guy, heck, maybe even more so. For example, I have strict views on what makes a 'Daddy' and what makes a 'boy' or a 'hunter.' But I also make it clear that those are not right with a capital R (i.e., I am not dictating or demanding that others agree with me), I am merely stating what I believe to be true and what is right for ME. That is called an 'opinion.' And opinion I am free to share, but not to inflict upon others or insist they adopt.

If, as the Wikipedia excerpt above states, 'Some Bears place importance on presenting a hyper masculine image...' how 'hyper masculine is it to wilt like a little school girl when someone doesn't feel, act, or behave as arbitrarily required? Is the fact that I don't find fat, hairy, older dudes so threatening? If so, why? And not only why, but how? Like the argument against gay marriage, that somehow by allowing gays to marry it affects those couples in traditional marriages, the thinking seems to be that the fact that some folks don't find fat, hairy, old dudes appealing somehow impacts those who do. This makes no sense whatsoever. To me, being so overly sensitive and doctrinaire in thinking is indicative of a community which espouses acceptance and inclusion but is really of full of self-loathing and dysfunction.

If it neither threatens nor bothers me that someone finds fat, hairy, old dudes appealing (as much as I may not understand how or why they do), then why or how is it threatening to those who do find someone fat, hairy, and older appealing, that some folks don't? Get over it.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.

Uploaded by chuckellen on Apr 23, 2008

The third-grade chorus from Split Rock School. Among the soloists are Ally Trice, Avery Miller and Maggie Guinto.

First You're Another Sloe-eyed Vamp, Then Someone's Mother, Then You're Camp.

For those of you who are homos of a certain 'vintage', the title above is taken from a song entitled, "I'm Still Here", from, "Follies", a musical with music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim and a book by James Goldman. The story of the musical takes place during a reunion of former chorus girls (and their paramours) in a condemned theater, the night before it is torn down. Each of the attendees is, in their own way, looking back on their lives and evaluating where they are, how they got there, and whether or not they would or should have done things differently.

Anyway, the song itself refers to the experience one goes through as one ages. It, the song, popped into my head, especially the line which reads, "...Then you're camp." the other day when I had what seems to be an all to common experience I am having lately when chatting on line.

Wikipedia defines the word camp as, "...an aesthetic sensibility that regards something as appealing or humorous because of its deliberate ridiculousness." My dating life these days is nothing if not a, 'deliberate ridiculousness.'

I don't know what is the experience of other self and publically described 'daddies', but lately too many of the guys who express interest, especially on an Android app called, "GRINDR", after a few exchanges, suddenly start asking if I am 'generous' or if I like to 'spoil' the boys I date. I just don't see myself as someone who has to 'spoil' a boy or be 'generous' just to get laid. As I said in a recent posting, "As to being 'generous', sorry. I am not. While I certainly see nothing wrong with exchanging money for sex, I wouldn't do it, but if that is how someone who chooses to make a living, fine. If there are guys out there who wish to pay for that service, even finer. I am a really, 'live and let live' kind of guy. But doesn't it seem a tad presumptuous to assume because I am an older guy, I must therefore be more than happy to open my wallet so that some young guy will then open his legs or his mouth?"

I am never sure how to take these requests. Should I be flattered? Insulted? Shocked? Or is it something that is normal for older guys to experience. I mean, do I look or seem like a guy who has to pay for sex? I hope not. I mean, for heavens sake, I am only 49. And, while I am not to everybody's taste, I am still considered attractive (I have beautiful eyes, good hair and skin, and my dick, so I am told, still makes an 'impact'.) I have a good job, a nice home, etc. It does make me wonder, though, have I reached the 'camp' stage of my life?

I get that as the 'older' guy in a relationship, I am likely to be more financially stable. This likely means, unlike in a 'regular' couple, when I am dating someone, I will likely pay for more than my share. You know, sort of like in the old days when the men were supposed to pay for dinner, hold out chairs, etc., it just seems 'natural', at least to a certain extent. But there is a difference between paying for things because I want to, as I would in any dating situation, and being expected to, or required to in order to get laid. I mean, I am not interested in subsisting on top romen or drinking PBR. When I travel, I am not interested in sleeping in a hostel on a bunk bed, in a room with five strangers. So, if I want to go out to eat or go on a trip with a guy with more limited resources, I'll have to open my wallet a little bit more than does he. But that is about me making sure I am comfortable, not about me paying to get some tail.

So, I don't know what to think. Are these boys who hit on me on GRINDR really serious when they ask if I am 'generous' or I want to spoil them? Are they really expecting me to buy them presents, or their school books, or pay their rent? And, if so, do other old dudes really pay for these things?

I get that for some guys (both daddies and boys), a little bit of this 'sugar daddy' interplay might add to the kink. I had a friend, for example, with whom many years ago when I lived in Hawaii, we sort of played around with this. He made it more than clear that he found me sexy and thought I was a great lay, but it was also sort of a turn on (for us both) that I'd pay to fly him to Honolulu or the Big Island so we could spend some quality naked time together. It was also completely clear, that this 'sugar-daddying' was just part of our play, neither expected nor required. Almost nearly as often as I'd fly him some place and pay for us to in a hotel, he'd invite me to the island on which he lived and we'd stay at his place, like any typical f*ck buddies.

But, to really 'spoil' someone or be 'generous', I don't think so.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.


Louis Prima - Just a gigolo

Bottoming 101

As any of you know who read my blog frequently, I am an openly declared, utter and complete top. You also know that I believe that the role of 'top' is a natural part of being a 'daddy', just as I believe that being a bottom is a natural part of being a 'boy'.

Anyway, the blog entry below from a blog entitled, "An Experiment in Truth" is one of the best 'Bottoming 101' instructional guides I've ever seen. As a total top, especially after some of the experiences I've had lately, I can tell you that both the top and bottom in any physical encounter, by following these guidelines, will have a much more enjoyable experience during their time together.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.

http://anexperimentintruth.blogspot.com/2012/01/bottoming-101.hhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giftml by Konstantine, author of the blog, "An Experiment in Truth", posted Tuesday, 10 January 2012


Mike Helms and the Nefarious Clydes' Perform 'Bottoms Up'
Live at Dantes' on 12-6=08'
at the SmoochKnob' Robots and Nusrses Ball'

The Emotional Hornies

Back in the day when I taught, as a volunteer, dating at an agency devoted to reducing the transmission of HIV (ironic, isn't it...but you've heard that old expression, "those who can't do, teach") and providing support to those in the community dealing with HIV, one of the topics of the course was, 'skin hunger'. That is, the need, bordering on compulsion, to touch and be touched. This need often drives people to involve themselves in situations in which they might risk having unsafe sex, just to get 'touched'. Personally, when I feel an intense bout of the hornies, I refer to it as, "feeling like a cat on a hot tin roof."

Being recently (well, it has been since August, so I guess not so recently at this point) single, I have really been experience the 'emotional hornies.' Like any guy, I get the skin hunger, I mean, I may be old (49) but my parts still work and boy do they enjoy doing so. That said, having been in a loving, long-term relationship that was monogamous (well, essentially so) for an extended period, the thing I miss most is the emotional intimacy and connection. Don't get me wrong, the sex with Sam was great. He is a good kisser. I love the feel of the soft skin on his back. He has really nice feet (a priority for me) and an amazing ass. Of course, he was (another thing being a big priority for me) a total bottom who loved to call me 'daddy' during certain 'intimate' moments. All together, our sex life was quite wonderful.

For all the great sex, the key component most missing for me with the end of that relationship is the emotional stuff. I am very paternal. I enjoy nothing more than having someone about whom to care and worry. Sam would often accuse me of acting like a Jewish mother (the stereotype of one, I mean). If I didn't hear from him or if he was late, etc. (I am an early to be guy, he likes to stay out until all hours), I'd always fret. It wasn't that I was worried that he was cheating or that I was jealous or anything like that, it was that I was worried he was lying in a ditch somewhere, or had been in an accident (driving, not something at which Sam excels), or had been mugged or whatever nonsensical experience my mind would conger. As much as I loathe the idea that I have anything in common with my mother, or that we share any traits, I get this worrisome nature from her. I am 49 years old. I've been on my own since the age of 17 when I joined the Navy. I have traveled all over the world. I have lived, for extended periods, in foreign countries, yet, if I go away for a few days for either work or pleasure, if I don't call her first thing to let her know I've arrived safely, she has a hemorrhage. She thinks by being so worried, she is showing a form of love. I guess I do the same thing.

Although many people with whom I have a casual acquaintance would find it doubtful, I have an overwhelming need to 'love' and an abundance of love to give. Most people, especially those with whom I work, find me to be an unmitigated prick. I often hear how intimidating I am or that my tone or bluntness is off-putting. The reasons: I tolerate fools lightly; and, I have a really hard time not letting someone know I neither like them nor respect them. I hear all the time, "I didn't like you at first. And many, upon meeting you, would not believe that you are such a lovable and loving person, but if someone takes the trouble to look past your gruff exterior, they'd find you have a very big heart and a kind spirit."

When I am chatting, looking at profiles, or reviewing personal ads, I see comments such as, "I just want someone to love me" or "I just want to be worthy of being loved". Okay, I can appreciate wanting those things, but for me it is the 'doing' the loving that is more fulfilling, not the being loved. Trust me, not having been cared about as a child, I've sort of gotten used to not being loved. But, and I think this is directly proportional to that lack of love I received as a child, it is vital me to be 'loving' to others and to give that love to others. I think that is one reason why I am such a dog person. A former roommate used to tell me, "you love that stupid dog too much." So instead of, "I love you", I often tend, when talking to or about the dog, say, "I love you too much." or if I am mad at her I say, "I don't love you too much right now." My dog is a royal pain in the ass. She can make it very hard to love her. But, I do. And yes, truthfully, I love her too much. It is my way. It is, as they say, 'better to give and to receive.'

So, of all the things I miss about having been in a relationship and the think about which I worry most that I'll not experience is the opportunity to love someone again. I have a friend, for the purposes of this essay, we'll call him, 'Jack.' We couldn't be more different, yet this is one quality, having an abundance of love to give and preferring to give it over receiving love in return, we share in common. Like me, Jack has always dated younger guys. He is about, oh, 12 or 14 years older than I am, so he's been at it for a lot longer than I. After many years of being in a rather turbulent, though loving relationship, his partner died. When that happened, Jack decided that, at his age and with his preference for younger, masculine guys who like fishing and camping and such limiting his options, he would forgo dating. Oh, he still enjoys sex, or so he says, but it has just become more of an occasional 'transaction' than anything with the potential to become a loving relationship. Being such a loving man, though, he still needs an outlet for this abundance of love. His choice: at 60, he became a father. Okay, it isn't what you are thinking. He didn't impregnate some chick, or adopt a kid or anything that drastic. While traveling in the 3rd world, he met a younger man which whom he struck up a platonic friendship. Knowing or not, this young man seemed in search of a mentor, friend and father figure. Through happenstance, Jack became that for this young man. No sex, it was clear from the beginning that the younger man was straight and had no interest in Jack sexually or romantically. But it was also clear that he had a hole in his life when it came to having a father-figure or mentor or adviser, etc. Sitting on this overabundance of love, wanting to 'release it’; Jack made the decision to become that person for the younger man. At this point, Jack lives in the 3rd world country, is recognized as the 'patron' of the younger man's family. Jack treats the family, and they respond in kind, as if the elder male head of the family. They defer to him, seek his advice and support. And he gives these things, and love, to them in abundance. Perhaps a tad unorthodox, sure, but real, and according to Jack, quite fulfilling.

I am not there, boys and girls. I doubt I ever could be. First, I still believe that one deserves a healthy sex and romantic life, no matter at what age. Second, I loathe children (Jack's new family includes several young children, those of the younger man and his siblings). Third, that is not the kind of love I seek to give, at least not yet. Perhaps with time, though I doubt it. I am not close to my 'real' family, so it is very hard to imagine me becoming a surrogate parent, adopted or otherwise to others.

So, at the moment I am having a bad case of the emotional blue balls. Frustrating, just like the real thing, but there it is. Reasonable or not (for me), I'd still like to find a 'romantic' outlet for all of this love I have to share. It just isn't happening. Okay, I expect to receive a chorus of comments insisting that if I just changed to whom I was attracted, I'd have options all over the place. But, I can't. Like forming a surrogate family, entering into a passionless relationship, wouldn't fulfill the need I have. Sure, it might provide companionship and someone to care for me in my rapidly approaching twilight years, but it wouldn't be enough. To be honest, for companionship, I have the dog.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.



Elephant, from 9, the second studio album by Irish singer, songwriter and producer Damien Rice, released in 2006.

The Conversation Conundrum

So, just what is, "The Conversation Conundrum", well for the purposes of this entry, it is, "To respond to an IMs or emails from someone completely inappropriate(i.e. not someone you are trying to attract) or to not respond, when online."

If you've read my stuff before, you know that I primarily socialize in the online realm. You can read the myriad other posts I've written on the subject. I take great care to socialize on sites that cater to older/younger relationships and I try to write very clear and concise profiles. When I am on those sites, I also go out of my way to steer clear of guys for whom I would clearly not appear to be their type. If someone only wants to chat with other younger guys, or smooth guys, or muscle guys, etc., I don't bother them, as I am not any of those things. In fact, even when it is unclear, I tend to come down on the side of discretion. I don't want to be wasting some guy's time or my own. I mean, isn't the online arena designed for listing specifically who it is you seek, what you have to offer, and what type of interaction it is in which you wish to participate?

Anyway, as I've stated before, no matter what I say, how specific I am, how pointed is my nick, etc. I mostly receive IM's or emails from guys who couldn't be further from 'my type'. I don't understand why, but that is the case. I am deluged with IM's and emails from chubby, hairy guys, who look like they are in their 50's. Nothing wrong with guys like that, nothing at all. Just not the type of guy with whom I am looking to chat or with whom I seek a sexual or romantic connection. And let's face it. Isn't that what most of these online sites are for, hooking up, daring, romance?

I've tried different things at different times to try and counter this disconnect, to no avail. I've even talked to my friends and my therapist to seek their advise as to what it is I should do, to clarify who I am, what type of guy it is I seek, and to slow the deluge of the 'wrong' kind of guys. Sigh, nothing seems to work. Originally, it seemed like there were only two options:

1)Be rude and tell the inappropriate guys to bug off in some form or another; or,
2)Ignore the IM's and emails.

Both to me seem equally rude. Granted, not as rude as IMing or emailing someone who clearly isn't going to be interested, but still, rude. And you know me, as an officer and a gentleman, I try to avoid overtly ungentlemanly behavior. Believe it or not, I really do try. While trying to decide how to handle these unwanted IM's and emails, I came up with a third option: simply asking the question, "Have you read my profile?" I figured, it wasn't rude to ask such a question. It is short, to the point. It wastes neither my time nor theirs. It also seemed far less rude than simply ignoring people wishing to chat. I thought, 'hey, I'll ask, guys will take a moment to read my profile, if they haven't already done so, and get that we don't have complimentary interests and then move on to others with whom they do. I don't have to be rude, I am not wasting their time or my own, simple". Alas, not so much,.

Below is an example of a recent experience I had when I tried asking the question, 'Have you read my profile?' of someone whom IM'd me on SCRUFF. Alex is, according to his profile picture, is a 40-ish chub/bear. Other than saying he likes to play tennis, he doesn't say what it is he seeks in his profile. Me, on the other hand, posts a picture, provides a description and says in the section called, 'What I am looking for', "I am an opposites attract guy. A total top, I am older, short, hairy, an opposite is generally a younger, taller, non bear..."

Here is how the conversation went:

January 1, 2012, 1:48PM on SCRUFF, from Alex, "Hi."
January 1, 2012, 2:48PM on SCRUFF, from Commander, "Alex, did you read my profile?"
January 1, 2012, 4:49PM on SCRUFF, from Alex, "Yes."
January 1, 2012, 5:18PM on SCRUFF, from Alex, "What's wrong with saying hello to someone who has a few things in their profile that seem interesting? I'm a successful, happy- go- lucky, good person who doesn't need your any of your bullshit just for saying hello. If you don't want people to say hello to you unless they meet certain guidelines, then just block me or don't say hello back. Learn some etiquette and don't be so rude."

Whoa! First, he describes himself as, "happy-go-lucky". And second, he says, "If you don't want people to say hello to you unless they meet certain guidelines..." Thirdly he says, "Learn some etiquette and don't be so rude."

Okay, let's take these in order, shall we? First, based on his response, he is hardly, 'happy-go-lucky". Clearly, he doesn't know what that expression means. Second, I thought I said pretty specifically what type of guy it was with whom I sought to communicate in my profile. I mean, isn't that the whole point of answering the, "What I am looking for" question? And thirdly, again, whoa! He is the one that doesn't seem to get how online socializing works. It seems to me that the etiquette would be to not ping on someone who isn't seeking what you offer and that it is rude to then flame them when they politely point this out. To me nothing, and I repeat nothing is worse than wasting someone's time.

I've had similar experiences when I've simply tried either option 1 or 2. There is a guy from China. on GRINDr, for example, who IM's me every time he sees me online. Except to suggest that I am not a good option for chatting, I've mostly avoided responding to him, yet I've received over 46 IM's from since December 20, 2011. 46? I mean, doesn't he have better things to do than to IM me? On Silverdaddies, there is a guy who also IM's me every time he sees me online. He's been doing it for years. I've told him repeatedly, I am not interested in chatting, sometimes very rudely, and I have made it abundantly clear that I don't feel the need to explain why it is I don't find chubby, 60-ish guys who wear panties appealing. Still he IM's me every time he sees I am online, and he asks me that same question over and over again. I wonder if he drinks, or perhaps has a little bit of dementia?

So, it seems like I can't win. I don't like being rude, but the direct approach doesn't seem to work. and ignoring unwanted IM's and emails also doesn't seem to work. My third option, simply asking, "Did you read my profile", my attempt to politely point guys back to my profile, well, that doesn't work either.

Look, I get it. There are lots of lonely guys out there. Trust me, I get it big time. I still miss Sam, though he's been gone since August, and I've only been on two dates since he left, both total disasters. But what I don't get is guys who waste their time attempting to communicate with those not interested. I just don't. Rejection hurts. I mean, it hurts me, so I assume it hurts others. We also all get enough rejection handed to us on a daily basis. Why in the heck would we subject ourselves to even more rejection? It makes no sense whatsoever.

At least, that is what THIS DADDY thinks.




Jethro Tull- Conundrum (live), from the album Bursting Out