I was discussing this the other day and figured I would bring it up here.
When you are using the term “effeminate” you are describing a male character that is not classically defined as masculine or virile. Instead of physically strong he is physically weak, instead of aggressive he is passive, instead of tough he is delicate.
Instead of Jake he is Adrien. Yes Adrien is an effeminate character.
Just like Dr. Smith from Lost In Space is a classic effeminate character.
Just like Felix Unger from The Odd Couple is a classic effeminate character.
Gay Romance has tons of these guys because for every Alpha masculine manly man it seems his other half usually plays the exact opposite role (effeminate) to attract. Normally this includes a huge age difference to hide the fact that is the traditional common dynamic the author is going for.
It does not mean effeminate men go around wearing women’s clothes. That is called Drag.
If he goes around imitating women in speech. That used to be called Swish usually accompanied by a lisp.
If you are saying there are few Drag Queens in Gay Romance be explicit that is what you are talking about. Drag Queens (Men playing at being women usually for entertainment value and social commentary) are also completely different from Transsexuals (People born male who consider themselves female). Pointing out Apples are not Oranges is not a value judgment.
Tags: eBook Commentary
Sunita wrote,
And of course, effeminate=/= submissive.
Is Adrien that effeminate, or does it seem that way because Jake is hypermasculine?
Where do twink characters fit in? They’re not always effeminate, exactly, but they’re lighter, somehow.
Very interesting, TP. I’m now running various couples in my head, trying to figure out where they fit in.
Link | January 20th, 2011 at 11:15 am
TeddyPig wrote,
This is not hard just think Dr. Smith (effeminate) vs Major Don West (masculine) and the Major was much younger.
Or Felix Unger (effeminate) vs Oscar Madison (masculine).
Compare and contrast. There you go you have your answer.
Link | January 20th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Emilie wrote,
Hmm. Always an interesting topic. I’ve heard “not traditionally masculine” as a recent polite term for it. I make a distinction between someone I take to be naturally effeminate and someone who’s camping it up. I also have the opinion that some gay men have a particular speech pattern that they’re not doing purposefully — it’s just how they talk, though it’s a part of what’s considered “stereotypical.” For less polite terms, I think there can be a fair amount of overlap between effeminate, swishy, flaming and queeny.
However, I don’t think there are a whole lot of protagonists in m/m romance who are deliberately written as effeminate as I think of it. I think there are quite a number of “beta” characters who are written as more feminine. I don’t think they’re supposed to be queeny per se, just more like the woman in the romance.
I also think that Adrien is on the effeminate side, but he’s just being himself, not playing it up at all. That’s how I take it, anyway. Jordan’s written a few protagonists who aren’t traditionally masculine, but certainly aren’t passive or weak, like Nathan Adams in “Hue, Tint and Shade” of the Petit Morts series and Anton in “Body Art.”
I hope I haven’t offended, but I have my own opinions based on what I’ve seen and talked with others about. I’ll take this back to my LiveJournal to muse on further.
Link | January 20th, 2011 at 11:32 am
TeddyPig wrote,
I am not arguing opinion I am pulling my definition from a dictionary.
Adrien is physically weak and even sickly he is not aggressive he is delicate.
He is effeminate by it’s very definition. It’s not a put down it is what it is. Apples are not oranges I don’t care how many people want to “discuss” things.
Link | January 20th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Emilie wrote,
All right, you’re taking your definition from the dictionary, and I’m taking mine from more of what I see as the current cultural definition. That’s apples and oranges, I suppose. I don’t want to argue, just explain how I think of it. Anyway, I have my own place to ramble on about this or whatever strikes my fancy, and you’re welcome to come comment there.
Link | January 20th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
My point is people can look the definition of this word up themselves.
They do not have to take my word or anyone else’s for it. It’s not like you can debate something in writing.
I don’t even consider the word a value judgment at all. That is only in the reaction people seem to have to it’s use.
I think too much gets made about this stuff in Gay Romance. The characters are not “real people” and the only description you get is what is written and yet I see people going nuts about calling one of their favorite characters effeminate. Like it’s going to hurt the character’s feelings?
Just strange!
Link | January 20th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
kel wrote,
It’s interesting how the connotations/judgments on certain words can be so different from one person to the next. I’ve never thought of “effeminate” as being negative. Nor have I thought of it as being swishy or lispy. I consider a couple of my friend’s husbands to be effeminate.
This reminds me of the debates over “reclaiming” words – what to one person is a hideous offense is to another person merely a descriptor.
Link | January 21st, 2011 at 12:03 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
What gets me is that the only time you would have real issue over the use of this term is if you thought feminine behavior was somehow bad.
But then I am always sorta confused here.
Link | January 21st, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Wave wrote,
I’m trying again after WordPress ate my comment.
As I mentioned to you a few days ago TP, I’m writing a post on effeminate gay men and asking why they are noticeably absent in gay romances except in a supporting role. Is it because readers just don’t warm to fem gay protagonists while they love them as the best friend? Is it strictly a question of sales from the point of view of the writers? One would think that readers would embrace different characters in their books in the same way that they love characters in different career fields.
I love cowboys, marines, special agents, cops etc. but sometimes I need more in my characters – someone who is just as masculine but has ‘softer’ qualities too. Why is this considered a negative? In television we love these characters and you gave a couple of excellent examples, yet we don’t seem to carry that love forward into gay romances.
vive la différence in France means to celebrate differences, but we don’t seem to be doing much celebrating of this type of character in gay romances. Are effeminate gay characters always synonymous with twinks, drag queens, cross dressers etc? There are different types of men just as there are different types of women in real life. Aren’t there fem gay men in RL just as there are the macho, alpha types? Just asking :)
Link | January 22nd, 2011 at 3:03 am
TeddyPig wrote,
Well first off Wave twinks, drag queens, cross dressers are not actually all innately effeminate by nature. This is what I was trying to tell you.
Anyone who would lump all those very different types of people together is over generalizing a term.
Is Dr. Smith a young boy? Does Felix Unger go around wearing woman’s clothing?
No they do not.
So if they are considered “classic effeminate characters” then obviously there are major differences between effeminate and drag or effeminate and twink.
I have known drag queens that once you got them out of drag were good looking, extremely masculine, physically dangerous and had gang backgrounds. So I guess you could say he was effeminate in drag but not out of drag. The only effeminate thing about him was the clothes.
As I said in my post right here there are tons of effeminate characters in Gay Romance.
All effeminate means by definition is the male character has “qualities” that are feminine in nature. physically weak not physically strong, delicate not tough, passive not aggressive.
Most of the beta roles in Gay Romance fall solidly in that definition. As I provided with the Adrien example.
twinks, drag queens, cross dressers are examples of other things like young gay men, entertainers that wear woman’s clothing or guys that get sexually turned on playing dress up.
What I can suggest is that maybe Romance that played with gender roles like most people seem to be talking about in this conversation but defining themselves into a mess by lumping way too many different things together would more likely be called “Transsexual” Romance not “Gay” Romance.
In that specific case then the answer to your question would be people wanting to buy the T in GLBT would not be interested in the G or the L in GLBT and likewise I am sure.
Link | January 22nd, 2011 at 5:29 am
Wave wrote,
“Anyone who would lump all those very different types of people together is over generalizing a term.”
I wasn’t lumping them together – what I was asking is why they are generally lumped together in gay romances. Each type of personality is quite different and we should celebrate them not make it seem that one is not as desirable as the other.
I love Ally Blue’s beta characters and I would have said that Adrien English was a beta rather than a fem character because being ‘sickly’ and not butch like Jake does not make him effeminate. Adrien is quite tough, determined, and does what he wants regardless who likes it, which is why he is always in trouble. :) At times he and Jake were at odds because he was too butch. Only in bed did the stereotypical gender roles come into play because Adrien never topped, as far as I recall (maybe he did, although I can’t see Jake allowing it, can you?)
“twinks, drag queens, cross dressers are examples of other things like young gay men, entertainers that wear woman’s clothing or guys that get sexually turned on playing dress up.”
That part I did understand before because most of the gay romances featuring men who are not butch go in the opposite direction and portray them as twinks, drag queens and cross dressers (I recognize that some of these guys, except for maybe the twinks, could be quite tough). I think what I was asking is why are these characters synonymous with being fem? Do all fem men play “dress up”? I’m sure they don’t, just like butch or alpha types don’t go around thumping their chests, have body piercings and tattoos, and wear muscle shirts. lol That would be a gross over generalization.
I must admit that I don’t read books about transsexuals or transgendered characters because they sometimes involve girl parts (surgery) and I’m only interested in reading about boy parts in M/M romances. I know – it’s a kink in my brain and I can’t seem to do anything about it. lol. It’s just the same kink that doesn’t let me read books with the ‘L’ – I’m strange that way.
At some point I’ll figure out what I want to say in my post, but I just want to let you know that I do ‘get’ the differences between fem characters and drag queens, cross dressers etc (I think). I know you’ll let me know if I dare to screw up. :)
Link | January 22nd, 2011 at 7:13 am
TeddyPig wrote,
“Adrien is quite tough, determined, and does what he wants regardless who likes it, which is why he is always in trouble. :) At times he and Jake were at odds because he was too butch. Only in bed did the stereotypical gender roles come into play because Adrien never topped, as far as I recall (maybe he did, although I can’t see Jake allowing it, can you?)”
Huh? Adrien was physically weak and passive and frail and sickly which are classic effeminate characteristics. Jake was the exact opposite which was obviously masculine.
I would also like to point out that Dr. Smith was evil and devious and complex and he tried to kill his fellow crew members several times that did not make him any less effeminate.
Listen, I think there is way too much specific slang being used and frankly gay people do not use it in real life and I have never heard anyone use it period in the gay community.
“Fem” is not used in conversations I have ever had at a gay bar and none of my friends have ever used “beta” or “M/M” it seems to me then that those terms are being used to describe things strictly in Gay Romance that have no real bearing for anyone I know who is actually gay. Maybe it’s the crowd I hang out with I don’t know.
One of my favorite terms is BOG or Big Old Girl meaning a big hairy massive guy having a princess moment of highly uncharacteristic girly emotional drama. If you are talking about why there are not more people writing gay characters like that maybe because more writers need to hang out at the Lone Star in San Francisco late Friday or Saturday night near the front bar. You will learn things.
So you got me what type of diversity you are going for here. If you want more realism then well we are talking Romance as a genre and I have been told again and again it’s “escapist fiction” quit trying to make it so realistic.
If you are talking about playing with gender roles then it seems to me that is what you want are transsexual romances. If you want to ask why more main characters are not passive, frail, weak, or overly emotional it’s probably because not many cops, cowboys, and marines fit that description.
And Teddypig would not buy them if they did. I like my marines masculine and my cowboys strong and my cops aggressive. But that’s just me.
Link | January 22nd, 2011 at 7:44 am
LBea wrote,
Jake and Adrien–there’s no easy answer to who is strong and who is weak. They’re balanced. What makes a man weak? What makes him strong? Is it his mind, his body, or his spirit? I think those two men are pretty equal, actually. Jake’s weaknesses make a strong man pretty unattractive; and Adrien’s strengths make a weak man very robust.
Which just means the usual thing– Josh is a terrific writer.
Anywho–you are SUCH a minx, TPig.
XO from lurkdom.
LB
Link | January 22nd, 2011 at 8:38 am
TeddyPig wrote,
And LBea ruins all my fun and cuts the the heart of the matter.
As I said before effeminate and masculine are by themselves not value judgments.
Just a description like the difference between apples and oranges.
Jake is an emotionally weak jerk and Adrien is an emotionally strong character.
Link | January 22nd, 2011 at 9:00 am
LBea wrote,
Heh. You love me.
Link | January 22nd, 2011 at 9:32 am