This is a real good article I happen to come across on
Trevvy / SG Boy. So, what do you think? Guess, no matter what it is, gays will be gays.
The equation GAYS = MUSCLES is true, no matter what they say. What ever happened to the good old "what inside counts", right? That too is another vague statement, coz what is actually refered to "inside"?
Read on...
Iced Bandung - Gym CultureIn the straight universe, it’s been reasoned that some of the factors that determine sexual attractiveness are actually biological in nature. Certain qualities like height, facial symmetry, body proportionality and good skin have been associated with good genes. During the process of mate–selection, the mind subconsciously registers these traits as desirable. The logic is that there is a better chance of producing healthy offspring with such a person, with similar phenotypic traits, giving the progeny a competitive advantage when it comes to his or her turn during mate–selection.
But what about gay men? In the absence of the reproductive imperative, what sets the standards for desirability? Darwin can’t really give us answers on this one, so we’ll have to consult two other disciplines–mainly history as well as psychology.
It is important to note that in the 70’s, for example, the slim gay man was still a widely desirable entity. And then the AIDS crisis struck in the 80’s, and we should remember how it was an affliction that was first discovered among sexually–promiscuous gay men in America, especially the ones who frequented bathhouses.
Suddenly, the waif–like gay man was tagged: he could be a potential disease carrier. As one of the signs of the disease was muscle wasting, they were relegated to the bottom of the dating market. A pumped–up body, on the other hand, suggested a clean bill of health. Some gay men who were HIV–positive started bulking up, for two main reasons: to reduce any outward signs of the disease, and to reassure themselves that despite the ravages of the virus, they still had some control over their bodies.
And hence, what started as a response to a health crisis eventually permeated cultural standards of desirability. From magazine covers to fashion advertisements to TV soaps, this new aesthetic of the male body–six–packed, V–shaped, and slim–hipped–was marketed to the rest of the world. Global hegemony of media channels meant that American standards of male beauty were often later internalized in other societies.
But pervasive monoculture isn’t the only factor driving gay men to the gym. For some, it represents the opportunity to compensate for an awkward adolescence, where masculinity was often defined by participation in sports. The ones who were not particularly blessed in the psychomotor department (or were simply not interested in sports–especially team sports, with its heterosexist and sometimes oppressive social milieu), often found themselves at the receiving end of ostracisation and even bullying.
Experiences like these reinforce the idea that masculinity is often a matter of one’s physicality. Hence, payback time: the quest for broader shoulders, bigger biceps, a glowing tan–anything to suggest the image of the ‘man of action’. It’s not outright deception, of course, but it can be misleading.
And bodies are in many ways misleading. I have mentioned how the buffed body is not necessarily indicative of health (in fact some HIV–poz individuals cultivate muscular bodies precisely because it’s a shield against suspicion), or even masculinity (the exterior only masks unresolved feelings of inadequacy). When we judge people based on their bodies, we’re practicing what could be described as lazy semiotics–the naive belief that the signifier and the signified cannot become unglued.
Along the spectrum of disingenuous assumptions lie the assertion that someone who bothers to go to the gym must also possess several positive characteristics. According to this belief, the gym–goer is a self–motivated individual, able to overcome various thresholds of pain and hardship in pursuit of his desired goal.
But this certainly doesn’t hold true in all cases. Some of the most avid gay gym–goers I know are conversely the most inert–especially when it comes to political and social causes. In some cases, the achievements attained in the gym act as surrogate markers of successes in one’s life, much like how one celebrates breaking through another level while playing a video game.
In disabusing ourselves of the many valorizing notions associated with the gym–honed body, we must also be careful not to swing violently to a position of scorn. The himbotic Chelsea boy, the West Hollywood clone (‘body by Nautilus, brain by Mattel’ is a popular catchphrase), or our local versions of ‘Macho Mary’s’ are just some of the demeaning stereotypes manufactured by those who, in trying to challenge the dominance of gym culture, only manage to come off as retaliatory, with a tinge of sour grapes.
