I'm meeting Maya a little later and we're going off to see Minority Report. But for now, I've come to the Starbucks at 16th Street on 8th Avenue to have a bit of tea and to hang out 'til she calls me and lets me know she's done with her... appointment. I hesitate, 'cuz I'm not sure if she'd be upset with me for revealing that it's a leg-waxing appointment. Do girls get upset about that? I guess I'll find out if she ever kicks my ass over it.
Have I mentioned that I'm an inveterate chicken hawk? I thought I was getting over it. The last couple of men I've dated... in fact, just about every date that I've had this year (granted, it's only about one every two months, all told) have been within a couple of years of my own age. Granted, none of them have been older than I am, so maybe I'm still a big ol' chicken hawk, but just not as bad as I have been in the past.
I've noticed though, that there's definitely a hierarchy - nigh unto a caste system - in the gay community of New York. And much as I might like to think that I'm sixteen different kinds of swell, I'm not all that high up on the food chain. I'm writing this, of course, in Chelsea... the place they were thinking of when they coined the phrase "urban gay ghetto." I think my gay brethren actually cling to that phrase, but it doesn't, I think, mean what they think it means. Or, at least, it didn't always. Most Americans think of a ghetto as where the urban poor are crowded into tenement buildings, but the word originally was a place where the Italians (or more specifically the Romans) forced the Jews to live.
It wasn't always necessarily a horrible, dirty, poverty-ridden place; that's just the way Americans think of it. Granted, it wouldn't have been the Roman equivalent of Beverly Hills, but neither was it Compton.
But I digress: The hierarchy. At the top, it seems to me, are the pretty boys who also have the bodies of the gods. Listen, I don't have any problem with these guys: They work hard to look the way they do, and it's obviously important to them. I often wish I had the discipline and drive to remake myself in their image. But I don't, frankly, at least not now, so they're waaaay up the food chain from me.
Close to them but a step down are the guys who have the awesome bodies, but weren't treated to the pretty faces. Often known as "rough trade." Okay, I'm just kidding. Actually, I don't know if the pretty boys and the just-plain-built boys see any difference between themselves; they often cavort together. But I've noticed the difference.
I'm one of those people who have to like the face of the person I'm... whatevering... with. Please note that I didn't say they had to be attractive. I have to like them. There is, I think, sometimes a difference. But alas, the vast majority of gay men don't seem to share my thoughts on this matter. My friend Dan has often commiserated with me that men who are just plain drop dead ugly often get cruised more than we do because they have amazing bodies. That's the extent of my bitching on that subject.
Next on down the line are the guys who aren't drop dead gorgeous or brick shithouse buff. They're just good looking guys who, through genetics or a less-than-obsessive workout regimen are lean and toned. These guys are hands down my favorite, but alas, I don't fall into their category, either. Read on.
Next are the guys who, like the ones above, are naturally good looking, but aren't gifted with naturally smooth, lean bodies. Sometimes I guy can have a bit o' fat on him and still be attractive. Often times men higher up the food chain will go after these guys when they get sick of the vacuousness of many (note, again, that in a never-ending effort to not generalize, I say "many," not "all") of their compatriots.
Then there are the guys who are just plain all-out average. Average looks, average bodies. I happen to think that I fall into this category - so lest you think that my self-esteem is too awful, remember, I don't think of myself at the bottom of the food chain. I clean up pretty nice, and I hardly scare people away when I look at them, but let's face it, what's most attractive about me is that I'm nice, I'm funny, and I think as much about other people as I do of myself. So there you have it.
Below this level are two levels that jockey for lower position, I think: Older guys who look older and don't really take care of themselves, and overweight guys. As far as most gay men are concerned, these would be the gay equivalent of India's untouchables.
Please remember that I'm not saying any of this is fair. I wish that most men (myself included) were deep enough to look past looks and really judge a person based on their character, their intellect, and their kindness. But let's face it: As a species we're driven to reproduce (even those of us attracted to the "wrong" sex still have sex drives, you know), and there's something keyed into us to drive us towards people who turn us on. There's no getting around it. Looks count. It's sad but true. The only thing that redeems us as a species, I think is the fact that, in our infinite variety, we sport an infinite variety of turn-ons. Thank God.
Now, all that having been said, I come to the point of this diatribe: It's just not right to have your long-standing perceptions of the world messed with.
Have you ever heard of hotornot.com? It's this website where you post a picture of yourself and total strangers from around the globe rate you on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being "hot" and 1, presumably, being "not"). Well, for years I've dropped by the site and checked people out when I was bored skull-less, and been amazed at how mean people can be. Our expectations of beauty, as a culture, seem to me to skewed. If someone doesn't look like a model, then they're ugly, which bugs the shit out of me. I make a point, when visiting this site and browsing the pictures, to only score someone less than six if they really seem to me to be ugly. You have to be practically repulsive to me to score a four.
Because of the nastily low scores I've seen on some regular looking people, I've avoided putting my picture on the site. But I figured recently that, if I was going to go rating people on this site, I should subject myself to their scrutiny as well, so I posted a picture. Granted, it was one of my favorites, and one which, I think, shows me in a flattering light, but I totally expected these cyber-dingoes to eat me alive.
So it was a bit of a surprise to see the result below when I went back a couple of days later and checked my rating.
It was a 7.5.
The best I had ever hoped for was a nice average "5," but having seen the voting trends before, I figured I was in for a "3" or "4." These people can be viscous. I'm grateful to have been spared their vitriol, but it leaves me with a quandry... should I print this out and have it pasted on a t-shirt so I can rub it in the faces of all the guys I've always thought were further up the food chain? Or should I got on sticking to my caste, with nary a hope of ever rising above?
Or maybe I should just date people 'cuz they're smart, funny, and kind. Hmmm... what do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment