Outness on RJ?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2007 8:31 AM GMT
    Im not really against or for the idea, personally I do not see the relevance towards the site. Sure it's a valid question and would explain a little bit about a person but it wouldn't draw a full scale picture. I think that with options such as hair/eye colour/ethnicity ect they help you kind of indentify the person your talking with, despite photos. Level of outness doesn't really come into play contrary to if a person is listed feminine or masculine since they only add a more descriptive base. Also I'm not quite sure how beneficial it'll be, not that it would be detrimental either. This isn't a hook up site, for the most part, so why have some of the qualities relating to one? Whatever comes to mind.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2007 9:22 AM GMT
    I like the idea, with the scale suggested by Jeff. I don't think it qualifies as a "slippery slope" type thing. It is a rather useful bit of info if, say, you were searching for a workout partner in your area but wanted to screen out someone you may not be comfortable with (whether it is on either end of the spectrum)

    And of course, just like other stats, it would be optional anyway, so if you are a "none of your business" type, just don't answer.

    I would even add another suggestion which I have yet to see on any site (and a topic I have seen discussed often): How about a Kinsey Scale based rating of how you identify on the scale between pure gay to pure straight. Not everyone is 100% gay or 50/50 bisexual. Some guys consider themselves "mostly straight, only incidentally gay" i.e. str8 guys on the DL who like to play occasionally:

    0 Exclusively heterosexual
    1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
    2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
    3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
    4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
    5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
    6 Exclusively homosexual

    (I'm a #1 on the out scale that was suggested, #5 Kinsey)

    And there is a difference between "outness" and "str8 acting" vs "flamer"

    Although I am out to anyone who wants to know, I'm still very much "straight acting" unless I'm with my boyfriend... we both are comfortable with PDA. I guess we could be considered "post gay", it's just a non-issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2007 10:31 AM GMT
    did we lose a box recently for 'position' (top/bottom) or did i imagine it?

    is the light flickering again?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2007 8:18 PM GMT
    Whatever the decision, I just like the idea that this site is one that is not blocked by the filters that others are at work. I'd like it to stay that way at least until I finish the 12 week Muscle-building workout so I can print out the sessions. (4 more weeks to go; I can see my abs again, don't go messing that up by making Jeff make this site over the top.)

    I like being able to read the articles on nutrition too. I get lots of great ideas for snacking, so please don't make this site so out that the powers that be end up flagging it.

    (yes, i look at the pix too, but mostly when i'm at home... mostly.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2007 7:29 PM GMT
    Haha! Was skimming another thread about when you mention you're out and DiverScience made this suggestion:

    Closeted -> Superout -> Comfortable

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2007 7:33 PM GMT
    I think it's a great idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 12:10 AM GMT
    jeffinsf saidThanks guys. How about these for options?

    Question: How Out Are You?

    1. Out to everyone
    2. Mostly out (out to almost everyone)
    3. Out to some people
    4. Mostly closeted (out to a few people)
    5. Closeted

    We can certainly go into many different levels (out at work, out to friends but not family, etc.) if people want it.

    Thoughts?
    1. aint esay...but so.
  • Alan95823

    Posts: 306

    Dec 21, 2007 3:49 AM GMT
    jeffinsf saidThanks guys. How about these for options?

    Question: How Out Are You?

    1. Out to everyone
    2. Mostly out (out to almost everyone)
    3. Out to some people
    4. Mostly closeted (out to a few people)
    5. Closeted

    We can certainly go into many different levels (out at work, out to friends but not family, etc.) if people want it.

    Thoughts?


    Jeff, I think that's a great list to start with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 3:56 AM GMT
    I don't understand the denial that this site has a significant erotic dimension. Do you normally stand around in public with your shirt off, flexing your biceps, with your pants unfastened?

    The function of the "private photos" is not just to provide space for the camera-shy to put their face pics. Lots of people display full-frontal nudity,replete with actual erections, in their private photos. I doubt this is because they think a hard dick is essential to volleyball performance.

    For that matter, is eye color and chest size relevant to whether you're going to talk sports to someone or actually meet for a date? If eye color is that important for a date, I'm betting the person's sexual role is, um, nearly as important.

    I can't help wondering if this isn't another case of people trying to control their own impulses by deferring control to someone else. In part, the reason I say this is the inevitable comparison to gay.com, which people repeatedly depict as a sex site. I've been on there for years, have a bunch of real-life friends there and haven't hooked up with anyone there in more than five years. It's really easy to say "no thanks." I get far more sexual offers here (keep them coming!), anyway.

    Is your nonsexual agenda really that derailed by sexual flirtation?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 4:41 AM GMT
    I think it's relevant to the site, just in that if you ever meet someone from the site in public, when sending emails, etc, it helps to know. If someone is "Totally Out," I wouldn't feel hesitant to say hello to them in public (when appropriate). If they are "Not out at all", then I would not approach them in public.

    I'n no talking about hookups, just courtesy. If you see someone at the gym and recognize them from here, and want to mention a conversation here, a mutual friend, ask them if they want to workout with you, etc. If someone is not out at all, I wouldn't want to embarass them by speaking to them and having them realize how I recognized them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 4:55 AM GMT
    But, Tanktop, will you have your laptop handy when that hypothetical RJ member is coming towards you and you need to verify his "outness" status before you can confidently holler "Hey gurrrl, I know you! You lookin' mighty fierce today miss thang – way hotter in person than you do on Realjock-Dot-Com, bitch! So, tell me, ManEater4U – LOVVVVE the name BTW – you wanna get coffee? or fuck me sideways here-and-now?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 5:41 AM GMT
    Aero said you wanna get coffee? or fuck me sideways here-and-now?"


    I'll take option number two.

    Oh wait, that wasn't a serious question?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 10:23 PM GMT
    Ah boxes.

    It will never cease to amaze me how quick we are, we the same people who rant and rave about society grouping all "the gays" together, to put OURSELVES in little boxes.

    Top, Bottom, Masc, Fem, Str8, Gay, Bi, Jock, Nerd, Out, Closeted, Yankee, Southern, Academic, Businessman...

    They're just more ways to limit ourselves and the way people perceive us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 11:09 PM GMT
    I agree with Diver...I wonder if another way to classify yourself just promotes elitism.

    I belong to several forums...sports, writer's forums, professional, gamers forums, etc. I don't notice in those other places the tendency to attack or snipe at other posters that I get here.

    It seems that no matter what side of a subject you come down on, someone has a nasty comment. If "outness" now becomes another reason for some holier than thou real jocks to set themselves above everyone else, I don't think it should be included. If they want to only talk to guys on their same "outness" level, then make them ask the question.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 11:37 PM GMT
    Jesus, a description of "outness" is dependent upon self-perception and is very much contextual. (Being out in NYC requires less than being out in Podunk.)

    I don't see these questions as anything but a starting place. A 30-inch waist on a 5'6" man with a 36" chest is less impressive than one on a 6'1" one with a 50" chest, typically. Shall we require people who state their waist to also state their height and chest measurements? And, god knows, the definition of "muscular" and "defined" is certainly relative to personal perception. Will someone please clear that up!

    Exactly what would you find acceptable to include in a questionnaire (which is completely optional to begin with)? Why do I need to be protected by RJ from the "elitism" of men who are more out than I am or younger (even though I'm only 24)?

    It's all optional! What the hell is the big deal? How does an optional question with a complete range of possible responses, understood to be self-perceptual, box me in? What questions DO you approve of?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2007 10:35 AM GMT
    i think you should have to have a genetic test to be on rj aswell. i mean you wouldn't want to get involved with anyone who is going to develop cancer or dementia in 50 yrs time would you? all that dribbling in public? nasty!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2007 11:45 AM GMT
    Noooooooooo! No no no no no! I'd rather the "position" tick-box were brought back rather than an "outness" one to contend with.

    For the sake of being truthful, I'd need to check the "Complely Out to Everyone" box, BUT... that would only lead to more grave messages from the swarm of angst-ridden baby 'mos that find me "cool [for my age]" and desperately craving to suck me of my hard-earned Fabulosity. I am not a social worker – far from it! – and yes, I am limited to 24-hour days just like terrestrial beings.

    O, pray, have mercy!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2007 12:01 PM GMT
    Aero--

    For your age?

    Why, you is jes' a li'l ole chile, honey.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2007 12:19 AM GMT
    "Why, you is jes' a li'l ole chile, honey."

    Why thank you kindly, Sir. What a true gentleman you are... Wait!

    Who you calling ole chile? If it's like calling someone "yesterday's lunch", why I'll... I'll... *sobs* [staggers towards the knife block]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2007 3:17 PM GMT
    To Diver and tommyguns' points, yes, it's another classification but we have them for a reason - to make dealing with others easier for ourselves. That's what language is at its core - a way to facilitate communication. And I'm not suggesting it shouldn't remain JUST an option just like ALL of the profile details (short of screen name) currently are.

    And honestly, yes, I am going to be much more inclined to chat with someone who is completely out. I came out when I was 15 and so the whole coming out thing is ancient history to me now. So yeah, I guess I just think it would be nice if I had a chance to know who those guys are in advance. AND, something tells me there are plenty of "discreet" [sic] guys on here who wouldn't mind being able to state their situation up front. Maybe I'm wrong.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2014 6:33 PM GMT
    jms84 saidi agree that jeff's suggestions are valid options. but what about instead of a one choice list, make it a multiple choice and whichever you check show up.

    i'm out to:
    family
    close friends
    all friends
    coworkers
    everyone

    the "more info" box would come in handy.


    How are you now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2014 8:44 PM GMT
    this is really an old post, 2007.