Talk:Bear (gay slang)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Fixing title

A few comments: 1) This needs to be NPOVized somewhat. 2) Typically, we don't put "the" in article titles unless there's some good reason to do so. I would prefer to see this at Bear community or some such.

Absent discussion, I will effect these changes myself. Montrealais

The bear community was created...

The bear community was created... <- seems to imply a group of people sat down and said "hey! let's do the show right here in the barn" (or whatever... you get the idea). Don't communities in general come about gradually, rather than "created"? -- Tarquin

The term "created" does not imply it happened instantaniously. Example: "He created a masterpiece in his painting "The Dancing Pinapple Head Lady," which took nearly twenty years to complete."

definitions

I question the definitions given for "muscle bear" and "muscle bear cub." If a man is lean, the bears of my acquaintance don't refer to him as a bear or bear cub, "muscle" or otherwise. If they deign to speak of him at all, they may call him an otter. Whenever I hear the term "muscle bear" or "muscle cub" (not "muscle bear cub"), the person being described is muscular but stocky.

  • Two terms I'm used to that do not appear: wolf, similar in meaning to otter (which I'd never heard) but connoting sexual aggressiveness, and furry, a generic adjective for a bears, cubs or wolves. Furry might be British, but I've heard it often in the States (and Google yields abundant hits). Comments? I'm reluctant to just add them without some input. Unsinkable 01:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that these terms should be added, with one caveat. As I understand it, both the bear community and furry fandom use the word "furry," but with different meanings. I believe that any listing of "furry" should make that clear. Doctor Whom 28 June 2005 14:40 (UTC)

Perhaps this (I'd rather get some consensus prior to posting on the page):

  • Wolf (under otter in the list): same general physical traits as otter, but connoting sexual aggressiveness.
  • Furry (at the end of the list): general adjective for bears, cubs, wolves and otters. For other uses, see the disambiguation page Furry.
Unsinkable 28 June 2005 16:34 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Doctor Whom 28 June 2005 18:42 (UTC)

Hey! you made me visit gay porn site by klicking one of those links! :( Can't you have warnings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.73.4.66 (talk • contribs) .

The only site in the external links that I saw that was semi-explicit was Am I Bear or Not, and it does have "graphic" in the actual link wording. However, I beefed the capitalization and bolding up on the word graphic to make it more noticeable. I personally wouldn't call nude guys pr0n, but I can understand that people have different standards. --Syrthiss 12:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Additional Photos

[[User Does anyone object if I actually change photos? The photo that's there doesn't really say much to me, being a distant "side on" view of the bears in there. Although, I don't want to go changing things if people wouldn't like it done. Beardoc 09:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the principles of wikipedia is be bold. Go ahead and try a change if you think it will improve the article. The worst that can happen is we revert back to the original pictures. :) --Syrthiss 13:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Pacian edits

User:Pacian wrote:

It has been derided by some for being inherantly racist (depictions of the "ideal" bear are almost exclusively of a white male,) sexist (women are frequently unwelcome at bear events) and internally-homophobic (with those who are stereotypically effeminate often shunned or excluded.)

In accordance with Wikipedia policy, could you please provide verifiable sources for your POV statements regarding internalized homophobia, sexism, etc. in the Bear community? -thickslab 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have some confusion as to what "POV" means here at wikipedia. Almost ANYTHING could be determined to be someone's point of view. I could say that Madonna is a singer; you may feel that her primary function has been as an actrress, and thus we both have a point of view, but to state in her article that she is a singer and actress would be factual an appropriate to include. Additionally no one would ask for sources about these statements because they are considered common knowledge. However, common knowledge only extends as far as the minds of those who have an active interest in knowing about any given subject.
That being said, everything that I've stated in the above section that you keep removing is common knowledge fact to those in the bear community, and anyone denying them would be delusional. For instance, the statement about the depictions of an ideal bear could easily be verified by looking at the cover models of the past 100 issues of "American Bear" magazine. The phrasing of my entry is particularly important in establishing it's NPOV status: "it has been derided BY SOME," for instance...it leaves it very clear that this is the observation of SOME, but not of ALL.
I will do my best to find sources that reference these statements, but continued deletion of them on your part without providing a reason beyond your assertion that they are POV, WHICH IS INCORRECT, will mean that we may have to escalate to a third party opinion. Cheers. Pacian 23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
SOURCES:
  • 1 This is an article which makes reference to a "workshop regarding racism in the "bear community subculture" given by Gerardo Montemayor, director of education and training for Rape Victim Advocates. Though it doesn't discuss details of the workshop, the very notion that one was given lends credence to the idea that racism is prevelant enough in the bear community to have a workshop on it.
  • 2 A blog by a person called "werecub"; a thread discussing exactly these issues within the bear community, with over 44 responses by 12 different "bears"
Just so you know, though I identify as a bear I am not mindless about it. I am well aware of the many issues the bear community has, having experienced some of them first-hand, and I am more than willing to discuss how criticisms of the bear community can be included in this article. I do think, however, that the language used was POV and unnecessarily inflammatory especially considering that no sources were provided. Placing "some people say" in front of inflammatory language is not enough to make a POV statment NPOV.
Regarding your sources, the first source you quote is fair enough, but I don't think the second one is appropriate. I don't think personal journal posts and comments are sufficiently reliable sources.
I think if we can get some reliable verifiable sources and use more neutral language, we can put these sentences back into the article. Fair enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thickslab (talk • contribs) .
Also note (intended for pacian, but good reminder for us all) that 'by some' or 'some people think' are weasel words, and are usually a mark of POV or unsourced edits. If you had a direct source, you could say something like "Alonzo Testypants said in The Advocate 'The bear community shows tendencies of racism and sexism'". All that said, while I can agree with the sentiments of observed racism that may tend to be a local thing and not the bear community in general. I know that women aren't *welcomed* at the bear bar I go to, but they aren't actively excluded that I have seen. In an environment where a bunch of gay men are looking to talk to or hook up with other gay men, women (gay or not) are going to end up on the periphery. --Syrthiss 14:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Woof (not in a good way) regarding External Links

In my opinion, the external links are getting too long. I don't think this article will ever be developed enough to be a FA, but there are still wikipedia guidelines regarding external links that I would like to adhere to. I propose pruning it a lot, but want to see what other editors think before I do it. --Syrthiss 13:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC) * I've removed most of the links. Most of them were links to bear clubs and commercial sites, and I've kept a few that I think are worth keeping. --thickslab 16:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Your commercial link is not acceptable. The other links are not commercial and they are clearly relevant to the article. Inserting your link to increase the page rank in Google is considered link spamming. [1]. Also, please try to be more polite in the future. Thanks. --thickslab 03:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


I added the Taormino column to the external links and rearranged them chronologically. Should all the linked articles and periodicals be grouped together another way? I put a notice up on the Bears Mailing List asking for folks to come help us make some progress here. My time's really limited these days, but I felt we can do better by way of self-definition. --wolfbear 9 August, 2006 21:58pm ET

What links are link spamming and what not? all you want are spam and all others not? all your friends sites not and others yes? your lovers sites not and other yes? BE INTELILLENT AND COHERENT DONT TELL EXCUSES TO JUSTIFICATE ANARCHY. ALL LINKS DECLARED IN THAT PAGE ARE SPAM OR NOTHING ARE SPAM. BIGMEN SPAM AND HUZBEARS NOT? WHATS THE FUCK. YOU ARE DOING UNFAIR COMPETITION. WHAT DO YOU THINK? THE SERVERS ARE FREE AND PEOPLE CAN LIVE WITH AIR ONLY? BET FOR THE BEAR COMMUNITY NOT FUCK IT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.97.16.111 (talk • contribs).

Please remain civil while discussing with the other editors, thanks. I cleaned up the external links fron this article. please discuss any addition of external links here before adding them :) -- lucasbfr talk 03:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The anarchy dictaorials rights violators are acting again not reading the terms and conditions and banning VALID links :)

I've removed an inline link to "Woobie Bear Music," as it appeared to be spam. Does anyone think it should be put back? Doctor Whom 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No

Minor point...

...but really when I hear "grizzly bear" I don't think of Grizzly Adams (that would be a daddy or polar bear). If one wanted to use the American Grizzly magazine as a yardstick, the guys in there seemed to be bigger frame guys. Comments? --Syrthiss 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Racism, Sexism and Bears

I have been a bear most of my life and I have been to many bear events. I have not once seen anything that even closely resembles racism (as there are many mixed couples present), Sexism (as I know of many women that frequent these events) or elitism (as the bear community is more on the acceptance on one's own image over that of the stereotype).

It should be noted that as the gay community progresses and ages, the long held stereotypes are no longer valid. To say that we do not welcome those that are effeminate, is to say that we don't accept ourselves. Much an oxymoron.

While it is true that most bears tend to be attracted to those of a similar stature, there are quite a number that are looking for quite the opposite. And, still, there are some "bears" that are hetrosexual, chosing to celebrate all that is being a male.

        Um, no not really. I see many bears these days attracted  to non bears and yes even some twinks and vice versa. I have even see more non bears accpted in bear runs and bear bars these days. This should definetely be noted.


A bear, it should be noted, is more the attitude of acceptance our own flaws as being part of who we are, rather than trying to live up to an image. 69.162.110.52 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Jerrbear

I would slightly disagree. It is not an attitude of accepting our own "flaws" as a rejection of the meme that anything other than a lean, hairless body is a flaw. Big, big difference.TechBear 19:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bear "community" is very accepting of Bisexual and Transgendered people, and this is very surprising since Bisexuals and Trans people get ignored, or told that they don't exist by the mainstream GLBT/gay "community".

However, there is a lot of racism within the bear community, you can't deny it. It's sort of a white supremacy within "SOME' sections of the community but not all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.237.142 (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wombat, manatee, etc.

Can someone provide some sources for some of the more ridiculous animal words, i.e. wombat, manatee, fluffy, koala bear? And also for the alternate definition of "panda bear?" These are not words I have ever heard used in this context. -- by thickslab, originally unsigned.

I disagree with the culling of the description list to 'keep it short and simple'. Nor was it admirable to remove terms that are relevant to geographically specific areas, such as 'wombats' and 'koala bears'. Aside from the recent rise in muscle bear exclusivity, I had thought the bear culture welcomed diverse opinions. And to pre-emptively respond to the criticism that opinion has no place on wikipedia, it is collective opinion and action that eventually morph into the solid fact demanded from any encyclopaedia.

  • Some of these phrases were redundant - "muscle bear" and "muscle cub" and "pipe bear" have obvious meanings and clutter up the list. Others such as koala bear and wombat seem to be made up or not widely used and I couldn't find references to them in a google search. I posted the above comment and never heard an objection, so I went ahead and trimmed the list of some redundant and silly definitions. --thickslab 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bears in history

On the topic of bears in history, I admit that it seems a little spurious, but to refer to it as ridiculous is to overstep the bounds of language. It is important to recognise that while some personalities in history were not called 'bears' (or ursus) in their day, the basis of hirsute, masculine men engaging in homosexual activity is a pertinent point of reference for community origins. -- anonymous comment by IP

  • The bears in history section contained unsourced speculation and what seems to me to be [[WP:OR|original research]. (And I doubt that most people would call Antinous a cub, based on the depictions we have of him, anyway.) --thickslab 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Vanity

Clearly this is a vanity article. The term "bear" doesn't mean anything in the context of the gay community. Everyone looks different, so the hell what. Haizum 08:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It most certainly does. This is not a "vanity article," whatever that means. --thickslab 14:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If you don't know what a vanity article is, how can you begin to try and say that it isn't? You can't. Move along. Haizum 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Please be polite. The term "bear" is widely recognized in the gay community. This article is not a "vanity article" and should remain. Thanks. --thickslab 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what a vanity article is, and this isn't one. I will echo Thickslab's link to the civility guidelines. Syrthiss 20:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, what a crock. You just said you didn't know what a vanity article is, as in, "whatever that means." Haizum 20:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The term "bear" applies to gay men, that's all. There is no reason why this can't be merged with another article. You can't have a new entry for every time a gay man starts to look different. Haizum 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not just about starting to "look different." It's a well-recognized phenomenon and movement that's been well-documented. It's no less article-worthy than the articles on the goth or punk subcultures. --thickslab 02:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lies

"The bear community originated in San Francisco in the 1970s as an outgrowth of the leather and "girth and mirth" communities. It was created by men who felt that mainstream gay culture was unwelcoming to men who did not fit a particular bodily norm (hairless, and young)."

Complete bullshit. Obviously bearish gay men exist all over the world before the 1970. The only thing the US did was coming up with the community idea, making it famous and commercialising it.

As stated somewhere below I would also change the "was created" sentence. Guest Account 08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This is the popular account of how it was created, and I agree that it's probably more of a fantasy than truth. Unfortunately I don't know of any references that tell a different story. Does anyone have anything we can add that can shed light on this? --thickslab 13:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember the first Bear event took place at the Pilsner Bar in San Francisco in 1988? 1989? It was reported in the B.A.R., I think. It was actually more of a tongue-in-cheek thing, kind of a spoof of drag shows and leather events. The Pilsner back then had a more blue collar, out of the mainstream crowd--certainly not what would be considered Bearish today. That's the first time I heard the word Bear used to describe gay men. --Paddbear 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This Article is Hilarious

Thanks for the laugh.

haha yeah it is!

Additions and request for assistance

Just starting out, added 'behr' as a definition I remember from early Usenet days. Would like to add supporting citation (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.motss/browse_thread/thread/5079134669420411/33d889eb7b8030a4?lnk=gst&q=behr&rnum=6#33d889eb7b8030a4). Can anyone either add it, or help me out with that? --Jestabear originally unsigned

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

QaF

Queer as Folk has a comment like, every five seconds about bears and twinkies and studs. That should be added but I don't know how to word it.-Babylon pride 03:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the other term for "chaser"?

In the definitions section, the term "chaser" seems to have a mistake. It's also known as a ....? Gahunt 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The first instance was changed from "admirer" to "chaser." If someone wants to change it back, I have no objections. Doctor Whom 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There is Hell of difference Between chaser and Admirer. Chaser (young age guys who are into old guys). Admirer are one who are young and like young. 210.2.152.25 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I am myself Bear Cub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.2.152.25 (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Flag

Should their be an image of the striped flag with pawprint? Basejumper 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bear Feet

There should be a section in here regarding "bear" feet. Lots of guys are into big guy's feet. It's all over the internet and well known in the community. Perhaps, make a wikipedia article about it?

Leather subculture

Both articles are lacking source based descriptions of their common similarities and differences. --Nemissimo 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)