Talk:Bear (gay culture)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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)

Trans inclusive

I don't think there's a huge amount of women in the bear community but there sure is a decent trans presence. I'm a bit overloaded at the moment but it would be nice to find ways to acknowledge this at some point. Benjiboi 01:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


Women in the bear community? Bears are for male role models -- ones that are not the traditional male twink scope. There is this whole lesbian thing for women - why look to a male grouping? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.242.167 (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Some women, regardless of their own sexuality, just like hanging around bears. Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.243.32 (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

talk page clean-up

Resolved
 – -- ALLSTARecho 18:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This talk page needs some house-cleaning. Someone please be bold and start an archive and move old talk point to it. Thank you! Benjiboi 01:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR

This article contains vast tracts of Original research. The majority of it is unreferenced and most likely, unreferenceable. I suggest serious cleanup. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally I see this organic article as at a good point for a bit of an overhaul. The trivia and pop culture sections are interesting but a bit useless as is and, to me, the entire article should be re-structured and use those examples of how bear cultures have become more mainstream. It might also make sense to make a conscious decision to either be inclusive to all bear communities (which I think would be difficult) or rename and re-aim the lede to state there is a growing emergence of bear cultures within the LGBT movements which is mostly gay men. Rename suggestion --> Bear cultures (gay), or something similar unless the article is gong to try to accurately discuss most of the bear communities around the world which I don't recommend. Benjiboi 20:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Benji. This article needs a good overhauling and sources. Your renaming suggestion is good as long as we don't come into any merge arguments once renamed with any other articles such as Chubby chaser, BBW etc. -- ALLSTARecho 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well BBW is about women so I don't see an issue there whereas Chubby Chaser predates bear and should be expanded not merged so I'll back up any discussion that baits a merge trap. Benjiboi 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm supportive of your efforts to cleanup and rewrite this article. (Just for the record) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Slang and links

I don't agree with the word gay slang as a synonym for the Bear community. Last version didn't had the word gay slang when I searched wikipedia for Bear community .It is an identity Bear community is proud of. Many people in the bear community like to idenitfy as a bear ,cub ,chaser , muscle bear. Also the article misses the explanation of cubs, otters , daddy bear ,muscle bear , woof which I though there was in the previous edit. Check out the link for the list of bear clubs in the world.

Here is a better and best definition of a bear.

Here is some more info.

The current popular Bear Magazine from USA.

And list of Bear Events across the world.

Bear History

Bear Community

Techcub (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)techcub

Slang speaks to the word's usage not to its validity. I would support adding more content but also ensure it's in keeping with realiable sourcing policies. -- Banjeboi 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename (thus focusing a bit more)

Per above "It might also make sense to make a conscious decision to either be inclusive to all bear communities (which I think would be difficult) or rename and re-aim the lede to state there is a growing emergence of bear cultures within the LGBT movements which is mostly gay men. Rename suggestion --> Bear cultures (gay), or something similar unless the article is going to try to accurately discuss most of the bear communities around the world which I don't recommend." Does Bear culture (gay) make sense for this article? If not any suggestions? Also I should clarify I meant that it's mostly gay men in the bear cultures not in the LGBT movements. Benjiboi 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would think Bear (gay) would be correct. The word expresses not just a distinct community and culture, but a distinct identity as well. I would rather see the term itself be the subject of the article rather than some aspect of it. And THANK YOU for your work, Benjiboi; you have done a bang-up job on GLBT articles and your efforts are much appreciated. TechBear (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated TechBear! It's stressed me out a lot so I only do a little each time. Per the title then I wonder if Bear (gay slang) then is most appropriate to keep in line with similar articles of gay slang? Benjiboi 00:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I would push against the (gay slang) label. While the word "bear" is used as slang to mean someone who is older/hairier/fatter than the current archetype of gay male beauty, it also represents a distinct sub-set in a way that "twink" and similar slang words do not. As I said above, "bear" is an identity, a community and a sub-culture. While a comparison can be made between the circuit party circuit and the bear event circuit, I have yet to see anything along the lines of an International Twink Rendezvous. ;-b TechBear (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it should be Bear (gay) or Bear (gay slang). If you just do the first, you're leaving out others within the community such as chasers, otters, etc. which will in turn call for their own articles and face deletion, etc. And as a bear, I'm offended by gay slang. Being a bear or loving bears is an identity, not a nickname or latest cool gay slang like santorum :P Seriously, I really like Bear culture (gay) - if it just really, absolutely has to have a name change because I don't see anything wrong with its current name except maybe it should be Bear community (gay) instead of just Bear community. -- ALLSTARecho 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. The modifier gay is to address that the articles focus is on bear culture within LGBT communities as I'm certain there are other bear interests out there that are not LGBT. Slang simply means that a word is not meant literally and "usage of slang expressions can spread outside their original arenas to become commonly used, such as "cool" and "jive". Slang can be argot and pejorative which the article can delve into as appropriate. To address the other (totally valid) concerns I say focus on the end game; little old lady hears the word and turns to wikipedia to get an answer what is all the fuss about. I think this article should lede with bear as gay slang with major sections on history of term (an outgrowth in opposition to twink and gym queen cultures intertwined with the AIDS pandemic condition of wasting), bear culture (with further subsections including major events, terminology); modifiers (Black bear, Polar bear, Muscle bear, Panda bear, etc) ; and a subsection just for otters with the potential that it could grow into it's own article (but that's a way off I imagine). I'll also state that I'm a bit of an inclusionist so am slow to delete good content but I see the whole pop culture and "controversy" sections as problematic so reworking the structure might provide some framework in which that content would make sense to the average reader. Benjiboi 02:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You make good points. While I don't much care for the slang label, you have the experience so I will defer. Would it be worth setting up a sandbox for the rewrite, or will the existing article be changed in-place? TechBear (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, unless I'm wrong it is slang otherwise it may sound like we are referring to gay bears which is already covered in the homosexuality of animals article. I'm in no rush here so let's make sure Bear (gay slang) is the way to go. My hunch is that it would be the "mother" article with any potential other articles (like community, otter, etc) birthing out of it as it grows too large. If we go with something else (even "otter") the first part of the article is explaining what a bear is anyway. Benjiboi 08:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't necessarily referring to "otter vs bear" but rather how defining this article about a single subject, as Bear (gay slang) does, then you'd have to end up creating seperate articles for chasers, otters, ursophile, etc. By leaving community in the name, you're including just that, the community of which revolves around bear culture. I still prefer Bear community (gay) but you know I have the deepest admiration and respect for you Benji so whatever you feel is necessary, I'll support. -- ALLSTARecho 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Mucho appreciated and back atchya! I see no problem with including the communities content as well as otter et al with a move to Bear (gay slang) and would actually expect to see that in the article. This is who uses this term applies to and why and how and here is the communities, events and naming conventions that are a part of this minority within a minority community. We're opening an accurate window to this world for those looking and we should work it out to be an informative good read. There's piles of great stuff out there I know it's possible. Benjiboi 12:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I got a pile of great stiff for you alright... :P haha -- ALLSTARecho 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Psst, Benji! Your Freudian slip is showing. "Piles of great stiff" indeed. ;-b Either that or you need to lay off on the eggnog. TechBear (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Lol! I'm such a bad speller. Corrected a few of my typos. Benjiboi 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

outdent. OK, now that all have fermented on my creative spelling! can we move forward with a rename to Bear (gay slang) without prejudice to all the content (i.e. we find ways to keep things presently in the article even though we're restructuring)? Benjiboi 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

woof! and mumble something about losing sense of community. -- ALLSTARecho 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free, and I will do what I can to help. Thanks yet again for your work, Benji! TechBear (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Gummi bears

Want to make a note before I forget, Gummi bears are into latex, rubber fetishes; there was a London club by that name was somehow involved in the Operation Spanner case and i believe there is some German pop song about this as well. Benjiboi 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Update the pop song might have simply been adopted as the song I Am Your Gummy Bear actually has dance versions as well as Spanish and French versions all put out by Gummibar on Gummibear International. Benjiboi 10:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
More for those who care or are looking,
You've been warned! Benjiboi 10:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"original research"?

In what sense in the analysis of a concept "original research"? I wrote that stuff. I didn't research it at all. The fact is when you call a man a bear you do it for a reason. It's like a literary allusion. The only way to understand what it means is to understand what it achieves.

Additionally it's important not to dilute the concept such that we are pretending women can be bears, or that transexuals are a significant part of bear culture. if you start doing this, the article reads like a reflection of the author's preoccupations and politics and misleads people. (theobald2526 10/12/07) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobald2526 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think as we do some article overhauling you'll find the history of bears in the LGBT community includes Mama Bears who were mostly lesbian women but I think that usage has lessened recently. Also Transgender men make not be a significant portion of the overall community but it's also false to state that bears are only gay and bisexual. Benjiboi 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've never heard lesbian bears called Mama Bears but have heard "LesBruin". -- ALLSTARecho 05:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There was a Mama's Bear cafe, still might be, in Northern California, Oakland I think. I'm pretty sure is was a defacto lesbian hangout and meeting place for small organizations but I wasn't going to spend research time on that aspect just yet. Benjiboi 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology discussed

Terminology: Wolf

For Christ's Sake, don't tell your parents you're a bear! It will only confuse them. - John Waters.

In the Terminology section of this article, the term "Wolf" is mentioned (and capitalized) in the definition of the term "Otter." A comparison is made between the two, noting the primary difference. However, the term "Wolf" itself is not defined. Both the comparison and the capitalizing of "Wolf" renders it a term that needs its own definition. the terminology list needs to be expanded to include "Wolf." tigerdg (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

I cleaned up an edit made by an anonymous IP, and noticed that the list of references is poorly done. I will try to get to it this evening, but if anyone else wants to take it on, go for it. TechBear (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.134.119.35 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Excessive neutral point-of-view

I made some alterations in the description, as it had so many "some" and "may" and "although" that it was rendered unreadable. I know that this is impolite to do, but I haven't altered any information, except about the chasers. But, as that info is already on the terminology, and has its own article, I don't think it will matter. Hope I haven't upset anyone. Tercer (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, seems to be a lot of generalisations. ie. "Some bears place importance on presenting a hyper-masculine image and may shun interaction with, and even disdain, men who exhibit effeminacy.", this is not behaviour typical to 'bears', "some" effeminate men also disdain other men that exhibit effeminacy. 121.216.229.107 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Swampy

Controversy section should be merged

This article till needs plenty of work but the main glaring issue is the controversy section. These generally should be avoided as it usually means an article is written poorly - instead any appropriate items should simply be merged into the general text. The AIDS controversy, for instance, could go near where the AIDS pandemic is first brought up. -- Banjeboi 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

International Bear Rendezvous article -- your suggestions, please

I have create a sandbox page for IBR, and would appreciate some help in getting it fleshed out before going live. The page itself and its discussion page are both publicly editable, so have at it. Once it is reasonably ready, I will create the actual article page. TechBear (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Teddybear?

[2] Is this right, that they wear in the 1980s Teddy Bears instead of Hanky Codes as protest? --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 09:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here also: [3] --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 10:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems plausible. The hanky code and Castro clone look didn't translate to many gay and bi men and the culture of youth is endemic. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats the Deal with the most recent edit?

The new opening paragraph is terrible! Woefully written and talks more about the Hankie Code than the bear scene. Can we roll this back to a previous edit please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.23.0.70 (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it. It was unsourced, and as you say was more about hankies than bear. Syrthiss (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bear Run

There is mention of Logo's airing of the documentary, Bear Run under "References In Pop Culture - Television."

Link to that documentary is here: [4]

Didn't know if I should add it or not.

Mggreco (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


isnt the bear run part of this article a bit ameri-centric? theres the very popular great british bear bash and several events through europe especially in spain.... i would argue that to be an inclusive article, the bear runs should mention other non-US held popular bear runs

Cmw328i (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)fatboy54

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bear_(gay_culture)/Archive_1&oldid=1190113659"