Uchi no Musuko wa Tabun Gay - Vol. 1 Ch. 16 - How Other People See You

[MangaDex]

 

[karupin]

just when i thought i forgot that guy's ugly ass hair ;A;

 

[chusetto]

Holding hands at the train... That's too lewd

 

[rlackbabbit]

H-holding hands?! Where's the NSFW tag!
Too lewd

 

[mclambchops]

hopefully this stops the distasteful "the joke is he's not really gay" comments since this confirms


such a wholesome series...even though this chapter was crazy lewd

 

[tailor31415]

awww he's gonna follow his dad's example and hold hands in crowded elevators lol

 

[gum_rummy]

His mom and dad are hos

 

[Sealight]

The only lewd thing about this is daigo's friggin hair which should honestly be censored

 

[VawX]

When girls hold hands it's cute, when it's boys it's gay mmm...

 

[rebel16]

Mom low-key slipping her son useful dating advice.

 

[friendly]

Oof. I remember that feeling... also cute to find out he gets his shyness from his dad.

 

[eyhon]

so cute!!

 

[Kaiser92]

lewd

 

[cixous]

@mclambchops there are comments like that?

 

[gronkle]

@VawX Yes, because boys and girls socialise differently, because they are different. For boys to make such a gesture it holds more meaning than among girls, context notwithstanding. Among boys, gentle physical interaction of any sort is generally assumed to hold an intimate meaning, because when boys are tender they are showing intimacy. Girls are generally gentle towards each other, that sort of physical interaction doesn't require the same level of intimacy.
Because social norms are derived from normal (as in, within statistical norms) behaviours, it is a reasonable expectation that two boys holding hands are expressing intimacy while two girls are not.

 

[OkamiLeek006]

@gronkle
That's incorrect, boys and girls do not have that much of a difference in how they interact, societal norms are pushed onto them and end up perpetuating these behavior segregations. It works in a similar way to the "guys have no feelings and girls are crybabies" stereotypes

 

[gronkle]

@OkamiLeek006 that's incorrect, behaviour differences in children appear before socialisation and are consistent across cultures. Biology informs behaviour, which informs society, not the other way around. Sex differences in behaviour are just an extension of our sexual dimorphism, and just like in sexual dimorphism there is a distribution curve for each attribute that is bimodal. One peak repesenting the average male, the other the average female.

There is no reason other than ideological to make the assumption that behaviour differences are explained by society imposing that behaviour on a tabula rasa child. That isn't to say that all behaviour is set in stone by our biology, that is a misunderstanding of genetics, but sexed trends will appear regardless of socialisation because we are dimorphic down to the individual cell.

 

[OkamiLeek006]

@gronkle I'd understand if you meant general behavior, however showing affection being taboo isn't one of them, in my country even, boys hold hands until they are around 9-10 years old, and only stop due to outside pressure. Evolutionary traits that do affect behavior are for suvival (guys being more agressive than women, for example, and their need to remain composed) and what they affect is overexagerated by most cultures as it was the easiest way for people to execute their gender role (where guys are expected to be emotionless machines and by extention cannot be affectional to other guys because it's a sign of weakness), emotions in men were banned so they'd kill other humans for longer or even at all, as it's a process that requires a deconstruction of moral agency (cause killing humans isn't an evolutionary supported trait unless you were born with psychopathic tendencies), and takes a heavy emotional toll, and these weren't treatable at the time. I don't think I need to say that women don't have an evolutionary incline to work as a housewife their entire lives nor is being sold as a bride to men

 

[gronkle]

@OkamiLeek006 The reason we have gendered roles is because of our dimorphism.
Around 9-10 is when puberty starts, so it makes sense that it would be an age where boys become aware of the different kinds of affection. It also makes sense for slow developing children to be corrected so that they are not displaying unintentionally overly affectionate behaviour.
Male affection is not a sign of weakness, but often has connotations of intimacy. Intimacy isn't weakness, but it does imply sexual attraction and partnering.
As an aside, combat requires emotions. The major thing militaries try to instil in servicemembers, other than hierarchy and obedience, is violence of action. That is a requirement of being deadly, and is a controlled burst of emotion. Killing humans is absolutely an evolved trait too, human history throughout the world has lead to those with the willingness and capacity for violence rising to the top. That is simple positive selection. If you cannot protect your women and children, your lineage ends with you.
Women, particularly pregnant women, do have "nesting" and "nursing" impulses. That is also a positively selected trait as both behaviours benefit rearing infants.
All gendered roles have some basis in biology, because all behaviour is slave to it. That isn't to say that all behaviours are pre-programmed or pre-determined, but our relative propensities for certain types of behaviour are consistent across cultures.
It also isn't to say that behaving outside those gendered bounds is detrimental or to be frowned upon, just as we shouldn't mistreat someone for having a low IQ or having enormous feet.

 

[gayasswitch]

@gronkle go read a book