Bravo! **throwing flowers at your feet**

You definitely need to submit this to a gay interest magazine or something. I'm serious. You could even get paid. 

Makes me wanna kiss your feet. Sorry! Sophiosexual here... Buzzinga! Another stereotype to fight off. 

*headbutts fishy then throws him a beer*

Bravo! **throwing flowers at your feet**

 

You definitely need to submit this to a gay interest magazine or something. I'm serious. You could even get paid. 

only if im paid in dicks

Makes me wanna kiss your feet. Sorry! Sophiosexual here... Buzzinga! Another stereotype to fight off. 

 

 

*headbutts fishy then throws him a beer*

ow, my head hurts :<

Add Gaydar to that list of website. *grumbles*

How can he say no to "Hispanics", "Black", "Indian", "Brown", "Asian",...? You got to try each flavour before you decide which one you like the best.

Add Gaydar to that list of website. *grumbles*

 

How can he say no to "Hispanics", "Black", "Indian", "Brown", "Asian",...? You got to try each flavour before you decide which one you like the best.

WOW IESHWAR LOL 

this article is offensive to masculine guys that write profiles just like that one. They deserve love too. LOL

I laughed my ass off reading this

I'm sorry, but implying that knowing what one wants and that knowing what one doesn't want equates to having:

narrow-minded pencil dicked views

 

and that valuing masculinity as a positive and desirable quality is the result of

unfortunate socializations

is horribly narrow-minded in and of itself.

Yes, this post is kinda funny and satirically spot on, and quite a few of the kind of people you targeted here (and they are definitely out there) could do well to tone down the testosterone, but the last section to your entry turned all of this from what could have been incredibly funny to what ultimately came off bitter, resentful and much less humorous and inspiring than I'm sure you had intended to be. 

I'm sorry, but implying that knowing what one wants and that knowing what one doesn't want equates to having:

 

 

and that valuing masculinity as a positive and desirable quality is the result of

 

 

is horribly narrow-minded in and of itself.

 

Yes, this post is kinda funny and satirically spot on, and quite a few of the kind of people you targeted here (and they are definitely out there) could do well to tone down the testosterone, but the last section to your entry turned all of this from what could have been incredibly funny to what ultimately came off bitter, resentful and much less humorous and inspiring than I'm sure you had intended to be. 

Valuing masculinity is great IN THEORY, if it didn't have any repercussions towards others who don't have masculinity -- so in other words, if valuing masculinity was a component of a valuing diversity, it would be great. Valuing masculinity in real life often means devaluing femininity. So no, I don't think I'm being narrow minded, I think you're missing the major point here.

     I have to agree with Yang Bang. This is satire- the moralizing at the end lessened the bark. The article doesn't need to be hit over the head with the moral at the end. We get it. If you don't get it, then the lecture part will still go over your head.

   And you know, the idea that all "masculine" gay guys were once effeminate kids who were teased in elementary school for having a limp wrist is a pretty fucking offensive thing to say, because here are guys who did indeed have a very hard time coming out of the closet because they were masculine jocks growing up and had more in common with straight guys as opposed to gay guys.

    Otherwise, an excellent article.

No I understand that media driven ideas of what is beautiful distorts reality and leaves many people feeling inadequate. But keep in mind people who are socialized to have developed these preferences are in their own way, victims to circumstances just as everybody else. If we are to criticize, I think it would be better aimed at where it begins rather than viciously critique those we have already developed their preferences as a consequence of media driven ideas. It's quite difficult to UNsocialize psychologically. Sure some of these online profiles fuel widespread negativity and I will agree they are harmful, but if we're just talking about preferences, it's not fair to call out the macho white guys who only want macho white guys and demand them to change.

No I understand that media driven ideas of what is beautiful distorts reality and leaves many people feeling inadequate. But keep in mind people who are socialized to have developed these preferences are in their own way, victims to circumstances just as everybody else. If we are to criticize, I think it would be better aimed at where it begins rather than viciously critique those we have already developed their preferences as a consequence of media driven ideas. It's quite difficult to UNsocialize psychologically. Sure some of these online profiles fuel widespread negativity and I will agree they are harmful, but if we're just talking about preferences, it's not fair to call out the macho white guys who only want macho white guys and demand them to change.

I agree that it's unrealistic and militant to expect everyone to change their preferences, especially when, socialization aside, people are drawn to similar people.

But I DO think it's totally fair to call out on the way people act on it -- I wrote this article not to specifically target macho guys who want macho guys, but basically to target everyone's incessant need to be macho and white and a dick all at the same time. That means macho guys who think their machoness is an accomplishment and effeminate guys who are trying to be macho because they think machoness makes one guy better than the other, and then discriminate under the cover of "preference" like fuck. I agree that critiquing where it begins is very important, but critiquing this sort of behaviour is important too because it exacerbates and normalizes the problem.

If someone is already straight acting or was forced to cover to be straight acting, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's totally cool for a guy to be straight acting and it's sad that someone had to cover, but to view their own mannerisms as superior and other people to view their mannerisms as superior is as wrong as discriminating against macho guys and people who had to end up macho. This sort of perspective often comes hand in hand with preferences so it's not so easy to isolate. Everyone is a 'victim' of socialization but that doesn't give you an excuse to say I yam what I yam; don't judge me for it.

Holy that was a long sentence

No I understand that media driven ideas of what is beautiful distorts reality and leaves many people feeling inadequate. But keep in mind people who are socialized to have developed these preferences are in their own way, victims to circumstances just as everybody else. If we are to criticize, I think it would be better aimed at where it begins rather than viciously critique those we have already developed their preferences as a consequence of media driven ideas. It's quite difficult to UNsocialize psychologically. 

The aim of satire isn't to be soft and understanding. It's to bite and cut deep. Sometimes friction is the best way to revelation. 

 I will agree they are harmful, but if we're just talking about preferences, it's not fair to call out the macho white guys who only want macho white guys and demand them to change.

How does fairness come into this?  We have the right to extremely narrow dating preferences, but we don't have the right to be exempt from the criticism.  And really being psychologically blind is no excuse. 

Also the profile in the article isn't exactly the poster of a macho guy, but of someone with a strange warped sense of what it means.  Ted Nugent waving a Kalashnikov is a macho image, making duck lips while holding your shirt up isn't my definition of macho. 

I didn't read the article as condemning macho guys for liking macho guys, but rather about the absurd lengths men would go to radiate masculinity and yet fall so damn short of the mark, all the while managing to make others feel ostracized. 

What is a politic?

It comes from the root words Poly and Ticks.

It literally means MANY BLOODSUCKERS.

Since I'm too old to be hot, I work with witty, charming and being damn good in the kitchen.

There comes a point where being good in the kitchen makes you hotter than hell. 

It comes from the root words Poly and Ticks.

 

It literally means MANY BLOODSUCKERS.

 

 

Since I'm too old to be hot, I work with witty, charming and being damn good in the kitchen.

 

There comes a point where being good in the kitchen makes you hotter than hell. 

Stop it james you're turning me on

We have the right to extremely narrow dating preferences, but we don't have the right to be exempt from the criticism.  And really being psychologically blind is no excuse. 

We need to recognize that we are essentially talking about 3 very different things - preference, attitude, and behavior - as in people's socialized preferences to who they would like to be with, people's attitudes towards the characteristics of those they prefer and not prefer, and people's behavior in response to who they prefer and not prefer. I think it's important to separate these 3 areas in question and appoint criticism more carefully because the arguments I am reading here are targeting different things than strictly people's socialized preferences. Keep in mind 2 people can have varying degrees with all 3 even if they have the same exact preference. 

How does fairness come into this?  We have the right to extremely narrow dating preferences, but we don't have the right to be exempt from the criticism.

I agree. I think it's important that narrow dating preferences are critiqued. 

Fairness comes in play because of the above. You're right, we have the right to our dating preferences but not the right to be exempt from criticism, but will those criticism be well-founded and are they placed appropriately?

We need to recognize that we are essentially talking about 3 very different things - preference, attitude, and behavior - as in people's socialized preferences to who they would like to be with, people's attitudes towards the characteristics of those they prefer and not prefer, and people's behavior in response to who they prefer and not prefer. I think it's important to separate these 3 areas in question and appoint criticism more carefully because the arguments I am reading here are targeting different things than strictly people's socialized preferences. Keep in mind 2 people can have varying degrees with all 3 even if they have the same exact preference. 

 

 

 

Fairness comes in play because of the above. You're right, we have the right to our dating preferences but not the right to be exempt from criticism, but will those criticism be well-founded and are they placed appropriately?

This is really not important. What I'm getting from you is "Don't generalize all people with narrow dating preferences, because not everyone with them is a dick!" But that's not the point. Narrow preferences should be critiqued because it's a problem and it promotes discrimination, and if the odd person with narrow dating preferences who isn't a dick gets offended by this movement, they're part of the problem and no one really cares about their butthurt.

I'd rather not repeat myself so think of this analogy: When feminists say, "Join the movement to eliminate rape culture promoted by men!" There's usually an uproar wherest men who aren't rapists go all out and say "Well I'm a man and I'm not a rapist so don't generalize me. It's not fair to me 'cause I didn't do anything! Place your critique appropriately on real rapists." No one targetted them in the first place and if they feel like they were, no one cares about their feels. This is evident of privilege and normalization in men and it distracts from the movement.

I myself am a person with narrow dating preferences, I'm not going to sit here and be like oh I find everything sexy, once I jerked off fantasizing about a flower plant, diversity fuck yeah. I am a product of these problematic socializations, and I welcome critique, and I critique myself. Obviously no one has gone Nazi on me demanding me to change because I'm not a dick about it. And if I got all butthurt about it anyways and said "hey you know what I'm a victim of socialization, don't critique me!" no one should give a shit about my butthurt either because they're distractions to the real problem.

We have officially psychoanalyzed the shit out of this and since neither of us seems to be able to grasp what the other is saying, let's agree to disagree.

We have officially psychoanalyzed the shit out of this and since neither of us seems to be able to grasp what the other is saying, let's agree to disagree.

Okay