Jump to content

Archived

This thread has been closed to further replies because it was not updated for 12 months. If you wish to have this thread reinstated, please contact an administrator.

Bad Girl

Almost three quarters of the gay community have been turned off by feminine men, new survey finds

Recommended Posts

Just now, Simón. said:

and the masculine gays backstab feminine gays for it ?rip4 

You literally bolded that point and the point under it answers that statement

 

Quote

HOWEVER, I wouldn't attack the fems in the LGBT Community because I know it's not their fault, it's society's fault for it all. 

I'm speaking my first hand experience and giving an assumption off it.. Why do you think I have the answer to all the questions for ALL the mascs in the world? Do you have the answer of why white people say "No Blacks" or why some gays say "No fats" um1 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kyoteki said:

You literally bolded that point and the point under it answers that statement

 

I'm speaking my first hand experience and giving an assumption off it.. Why do you think I have the answer to all the questions for ALL the mascs in the world? Do you have the answer of why white people say "No Blacks" or why some gays say "No fats" um1 

Because they are stupid 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Merryem said:

ya'll are all fucking stupid dead2 

first of all, what's being discussed here - aka the topic at hand- has NOTHING to do with SEXUAL preference. this is tackling the topic of internalized homophobia, in which feminine guys are actively persecuted for being feminine. it's not whether or not you prefer fem or masc guys to date/have sex with, it's the fact that people actively DISLIKE feminine guys within our own community, attributing them with bringing down the gay community/giving us a bad rep/whatever. it's like people who take pride in being "straight-acting". the issue at hand is we should instead of demonizing and persecuting feminine traits, we should actively accept them even if we don't find them attractive. attraction is all subjective anyways?

 

it's not wrong to be more attracted to traditionally masculine traits for romantic/sexual partners. just how it isn't wrong to be feminine as a guy and want to express yourself that way. the point of the article isn't to say "everyone should be attracted to fem guys", it's to say that we should all strive towards being more accepting, and that it's not cooler/better to be more masculine acting, it's just how you are. @Infrared having the knee-jerk reaction and instantly saying he's only into masc guys perpetuates that, but the people attacking him for his own sexual preferences are misunderstanding too. dead2 

 

It's not internalised homophobia. It's completely wrong to say that every gay person has to identify and be part of and be proud of a moment that they don't feel at all attached too.

 

When I see gay pride parades of people dressed up in ridiculous outlandish feminine costumes and glitter, why should I feel proud? That has nothing to do with me. I would never ever dream of doing that. I'm pleased they're standing up for themselves, but they're not necessarily correctly representing me.

 

Just because you are attracted to men does not mean you have to like and be a part of the queer community. There are so many gay people who are the opposite to that, you just don't hear about them because the stereotypical gay person is making so much noise.

 

#SorryNotSorry for not wanting to be tarred with the same brush as a group of people I am nothing like, other than having the same sexual preference. It's like all straight people should act and dress one sort of way and identify themselves as part of it. It's not like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Simón. said:

But no one said that masculine guys don't get shit. The thing you described is that being a bottom is seen not as "manly" because you get penetrated. And this is a problem also. 

bew, at the end of the day, everything traces back to EVOLUTION or SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. Both of these contribute to the "problem". 

 

Most straight guys are into girls with wide hips, flat stomach, and big tits. Why? because evolution has programmed men to be attracted to woman who seem more fertile. Wide hips + big tits are a physical sign of fertility. Does that mean girls with small tits/hips are NOT fertile? NO. But evolution favors the former and thus, guys gravitate more towards them.  

 

Now let's look at gays. Why are most gay guys attracted to "masc guys"? Well, because they are attracted to MASCULINE CHARACTERISTICS/TRAITS that are either linked to evolution (broad shoulders, deep voice, strength, body hair, etc) or are SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED (guys being into sports, not being dramatic, not showing too much emotion etc).

 

Being "penetrated" by a dick is not seen as "manly" because from an evolutionary perspective, penetration is NOT something males do. In evolutionary terms, females are penetrated, which is why most bottoms are seen as "fem". 

 

Is all this shit problematic? maybe but you shouldn't be surprised BECAUSE at the end of the day, these "masc/fem" stereotypes exist  because of reasons much bigger than preference, prejudice, homophobia, etc. mad12 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dangerous Jim said:

When I see gay pride parades of people dressed up in ridiculous outlandish feminine costumes and glitter, why should I feel proud? That has nothing to do with me. I would never ever dream of doing that. I'm pleased they're standing up for themselves, but they're not necessarily correctly representing me.

This 1000%

I mean I'm happy for them if they enjoy it and want to show the world but it doesn't necessarily mean I have to act the same way. My sexuality is my business and I don't have to share it with entire world - also why people should care about who I'm sleeping with? I don't and I expect others to respect my privacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gilly said:

bew, at the end of the day, everything traces back to EVOLUTION or SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. Both of these contribute to the "problem". 

 

Most straight guys are into girls with wide hips, flat stomach, and big tits. Why? because evolution has programmed men to be attracted to woman who seem more fertile. Wide hips + big tits are a physical sign of fertility. Does that mean girls with small tits/hips are NOT fertile? NO. But evolution favors the former and thus, guys gravitate more towards them.  

 

Now let's look at gays. Why are most gay guys attracted to "masc guys"? Well, because they are attracted to MASCULINE CHARACTERISTICS/TRAITS that are either linked to evolution (broad shoulders, deep voice, strength, body hair, etc) or are SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED (guys being into sports, not being dramatic, not showing too much emotion etc).

 

Being "penetrated" by a dick is not seen as "manly" because from an evolutionary perspective, penetration is NOT something males do. In evolutionary terms, females are penetrated, which is why most bottoms are seen as "fem". 

 

Is all this shit problematic? maybe but you shouldn't be surprised BECAUSE at the end of the day, these "masc/fem" stereotypes exist  because of reasons much bigger than preference, prejudice, homophobia, etc. mad12 

 

sad we have to break down in detail this dead2 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gilly said:

bew, at the end of the day, everything traces back to EVOLUTION or SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. Both of these contribute to the "problem". 

 

Most straight guys are into girls with wide hips, flat stomach, and big tits. Why? because evolution has programmed men to be attracted to woman who seem more fertile. Wide hips + big tits are a physical sign of fertility. Does that mean girls with small tits/hips are NOT fertile? NO. But evolution favors the former and thus, guys gravitate more towards them.  

 

Now let's look at gays. Why are most gay guys attracted to "masc guys"? Well, because they are attracted to MASCULINE CHARACTERISTICS/TRAITS that are either linked to evolution (broad shoulders, deep voice, strength, body hair, etc) or are SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED (guys being into sports, not being dramatic, not showing too much emotion etc).

 

Being "penetrated" by a dick is not seen as "manly" because from an evolutionary perspective, penetration is NOT something males do. In evolutionary terms, females are penetrated, which is why most bottoms are seen as "fem". 

 

Is all this shit problematic? maybe but you shouldn't be surprised BECAUSE at the end of the day, these "masc/fem" stereotypes exist  because of reasons much bigger than preference, prejudice, homophobia, etc. mad12 

 

Social constructs can be (and are in the most cases) homophobic though. Also that evolution argument. rip4 According to evolution it would be totally okay to kill disabled people, so.. 

That all doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dangerous Jim said:

 

It's not internalised homophobia. It's completely wrong to say that every gay person has to identify and be part of and be proud of a moment that they don't feel at all attached too.

 

When I see gay pride parades of people dressed up in ridiculous outlandish feminine costumes and glitter, why should I feel proud? That has nothing to do with me. I would never ever dream of doing that. I'm pleased they're standing up for themselves, but they're not necessarily correctly representing me.

 

Just because you are attracted to men does not mean you have to like and be a part of the queer community. There are so many gay people who are the opposite to that, you just don't hear about them because the stereotypical gay person is making so much noise.

 

#SorryNotSorry for not wanting to be tarred with the same brush as a group of people I am nothing like, other than having the same sexual preference. It's like all straight people should act and dress one sort of way and identify themselves as part of it. It's not like that.

tell EM jimsus 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Simón. said:

Social constructs can be (and are in the most cases) homophobic though. Also that evolution argument. rip4 According to evolution it would be totally okay to kill disabled people, so.. 

That all doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize it. 

bew, im not saying you can't criticize it, im just telling you WHY SHIT IS THE WAY IT IS. ny12 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Simón. said:

Social constructs can be (and are in the most cases) homophobic though. Also that evolution argument. rip4 According to evolution it would be totally okay to kill disabled people, so.. 

That all doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize it. 

What are you talking about rip3

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Princess Aurora said:

It was risky to say but Fuck It 

Oh well after what Dangerous Jim said about gay parades I guess we already got the answer, I love Hypocrites katy3 

they'd love us to be part of the heteronormative matrix, but no thanks mad1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

  • Browsing now   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×