I can *understand* it in the younger people. But to be passing off this same bullshit as one is approaching 40? REALLY? That's just sad. He's not talking about specifics, either. It's utterly amorphous concepts. Truly, think about it - he's not saying he doesn't watch "Glee" (heck I don't watch it either, but I don't make a point on Grindr or gay-social sites of saying I DON'TWATCH GLEE!), he's saying that he isn't into guys who LOOK LIKE they watch "Glee". He has an idea of what a person who watches Glee looks like, and acts like, and he's scared of that. One more grown-ass man who's still living in fear of the things his asshole father considered "Gay Stereotypes" - baseless, ignorant stupidity.
So....Oh, boo-hoo hoo. I got called a faggot by a gay man who thinks he can pass for straight (in a tank top and army shorts on a patio? gurrrrl, that's like Official Homo Summer Wear!). Oh no. I'm crushed. The reality is this - this guy calling me a faggot will not make his own life better. In fact it will continue to make his own life worse. He only finds security in being gay by making sure he's not seen as "one of those faggots." Until you as a gay man can stand on your own two feet as a gay man, without downplaying, compartmentalizing, editing, censoring or "distancing" yourself from other gay men, you will never ever EVER find happiness, joy and authenticity in life.
Who was this guy? Quite likely the guy that joined in making fun of the "school faggot" as a child. I'm sure a lot of us have met those guys later in life. We remember them, they made fun of gays, laughed at fags, didn't get targeted themselves of course. And then years later we see them at Woody's one night. You join the throngs of haters in hating "them" in hopes the haters won't laser in on you.
Who was this guy? Quite likely the guy that joined in making fun of the "school faggot" as a child. I'm sure a lot of us have met those guys later in life. We remember them, they made fun of gays, laughed at fags, didn't get targeted themselves of course. And then years later we see them at Woody's one night. You join the throngs of haters in hating "them" in hopes the haters won't laser in on you.
The good news is that a lot of young gay people are learning this at a younger age. They're getting over these issues before they reach their midtwenties, or even actual adulthood. Alas, there are the throwbacks - the guys that never got over it. Good luck in life to any of you who think you will find happiness as a gay man, entering into gay relationships, when you're still being "proud" of your supposed ability to pass for something that you're not.
And here's the kicker - you're actually not fooling anyone. You may think that people can't 'tell' that you're gay, or don't know - you're wrong. They can tell. They know. And they also all know how insecure you are about it. That's why they never bring it up. Sure, they've askedgeneral questions, expecting you to mention a boyfriend, or some indicator that YES, you are in fact gay. And then they notice how you avoid it. No straight people are vague about their heterosexuality - only insecure homosexuals try to pull off that shit and pretend it isn't glaringly obvious.
S0 YES, they notice. Yes, they know. Yes, they can tell. And so they can also tell that you're a doormat - an insecure boy posing as a man. It's just terribly weak.
Nobody has bluntly asked "are you gay", because:
Nobody has bluntly asked "are you gay", because:
1. nobody asks that question because in a still-bigoted culture it's considered "rude" and "too personal" to ask such a question.
2. they can tell and they can tell how insecure you are about it and how you avoid it, so they therefore don't bother to bring up something that you clearly have such ridiculous baggage about.
Nearly 40 and still taking pride in (unsuccessfully) passing yourself for something you're not? I can't think of anything less *manly* - that's being an insecure little boy.
This is not about masculinity, nor even perceptions of it. It's the sheer simple fact that no masculine, confident, secure gay man would say the things this man has said. This is what self-hatred looks like. And that's not masculine.
This is not about masculinity, nor even perceptions of it. It's the sheer simple fact that no masculine, confident, secure gay man would say the things this man has said. This is what self-hatred looks like. And that's not masculine.
*edit. I was recently mailed this new pic of the same dunce. Love the new words. What a big man he is, eh? ;-)
41 comments:
yeah, with his man purse on the table. straight acting man purse of course....
can't we all just get it on i mean get along? :)
Is it weird that I'm turned on right now? (by you, not him, of course).
I'm loving you so much right now Kiwi! Is it OK if I copy and paste your Grindr messages word for word and send them to every so-called "straight-acting" bitch that still thinks she has the world fooled? I would add, "You're straight-acting, but you suck dick? BAD ACTING! Get off the stage honey cause Meryl Streep you aint!"
well done! my favourite bit of the exchange was the "I was more of a man at 16..." heheheh
good on you. he's a loser. and probably has a small dick to boot. not that there's anything wrong with that.... :)
The "faggot" slinging at the end is the icing on the cake. If nothing else proves that he's insecure with his sexuality, then calling another gay man "fag" certainly does.
This is awesome. I agree the younger people (who grew up on manga and pokemon are more expose to media outside of Hollywood) are more accepting of other races than the 25 to 40 year old crow.
i feel so torn about this. i absolutely agree that terms like "masc" and "straight-acting" are not only meaningless, but are destructive and only conserve the heteronormative bullshit that men who fuck men should always strive to get rid of.
on the other hand, i don't know that attacking guys on grindr is the way to do it. you're angry about it, i'm super angry about it too, all the guys on here are angry. i wonder if there's a better way to handle it. i wonder if it can't be better tackled among friends, or at least in a friendlier way. not that we care too much about this loser, but what did he take away from that conversation? he probably feels justified that feminine men are catty, crazy, uppity bitches.
sometimes i think it would be so great to just stuff dick down the throats of all these losers and shut them up for good. they could be the permanent gloryholers of the world. they have no clue what it means to be a man and should probably do the world a favor and stop pretending that they're something they're not. truly masculine men appreciate the man behind the demeanor–especially in bed.
I don't sleep with anyone who drinks beer that looks like piss.
Miss you! When Connexion died I went back to RealJock even though I am not crazy about the name. It is the same arguing there that we had on Connexion all the time about how you shouldn't be called out for the way you express your "preference".
Oh I forgot the main reason for my comment... have you been on Douchebags of Grindr yet?
This is too good. Is it really Rick? Or were you kidding? In either case, it's great.
it aint RICK. but it might as well be. they're all the same, after all.
um, he *is* allowed to say who he's attracted to and not attracted to. It's fair. He is attracted to men, and a specific type of man.
It's no different from you saying "No vaginas and breasts please, I only like cock"
didn't say he wasn't allowed. just pointed out how obvious his insecurity and self-loathing is.
but you don't sound very smart, "anonymous".
WOW WOW WOW this is why I stay at home and watch Bravo and listen to the radio. Its ironic this guy is probably at home too. DATEless. Poor thing.
you conflate so many things in your poorly worded rant. Let me help clear some things up for you.
masculine does not equal straight.
being attracted to masculine men is not a red-flag for self hating gay.
You went on the attack for no reason, frankly I would have been even nastier to some high-horsed fucktard giving me shit for no reason on grindr than this guy was...
oh, poor sad "Anonymous"
He didn't talk about being masculine. I didn't talk about being masculine. This has nothing to do with being masculine.
He did not say "masculine guy for same"
He did not list his likes and interests. He expressed prejudices, not preferences
The red flag is not being "into masculine guys" - the red flag is the sheer fact that all he did was express a pathetic level of prejudice.
Which you don't see, "Anonymous"
Ten bucks says you can't even put a face to your comments.
May you one day grow an actual pair of balls. And if they're giving out spare parts, a brain as well.
You need 'em.
He's a douche.
You're a douche.
Why don't you two douches get together for the douchefest you both so desperately long for, and spare the world your little cuntfest drama ?
You wouldn't be so upset about being called a "fag" if you didn't have some sort of issues yourself.
I mean, you try so hard to BE a fag, right ?
How about you grow a pair and put a face and name to your comments, "Anonymous"?
Or are you simply not man enough?
;-)
I've talked to this guy twice...
the first time he was horrendously rude and totally insulting.
the next time, he hit me up after i changed up my pic and profile. i told him to go fuck his damn self!
I think he was fine at first. It's completely valid to not be into effeminate behavior, after all we are gay and that behavior is accosatioed with women.
But then he got out of hand and went into fem shaming.
i think not being into fems is fine, masc and fem guys get along all the time, fem shaming is something differnet.
Blake, you're a young gay black man from Texas. You still have a lot to learn. And I suggest you start.
Wow, that was a rather uninformative and passive aggressive rebuttal (if it even was).
I wonder what I said to make you feel that way. I said nothing wrong.
@ Lito quez: the terms aren't useless, we all know what they mean, they are expressions of patterns of behavior.
Blake Okafor - define "wrong" - you're a young gay black man in Texas who "prefers whites" and doesn't yet understand how society affects and shapes our "preferences" You have more to learn, and I hope you take the time to educate yourself. Uninformative? read my blogs, and take a college course in sociology and gender/sexuality studies.
"define "wrong" "
Immoral,
No, I'm perfectly aware of it(as I've read comments of your pertaining to the subject), my question is, so what? Humans are social creates and products of their upbringing that doesn't invalidate preferences that may occur.
I know this is presumptuous, but what makes you so immune to having these preferences? Also, do you feel sexuality is the same way? Seeing as how society has a very rigid idea of sexuality when (apparently) it's very fluid and we're all "actually bi" but just forced to choose by society
I'm not immune. What I am is open and intelligent to the reality that preferences are shaped by society, and thus can be RESHAPED via self-interrogation. It's not that I'm immune, it's that I have the awareness and drive to open myself up to the wide diverse possibilities that are out there. To not do so is to stubbornly limit one's self.
But reshape them for what? To make other people feel better about themselves?
If someone isn't into variety that's them, is there anything wrong in that? If someone what's to limit themselves so what?
Would you be willing to do the same with women? So does that mean you use to have racial preferences but now don't?
I've analyzed my preferences and see some parts of my life where I may have been influenced(anime) but I don't really care, it's still who I am because there's nothing wrong with it and I see no reason to change just to not offend some.
Unless the social product is something harmful (not a hatred of a certain race) does it matter weather if it's natural or social?
Because I can't understand why a person would continue to be proud of being limited in life. If one can expand their horizons, and yet chooses not to, I can only feel pity for all that they will never know. Some people, I've learned, would rather be lazy and not grow rather than do any work to make them a more complete human being.
So it's wrong because you don't understand it? You sound like homophobes who say similar things.
That doesn't sound like a very valid reason to morally condemn others. If they are content with their preferences then there is nothing to pity.
Who are you to judge others for what makes them happy? Just because they are content with less doesn't make them wrong for it.
Do you feel the same for anythings people could be open to?(IE genres of music, sports, tv shows)
Variety isn't for everyone nor should they be condemn if it isn't.
Would you as a gay man try to be with a woman? I mean they make up half the planet, there's bond to be at least ONE for you no?
orientations are not the same as concepts of attraction. preferences and orientations are not innate - we have preferences within our orientations - orientations are innate, attractions and preferences are influenced by society and culture. you learn this on your first day of any course studying human sexuality.
At this point we are now dealing with an issue of knowledge. I suggest rather than insisting that you're right about these things, which you're not, you realize that as a very recent high school graduate in texas, there may indeed be a world of things you have yet to learn.
No. I do understand it - I understand that for many lazy people who are not critical thinkers it's easier to live a limited life, with no deep intellectual pursuits. Some people do seem to enjoy being ignorant.
" orientations are innate, attractions and preferences are influenced by society and culture"
Sounds like an excuse for special pleading since you didn't answer my question but whatever. Sexuality is a fluid spectrum no?
Regardless I already addressed that, a preference isn't more or less wrong simply because it isn't innate(that's just an appeal to nature)seeing as innate=/= moral.
I'm perfectly aware there is a lot to I don't know, I never once said I was right about anything. I just can't be bothered or get on a moral high horse over who other people like to fuck(which is what you're doing)
"I understand that for many lazy people who are not critical thinkers "
Rather presumptuous no?
It has nothing do laziness and even so so what? It's not ignorance, it's indifference why should they want to change their preferences? Besides even with racial preferences they aren't limited (plenty of white guys to go around)Analyzing my preferences if anything has strengthen them.
You have this self righteous attitude just because you're more open, when really it's all unwarranted. It doesn't make you any better than anyone (as your condescending comments imply)
Like I said, if they don't really care where there preferences come from(and they really shouldn't)why does it matter that their tastes are less varried/ It's really their problem(if you could even call it that)
I wish you the best of luck in life.
I was hoping something better. I've been following this topic for about a year. I came to you hoping to find something a little bit more reasonable and I tried not to be crude as much as I could, but I found what I was afraid I'd find.
Just another pretentious/moral high horse type who feels superior for his preferences. And doesn't have any actual logic for it.
Really disappointing. But thanks for the (sarcastic and dismissive) best wishes. I'll probably have an ok life with a hot WHITE husband.
I question the whole "sexuality is innate" thing seeing as how people's sexuality and facets of it change all the time.
All the studies I've seen over the "gay gene" never say it without a doubt.
If you don't think there isn't at least ONE women out of the billions out there, then maybe you need more self-interrogation.
define "reasonable" - if you want me to tell you that all I've learned in 15 years is the same as what you've learned in one, I'm sorry - it simply cannot happen. If you want me to reassure you that your at-present opinions are correct, I can't. Because they're not. That you, as a black man, still hope to get a "WHITE husband" simply reiterates what I've been sharing, and what are indeed the findings in any and every socio-psychological research pertaining to concepts of attraction and sense of worth in a white-worshipping society.
Sexuality is not innate. Orientations are. Sexuality and Orientations are not the same thing, and neither are preferences.
Good luck, because you will need it.
"define "reasonable""
Reasonable as in it's not your place to judge others for what doesn't concern you. You aren't better than them nor are they wrong for liking(not liking) something different than you. Likewise for their willingness to expand upon it.
"- if you want me to tell you that all I've learned in 15 years is the same as what you've learned in one,"
Where/when did I ask for that?
"Because they're not"
Based on what? Because last time I checked opinions (IE preferences and morality) can't be correct or incorrect. I wasn't even asking in that context.
That "white husband"part was just me being factious.
"concepts of attraction and sense of worth in a white-worshipping society"
For your information I don't worship white people(are they gods?)nor is my race an reason for any lack of self worth issues I have. Maybe in the past it was a little bit, but I was naive back then. I have a lot of self worth issues, race is not one of them.
Is it supposed to be wrong that I want a white husband? I always tell myself I'd prefer a fit, brunette/ginger, white husband around my age, but if I fall in love with a 50 yr old black woman, oh well. But as for now I'd prefer a white husband, not as some trophy or validation, because it's just what I like
"Sexuality is not innate. Orientations are"
Like I said, I don't care innate=/= good, that's just an appeal to nature.
"exuality and Orientations are not the same thing
Didn't know that, thanks(I really didn't) but splitting hairs much? When I mentioned "sexuality" I meant sexual orientation, as most people seem to use it(same difference). Besides innate (as far as I know) doesn't mean immutable.
That also doesn't answer my question. Do you think there's a woman out there for you somewhere on this earth even though you haven't met them all?
Do you mind referring to me these studies you're mentioning? One that's actually scientific also. Besides the youtube vid with the kids calling drawings of blacks bad.
I'd like to refer you to take a college or university course in human sexuality and sociology studies. I'm a gay man, who has been Out for nearly 15 years. I have *been* with women, yet my orientation is towards other males. Is there a woman out there for me? No. Not in a romantic sense. As I'm gay. And being gay is not the same as having "preferences", which is something folks who have an understanding of these issues know.
You're not asking a new or strong question, rather the type of question people ask when they don't yet understand what they're talking about.
Yes. It's wrong of me to "judge" people who pre-judge others based on their ethnicity or how one may deem their manner. Right. "dont' judge me for judging others" - we hear that a lot from the "no fats fems asians or blacks" brigade.
You have a preference for white guys. And many more people in this world are beginning to have a preference for guys who don't have preferences like yours. We prefer those who are not limited thinkers, and worse - those who are proud of their limitations.
Rather than expending any more effort in an attempt to prove me wrong, which you can't as it's not *me* but sociological reality, I suggest you use your time on the internet to get educated. As for now in society, most of the white guys you're going to be into aren't going to be into *you*, because they too will only be into other white guys. You'll be into them, because you're into white guys, they're not going to be into you, because you're black. Then some guys will be into you, until they realize you fetishize and put a premium on "whitness" - which is a turnoff for most intelligent folks.
Go get educated, rather than waste any more time trying, without actual understanding, to argue against sociological reality. It's a tremendous waste of time and energy to defend limitations.
Post a Comment