NationStates Jolt Archive

I have put considerable thought and consideration to this during some of my prime beer-drinking moments. I was at Hooter's yesterday - pondering the complex interpersonal dynamics which cause (edit: added) straight, anglo saxon, tall, blue collar, moderately overweight, non-smoking, Christian but not churchgoing, (end edit) men (who wear bluejeans) to be biased against against women and gay men. (between swigs and jiggles) Somewhere around my third or fourth pitcher it hit me;

The reason why is because naked men are funny-looking.

Now I'm serious - hear me out. Think about the last few movies you've seen; the majority of times when a naked woman is shown or implied it is meant to be erotic. arousing. titillating. yummy!

Now - with very few exception whenever a movie shows or implies a naked MAN it is humorous. Laughable. Comic relief. Ha!

So that is my purely non-scientific anecdotal proof that naked men are funny-looking. Argue all you want but you have to admit there is a reasonable cause to consider it to be an irrefutable precedent setting fact. Maybe.

Now - when anyone looks at a man with desire men thinks - "WTF? men are funny-looking naked. There must be something seriously wrong with anyone who would gets aroused by something that funny looking!

So men treat women and gay men as though there were something wrong with them. Like they are all rabid fans of professional bowling or something. It just ain't right. It does not compute.

When men are fortunate enough to BE the object of affection they do not complain; it is a means to an ends. However - at the end of the day no matter how much a man may respect and/or love the woman and women around him - he has to think to himself - "WTF? How can they like THAT?" even (and most often ESPECIALLY) when it pertains to himself.

This also explains why men typically do not discriminate against lesbians - because they like naked women too and agree that naked men are funny-looking. (not to mention the opportunity - no matter how minute - of them making a man sandwich out of him someday...)

So the solution is for men to realize that yes - women really are weird for liking us. We ARE funny-looking naked - and we are fortunate that women love us anyway. We shouldn't treat them like oddities for liking something so weird - we should treat them like goddesses who grace us with their perfection and tolerate our flaws with amazing patience and - for whatever reason - even appreciate some of them.

-M.S.

--Next weeks pondering; why women don't ever ask YOU to pull THEIR finger.

"Men"? And gay men aren't men?

Don't be stupid, if you can help it.

brief titles are such a bitch. I had thought about calling it "Why a disproportional and statistically meaningful occurrence of hetero-sexual male Homo sapiens sapiens exhibit biased behavorial patterns towards heterosexual females and homosexuals of their species within an observable and acceptable margin of error."

brief titles are such a bitch.

And what are ongoing repetitions of the same heterosexist nonsense in the OP?

And what are ongoing repetitions of the same heterosexist nonsense in the OP?

heterosexist? that's a wonderful word Fass! (not a nice thing it describes though)

and no, I don't think men look funny naked. I never understood the "penises are ugly" thing that goes around either, of course they aren't ugly, they are beautiful.

heterosexist? that's a wonderful word Fass! (not a nice thing it describes though)

Unfortunately I get much usage out of the word.

and no, I don't think men look funny naked. I never understood the "penises are ugly" thing that goes around either, of course they aren't ugly, they are beautiful.

How dare you not agree with the straight man's assessment that puts him at the centre of the world and as the arbiter of human sexuality and sexual expression? Back to the re-education camp with you, young, infirm lady!

This also explains why men typically do not discriminate against lesbians - because they like naked women too and agree that naked men are funny-looking. (not to mention the opportunity - no matter how minute - of them making a man sandwich out of him someday...)

Unfortunately - in my darkest experiences - none of this is true :(

and no, I don't think men look funny naked. I never understood the "penises are ugly" thing that goes around either, of course they aren't ugly, they are beautiful.

Some are beautiful, some are ugly. There isn't anything really intrinsic either way in the penis.

I had thought about calling it "Why a disproportional and statistically meaningful occurrence of hetero-sexual male Homo sapiens sapiens exhibit biased behavorial patterns towards heterosexual females and homosexuals of their species within an observable and acceptable margin of error."

Consider this title: "Why straight men have a bias against..."

What you wrote - and kept writing several times in your OP - keeps implying that gay men aren't men, and is akin to writing something like "Why do humans have a bias against negroes?", implying that blacks aren't human. Men = men, not just straight men.

Some are beautiful, some are ugly. There isn't anything really intrinsic either way in the penis.

I haven't seen one yet I would classify as ugly.

I haven't seen one yet I would classify as ugly.

While vajayjays, on the other hand...

Unfortunately I get much usage out of the word.



How dare you not agree with the straight man's assessment that puts him at the centre of the world and as the arbiter of human sexuality and sexual expression? Back to the re-education camp with you, young, infirm lady!

Culturally, inpalpable and qualitative as such a measure is, the heterosexual male is the centre of the western world, certainly in regards to the UK and the USA. The sensibilities, or rather, those that are expected, of the heterosexual male are those by which popular culture is determined.

Hence why violence, primitivist notions of "macho man" and the belief that any show of emotion equates to weakness are prevalent in Anglo-American popular culture.

heterosexist? that's a wonderful word Fass! (not a nice thing it describes though)

and no, I don't think men look funny naked. I never understood the "penises are ugly" thing that goes around either, of course they aren't ugly, they are beautiful.

I would post evidence that you are wrong but....


So instead;
Consider the male naked scenes in these movies;
Sideways. Eurotrip. American Pie (any)

against these with female nakedness;
Titanic. Basic Instinct. Wild Things. Any of the movies mentioned for men.

See? Men really ARE funny-looking naked.

Consider this title: "Why straight men have a bias against..."

What you wrote - and kept writing several times in your OP - keeps implying that gay men aren't men, and is akin to writing something like "Why do humans have a bias against negroes?", implying that blacks aren't human. Men = men, not just straight men.

Fair enough. I could ask for that change - but methinks you are reading far too much into it.

The reason why is because naked men are funny-looking.

I suppose the Greeks and Romans enjoyed sculpting funny looking statues for shits and giggles. Well some of them did.

Don't make me strip and take pictures. You won't laugh, you'll gaze in awe and struggle with some very unusual feelings.

It's been a while since I used that threat.

Unfortunately - in my darkest experiences - none of this is true :(

Bummer - can I get you a sandwich? ;)

Consider this title: "Why straight men have a bias against..."

What you wrote - and kept writing several times in your OP - keeps implying that gay men aren't men, and is akin to writing something like "Why do humans have a bias against negroes?", implying that blacks aren't human. Men = men, not just straight men.
gay men have no bias against gay men?

While vajayjays, on the other hand...

the extreme variations in vulvae have led me to classify some as unattractive, however, I am sure part of that has to do with my own socialization to be competitive with other females and such I find fault with them to make myself feel better.

Fair enough. I could ask for that change - but methinks you are reading far too much into it.

No, it's quite indicative of the rest of the heteronormativity of your OP and your subsequent postings, and thus of their candidacy to dismissal as nothing more than skewed and biased claptrap. Like, for instance, using heterosexual male-centric, sexist and stupid films such as American Pie or Euro Trip and comparing them with other equally sexist films and going: "look, see!" They're all sexist and biased!

Why don't you compare to a film such as The Pillow Book? Or to sculptures such as David? Nah, that would be too analytical for you.

Bummer - can I get you a sandwich? ;)

Can you get me a world wide society where lesbians aren't spat at in the streets, denied entrance to bars and pubs and other venues, beaten up, shunned at work if not denied the chance to work, denied equal rights under the law, or outright murdered?

If not, I'll settle for a sandwich. Or chocolate.

gay men have no bias against gay men?

What about bi - can bi be biased or are bi by bi bye-bye.
(starts dancing NSYNC style)

the extreme variations in vulvae have led me to classify some as unattractive, however, I am sure part of that has to do with my own socialization to be competitive with other females and such I find fault with them to make myself feel better.

But some of them really are... gruesome, and I've seen my fair share. So it's not just you. It has a lot to do with them being very fleshy and moist, while penises are mostly covered with skin instead of mucosae and are dry. So, vulvae have more potential to be, as you say, variant in their appearance.

No, it's quite indicative of the rest of the heteronormativity of your OP and your subsequent postings, and thus of their candidacy to dismissal as nothing more than skewed and biased claptrap. Like, for instance, using heterosexual male-centric, sexist and stupid films such as American Pie or Euro Trip and comparing them with other equally sexist films and going: "look, see!" They're all sexist and biased!

Why don't you compare to a film such as The Pillow Book? Or to sculptures such as David? Nah, that would be too analytical for you.

Wow - you sound like you really need a sandwich.

Anyone notice how old artworks depicting men have either a tiny penis, or a monstrous penis?

What about bi - can bi be biased or are bi by bi bye-bye.
(starts dancing NSYNC style)NSYNC? short dick men? go away with this wussy kids and their "music"

gay men have no bias against gay men?

Not the one the OP was clamouring for when he tried to equate man = straight man. Not once in the OP does he use "man, men" to describe gay men - he only uses it for straight men.

No, it's quite indicative of the rest of the heteronormativity of your OP and your subsequent postings, and thus of their candidacy to dismissal as nothing more than skewed and biased claptrap. Like, for instance, using heterosexual male-centric, sexist and stupid films such as American Pie or Euro Trip and comparing them with other equally sexist films and going: "look, see!" They're all sexist and biased!

Why don't you compare to a film such as The Pillow Book? Or to sculptures such as David? Nah, that would be too analytical for you.
It's not because men are funny looking the full frontal nudity of Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain was edited out of the US version... (And the scene where he jumps nude into the lake was kept in the european version...)

But some of them really are... gruesome, and I've seen my fair share. So it's not just you. It has a lot to them being very fleshy and moist, while penises are mostly covered with skin instead of mucosae and are dry. So, vulvae have more potential to be, as you say, variant in their appearance.

well, and they have more moving parts so to speak, and those parts can be out of proportion or uneven or weird shapes and textures......and......eww. I think I am defiantly straight.

Anyone notice how old artworks depicting men have either a tiny penis, or a monstrous penis?

I haven't ever seen one with an erection, so......you know what they say about flaccidity.......

well, and they have more moving parts so to speak, and those parts can be out of proportion or uneven or weird shapes and textures......and......eww. I think I am defiantly straight.

Yeah, you can only vary a tube so much, while something... conchal... But, it's all very individual. I've seen quite handsome vulvae.

Not the one the OP was clamouring for when he tried to equate man = straight man. Not once in the OP does he use "man, men" to describe gay men - he only uses it for straight men.and it gets to you?

It's not because men are funny looking the full frontal nudity of Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain was edited out of the US version... (And the scene where he jumps nude into the lake was kept in the european version...)

It was edited out of the USA version? I am... not surprised. That does however bring out the cultural bias of the OP to light, and that shouldn't be ignored either.

Don't make me strip and take pictures. You won't laugh, you'll gaze in awe and struggle with some very unusual feelings.

It's been a while since I used that threat.

LOL! I salute you!

and it gets to you?

It doesn't "get" to me - it just annoys me, because it's so heterosexist. I speak out about it because contradicting such nonsense is the only way of combating it. Leaving it undisputed is what allowed it to take hold in the first place.

I haven't ever seen one with an erection, so......you know what they say about flaccidity.......

You should see the greek stuff! :eek:

Slightly disproportionate Gods are scary!

Yeah, you can only vary a tube so much, while something... conchal... But, it's all very individual. I've seen quite handsome vulvae.

Mine is pretty. I am pretty biased though.

Mine is pretty. I am pretty biased though.

You're allowed to be. It's awful when women feel that theirs are ugly, even when they have merit to think so, but most of the time they don't.

Not the one the OP was clamouring for when he tried to equate man = straight man. Not once in the OP does he use "man, men" to describe gay men - he only uses it for straight men.

NOW who is biased? I used the term 'gay men' in the very first paragraph and several times throughout.

So - would you prefer BLT or PB+J? It'll wash down that chill pill.

It was edited out of the USA version? I am... not surprised. That does however bring out the cultural bias of the OP to light, and that shouldn't be ignored either.

Apparently, they've either cut out that scene completely or digitally removed any traces of genitalia from the shots in the US versions...

You're allowed to be. It's awful when women feel that theirs are ugly, even when they have merit to think so, but most of the time they don't.

I think it's pretty sad when someone can't accept themselves. Self acceptance is the first route to self improvement.

I think it's pretty sad when someone can't accept themselves. Self acceptance is the first route to self improvement.

I remember hearing once that men will look for the most attractive feature in a woman while women tend to look for the least attractive feature.

ie - man - "whoa - maybe she is heavy but she does have nice hair."

Woman - "whoa - her hair is nice but boy is she heavy!"


So take heart women - men see the best first in whatever you have to offer.

I suppose the Greeks and Romans enjoyed sculpting funny looking statues for shits and giggles. Well some of them did.
.

And you only had to go back twenty or so centuries for a popular example... Fair enough. Once every thousand years or so men are portrayed in popular culture as sexy.

NOW who is biased? I used the term 'gay men' in the very first paragraph and several times throughout.

Precisely. When you talk about gay men, you say "gay men". When you talk about straight men, you just say "men". Sort of like when people talked about black men they'd say "black men" or "boy", but when they talked about white men they simply said "men". It is an ingrained sort of linguistic bigotry - volitional or just inherited, or both (probably the latter) - that seeks to establish the heterosexual, white man as the man - the unmodified man, and everything else as something that needs to be modified because it doesn't meet this norm.

I remember hearing once that men will look for the most attractive feature in a woman while women tend to look for the least attractive feature.

ie - man - "whoa - maybe she is heavy but she does have nice hair."

Woman - "whoa - her hair is nice but boy is she heavy!"


So take heart women - men see the best first in whatever you have to offer.

women are in perpetual competition with other women. (for the most part, can't say it's always true, women like Bottle are not in competition with anyone)

I can pick out flaws on women faster than I notice anything good, it's a habit I am fighting to break.

However, my husband told me something once that got me over some of my insecurity. I had asked him how he could stand to see me with all my flaws, and how I wasn't as beautiful as other women in the world. He said "when I am with you, you are the only woman in the world". Maybe it's a line, but it's one that works. Flaws or not, I am the woman he has, and he likes it. :D

I wrote a similar thing (male bodies are ugly) on a different forum a few years ago and, as suspected, got a torrent of abuse about being a close-minded hetero etc. But I still believe that from a purely aesthetic stand-point, the roughness and hairiness of the male body makes it less attractive than a female body. Obviously I'm not saying gay people or women are less attracted to men than they are to women or something, but I think if you found a weird alien species and gave them the average female specimen and the average male specimen they would say that the female body was more pleasing... or something.

Flame on.

You don't like body hair?

You do!?

I wrote a similar thing (male bodies are ugly) on a different forum a few years ago and, as suspected, got a torrent of abuse about being a close-minded hetero etc. But I still believe that from a purely aesthetic stand-point, the roughness and hairiness of the male body makes it less attractive than a female body. Obviously I'm not saying gay people or women are less attracted to men than they are to women or something, but I think if you found a weird alien species and gave them the average female specimen and the average male specimen they would say that the female body was more pleasing... or something.

Flame on.

You don't like body hair?

And you only had to go back twenty or so centuries for a popular example... Fair enough. Once every thousand years or so men are portrayed in popular culture as sexy.

Yes, but I did not stoop as low as to use "American Pie" as a reference.

I wrote a similar thing (male bodies are ugly) on a different forum a few years ago and, as suspected, got a torrent of abuse about being a close-minded hetero etc. But I still believe that from a purely aesthetic stand-point, the roughness and hairiness of the male body makes it less attractive than a female body. Obviously I'm not saying gay people or women are less attracted to men than they are to women or something, but I think if you found a weird alien species and gave them the average female specimen and the average male specimen they would say that the female body was more pleasing... or something.

So you need to make your own tastes as a heterosexual man so universal - so normative - that you actually have the gall to project them on literally the entire universe? How deluded.

You do!?

She isn't the only one.

You do!?

heck yeah, fuzzy man=sexy.

Ok let's separate fuzzy and curly right now. :)

The man fuzz is awesome no question, but the long greasy chest hairs?

Precisely. When you talk about gay men, you say "gay men". When you talk about straight men, you just say "men". Sort of like when people talked about black men they'd say "black men" or "boy", but when they talked about white men they simply said "men". It is an ingrained sort of linguistic bigotry - volitional or just inherited, or both (probably the latter) - that seeks to establish the heterosexual, white man as the man - the unmodified man, and everything else as something that needs to be modified because it doesn't meet this norm.

Whatever...

Maybe when discussing "movies" and "horror movies" I also am exhibiting bias.
Or "milk and lactose-free milk".
Or "airplane and biplane"
Or "olives" and "green olives"
Or "songs" and "love songs"
Or "cars' and "race cars"

nah - you're just overreacting. I mean - really - this is the ramblings inspired by four pitchers of beer at Hooters. You are taking it WAAAAYY to seriously. You must be a gas at bar mitzvahs.

Whatever...
nah - you're just overreacting.

And you're happy with perpetuating sexist claptrap.

Yes, but I did not stoop as low as to use "American Pie" as a reference.Is "American Pie" where a retard fucks a pie?

Yes, but I did not stoop as low as to use "American Pie" as a reference.

LOL. I bet that may be the first time it has EVER been used as a reference!

Is "American Pie" where a retard fucks a pie?

Yeah, but of course you'd have to be retarded to want to fuck a pie...*shuffles feet ambiguously*

I kid. I love pie, but I'm not in love with pie.

LOL. I bet that may be the first time it has EVER been used as a reference!

See the "Cheap Porky's Ripoff" thread.

Is "American Pie" where a retard fucks a pie?


Yup - and in American Wedding there is quite the joke about "man hair".

So you need to make your own tastes as a heterosexual man so universal - so normative - that you actually have the gall to project them on literally the entire universe? How deluded.

You misunderstand, I think. I'm just saying that aesthetically the smooth, gentle curves which are more common with women than men are considered more naturally beautiful than the alternative. Why do you think that abstract life sculptures are always so smooth faced and flowing? Extrapolate that to the physical human figure and you'll find the female body shape is slightly more similar to this than the male.

Whatever...

Maybe when discussing "movies" and "horror movies" I also am exhibiting bias.
Or "milk and lactose-free milk".
Or "airplane and biplane"
Or "olives" and "green olives"
Or "songs" and "love songs"
Or "cars' and "race cars"

nah - you're just overreacting.Well, if you are using the collective word in a way that it seems to exclude the more exacting word from the collection of meanings of the collective word, then you are using biased language.
If you speak of olives as if only black olives were olives and green olives were not, you do exhibit bias.

This is ridiculous. The OP is being attacked because he is a straight, and thinks like every straight male in the world?

Ridiculous. Get over yourself Fass. The term men usually conjures the image of white, straight men, as you said, as they are a majority of males in the US and Europe. Added descriptions of 'black' or 'gay' is not insulting at all. It is giving a more accurate description of the person or persons.

The term men usually conjures the image of white, straight men.No it doesn't. It conjures the image of every kind of man. Not everyone is that narrow minded. Or do you use "light" only to mean "blue light" ?

This is ridiculous. The OP is being attacked because he is a straight, and thinks like every straight male in the world?

Ridiculous. Get over yourself Fass. The term men usually conjures the image of white, straight men, as you said, as they are a majority of males in the US and Europe. Added descriptions of 'black' or 'gay' is not insulting at all. It is giving a more accurate description of the person or persons.

"The male body looks funny."

That's a declaration of war in my opinion. ;)

Holy crap ! Maybe you've had a few pitchers too?

I see I'm not alone tonight. WOO7!

Well, if you are using the collective word in a way that it seems to exclude the more exacting word from the collection of meanings of the collective word, then you are using biased language.


Holy crap ! Maybe you've had a few pitchers too?

Do you mind if I set what I quoted as my sig?

"The male body looks funny."

That's a declaration of war in my opinion. ;)

I don't think it looks funny. Looks normal to me. So do women's bodies. They look how they are supposed to. I was merely stating how I think its ridiculous that the OP is being a ...heterosexist? WTF? There must be an 'ist' for everything now...

I don't think it looks funny. Looks normal to me. So do women's bodies. They look how they are supposed to. I was merely stating how I think its ridiculous that the OP is being a ...heterosexist? WTF? There must be an 'ist' for everything now...

The OP said that.

Holy crap ! Maybe you've had a few pitchers too?

Do you mind if I set what I quoted as my sig?If you use "man" synonymously with "white straight man", is it ok then that I use "US American" synonymously with "troll"?

I think it's more because men want to be the chasers, not the chasees. Being desired by someone can make a person feel vulnerable. Men are taught by society that they aren't allowed to be vulnerable, so they don't like being desired. I believe this is why women who are upfront about their sexuality are in particular shunned.

I wrote a similar thing (male bodies are ugly) on a different forum a few years ago and, as suspected, got a torrent of abuse about being a close-minded hetero etc. But I still believe that from a purely aesthetic stand-point, the roughness and hairiness of the male body makes it less attractive than a female body. Obviously I'm not saying gay people or women are less attracted to men than they are to women or something, but I think if you found a weird alien species and gave them the average female specimen and the average male specimen they would say that the female body was more pleasing... or something.

Flame on.I think it's more that cultural values tend to say that body hair is ugly. Those values are hardly universal.

This is ridiculous. The OP is being attacked because he is a straight, and thinks like every straight male in the world? If every straight male in the world uses men in such a way that gay men are excluded, then every straight male in the world would deserve to be attacked.

If you use "man" synonymously with "white straight man", is it ok then that I use "US American" synonymously with "troll"?

well - what about GAY US American trolls? Are you using the collective word in a way that it seems to exclude the more exacting word from the collection of meanings of the collective word?

No it doesn't. It conjures the image of every kind of man. Not everyone is that narrow minded. Or do you use "light" only to mean "blue light" ?

Well, as I am from a country where white, straight males are the majority of the population, I think of white, straight males when I hear the word men. I really don't think that is offensive or narrow minded. Its just what I see most of the time, as they form a majority. Other types of men are still men, but as they are a minority, are seen less frequently...its not that hard. What people see more of they think more of...


If I live in say....China, I would think of Chinese looking men when I heard the word men, as Chinese form a majority in China.

If I live in say....China, I would think of Chinese looking men when I heard the word men, as Chinese form a majority in China.

Never forget the exceptions.

I think it's more because men want to be the chasers, not the chasees. Being desired by someone can make a person feel vulnerable. Men are taught by society that they aren't allowed to be vulnerable, so they don't like being desired. I believe this is why women who are upfront about their sexuality are in particular shunned.

I think it's more that cultural values tend to say that body hair is ugly. Those values are hardly universal.

If every straight male in the world uses men in such a way that gay men are excluded, then every straight male in the world would deserve to be attacked.

wow. Its not excluding them. They get their own word to describe them, as they are a minority! Its not being offensive, its being descriptive.

I have nothing against gay men, or women. They just don't come to my mind first when I hear the word men or women.

Never forget the exceptions.

True. It varies on location.

Well, as I am from a country where white, straight males are the majority of the population, I think of white, straight males when I hear the word men. I really don't think that is offensive or narrow minded. Its just what I see most of the time, as they form a majority. Other types of men are still men, but as they are a minority, are seen less frequently...its not that hard. What people see more of they think more of...

If I live in say....China, I would think of Chinese looking men when I heard the word men, as Chinese form a majority in China.since when do majorities of something have an influence on the meaning of the respective word of designation for the whole thing??

wow. Its not excluding them. They get their own word to describe them, as they are a minority! Its not being offensive, its being descriptive.

I have nothing against gay men, or women. They just don't come to my mind first when I hear the word men or women.

ummm - what specifically would that word be?

I think it's more that cultural values tend to say that body hair is ugly. Those values are hardly universal.

I don't mean body hair body hair, I just mean body hair in the sense that it sticks out and is rough and messy. Say you have two abstract sculptures: one has smooth, flowing surfaces and the other is similar in shape but the surface is bumpy-feeling and messy-looking. It is natural for the former to be praised as physically beautiful. There may be different thoughts about the artistic merit of the two, but aesthetically more people will be attracted to the former.

since when do majorities of something have an influence on the meaning of the respective word of designation for the whole thing??

They just naturally do. When I ask you to think of a potato, what do you think of? Is it a sweet potato? No, it isn't? BIGOT!

Ok let's separate fuzzy and curly right now. :)

The man fuzz is awesome no question, but the long greasy chest hairs?

I like the long curly chest hair.

They just naturally do. When I ask you to think of a potato, what do you think of? Is it a sweet potato? No, it isn't? BIGOT!So when you think of men why do you think of white men then? BIGOT!

since when do majorities of something have an influence on the meaning of the respective word of designation for the whole thing??

Uh, always. The mind uses familiarity when forming images, and as straight white males are the majority in Europe and the US then most people will think of straight white men when hearing the term men, unless they happen to be gay, a minority.

I'm not saying gay men or men of different ethnicities aren't men, they are just not the image I, or I would wager most people think of first when they hear the word men, as they are a minority, hence the reason they get a descriptive word to clarify them when being discussed...

So when you think of men why do you think of white men then? BIGOT!

Because they form the majority where many of the posters here are from. And its not bigoted, its natural, as stated before.

So when you think of men why do you think of white men then? BIGOT!

Whoosh!
*rushes hand over head*

They just naturally do. When I ask you to think of a potato, what do you think of? Is it a sweet potato? No, it isn't? BIGOT!

I don't think of sweet potatoes when you say potato because a sweet potato is only distantly related to potatoes, it's like saying "do you think of Koala bears when I say bears?" I don't because they are only distantly related. It's a poor analogy because gay men are in fact men, whereas sweet potatoes are not potatoes.

I don't think of sweet potatoes when you say potato because a sweet potato is only distantly related to potatoes, it's like saying "do you think of Koala bears when I say bears?" I don't because they are only distantly related. It's a poor analogy because gay men are in fact men, whereas sweet potatoes are not potatoes.

I had a feeling something like that might happen. The specifics of my analogy might have been incorrect, but the gist was just.

Uh, always. The mind uses familiarity when forming images, and as straight white males are the majority in Europe and the US then most people will think of straight white men when hearing the term men, unless they happen to be gay, a minority.

I'm not saying gay men or men of different ethnicities aren't men, they are just not the image I, or I would wager most people think of first when they hear the word men, as they are a minority, hence the reason they get a descriptive word to clarify them when being discussed...you don't get it, do you? if you set "man" against "gay man", you are pretending that gay men are not men. Fass is right all along.

And whether you think of potatoes or men - if you don't think of THIS (http://fcs.sdstate.edu/family_resource_network/Lending_LibraryPics/Inventory%20Pictures/Mr.%20Potato%20Head%20462.jpg) then you are ALL BIGOTS (http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/rmc0047l.jpg)!!!

I had a feeling something like that might happen. The specifics of my analogy might have been incorrect, but the gist was just.

When you say men, I think of men. I do not classify them by race, sexual orientation, height, penis size, attitude, or hair color. A man is a man is a man.

I like the long curly chest hair.

*gag*

My friend had long curly hairs on his nipples.

And whether you think of potatoes or men - if you don't think of THIS (http://fcs.sdstate.edu/family_resource_network/Lending_LibraryPics/Inventory%20Pictures/Mr.%20Potato%20Head%20462.jpg) then you are ALL BIGOTS!!!

I am adopting you. *welcoming hug*

ummm - what specifically would that word be?

Well, since the argument is over gay men, the word would be gay. Its a description, not an insult.

my husband has hair on his back.

I win.

(and I like the hair on his back too.....)

D:

you don't get it, do you? if you set "man" against "gay man", you are pretending that gay men are not men. Fass is right all along.

No. You don't get it. They are a different type of man, as straight white men are the majority. So the term man, or men generally refers to straight white men.

When you say men, I think of men. I do not classify them by race, sexual orientation, height, penis size, attitude, or hair color. A man is a man is a man.

So if someone tells you to think of 'a man' you don't get a visual image in your mind of a man?

*gag*

My friend had long curly hairs on his nipples.

my husband has hair on his back.

I win.

(and I like the hair on his back too.....)

So if someone tells you to think of 'a man' you don't get a visual image in your mind of a man?

Not particularly. If someone says "most men....blah...blah...blah" I think of men in general. If someone says "imagine a man in a suit" I might get a mental picture. The OP was not asking us to imagine a specific man, only men in general and he decided to not include gay men as men. (or that's how I read it, but I am just a girl.......so, whatever it's worth)

No. You don't get it. They are a different type of man, as straight white men are the majority. So the term man, or men generally refers to straight white men.

So, when you say Americans, you are only speaking of straight white male protestants, and you will specify if you mean different? because women and children and brown people are "different" kinds of Americans?

I am adopting you. *welcoming hug*

Is that a gay hug or a straight hug? In this thread I think it may matter... ;)

(Was starting to think I was the only person here who didn't take himself so seriously)

You misunderstand, I think. I'm just saying that aesthetically the smooth, gentle curves which are more common with women than men are considered more naturally beautiful than the alternative.

Nonsense. You were trying to project your own tastes and making them universal, which they are not. Take your "aliens" example: we humans find male peacocks - despite the superfluousness, broken lines and hideous colour palette - much prettier than the smoother and less garish hens. Male lions with their hairy manes are seen as the archetype for their species, while the more streamlined and smoother females are mostly ignored. There are many more examples such as those, and there is no reason whatsoever apart from your own wishful thinking that your tastes somehow be the norm to presume that another species would prefer caricatures of the female body just because you do.

Admit it - there isn't anything intrinsically and universally more appealing about women than there is about men. You're, as I said, just projecting your own tastes as though they were universal, which they simply aren't.

Why do you think that abstract life sculptures are always so smooth faced and flowing?

They haven't always been that way, and they aren't. Much of how sculptures end up being has to do with beauty standards of their time (for instance, in Greece the male body with it's muscular ruggedness and athletic silhouette was the epitome of aesthetics, while the female body was frumpy and cumbersome - the legend of the Amazons has them cut their own breasts off, for instance) and with the materials used. Marble, for instance, isn't exactly ideal for anything but smoothness. You're stuck in your own personal tastes and your own cultural bias.

Is that a gay hug or a straight hug? In this thread I think it matters... ;)

(Was starting to think I was the only person here who didn't take himself that seriously)

It's an all man hug baby. Nothing is manlier than the manly embrace of two manly men expressing their manly manliness.

Sorry I'm drunk :p

So, when you say Americans, you are only speaking of straight white male protestants, and you will specify if you mean different? because women and children and brown people are "different" kinds of Americans?

Well, actually, when I hear the word American, I think of white men, women, and children first, as I grew up around white men, women, and children. Less than a tenth of a second later, I think of black men, women, and children, asian men, women, and children, hispanic men, women, and children, etc. Because I grew up around white men, women, and children, and my first visual image represents this fact.

Not particularly. If someone says "most men....blah...blah...blah" I think of men in general. If someone says "imagine a man in a suit" I might get a mental picture. The OP was not asking us to imagine a specific man, only men in general and he decided to not include gay men as men. (or that's how I read it, but I am just a girl.......so, whatever it's worth)

Yes, but I was just trying to prove the point that somebody else was complaining about before about natural mental images based off the majority of experiences of your life. Differentiating between gay men and men shouldn't be offensive... I've lost my train of thought/point I was trying to make. End communication.

Yes, but I was just trying to prove the point that somebody else was complaining about before about natural mental images based off the majority of experiences of your life. Differentiating between gay men and men shouldn't be offensive... I've lost my train of thought/point I was trying to make. End communication.

It is offensive when gay men are told day in and day out that they aren't "real men" and when people are so discriminatory that they feel they have to separate out gay men as a "different kind of man".

This is ridiculous. The OP is being attacked because he is a straight, and thinks like every straight male in the world?

No, for speaking like every bigot in the world.

The term men usually conjures the image of white, straight men, as you said,

I did not say that at all. I said that that was what the OP was trying to accomplish. That you are content with the same bigotry - and are actually trying to justify it as something that is comme il faut - gives credence to the first part of your moniker. So, you get over yourself and your own petty thinking.

No. You don't get it. They are a different type of man, as straight white men are the majority. So the term man, or men generally refers to straight white men.only in your mind.

It is offensive when gay men are told day in and day out that they aren't "real men" and when people are so discriminatory that they feel they have to separate out gay men as a "different kind of man".

What the hell. Who said they weren't real men? Is being 'different' wrong? No.

What the hell. Who said they weren't real men? Is being 'different' wrong? No."gay men" is already included in "men", there is simply point in setting it against "men".

No, for speaking like every bigot in the world.



I did not say that at all. I said that that was what the OP was trying to accomplish. That you are content with the same bigotry - and are actually trying to justify it as something that is comme il faut - gives credence to the first part of your moniker. So, you get over yourself and your own petty thinking.

He is speaking from familiarity and what the majority of his experiences have been, and so am I. Its not bigoted, its natural.

Have I ever said anything against gay people? No. I don't see the problem with calling people what they are. Are you ashamed to be called gay? I hope not.

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it would be something painfully ignorant. As usual, I was right.

Your psychic abilities are outstanding.

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it would be something painfully ignorant. As usual, I was right.

The truth is not that men are funny-looking when naked.

The truth is that everyone is funny-looking when naked! The only difference is, one tends to be biased in favor of the gender(s) one is attracted to sexually.

So I, a straight man, think men are funny-looking naked (which they are), whereas I think women are not (but they really are too).

If you look at things in a more detached manner, instead of influenced by your raging hormones (I find masturbating at least every hour helps me achieve this detachment), you'll find that humans in general are just as goofy-looking as any other ape. More so, in fact, because of our lack of tails and sleek fur.

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it would be something painfully ignorant. As usual, I was right.

Is was meant to be entertaining. Its ridiculous that he is being called bigoted for speaking from his experiences.

He is speaking from familiarity and what the majority of his experiences have been, and so am I. Its not bigoted, its natural.

Have I ever said anything against gay people? No. I don't see the problem with calling people what they are. Are you ashamed to be called gay? I hope not.This is not about calling "gay people" "gay people". It is about taking them out of "people".

He is speaking from familiarity and what the majority of his experiences have been, and so am I. Its not bigoted, its natural.

No, it's quite bigoted. Just because you don't like to face the truth of your ugly opinions and discriminatory language, doesn't mean others aren't going to point it out to you.

Have I ever said anything against gay people? No. I don't see the problem with calling people what they are. Are you ashamed to be called gay? I hope not.

And you're not ashamed of your bigoted use of language. The difference is, you should be, and I would hope you come to be.

What about fat men? Take the sentence "Most men would consider fat men even more funny looking when they are naked." There is no context here which implies that fat men are not 'real men'. You have to look reeeeeal hard to find the offense in that - as some of you obviously are.

You are so invested in being offended that you don't know how not to be. You active search for the most minute thing to latch on to. Ad infinitum. That is a very sad way to live. I mean - really. You all are so wrapped up in yourself it is sad. Well - it will be after I stop laughing.

I'm gonna fan your fire until your medication wears off.

Is was meant to be entertaining. Its ridiculous that he is being called bigoted for speaking from his experiences.Common language is not based on personal experiences but on use of the right and exact words to express what is actually meant. That includes the use of adjectives. If you mean to talk about straight white men, then call them "straight white men" and not anything else that would require others to share your personal assumptions.

I'm gonna fan your fire until your medication wears off.

So you're admitting to trolling? Care to do the same in Moderation?

Your psychic abilities are outstanding.

Whoooooooa!
Talk about psychic!!! You replied before he posted!


Holy crap!

Is was meant to be entertaining. Its ridiculous that he is being called bigoted for speaking from his experiences.
Funny that his "experience" sounds like the same damn thing I've heard from other bigoted idiots trying to get a laugh.

This is not about calling "gay people" "gay people". It is about taking them out of "people".

The truth is that you are all making quite the fools of yourselves with this pettiness. Nobody took gay people out of anything but you. There is no need to use adjectives ad homenem to satisfy the needs of a few petty crybabies. Now grow up and act like real men. (include real gay men, real fat gay men, real skinny straight men, Real fat gay black men, real skinny straight hispanic tall men..... petty petty petty)

The truth is that you are all making quite the fools of yourselves with this pettiness. Nobody took gay people out of anything but you. There is no need to use adjectives ad homenem to satisfy the needs of a few petty crybabies. Now grow up and act like real men. (include real gay men, real fat gay men, real skinny straight men, Real fat gay black men, real skinny straight hispanic tall men..... petty petty petty)

Exactly!

Funny that his "experience" sounds like the same damn thing I've heard from other bigoted idiots trying to get a laugh.

And yet you and your pals made the joke even better! It went from an observation of how silly naked-men look to how silly you and co. look!

Best of all - I can't post examples of silly naked men - but you have posted plenty of examples of your silliness!

The truth is that you are all making quite the fools of yourselves with this pettiness. Nobody took gay people out of anything but you. There is no need to use adjectives ad homenem to satisfy the needs of a few petty crybabies. Now grow up and act like real men. (include real gay men, real fat gay men, real skinny straight men, Real fat gay black men, real skinny straight hispanic tall men..... petty petty petty)
The truth is that you wrote a one-dimensional OP packed with stereotypes that only reflect your own little understandings. Petty petty petty.

The truth is that you are all making quite the fools of yourselves with this pettiness. Nobody took gay people out of anything but you. There is no need to use adjectives ad homenem to satisfy the needs of a few petty crybabies. Now grow up and act like real men. (include real gay men, real fat gay men, real skinny straight men, Real fat gay black men, real skinny straight hispanic tall men..... petty petty petty)
Not all the posters who've responded negatively have been men.

Why don't you try to stop making lite of bigotry and try acting like a person?

You want to tell sexist jokes like there aren't serious issues surrounding that kind of thing? Go to a sports bar. We'll call your jock bullshit here.

Not all the posters who've responded negatively have been men.

Why don't you try to stop making lite of bigotry and try acting like a person?

You want to tell sexist jokes like there aren't serious issues surrounding that kind of thing? Go to a sports bar. We'll call your jock bullshit here.qft

No, it's quite bigoted. Just because you don't like to face the truth of your ugly opinions and discriminatory language, doesn't mean others aren't going to point it out to you.



And you're not ashamed of your bigoted use of language. The difference is, you should be, and I would hope you come to be.

God damn, would it kill you to not be such a fucking faggot? Political correctness is the death knell of free speech, and he has a right to use his language, bigoted as you feel it is, without you pestering him about it throughout his entire fucking thread. Holy shit, discuss the topic at hand, and not whether or not specifying homosexuals as "gay men" makes Mystical Skeptic the next Hitler.

Why don't you try to stop making lite of bigotry and try acting like a person?

You want to tell sexist jokes like there aren't serious issues surrounding that kind of thing? Go to a sports bar. We'll call your jock bullshit here.

Humor is the cure for all disease, including bigotry. God forbid someone try to make you smile.

Not all the posters who've responded negatively have been men.

Why don't you try to stop making lite of bigotry and try acting like a person?

You want to tell sexist jokes like there aren't serious issues surrounding that kind of thing? Go to a sports bar. We'll call your bullshit here.

The truth is that you wrote a one-dimensional OP packed with stereotypes that only reflect your own little understandings. Petty petty petty.


I finally found an illustration which captures the essence of both my original joke and the new joke about pettiness which you keep perpetuating! And it contains no nudity!

REAL MEN (http://www.bonetweb.com/jpg/funny/gay.jpg)

Humor is the cure for all disease, including bigotry.

QFT :)

I finally found an illustration which captures the essence of both my original joke and the new joke about pettiness which you keep perpetuating! And it contains no nudity!

REAL MEN (http://www.bonetweb.com/jpg/funny/gay.jpg)Is that your idea of funny? :rolleyes:

QFT :)

I hope that is quoted for tacos like before. *pats belly*

Is that your idea of funny? :rolleyes:

I thought it was cute. Also amazed I've never seen that picture somewhere on the interwebs before.

God damn, would it kill you to not be such a fucking faggot?

Welcome to my ignore list, you sad bigot.

Welcome to my ignore list, you sad bigot.

You never answered his question though. ;)

God damn, would it kill you to not be such a fucking faggot? Political correctness is the death knell of free speech, and he has a right to use his language, bigoted as you feel it is, without you pestering him about it throughout his entire fucking thread. Holy shit, discuss the topic at hand, and not whether or not specifying homosexuals as "gay men" makes Mystical Skeptic the next Hitler.The topic at hand is why Mystical Skeptic/Hitler does not consider gay men men. And free speech also means that we can use it to shove his poor speech back down his throat.

I hope that is quoted for tacos like before. *pats belly*

http://www.stansholik.com/photos/food/tacos_avo.jpg

;)

I finally found an illustration which captures the essence of both my original joke and the new joke about pettiness which you keep perpetuating! And it contains no nudity!

REAL MEN (http://www.bonetweb.com/jpg/funny/gay.jpg)
That would be hilarious. You know, if there was anything wrong with being gay or anything wrong with not measuring up to you ideas of "manhood".
God damn, would it kill you to not be such a fucking faggot?

I can't speak for Fass, but I believe that it very nearly would.
Now, would it kill you not to be a troglodyte? No.

Is that your idea of funny? :rolleyes:

I wish it were my idea - because it is a fucking riot!

http://www.stansholik.com/photos/food/tacos_avo.jpg

;)

I love you. *sobs*

And free speech also means that we can use it to shove his poor speech back down his throat.

Amen.

Is bad humor still humor? The jury is out on that, but here is some good humor.

Witness Teh Gays as they assimilate another poor straight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDXCFUAhqW0

:)

I wish it were my idea - because it is a fucking riot!

Don't you have a frat party to get to?

wow. Its not excluding them. They get their own word to describe them, as they are a minority! Its not being offensive, its being descriptive. I see. Since men are the minority of humans, does this mean that there are humans and then male humans?

Is was meant to be entertaining. Its ridiculous that he is being called bigoted for speaking from his experiences.Are experiences devoid of bigotry? If someone grew up with KKK parents and repeated what their parents said, what they were saying would be bigoted even though it's something they experienced.

The topic at hand is why Mystical Skeptic/Hitler does not consider gay men men. And free speech also means that we can use it to shove his poor speech back down his throat.

Really? I thought it was how funny-looking naked men are. Of course I've allowed and even encouraged you to hijack it to include how funny your pettiness is also.

You see - I'm sure that many people people don't like you and you feel it is because you are gay. It is not because you're gay. They just don't like you - and it is this annoying desire to paint everyone as a 'bigot' simply because they do not cave to your petty will that is the cause.

That is why I will be sad for you... once I finish laughing at you.

Don't you have a frat party to get to?

Frat party? In August? Ok gramps.

Don't you have a frat party to get to?

I doubt he's old or mature enough for those.

Really? I thought it was how funny-looking naked men are. Of course I've allowed and even encouraged you to hijack it to include how funny your pettiness is also.

You see - I'm sure that many people people don't like you and you feel it is because you are gay. It is not because you're gay. They just don't like you - and it is this annoying desire to paint everyone as a 'bigot' simply because they do not cave to your petty will that is the cause.

That is why I will be sad for you... once I finish laughing at you.

you didn't even call him on his Godwin. :( I left it alone for you, and yet you failed.

Sorry your thread got hijacked.

you didn't even call him on his Godwin. :( I left it alone for you, and yet you failed.

Sorry your thread got hijacked.

He's new, but shows a lot of promise.

Never forget who adopted him. ;)

He's new, but shows a lot of promise.

Never forget who adopted him. ;)

As the official NSG soccer mom, I will pledge to take on part of his rearing as well.

As the official NSG soccer mom, I will pledge to take on part of his rearing as well.

As official, I've been here so incredibly long without doing anything guy, I agree.

I see. Since men are the minority of humans, does this mean that there are humans and then male humans?


Why you BIGOT. You should be drawn and quartered. You man-hating hate-monger! retract that now!! I'm going to post 500 comments prooving that you are a man-hating bigot for your insensitive comments!



Are experiences devoid of bigotry? If someone grew up with KKK parents and repeated what their parents said, what they were saying would be bigoted even though it's something they experienced.

Umm - excuse me - but I will not allow you to put words into my mouth. Nothing I said was bigoted. That several dickweeds have decided to make a federal case of the fact I didn't use the word 'straight' when and where they think I should have says far more about them than me. Small things for small minds.

Maybe the collective set of dickweeds here learned such petty behavior from their parents. Maybe their mommies made them feel guilty for saying who instead of whom. Whatever the case - their behavior is petty and you are trying to escalate this to grandiose stature.

It is sad that you have nothing of more importance to concern yourself with

Common language is not based on personal experiences but on use of the right and exact words to express what is actually meant. That includes the use of adjectives. If you mean to talk about straight white men, then call them "straight white men" and not anything else that would require others to share your personal assumptions.

That is, to be frank, a complete load of shit and you obviously have no knowledge about the systems of how meaning is constructed through language and intention. I suggest reading some Pierre.

Whether you like it or not, the majority of the posters (if not all) on NSG are from countries where statistically speaking straight, white men are in the majority, and is the male demographic that most posters are in contact with the for the majority of their life. So it is natural to differentiate between what the majority of men are and a different demographic be it gay or otherwise. As hard as you try this isn't bigoted. It isn't saying that gay men aren't men, it is merely a semantic differentiation between a majority characteristic and a varying group. If I tell you to physically imagine 'a man' I bet you that most people will not imagine a dwarf. If there was/is a dwarf with the same pettiness as Fass or United Beleriand on NSG they may complain about this, just as some complained about the men/gay men differentiation. No matter how much you object though it is a natural and completely neutral way to reference different people and as much as you try to make it look like it does the fact is it doesn't reflect any bigoted or homophobic views of the person saying it. What it does reflect is the demographics that person spends the majority of their life interacting with. So there. :p

Why you BIGOT. You should be drawn and quartered. You man-hating hate-monger! retract that now!! I'm going to post 500 comments prooving that you are a man-hating bigot for your insensitive comments!




Umm - excuse me - but I will not allow you to put words into my mouth. Nothing I said was bigoted. That several dickweeds have decided to make a federal case of the fact I didn't use the word 'straight' when and where they think I should have says far more about them than me. Small things for small minds.

Maybe the collective set of dickweeds here learned such petty behavior from their parents. Maybe their mommies made them feel guilty for saying who instead of whom. Whatever the case - their behavior is petty and you are trying to escalate this to grandiose stature.

It is sad that you have nothing of more importance to concern yourself with

you should take a deep breath and calm down. we don't want you in trouble before you get your footing. it's like this a lot around here.......it's not worth getting upset over (believe me, I speak from experience)

you didn't even call him on his Godwin. :( I left it alone for you, and yet you failed.

Sorry your thread got hijacked.

Nah - I liked it! Like I said before - says waaay more about him than me.

Why you BIGOT. You should be drawn and quartered. You man-hating hate-monger! retract that now!! I'm going to post 500 comments prooving that you are a man-hating bigot for your insensitive comments!

Umm - excuse me - but I will not allow you to put words into my mouth. Nothing I said was bigoted. That several dickweeds have decided to make a federal case of the fact I didn't use the word 'straight' when and where they think I should have says far more about them than me. Small things for small minds.

Maybe the collective set of dickweeds here learned such petty behavior from their parents. Maybe their mommies made them feel guilty for saying who instead of whom. Whatever the case - their behavior is petty and you are trying to escalate this to grandiose stature.

It is sad that you have nothing of more importance to concern yourself with

I like you, which speaks volumes as I hate everyone. So as a tip: Don't take anything personally.

now - when you say 'rearing' I need to know exactly what youhave in mind given the course this thread has turned....

save that for me eh ;)

That is, to be frank, a complete load of shit and you obviously have no knowledge about the systems of how meaning is constructed through language and intention. I suggest reading some Pierre.

Whether you like it or not, the majority of the posters (if not all) on NSG are from countries where statistically speaking straight, white men are in the majority, and is the male demographic that most posters are in contact with the for the majority of their life. So it is natural to differentiate between what the majority of men are and a different demographic be it gay or otherwise. As hard as you try this isn't bigoted. It isn't saying that gay men aren't men, it is merely a semantic differentiation between a majority characteristic and a varying group. If I tell you to physically imagine 'a man' I bet you that most people will not imagine a dwarf. If there was/is a dwarf with the same pettiness as Fass or United Beleriand on NSG they may complain about this, just as some complained about the men/gay men differentiation. No matter how much you object though it is a natural and completely neutral way to reference different people and as much as you try to make it look like it does the fact is it doesn't reflect any bigoted or homophobic views of the person saying it. What it does reflect is the demographics that person spends the majority of their life interacting with. So there. :p

"men" means all men, not just straight white men, whatever you may believe. that's how language works, and a clear mind as well. actual or assumed majority is irrelevant.

As the official NSG soccer mom, I will pledge to take on part of his rearing as well.

now - when you say 'rearing' I need to know exactly what you have in mind before I acquiesce... given the course this thread has turned.... :)

now - when you say 'rearing' I need to know exactly what you have in mind before I acquiesce... given the course this thread has turned.... :)

I prefer ambiguousness. *nod*

now - when you say 'rearing' I need to know exactly what youhave in mind given the course this thread has turned....

:p notsomuch.

Why you BIGOT. You should be drawn and quartered. You man-hating hate-monger! retract that now!! I'm going to post 500 comments prooving that you are a man-hating bigot for your insensitive comments!Lol. I wouldn't go that far, I'd merely correct me for my incorrect usage of language.

Umm - excuse me - but I will not allow you to put words into my mouth. Nothing I said was bigoted. I'm aware of that. It wasn't bigoted, it was merely incorrect.
Nonetheless, Trollgaard's post suggested that experience was always devoid of bigotry. I wanted to disprove that.

"men" means all men, not just straight white men, whatever you may believe. that's how language works, and a clear mind as well. actual or assumed majority is irrelevant.

How can you possibly say that? I am utterly amazed you would think that. Are you 14 years old or something?

I like you, which speaks volumes as I hate everyone. So as a tip: Don't take anything personally.

you should take a deep breath and calm down. we don't want you in trouble before you get your footing. it's like this a lot around here.......it's not worth getting upset over (believe me, I speak from experience)


You're right - I shouldn't pick up the dogshit right away - I should let it get old and krusty first.

How can you possibly say that? I am utterly amazed you would think that. Are you 14 years old or something?

the word on the street is that he is about 12, but that's not a reliable estimate. :D

Lol. I wouldn't go that far, I'd merely correct me for my incorrect usage of language.

I'm aware of that. It wasn't bigoted, it was merely incorrect.
Nonetheless, Trollgaard's post suggested that experience was always devoid of bigotry. I wanted to disprove that.

Verywell then. We can agree to disagree on the rest. Thanks.

You're right - I shouldn't pick up the dogshit right away - I should let it get old and krusty first.

I knew there was a reason why I liked you.

That several dickweeds have decided to make a federal case of the fact I didn't use the word 'straight' when and where they think I should have says far more about them than me. Small things for small minds.

Uh, I really don't care about that. The evidence for your bigotry lies in the fact that you assume all men share your misogynistic bias against homosexuals and women. At least that was in the OP.

Since you've shown your bigotry by calling Fass a "Faggot."

Uh, I really don't care about that. The evidence for your bigotry lies in the fact that you assume all men share your misogynistic bias against homosexuals and women. At least that was in the OP.

Since you've shown your bigotry by calling Fass a "Faggot."this is someone who is unable to watch his language, in more than one way. just ignore-list him.

Uh, I really don't care about that. The evidence for your bigotry lies in the fact that you assume all men share your misogynistic bias against homosexuals and women. At least that was in the OP.

Yes - and all my share my bias for beer also. All men also share my keen love for the 1965 Mustang Convertible and I am quite certain that all men share my complete hatred of the movie 'Yentl'. Any other questions?

Since you've shown your bigotry by calling Fass a "Faggot."
If you want to bring that nastyness up you could at least credit the correct poster ya bing ding-ding. You owe Fass that much.

After much soul-searching I have decided that indeed it would be acceptable and prudent for me to edit the original post to be more specific and include the term 'straight' before 'men' even if it is grammatically unnecessary and improper.

After much soul-searching I have decided that indeed it would be acceptable and prudent for me to edit the original post to be more specific and include the term 'straight' before 'men' even if it is grammatically unnecessary and improper.

No way, it is completely unnecessary and improper as you said. If whiners intentionally ignore linguistic context just so they can feel offended that is their problem.

No way, it is completely unnecessary and improper as you said. If whiners intentionally ignore linguistic context just so they can feel offended that is their problem.

You should read it first....

After much soul-searching I have decided that indeed it would be acceptable and prudent for me to edit the original post to be more specific and include the term 'straight' before 'men' even if it is grammatically unnecessary and improper.
As I said, the problem is not your word choice in the OP. It's your misogyny, homophobia, and condescension.

You should read it first....

Oh, lol, I did actually. I got so caught in the argument about using "gay" as some sort of prefix I totally forgot how silly your OP was. :p

As I said, the problem is not your word choice in the OP. It's your misogyny, homophobia, and condescension.

what about sarcasm? Ya forgot my biting vindictive sarcasm!

"Men"? And gay men aren't men

not particularly, no. we're a third gender in most systems, and even if its not formally recognized in western culture, its still assumed for most practical purposes.

and to the OP, something tells me it has more to do with challenging patriarchal dominance than nude men "looking funny" (they don't, particularly)

"Men"? And gay men aren't men?

Don't be stupid, if you can help it.

No, they aren't.

As I said, the problem is not your word choice in the OP. It's your misogyny, homophobia, and condescension.
When I first read that I thought the last word was condensation.

not particularly, no. we're a third gender in most systems, and even if its not formally recognized in western culture, its still assumed for most practical purposes.

Oh, dear. When I think you've finally run out of inane things to say, you manage to outdo yourself. Bravo.

Men and women simply are not equal.

Some are superior in certain roles, some in others.

When you find a man who has had a kid, or a woman who has impregnated someone, I'll be interested in whatever you have to say. Not before.

"Men"? And gay men aren't men?
Of course not. Hast thou not read the "What makes a man a MAN?" thread by the undebateable Zilam? Clearly, all of you stinkin' faggots are handbag-and-hip-swining, glitter-and-highheels-wearing, limp-wristed, high-pitched effeminate hoity-toities who don't even begin to qualify, m'dear, because what makes a man is a toolbelt, dirty appearance and heterosexist behaviour. To the back of the class, now, boy.

Don't be stupid, if you can help it.

Wrong forum, sweetie.



Apart from that (and I admit skipping posts 81+), has anyone yet pointed out that (apart from the glaring jumps of 'logic') the OP fails to take into account that most (famous) movies are made by straight men, and will therefore more often than not show what straight men enjoy looking at, i.e. female nakedness, and marginalize nakedness pcis they have no erotic use for, i.e. those of men?

Of course not. Hast thou not read the "What makes a man a MAN?" thread by the undebateable Zilam? Clearly, all of you stinkin' faggots are handbag-and-hip-swining, glitter-and-highheels-wearing, limp-wristed, high-pitched effeminate hoity-toities who don't even begin to qualify, m'dear, because what makes a man is a toolbelt, dirty appearance and heterosexist behaviour. To the back of the class, now, boy.

Who taught you that word? Tell me so I may bitch slap that person at once.

Apart from that (and I admit skipping posts 81+), has anyone yet pointed out that (apart from the glaring jumps of 'logic') the OP fails to take into account that most (famous) movies are made by straight men, and will therefore more often than not show what straight men enjoy looking at, i.e. female nakedness, and marginalize nakedness pcis they have no erotic use for, i.e. those of men?

Let's see how well YOU do after four pitchers of beer biotch!

Besides - are you suggesting that men cannot make appealing movies for women simply because they are men? BIGOT!!! :)

Sick-em Fass! (http://content.ytmnd.com/content/e/2/4/e240fc68edaa6436db494ae0accb116d.jpg) Give 'em hell! (http://www.sddiscjockey.com/myspace/bitch-slap.gif)

Homosexuality is a behaviour that is inherently destructive to any society that permits it, much less encourages it. Being accepting and tolerant of the homosexual may be more beneficial for the individual, but to the group as a whole it can have catastrophic effects.

The current American population is, give or take 300 million. Let's assume the facts are correct in that each reproducing family produces 2.3 children, and 10% of all Americans are gay (give or take).

In essence, each couple replaces themselves with an extra .3 for shits and giggles. The vast majority of Gay couples not only won't replace themselves... they won't have that extra .3 for shits and giggles either. This deprives society of tens of millions of children. Adopting doesn't count. Rearing a child is not the same as producing one.

That's my view on homosexuality. Call it bigoted, hateful, homophobic. Whatever. I could give a fuck. Present information where one gay guy impregnated another gay guy purely accidentally after a hot night out and I'll retract everything I said.

So, moving along... does one exclude "gay men" from "men" when using the word "men" in a reference that is assumed to pertain to straight men.

Well, maybe.

The question that comes up is... well.. what IS a man? Is a man anyone 18 years and up who can jiggle a penis at the lady next door? If you knock up some chick at a party and bail on her and the kid are you a "Man"? If you use a child as a bullet shield are you a "Man"?

So does being gay inherently prevent a male from being a "man"? Perhaps. Cowardice, inability to show responsibility, and so forth... these are defects that prevent a male from being a Man (In the common representitive sense... if anyone here thinks you can be a Man and still use a child as a bullet screen... you can fuck off and die, I'm not even going to bother arguing the point with you...).

Is homosexuality enough of a defect to share the same page as the above? I don't know that I'm wise enough to answer that at this stage of my life. Though I will say, it's something that should be pondered over.

I'm sorry, the OP really wasn't funny. Try again.

I have put considerable thought and consideration to this during some of my prime beer-drinking moments.


If you hadn't volunteered this from the start, it probably wouldn't have taken long for someone to ask "WTF, were you drunk when you came up with this asinine theory?"

If you seriously invested any time in studying gender or sexuality issues... at the heart of homophobia and misogyny is this very old idea-- propogated by a bunch of men who thought that their dicks were the be-all and end-all of civilisation-- that GOOD = the Manly Man. The Manly Man is the all-conquering hunter and the provider, and women exist for him to put his mighty, all-important dick in. Everything is subordinate to the Manly Man, everything he sees is his. To the Manly Man, manliness is all that matters and all that has value; women aren't manly, so they aren't 'good' or even beautiful, they're just there to be used by Manly Man. Their only purpose is to pleasure him and bear his offspring, hopefully more junior Manly Men. Manly Man doesn't respect women, or anything 'womanly' or feminine, so men who don't dominate and fuck women or-- worse yet-- who allow themselves to be fucked like women, are a gross offense to manliness-- "fags," all of em! Basically, anyone who isn't conquering everything in sight-- starting with women-- at the end of a *genuine* stiff cock is looked down upon as unworthy of sharing the top of the pedastal with Manly Man, and has to be slapped down if they dare to challenge Manly Man's supremacy. That's where hatred of women and queers originates.

Not everyone who's a homophobe or a misogynist even realises this is at the root of their prejudice, but however obscured of obfuscated, it's there, buried somewhere in their psyche informing their belief that women are nothing more than a hole to get into, and that fags are a disgusting affront to manhood (and therefore all of humanity). What's worse is that the idea gets hammered into all of civilisation so hard by its believers that even some women and queers sell out, in the form of women who pressure other women to conform to stereotypical gender roles (a useful tool of the Manly Man to brainwash women into being weak and compliant) and gay men who brag about how "straight acting" they are and look down on "femme" guys for not being butch or Manly enough. Either way, it's a rejection of anything that defies the greatness of Manly Man. They're both cases of the (not-truly) 'inferiors' selling out-- or at least being unwitting pawns-- and reinforcing the (not-truly) 'superiors' grip on social power without realising how thoroughly they've been co-opted.

So yah... try less drinking and more reading.

Homosexuality is a behaviour that is inherently destructive to any society that permits it, much less encourages it. Being accepting and tolerant of the homosexual may be more beneficial for the individual, but to the group as a whole it can have catastrophic effects.

The current American population is, give or take 300 million. Let's assume the facts are correct in that each reproducing family produces 2.3 children, and 10% of all Americans are gay (give or take).

In essence, each couple replaces themselves with an extra .3 for shits and giggles. The vast majority of Gay couples not only won't replace themselves... they won't have that extra .3 for shits and giggles either. This deprives society of tens of millions of children. Adopting doesn't count. Rearing a child is not the same as producing one.

That's my view on homosexuality. Call it bigoted, hateful, homophobic. Whatever. I could give a fuck. Present information where one gay guy impregnated another gay guy purely accidentally after a hot night out and I'll retract everything I said.

Never heard of IVF, have you? Try again.

Also, you are ignoring immigration in maintaining a country's available young people.

So does being gay inherently prevent a male from being a "man"? Perhaps. Cowardice, inability to show responsibility, and so forth... these are defects that prevent a male from being a Man

None of these are inherent in a gay male any more so than a straight male. Try again.

Homosexuality is a behaviour that is inherently destructive to any society that permits it, much less encourages it. Being accepting and tolerant of the homosexual may be more beneficial for the individual, but to the group as a whole it can have catastrophic effects.


In essence, each couple replaces themselves with an extra .3 for shits and giggles. The vast majority of Gay couples not only won't replace themselves... they won't have that extra .3 for shits and giggles either. This deprives society of tens of millions of children. Adopting doesn't count. Rearing a child is not the same as producing one.


That's funny... to me, your logic seems to makes a case for heterosexuality being inherently destructive...

Homosexuality is a behaviour that is inherently destructive to any society that permits it, much less encourages it. Being accepting and tolerant of the homosexual may be more beneficial for the individual, but to the group as a whole it can have catastrophic effects.

The current American population is, give or take 300 million. Let's assume the facts are correct in that each reproducing family produces 2.3 children, and 10% of all Americans are gay (give or take).

In essence, each couple replaces themselves with an extra .3 for shits and giggles. The vast majority of Gay couples not only won't replace themselves... they won't have that extra .3 for shits and giggles either. This deprives society of tens of millions of children. Adopting doesn't count. Rearing a child is not the same as producing one.

That's my view on homosexuality. Call it bigoted, hateful, homophobic. Whatever. I could give a fuck. Present information where one gay guy impregnated another gay guy purely accidentally after a hot night out and I'll retract everything I said.

What about the fact that lesbians can simply use sperm from a donor to get pregnant and that gay men can get a female friend to carry a baby for them? Also, overseas adoption still brings a net gain of one baby to the population. The argument is fundamentally flawed anyway, since it isn't like the US (the example you are using) is at a threat of under-population? And if the throngs of newly accepted gays somehow did destabilise the birth rate enough to make the government worried its not like there aren't enough immigrants willing to take up residency.

Homosexuality is a behaviour that is inherently destructive

That's where I stopped reading this splurge of asinine homophobic idiocy. Grow up.

.. a bunch of men who thought that their dicks were the be-all and end-all of civilisation-- that GOOD = the Manly Man. The Manly Man is the all-conquering hunter and the provider, and women exist for him to put his mighty, all-important dick in. Everything is subordinate to the Manly Man, everything he sees is his. To the Manly Man, manliness is all that matters and all that has value; women aren't manly, so they aren't 'good' or even beautiful, they're just there to be used by Manly Man. Their only purpose is to pleasure him and bear his offspring, hopefully more junior Manly Men. Manly Man doesn't respect women, or anything 'womanly' or feminine, so men who don't dominate and fuck women or-- worse yet-- who allow themselves to be fucked like women, are a gross offense to manliness-- "fags," all of em! Basically, anyone who isn't conquering everything in sight-- starting with women-- at the end of a *genuine* stiff cock is looked down upon as unworthy of sharing the top of the pedastal with Manly Man, and has to be slapped down if they dare to challenge Manly Man's supremacy. That's where hatred of women and queers originates.

... What's worse is that the idea gets hammered into all of civilisation so hard by its believers that even some women and queers sell out, in the form of women who pressure other women to conform to stereotypical gender roles (a useful tool of the Manly Man to brainwash women into being weak and compliant) and gay men who brag about how "straight acting" they are and look down on "femme" guys for not being butch or Manly enough. Either way, it's a rejection of anything that defies the greatness of Manly Man. They're both cases of the (not-truly) 'inferiors' selling out-- or at least being unwitting pawns-- and reinforcing the (not-truly) 'superiors' grip on social power without realising how thoroughly they've been co-opted.

So yah... try less drinking and more reading.

Wow - and they called ME a bigot simply for not using the word 'straight' infront of 'man'. You sir obviously have an extreme bias against your stereotyped man. Thank you for demonstrating what gender-bias REALLY is.

If that sort of hate is my only other option - I'll choose beer thankyou.

That's where I stopped reading this splurge of asinine homophobic idiocy. Grow up.

LOL - the irony f your statement! Surely you have to see it!

This deprives society of tens of millions of children.

This argument is stupid. Almost as stupid as the OP.

First, we don't need more babies. Quite the contrary--we need far, far less.

Second, even if we did need more babies, homosexuality is no barrier to producing children... especially not with artificial insemination.

I have never seen anyone take an OP so seriously, he even described the OP as anecdotal truthness, for fuck sake. Grow up and stop whining, he never acted as if it were certainty, too many people here are living up to the whiny liberal stereotype.

Naked men are funny? Naah. Perhaps the stereotypical redneck you've described is funny when naked, but a healthy, well-built, young *stops to fan herself* - no, not funny - definitely not funny - *takes cold shower.*

I have never seen anyone take an OP so seriously, he even described the OP as anecdotal truthness, for fuck sake. Grow up and stop whining, he never acted as if it were certainty, too many people here are living up to the whiny liberal stereotype.

As a whiny liberal, I second this.

LOL - the irony f your statement! Surely you have to see it!

One has to ignore Fass. His angst is generally unfounded - he sees homophobia when it's really only anti-Fassism.

One has to ignore Fass. His angst is generally unfounded - he sees homophobia when it's really only anti-Fassism.

This is true, but I'm pretty sure he was reasonably close this time.

i don't get how my girlfriend could find me attractive. but somehow she does, so best not to question it, eh? ;)

Homosexuality is a behaviour that is inherently destructive to any society that permits it, much less encourages it. Being accepting and tolerant of the homosexual may be more beneficial for the individual, but to the group as a whole it can have catastrophic effects. [...] Is homosexuality enough of a defect to share the same page as the above? I don't know that I'm wise enough to answer that at this stage of my life. Though I will say, it's something that should be pondered over.

Well we can agree on one thing, at least: you aren't wise enough. Your apparent obsession with the notion that everyone who has a dick ought to be using it to make more babies is reminiscient of a certain German political party from the 1930's. You seem just terrified that 10% or so of the population might 'choose' not to procreate. That's dumb, because 1) being homo isn't a choice, and we not more want to get it on with the opposite sex than you do with the same sex; 2) the other 90% aren't magically prevented from having more than 2.whatever children, they *could* have more if they're so inclined to breed; 3) the current human population and its growth is barely sustainable-- if it's sustainable at all-- as it is, so get lost with your overpopulation advocacy; 4) while I'm not going to suggest that homosexuality has a "purpose" (because that would suggest some intelligence at work) so much as it's a trait within the natural range of genetic variation, the presence of gay people has a demonstrated social benefit in history because it means about 10% of the population is freed up from child-rearing to remain contributing to the overall productivity (and therefore health) of the community; and finally 5) there is nothing "harmful" about homosexuality. If being gay, in and of itself, were deathly detrimental then it would be bred out of the gene pool. It persists as-- apparently-- a recessive trait that the species can afford to have around because it is not actually detrimental, precisely because it's a minority trait. People say "well if everyone were gay we'd go extinct." True, but it's a stupid, moot point because not everyone is gay. At no point in history has everyone been gay, and at no point in history will everyone be gay (unless whatever gene makes us gay also grants protection from some plague that wipes out all the straight people), so the argument has no merit whatsoever because it's SO divorced from reality as to be laughable.

The only detriment of being gay is social, and then only in societies where heterosexism leads to homophobia and the persocution of gay people. If it weren't for self-centered straight people looking down on whatever's different, there would be no impediment to being gay. We wouldn't have children, unless we decided to hold our noses and 'just do it,' but as long as the people who were into "that kind" of sex were holding up their end and making their babies, then there would be no downside for the community as a whole. So, if you're concerned about queers and not enough babies being made, I suggest the following: leave the queers alone, and take it upon yourself to make some babies, since you're wired for it.

Let's assume the facts are correct in that each reproducing family produces 2.3 children, and 10% of all Americans are gay (give or take).Not to worry...
one Mexican migrant can easily replace 20 gay Americans.. even if he is working double shifts.

They are all as Horny as Fass and as available as Paris Hilton.

Mucha Lucha Libre, triagan a las gringas !!! :D

one Mexican migrant can easily replace 20 gay Americans.. even if he is working double shifts.

What about the gay Mexican migrants?

What about the gay Mexican migrants?we'll send them to Fass.
all the 3 of them.
:D

The only detriment of being gay is social,
In fact I'm sure there are some perks - suck as Seinfeld's observation that if you date/live with someone who is the same size your wardrobe instantly doubles! I think the bisexuals have it best though; No matter who comes to the party the have someone to flirt with.

If it weren't for self-centered straight people looking down on whatever's different
As opposed to your self-centered gay rant a few posts ago?


We wouldn't have children, unless we decided to hold our noses and 'just do it,'
Does NIKE make shoes for that too?

Naked men are funny? Naah. Perhaps the stereotypical redneck you've described is funny when naked, but a healthy, well-built, young *stops to fan herself* - no, not funny - definitely not funny - *takes cold shower.*

and that is why women are goddesses among us. (runs to join the shower fun)

Wow - and they called ME a bigot simply for not using the word 'straight' infront of 'man'. You sir obviously have an extreme bias against your stereotyped man. Thank you for demonstrating what gender-bias REALLY is.

If that sort of hate is my only other option - I'll choose beer thankyou.


I was trying to illustrate the self-centered mindset that laid the groundwork for the hatred of women and gays, and yes, it was bigoted and ignorant and contemptible, and... what... it's "bad" of me to point out that modern-day homophobia and misogyny originate from stupid caveman thinking? I am, apparently, some bigot for-- of all things-- hating the original bigot(s) for all the trouble that they, unprovoked, caused. I do have an "extreme bias" against the simple-minded, self-glorifying cock-on-legs that I described, because he's also a war-monger and the cause of more harm than good. And yes, I have a problem with those who don't work at shaking off the Manly Man's mentality, while I admire those who do. That's me respecting those who choose to improve themselves, and not respecting those who choose to stagnate in ignorance. And should I gather that you feel somehow oppressed by my decision not to equally respect every choice? Shall we believe that you equally respect the choice to steal, or to murder, and the choice not to steal, or not to murder? And before saying "then why aren't people free to choose not to respect the choice to be gay" that's a moot point because being gay isn't a choice. So.. don't cry "boogeyman" at me for not respecting the Manly Man or his ideological progeny, because defending 'him' makes nothing better, whereas a world without 'him' would be because there wouldn't be his oppression of women and queers.

For the record, I don't have a problem with you for being (I presume) a guy, or (I presume) straight. I don't hate straight men, or men in general, or straight people in general. I hate the bigoted, heterosexist Manly Man-worship straight guy-- fitting, since hate is all he puts out there-- and those who sell out to his bigoted, heterosexist Manly Man-worship ideal rather than trying to develop themselves above and beyond it. A difference is that his hate has dominated society for hundreds if not thousands of years; his hatred is powerful while mine looks towards overturning that oppression and seeing everyone finally treated equally. And that's what... bad?

I was trying to illustrate the self-centered mindset that laid the groundwork for the hatred of women and gays, and yes, it was bigoted and ignorant and contemptible, and... what... it's "bad" of me to point out that modern-day homophobia and misogyny originate from stupid caveman thinking? I am, apparently, some bigot for-- of all things-- hating the original bigot(s) for all the trouble that they, unprovoked, caused. I do have an "extreme bias" against the simple-minded, self-glorifying cock-on-legs that I described, because he's also a war-monger and the cause of more harm than good. And yes, I have a problem with those who don't work at shaking off the Manly Man's mentality, while I admire those who do. That's me respecting those who choose to improve themselves, and not respecting those who choose to stagnate in ignorance. And should I gather that you feel somehow oppressed by my decision not to equally respect every choice? Shall we believe that you equally respect the choice to steal, or to murder, and the choice not to steal, or not to murder? And before saying "then why aren't people free to choose not to respect the choice to be gay" that's a moot point because being gay isn't a choice. So.. don't cry "boogeyman" at me for not respecting the Manly Man or his ideological progeny, because defending 'him' makes nothing better, whereas a world without 'him' would be because there wouldn't be his oppression of women and queers.

For the record, I don't have a problem with you for being (I presume) a guy, or (I presume) straight. I don't hate straight men, or men in general, or straight people in general. I hate the bigoted, heterosexist Manly Man-worship straight guy-- fitting, since hate is all he puts out there-- and those who sell out to his bigoted, heterosexist Manly Man-worship ideal rather than trying to develop themselves above and beyond it. A difference is that his hate has dominated society for hundreds if not thousands of years; his hatred is powerful while mine looks towards overturning that oppression and seeing everyone finally treated equally. And that's what... bad?

OIC. So if I decide that I want to hate the girlie-boy wussy cross-dressing sissy gays instead of the socially well adjusted 'nice' gays then that's not any more bigoted than your contempt for 'manly-men'... :rolleyes:

LOL - the irony f your statement! Surely you have to see it!

You don't seem to know what irony is. You don't seem to know what many things are. It's like a pattern you're forming.

Let's see how well YOU do after four pitchers of beer biotch!
No excuse.

OIC. So if I decide that I want to hate the girlie-boy wussy cross-dressing sissy gays instead of the socially well adjusted 'nice' gays then that's not any more bigoted than your contempt for 'manly-men'... :rolleyes:


And what qualifies you to say that effeminate men are less "well adjusted?" You're still judging based on the standard established by a bunch of men who thought that everyone should be "like them" and worship the all-important cock instead of being themselves. Don't you realise how the "Manly Men" who set in motion all of the disdain for anything 'not-Manly' has fucked up even straight men? Guys beat themselves up for not being 'butch' enough, and try to change themselves in order to fit some artificially enforced standard of what makes a 'man,' because underlying the whole culture is the idea that the Man is all-important. So again, my problem isn't with men, or straights, or even with guys who happen to be masculine. It's with the 'institutional' societal glorification of the masculine straight male at the expense of everyone else. My contempt is for the oppressor, and I don't know for certain if you're even one of them. I would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt, but so far all you've provided for me to judge your choice-- whether you choose to be part of the problem or not-- is some foolish booze-inspired treatise on the original subject, and a couple of glib replies since then that sound like you're defending a flawed and unrighteous system.

So please, feel free to clarify, what is your choice? Have I been mistakenly shooting at someone I should be supporting with cover fire? Did you bring up the subject in the first place because of a sincere (however naive) concern over misogyny and homophobia, or were you just trolling, or what is the deal with you? Because I can apologise, if you're against those things too, but if you think it's funny to defend "homophobes and women-haters' rights" because literally everyone's ideas-- no matter how backwards or deplorable-- deserve equal respect, then I hope you're as smug when some dumbass decides that he's within his rights to beat on you because he "thinks it's a good idea."

I suppose the Greeks and Romans enjoyed sculpting funny looking statues for shits and giggles. Well some of them did.

Don't make me strip and take pictures. You won't laugh, you'll gaze in awe and struggle with some very unusual feelings.

It's been a while since I used that threat.


We demand proof! Pictures, or we don't believe you :)

And what qualifies you to say that effeminate men are less "well adjusted?" You're still judging based on the standard established by a bunch of men who thought that everyone should be "like them" and worship the all-important cock instead of being themselves. Don't you realise how the "Manly Men" who set in motion all of the disdain for anything 'not-Manly' has fucked up even straight men? Guys beat themselves up for not being 'butch' enough, and try to change themselves in order to fit some artificially enforced standard of what makes a 'man,' because underlying the whole culture is the idea that the Man is all-important. So again, my problem isn't with men, or straights, or even with guys who happen to be masculine. It's with the 'institutional' societal glorification of the masculine straight male at the expense of everyone else. My contempt is for the oppressor, and I don't know for certain if you're even one of them. I would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt, but so far all you've provided for me to judge your choice-- whether you choose to be part of the problem or not-- is some foolish booze-inspired treatise on the original subject, and a couple of glib replies since then that sound like you're defending a flawed and unrighteous system.

So please, feel free to clarify, what is your choice? Have I been mistakenly shooting at someone I should be supporting with cover fire? Did you bring up the subject in the first place because of a sincere (however naive) concern over misogyny and homophobia, or were you just trolling, or what is the deal with you? Because I can apologise, if you're against those things too, but if you think it's funny to defend "homophobes and women-haters' rights" because literally everyone's ideas-- no matter how backwards or deplorable-- deserve equal respect, then I hope you're as smug when some dumbass decides that he's within his rights to beat on you because he "thinks it's a good idea."

That wooshing sound you heard was my point sailing over year head... :rolleyes: YOU were the person who assigned negative qualities to the term 'real men'.

Nobody is defending any system. What we have here is a dogpile of fucknuts trying to make something out of nothing. I simply am illustrating both the absurdity of their noise and exposing their own hypocracy.

BTW - I would appreciate if you would refrain from the use of hate language; 'Homophobe' is no less hateful than 'faggot'.

For the record - I have no issues with anyones sexuality. I would only be against gay marriage if it were compulsory. IMHO there is far too much concern in this world in what people do or don't do with their tool than is healthy.

Regardless of my opinion - I do find great sport in trashing hypocrites and busybodies - particularly the ones masquerading as 'enlightened'.

BTW - I would appreciate if you would refrain from the use of hate language; 'Homophobe' is no less hateful than 'faggot'.


lolwut?

Of course "homophobe" is less hateful. Unless, of course, you find arachnophobe hateful...

You don't seem to know what irony is. You don't seem to know what many things are. It's like a pattern you're forming.

Think carefully of who you are speaking to. Name in particular.

Then stop digging,put down your shovel, take my hand and I'll pull you up and we can have a sandwich - or maybe you'd prefer this (http://www.conagrafoods.com/images/brands/product_jpgs/manwich.jpg)?

lolwut?

Of course "homophobe" is less hateful. Unless, of course, you find arachnophobe hateful...

It most certainly is a hate term. It is a misappropriation of a root word describing an involuntary mental condition of uncontrollable, irrational, and persistent fear. It is then used in a manner to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their moral views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech


You are using hate speech and I would appreciate if you would stop.

Sucks to have your hypocracy exposed - eh?

BTW - I would appreciate if you would refrain from the use of hate language; 'Homophobe' is no less hateful than 'faggot'.You're fucking kidding here, right?

It most certainly is a hate term. It is a misappropriation of a root word describing an involuntary mental condition of uncontrollable, irrational, and persistent fear. It is then used in a manner to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their moral views.No, it is used to call the person on what they are and hopefully get them to change their irrational ideas.

You're fucking kidding here, right?

No, it is used to call the person on what they are and hopefully get them to change their irrational ideas.


Now you are in denial.


But you cannot deny that you have engaged in hate-speech with the specific intent of insulting, belittling and intimidating people who do not share your opinion with the use of abusive and insulting language.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Maybe there are other groups who you would like to use unflattering words (ie - call names) to get them to 'change their irrational ideas'? Why stop at 'changing' people because of their moral beliefs? Why not go for their political ones? Their gender? Their religion? Come on - you can change the whole world with your 'labels'.

You misunderstand, I think. I'm just saying that aesthetically the smooth, gentle curves which are more common with women than men are considered more naturally beautiful than the alternative. Why do you think that abstract life sculptures are always so smooth faced and flowing? Extrapolate that to the physical human figure and you'll find the female body shape is slightly more similar to this than the male.


My eyes are about to roll clear out of my head. "Nature" is just nature, it doesn't have aesthetic preferences. "Smooth gentle curves?" How about crystals? Jagged little snowflakes? Every 'curvy' sand dune is made of countless tiny jagged grains. You're anthropomorphising nature, and what's worse, you're reading in false preferences on its behalf. The male form is as much a product of "nature" as the female. This nonsense about women being more "naturally" beautiful is just the assumption that "what I like must be what's normal/natural." I think 'nature' would prefer to be allowed to speak for itself, and it tends to bespeak a preference for variety and diversity. :-P

Now you are in denial.


But you cannot deny that you have engaged in hate-speech with the specific intent of insulting, belittling and intimidating people who do not share your opinion with the use of abusive and insulting language.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Maybe there are other groups who you would like to use unflattering words to get them to 'change their irrational ideas'? Why stop at 'chaning' people because of their moral beliefs? Why not go for their political ones? Their gender? Their religion? Come on - you can change the whole world with your 'labels'.I don't deny that I've insulted or belittled people with speech. That doesn't make it hate speech. Is 'moron' hate speech? How about 'doofus'?

As far as changing political or religious beliefs - if I find them unacceptable I will say so as well. Gender isn't exactly a belief or a choice, so it would be silly to try to get someone to change something they can't change.

I never thought I'd ever see such twisted logic, even in this realm (nationstates forum) of twisted logic. My hat is off to you for astounding me with utter drivel.

EDIT: A response to the original post of the thread.

I don't deny that I've insulted or belittled people with speech. That doesn't make it hate speech. Is 'moron' hate speech? How about 'doofus'?
Sounds like the truth is slowly dawning on you. Good for you. Moron and doofus are not hate speech because they are general terms which do not single out a specific set. You could call someone a moron for liking professional bowling, bell-bottoms or pomegranates - but if you called them a wop, homophobe or towelhead for that it would make no sense. ******- faggot, homophobe all are terms meant to insult a specific set who did not choose the term. The terms are applied without consideration for the feelings or fairness of them.


As far as changing political or religious beliefs - if I find them unacceptable I will say so as well. Gender isn't exactly a belief or a choice, so it would be silly to try to get someone to change something they can't change.

Ah - so as long as the hate speech supports your opinion that you find it acceptable. So you can call people with moral objections about homosexuality whatever you wish. Same for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.

There is no difference - hate speech is hate speech no matter who uses it or whom it describes. No mature discussion should include the use of these terms to describe anyone - regardless of your underlying bigotry.

I never thought I'd ever see such twisted logic, even in this realm (nationstates forum) of twisted logic. My hat is off to you for astounding me with utter drivel.

EDIT: A response to the original post of the thread.

I'd like to thank you and all of the academy for this. In particular I'd like to thank my manager - who encouraged me when I had doubt. Also to my dog who was always there for me. And all of the little people without whom nobody would really be tall...

Moron and doofus are not hate speech because they do not single out a specific set. ******- faggot, homophobe all describe a specific set with the specific intent of insult. So then if I was to rant about the stupid people of the world, that would be hate speech, as it singles out a specific set?

Ah - so as long as the hate speech supports your opinion that you find it acceptable. So you can call people with moral objections about homosexuality whatever you wish. Same for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.

There is no difference - hate speech is hate speech no matter who uses it.Indeed. Of course, for something to be hate speech requires that you, you know, actually hate the person or group being addressed with the speech.

I see. Since men are the minority of humans, does this mean that there are humans and then male humans?

Every time I've seen somone in this thread talk about "well when I hear 'man' I think of white men because the majority of people are white men" or statements to that effect, it's made me think of that "Global Village" statistics composite, so I finally went and looked it up.

"If we could shrink the Earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people. With all existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look like this:

There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from the Western Hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans.
51 would be female; 49 would be male.
70 would be non-white; 30 white.
70 would be non-Christian; 30 Christian."


So, if we're setting our normative standards according to "the majority," whenever someone says "a person" or "a human being," then objectively, if we're going to progress beyond our shortsighted tribal perspectives, we ought to picture an asian woman who's probably.. what.. Hindu?
White Christian males, though, would certainly not be "normal," statistically speaking. Therefore, I propose that whenever referring to white Christian males they should be specifically labelled as such, so as not to be 'confused' with the normal majority of the human race.

Every time I've seen somone in this thread talk about "well when I hear 'man' I think of white men because the majority of people are white men" or statements to that effect, it's made me think of that "Global Village" statistics composite, so I finally went and looked it up.

"If we could shrink the Earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people. With all existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look like this:

There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from the Western Hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans.
51 would be female; 49 would be male.
70 would be non-white; 30 white.
70 would be non-Christian; 30 Christian."


So, if we're setting our normative standards according to "the majority," whenever someone says "a person" or "a human being," then objectively, if we're going to progress beyond our shortsighted tribal perspectives, we ought to picture an asian woman who's probably.. what.. Hindu?
White Christian males, though, would certainly not be "normal," statistically speaking. Therefore, I propose that whenever referring to white Christian males they should be specifically labelled as such, so as not to be 'confused' with the normal majority of the human race.

Makes sense if you speaking about the world in a global sense.

Why does this thread state that 'mendiscriminate against...' Not all men are sadist masochistic chauvanists, or agree with the ideals of phallocentric discourse! In fact i am a perfectly hetrosexual male, and some of my best freinds are women and bottom engineers! why must we use men in such a broad sense?

Nobody is defending any system. What we have here is a dogpile of fucknuts trying to make something out of nothing. I simply am illustrating both the absurdity of their noise and exposing their own hypocracy.

BTW - I would appreciate if you would refrain from the use of hate language; 'Homophobe' is no less hateful than 'faggot'.


Alright, now I just want to watch you be crushed to death under a "dogpile of fucknuts." You're so deep in reactive self-justification it sounds like you don't even know what you're saying anymore, it's more like you half-remember someone telling you the definition of "hypocrite" once and now you whip it out-- like your asinine alcohol-inspired sociological theories-- whenever it suits you (in this case, when people called "bullshit" on your asinine alcohol-inspired sociological theories). And if you think calling someone who chooses to hate 'fags' a homophobe is on par with calling someone who was born gay.... I suppose you think calling a racist "racist" is as bad as them calling a black person "coon?"

Yeah... definitely want to see you smothered to death. That would please me, I've become that disgusted with the pure stupidity that's spewing out of you.

Alright, now I just want to watch you be crushed to death under a "dogpile of fucknuts." You're so deep in reactive self-justification it sounds like you don't even know what you're saying anymore, it's more like you half-remember someone telling you the definition of "hypocrite" once and now you whip it out-- like your asinine alcohol-inspired sociological theories-- whenever it suits you (in this case, when people called "bullshit" on your asinine alcohol-inspired sociological theories). And if you think calling someone who chooses to hate 'fags' a homophobe is on par with calling someone who was born gay.... I suppose you think calling a racist "racist" is as bad as them calling a black person "coon?"


It's not the same obviously. But the way it is used, in this case calling someone a homophobe because he thinks penis' are ugly, should be treated in almost the same way. This complete rejection of logic stops any constructive debate and gives someone an illegitimate moral high ground, thus any subsequent argument he makes is not taken seriously as it is only used to further justify his "homophobia".

Maybe there are other groups who you would like to use unflattering words (ie - call names) to get them to 'change their irrational ideas'? Why stop at 'changing' people because of their moral beliefs? Why not go for their political ones? Their gender? Their religion? Come on - you can change the whole world with your 'labels'.

You're some kind of crazy person aren't you?

Makes sense if you speaking about the world in a global sense.
but it's ok because he's one too. ;)

...and if you think calling someone who chooses to hate 'fags' a homophobe..
So everyone who does not embrace homosexual behavior automatically hates them? Therefore you are justified in calling them all names because if they disagree with you they are obviously hateful? How utterly convenient you have made your self-rationalization of your own hate.

Yeah... definitely want to see you smothered to death. That would please me, I've become that disgusted with the pure stupidity that's spewing out of you.
That's OK - I love you no matter what you say or do. That is, after all, the cornerstone of tolerant beliefs - right? You should try it - it applies to everyone - not just the people you agree with.

You're some kind of crazy person aren't you?

Nope - just someone who thinks that hateful name-calling does not advance anyones cause.

not particularly, no. we're a third gender in most systems, and even if its not formally recognized in western culture, its still assumed for most practical purposes.

and to the OP, something tells me it has more to do with challenging patriarchal dominance than nude men "looking funny" (they don't, particularly)

That's almost as ridiculous as the original premise of this thread. A man is a man regardless of his sexual orientation. There are two genders, then there are different sexual preferences.

That's almost as ridiculous as the original premise of this thread. A man is a man regardless of his sexual orientation. There are two genders, then there are different sexual preferences.

Just imagine if there were three genders. Wouldn't that make dating alot more complicated! Who would pick up the check? Who goes through the door first? Who's on top, who's on bottom and where the heck would the other go? And - most important - who sleeps in the wet spot?

This argument is stupid. Almost as stupid as the OP.

First, we don't need more babies. Quite the contrary--we need far, far less.

Second, even if we did need more babies, homosexuality is no barrier to producing children... especially not with artificial insemination.


This seems to best sum up the oppositions viewpoint, so I'll use this one.

First... we don't need more babies.

Well, why not? Would you rather see the world overpopulated by the Chinese, or the Americans? The world is going to get overpopulated, one way or another. If you had to choose one way for the entire rest of the world to live tomorrow, whose path would you choose? America's, or China's?

Don't give a flippant answer, think on it.

As for artificial insemination? Certainly.

However, you cannot get accidentally knocked up by artifical insemination.

If you need a better clue, consider the birth rates amongst every sex act between a homosexual couple, and the birth rates betweem heterosexual couples.

Sure, Bob can occassionally fuck Elise so Elise can sprout a child for Bob and his partner... but it simply will not produce the number of children heteros will.


But the important thing here is that people say homosexuality is no barrier to producing children, when several people have flat out said that the gay couple can still have kids IF THEY ENGAGE IN HETEROSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. Failing that, having a man with a tube inject semen into a woman.

*facepalm*

As for this talk about it being necessary for their to be fewer children... Well kids, I don't know if you learned about this in gradeschool... but the folks who stop breeding will be replaced by those that do. Watch Idiocracy, it has a good child's primer on that sort of thing.

...

Nice first post.

Will you leave now? Pretty please?

Makes sense if you speaking about the world in a global sense.The world is the globe :rolleyes: and there is no other sense than the global one.

The world is the globe :rolleyes: and there is no other sense than the global one.

LOL - I hadn't seen that! Funny.

Who taught you that word? Tell me so I may bitch slap that person at once.

Umm. Dunno. I think we even use it in German?

Let's see how well YOU do after four pitchers of beer biotch!


The difference between me and many others being that I fail to shift blame onto circumstances that'd been well within my responsibility when - no, if - I splatter verbal diatribe all over. Read: I don't tolerate the consumption of alcohol as an excuse for any sort of behavior (neither with me nor with others); I rather count it as another point against. Next try?

The difference between me and many others being that I fail to shift blame onto circumstances that'd been well within my responsibility when - no, if - I splatter verbal diatribe all over. Read: I don't tolerate the consumption of alcohol as an excuse for any sort of behavior (neither with me nor with others); I rather count it as another point against. Next try?



Buuuuuuuurp!

Huh? You say something?

You're some kind of crazy person aren't you?

I'm quite sure they will say so, yes.

Wow. So much sophistry in a single thread. I am actually disturbed as to how this discussion has evolved.

Wow. So much sophistry in a single thread. I am actually disturbed as to how this discussion has evolved.

You say that like a n00b would.
:p

Oh, and sigworthy.

The purpose of sexual intercourse is to have cute children to love and care for. The fucking faggots and lesbians only care about the pleasure of sex.

The purpose of sexual intercourse is to have cute children to love and care for. The fucking faggots and lesbians only care about the pleasure of sex.

In my crystal ball I see....your girlfriend is frustrated :)

snip

Translation: OH NOEZ YELLOW PERIL

Yes, I've defied your request, and I don't care. China, or India for that matter, is not formulating an evil plot to take over the world with their massive population. Although you may be right, since it's not like they have a one child policy or anything like that...

Besides, that makes no sense. The world is already overpopulated, but funnily enough, it can get more overpopulated. Your average Chinese or Indian couple is not going to think "hmm, the Americans are having less children, so there's more room for ours!" and decide to reproduce more. Even the governments wouldn't think that way.

The purpose of sexual intercourse is to have cute children to love and care for. The fucking faggots and lesbians only care about the pleasure of sex.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/dogbert1.jpg

:D

The purpose of sexual intercourse is to have cute children to love and care for.
and what happens if you end up with ugly children?

"Men"? And gay men aren't men?

Don't be stupid, if you can help it.

And what are ongoing repetitions of the same heterosexist nonsense in the OP?

Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Actually I found the OP to be highly entertaining in a good way. I liked the writing style. I haven't decided yet whether I think it's a correct assessment, but I'm not prepared to say it's wrong either. I certainly found some truth in it... (like the part about looking at oneself and thinking "how is THAT attractive")

I find it unsettling how rapidly people started slashing at the OP for being somehow "homophobic." I don't see any mean-spiritedness in that post I think he was just trying to satirize a little. It was funny if you're not looking for something to make yourself mad.

I mean, honestly guys... aren't there enough valid instances of anti gay discriminiation going on out there for you to focus on? This one is just making you look paranoid.