Panic Sweeps Nation
Lifted from the comments, an intriguing choice of adjective:
This discovery of general preference, some 71%, is not only deemed “alarming,” but also “startling,” and what’s more, it apparently constitutes a “masculinity crisis within the LGBTQ community.” Says a website quoting a magazine, the front cover of which looks like this.
As Ted S notes in reply, “How dare you gays not like the type of man we think you should like!”
I realise it may be difficult to feel great concern for the kinds of people who base their worldviews on the high and noble teachings of the publications Attitude and Queerty, but still. The unstated contortion required to achieve the indignation that is now social currency – in this instance, a belief that not being aroused by overly effeminate men is obvious and damning proof of “misogynist attitudes” and “toxic masculinity” – is a thing to behold. We’re also informed – quite confidently, yet with no elaboration – that, “[Gay men] enjoy the privilege of being male in a patriarchal society that for some reason values our genitals way above a woman’s.”
Update, via the comments:
The left does seem to spend an awful lot of time telling the rest of us who and what we should find attractive. As, for instance, when student activist and avowed “feminist killjoy” Josefin Hedlund vowed to correct our erotic preferences by steering us away from the “violent norms” of conventional attractiveness and agreeable personalities. Apparently, we should “resist” the “hetero- and cis-normative, patriarchal, capitalist, and hierarchical structures in society” by ogling porn featuring people we don’t fancy. And as when Laurie Penny complained that mild titillation should be shared out fairly, and be inspired by all body types, even ones that are hairy and lumpy in all the wrong places. Because a light-hearted Instagram page about attractive men and their pets has too many attractive men on it. And of course we mustn’t forget the immense, frustrated love machine, Mr Caleb Luna, who believes that men will be drawn magnetically to his unorthodox physique once they’ve been schooled in the politics of intersectional victimhood.
This discovery of general preference, some 71%, is not only deemed “alarming,” but also “startling,” and what’s more, it apparently constitutes a “masculinity crisis within the LGBTQ community.” Says a website quoting a magazine, the front cover of which looks like this.
You’re feeling better then? 🙂
You’re feeling better then? 🙂
More or less.
Above, a bearded gay man recoils from yet more intersectional voodoo.
a belief that not being aroused by overly effeminate men is obvious and damning proof of “misogynist attitudes” and “toxic masculinity”
I like women fine. I just don’t want to sleep with them –or with men who behave like them. It’s not that complicated.
Caleb Luna weeps
It’s not that complicated.
It’s a bold ideological leap, certainly. But apparently, because you don’t fancy women, or men whose mannerisms are more typically associated with women, this somehow proves that you despise women and wish to oppress them. Rather than the more obvious possibility that feminine behaviour, or an approximation of it, just doesn’t turn you on. We seem to have arrived at a position where not being aroused by something automatically implies disdain for it, and animosity, beyond an erotic context.
We’re also informed – quite confidently, yet with no elaboration – that, “[Gay men] enjoy the privilege of being male in a patriarchal society that for some reason values our genitals way above a woman’s.”
Er, wut?
Er, wut?
I have no idea.
If you don’t find neurologically atypical women of size with green hair and facial piercings sexually attractive, you’re just not doing sex properly.
If you don’t find neurologically atypical women of size with green hair and facial piercings sexually attractive, you’re just not doing sex properly.
The modern left does seem to spend an awful lot of time and energy telling the rest of us who and what we should find attractive.
As, for instance, when student activist and avowed “feminist killjoy” Josefin Hedlund vowed to correct our erotic preferences by steering us away from the “violent norms” of conventional attractiveness and agreeable personalities. Apparently, we should “resist” the “hetero- and cis-normative, patriarchal, capitalist, and hierarchical structures in society” by ogling porn featuring people we don’t fancy.
And as when Laurie Penny complained that mild titillation should be shared out fairly, and be inspired by all body types, even ones that are hairy and lumpy in all the wrong places. Because a light-hearted Instagram page about attractive men and their pets has too many attractive men on it.
And as noted upthread, we mustn’t forget the immense, frustrated love machine, Mr Caleb Luna.
The magazine cover, in terms of typefaces, colors and layout, is a dead ringer for any ladies’ magazine.
Hmmm.
…a light-hearted Instagram page about attractive men and their pets…
Misnamed, I might add. Should be “Hipsters-n-Hounds”.
The sheer arrogance of A new “Masc Survey” conducted by Attitude reveals gay men have quite a bit of work to do when it comes to breaking down gender stereotypes within their own community is astounding.
Cmon gays, er I mean, guys, you’re letting the side down!
At least the comments are giving it short shrift.
The sheer arrogance
Yes, and it’s an arrogance that’s inescapable, given the reliance on identitarian claptrap and collectivist thinking generally. See also the headline, “We All Want To Be The Jock Who Kicked Our Ass.”
I mean, what?
We’re also informed – quite confidently, yet with no elaboration – that, “[Gay men] enjoy the privilege of being male in a patriarchal society that for some reason values our genitals way above a woman’s.”
No idea what this means, either.
Especially when I’ve been told that, given I’m heterosexual, my valuing and admiration of women’s genitals (and boobs, etc., etc.) is oppressive and objectifying.
It’s getting very hard to keep up. I think I’ll just start telling people that my lovely wife of thirty years and I are doing our (heteronormative) marriage and nuclear family ironically. Perhaps then they’ll leave us alone.
Perhaps then they’ll leave us alone.
I’m touched by your optimism. But the nagging must never end. How else would they let us know how much better than us they are?
Note the “nice guy (TM)” exemption. If you’re a straight man frustrated that the women you fancy don’t fancy you back, you’re an evil misogynist who feels entitled to women’s bodies. But, as you’ve noted many times, fairness and reciprocity are not part of the SJW system of ethics.
See also the headline, “We All Want To Be The Jock Who Kicked Our Ass.”
One more to be filed under: ‘Refracting the world through the lens of my neuroses’.
One more to be filed under: ‘Refracting the world through the lens of my neuroses’.
Absolutely. See also the ladies and ungendered beings at Everyday Feminism, and pretty much anything where people ostentatiously seethe about “intersectional issues.”
I read the comments under the original Twitter post, and it was refreshing to see the majority mocking it for the idiocy it is.
Isn’t this sort of mind policing/sticking bossy noses into every nook and cranny of one’s personal life the thing they hate religions for? These people have turned into that which they abhor.
In those comments I ran across some terms I had to guess at – soyboi I thought was hilarious – that is some kind of male gay hipster? But what’s a “trap”?
We’re also informed – quite confidently, yet with no elaboration – that, “[Gay men] enjoy the privilege of being male in a patriarchal society that for some reason values our genitals way above a woman’s.” … No idea what this means, either. … Especially when I’ve been told that, given I’m heterosexual, my valuing and admiration of women’s genitals (and boobs, etc., etc.) is oppressive and objectifying.
The writer is dipping into a bag of cliches or quips or rhetorical gimmicks and mixing and matching them without thinking it through.
Rhetorical Gimmick #1 is to pretend that sex differences are confined to dangly bits, and to smear anyone who thinks that men and women might have differing interests and talents as being preoccupied with genitals.
Rhetorical Gimmick #2 is the Gainsbourg–Ciccone Theory that men shun femininity (not in females, but in themselves and other males) because they think that being a girl is degrading.
I think I’ll just start telling people that my lovely wife of thirty years and I are doing our (heteronormative) marriage and nuclear family ironically.
Hmmm. You’ll say ironically but they’ll hear ironing. Then the reeeeeeing will begin…
some terms I had to guess at – soyboi I thought was hilarious – that is some kind of male gay hipster? But what’s a “trap”?
I believe “soyboi” (or “soyboy”) refers to an effete-looking woke person who is mouthy online, someone whose bluster is apparently mismatched with his physical capabilities. A “trap,” as I understand it, is someone whose actual sex is not what it appears, and the, um, details of which are only discovered, shall we say, too late.
…because you don’t fancy women, or men whose mannerisms are more typically associated with women, this somehow proves that you despise women and wish to oppress them.
Oddly enough, if you do fancy women, this also proves that you despise them and wish to oppress them. Go figure.
Oddly enough, if you do fancy women, this also proves that you despise them and wish to oppress them. Go figure.
I see you’re getting the hang of it.
(rests face on palm, staring at quote)
But that’s not how porn works. That’s not how any porn works.
Let’s parse this out.
1). “Gay” is synonymous with “homosexual.”
2). “Homosexual” means you are attracted to persons of your sex rather than of the opposite sex.
3). Therefore, gay men should logically be attracted to men who behave like women.
……
I’m not following the magazine’s logic here, but I’m sure good old reliable Everyday Feminism will post an article explaining it all and scolding humanity.
But that’s not how porn works. That’s not how any porn works.
I swear I’m not making this up.
Apparently, we should “resist” the “hetero- and cis-normative, patriarchal, capitalist, and hierarchical structures in society” by ogling porn featuring people we don’t fancy.
. . . Oh. I’m sorry. . . I got distracted . . . Could someone direct me to the artificial limbs section?
It’s really simple:
Using aversion therapy to turn gay men straight —-> Vice
Using aversion therapy to turn straight men gay or toward women they don’t like —-> Virtue
I’ll report myself.
All this time, and it suddenly appears that many gay men were a fifth column for the Patriarchal Shitlords all along. A vector for Kyriarchical Hegemony badthink braingerms.
Well done, lads.
These people have turned into that which they abhor.
I kinda suspect they’ve been like that the whole time.
As long as we are speaking of those who think they know what we should want, the NY Post has found a female sex worker with over 10K partners who reveals what men really want.
Don’t bother with the article at the link, but stay for the comments.
Relevant:
https://youtu.be/ZaIwWRc6U_U?t=4m
Also, just to add to the panic sweeping the nation, there will be NO tests of the new crock pot this week, but stay calm and stay tuned.
The reason is, the only recipes I have for the meat on special this week are 4-quart recipes. To test the new pot, I need either 2 1/2 quart recipes, or a 5-quart recipe, halved. Thus I must wait till meat from such a recipe goes on sale.
And you thought the gay thing was complicated.
That 10K woman is scary-looking! And is she sure about the number? I think I’d have lost count somewhere in the hundreds.
the front cover of which looks like this.
Is that even real? It’s a parody, surely.
Is that even real? It’s a parody, surely.
There’s nothing on that cover I can even remotely relate to. It seems to exist in some entirely different universe.
Ten thousand partners over twelve years is sixteen per week. One assumes that’s a roll in the hay for breakfast, lunch and dinner every weekday, and then a date with her “special someone” on the weekend.
Special indeed.
Special indeed. “I love you, Bob–I mean, George! No, not George, Kevin! Oh, why did I say Kevin–you know, I meant to say Paul, don’t you, dear?
“Bill? Bill? Hello, Bill–I mean, Leonard? Hello?”
But what’s a “trap”?
A “trap,” as I understand it, is someone whose actual sex is not what it appears, and the, um, details of which are only discovered, shall we say, too late.
Precisely, and quite distinct from transexual. The term “trap” itself appears to have originated at the anarchic 4Chan /b/ board, or at least popularized there. It’s now something of a fetish, at least online. No kidding.
It’s now something of a fetish, at least online.
I keep saying this place should get some kind of educational grant. It’s a service to the community.
I keep saying this place should get some kind of educational grant.
Will there be a Giant Vaginas laureate program? Asking for a friend.
“Rather than the more obvious possibility that feminine behaviour, or an approximation of it, just doesn’t turn you on.”
Old joke, which is more than half true: Radical feminists demand that sexual arousal must be triggered by, and only by, political positions. “Ooh, listen to how she quotes Marx about exterminating class enemies!”
Isn’t this sort of mind policing/sticking bossy noses into every nook and cranny of one’s personal life the thing they hate religions for? These people have turned into that which they abhor.
Ehn. From right wing liberal to left wing liberal and trying to keep track of the scorecard, the same practices do keep turning up.
A bit back there was an inside report from the left wing liberal side, note the practice described.
Recently The Economist did an article on the Protestant Reformation and modern developments from then, note the practice described:
—Went to see Novitiate yesterday . . . intentionally or not, one of the comic bits was provided by a nun at a Catholic school, teaching a religion class back in the late nineteen fifties or so. Mebbe paraphrasing, from memory, Today we’re going to discuss other religions, such as Protestants, Baptists, and Jews.
I swear I’m not making this up.
And for comedic relief, there’s always the classic.
These people have turned into that which they abhor.
No, they have turned into what they claim to abhor. In fact, the Left was always like this. All that has changed, from year to year, is what is prohibited and what is mandatory.
A “trap,” as I understand it, is someone whose actual sex is not what it appears, and the, um, details of which are only discovered, shall we say, too late.
Precisely, and quite distinct from transexual. The term “trap” itself appears to have originated at the anarchic 4Chan /b/ board, or at least popularized there. It’s now something of a fetish, at least online. No kidding.
Thanks y’all. I was thinking some kind of gay version of jail bait – nope – something completely different.
Good grief that all seems rather complicated – looks like but isn’t a trans, snares the unwary, as a fetish behavior, or just for shits n giggles?
[shakes head and orders another drink]
Will there be a Giant Vaginas laureate program?
I think Miss 10KPartners has that base covered.