discussion Why do we shame gay men (but not straight women) for not being attracted to fem guys?

[Romova99]

nvm

Edited Monday at 07:03 PM by Romova99

[loveisdead9582]

A lot of what you mentioned are stereotypes that have somewhat started to die out thankfully. For some of the masc guys who are super aggressive about it, there is a deep rooted shame (internalized homophobia) hooking up with men that goes back to their upbringing, surroundings, and their fear of how their friends, loved ones, and other community members will react. These tend so be incredibly paranoid to the point of aggression if there's anything gay around them to keep their secrets. I've known a few who opened up over the years and said that they thought that people were less likely to clock them if they were with other masc closeted guys.

 

I'm pretty sure that the only ones who are regularly shamed for it are the ones who are incredibly vocal about it - usually in a way that puts down those who are not masc. Unfortunately some people seem to forget that it's okay to be a nice to those who you don't want to sleep with.
 

I myself don't mind some fem energy but I am more attracted to those who have a bit more of a masculine energy since it's a contrast to mine. Never say never though. 

Edited Tuesday at 04:49 AM by loveisdead9582

[MattieB]

Have you asked fem men why they aren't attracted to fem men yet? 

[Bitter Aging Twink]

6 hours ago, MattieB said:

Have you asked fem men why they aren't attracted to fem men yet? 

Oh yeah, all the time!  They never give an answer that makes sense though, lol.  In my opinion, a lot of fem guys lust after masc guys cuz masc guys have what they lack, and opposites have a tendency to attract.  Low-vibration fem guys shame masc guys for not liking them because they know that fems are not a hot commodity within the gay community (though they will play dumb and deny this).  Many fems have experienced years of frustration and rejection, not being able to get those masc tops that their hearts desire, so they lash out at other people (literally anyone who triggers them) by using social justice buzzwords like patriarchy, misogyny, internalized homophobia, etc in an ill-advised attempt to guilt-trip masc men into fücking them.  It never works though, and it only makes their dating lives worse.  As a hyperfem gay myself, I have never employed these lame tactics because I'm a self-aware person, and it would make me feel gross to do so.  If someone doesn't like me, I just move on.  Obviously a lot of gays aren't as self-aware and suffer from a lot of mental health issues, and that's why they lash out instead of working on themselves.  At this point, I know I am not likely to find a partner as a badly-botoxed femboy with gay voice and a limp wrist, and I don't care anymore.  Using social justice rhetoric in hopes of getting a pity-fück from a masc top isn't going to get me anywhere.  I already accepted that I am going to die alone at age 24, lol.  But the real question is, why would I want someone to watch me die? Now I'm just focusing on my career, building better friendships, and giving back to the community. I just wish some of my fellow fems would accept their fate and leave the masc4masc bros alone.  Being gay is already hard enough!  We don't need other gays telling us what we can and cannot like.

[Dante Silva]

I'm a fem guy who has always been in to polar opposites. Vers is so vanilla and boring to me, I can't and never could go there.

 

In my experience truly masc guys have an appreciation for opposites.
 

There is nothing hotter than a masc guy who is totally in touch with himself and accepting of the fact he likes opposites.

 

I have several dynamics of this nature going on in the background at any given time but I have a particular connection with a very naturally masc guy at the moment and every interaction with him is mind blowing in terms of chemistry.

 

My advice is to simply ride on through experiences of toxic masculinity and tribal identities, when a real man who knows himself presents himself to you, you will instantly know in a heartbeat and it will absolutely blow all that toxic 'masc4masc' crap out the water.

 

Tribes and raw sexual chemistry are absolutely not the same thing.

 

 

[katara]

It's not rocket science. Sexuality is a spectrum and the more you lean on the "homosexual side" the more you are gonna be attracted by masculinity and the more you lean towards the "heterosexual side" the more you are gonna like femininity.

 

This is why fem gays are mostly desired by bi guys and str8 cis men. 

Edited Thursday at 05:53 PM by katara

[Claymore]

19 hours ago, MattieB said:

Have you asked fem men why they aren't attracted to fem men yet? 

Good point! Why aren't you attracted to fem men, gw0rl?

[MattieB]

1 hour ago, Claymore said:

Good point! Why aren't you attracted to fem men, gw0rl?

Green aura with flies 

[Claymore]

32 minutes ago, MattieB said:

Green aura with flies 

Pantone 448 C aura with rust sediments.

[Mikeymoonshine]

All I'll say is even tho I don't usually present particularly fem but I avoid masc for masc guys. They tends to be the type of people who endlessly complain about "stereotypical gays" and I don't like walking on eggshells worrying that my partner is gonna find something I did "too camp" or whatever. I'm not even camp at all and I've still had situations with some guy getting angry about me liking pop girls or musical theatre ect. I also don't know why anyone needs to make a big thing about who they aren't attracted to like it's some sort of human rights issue. Just pursue and date who you want lol.  

[MattieB]

12 hours ago, Claymore said:

Pantone 448 C aura with rust sediments.

[Sabrina Carpenter]

you don't know what you're talking about because a lot of women like feminine men 

 

my bestfriend even wishes she can date gay men

[Claymore]

2 hours ago, MattieB said:

[Funnyfatty]

Out of my experience i see that woman are attracted to dumb man not masc or fem. 

[Elementary]

If some woman was shaming a man for being fem she deserves the lashings. That said, it doesn't happen very often or at least not as much as masc4masc. 

[Bitter Aging Twink]

9 hours ago, Sabrina Carpenter said:

you don't know what you're talking about because a lot of women like feminine men 

 

my bestfriend even wishes she can date gay men

Sabrina, sis…you know I love you, but with all due respect, I think that that you espresso has gone to your head.  If I had to hazard a guess, I bet you only read the title of this thread, took a short n sweet glance at my intro paragraph, didn't read any of my 7 posts that lie within, and then proceeded to misunderstand the entire point of this thread, like 90% of people in here did.

 

To reiterate my point again for the umpteenth time: women and gay men have a very different idea of what it means to "be fem."  From a woman's perspective, being fem is more about being in touch with your emotions, distancing yourself from the more toxic aspects of masculinity, and being brave enough to dress up and put on a little makeup every now and then.  From a gay male perspective, being fem is more about exhibiting an over-the-top aura of flamboyance: like being overly-dramatic and enthusiastic about literally everything, expressing yourself through the vernacular of a reality television contestant or drag queen, being dressed to the nines 24/7, wearing risqué clothing (like crop tops and assless chaps in public) in hopes of garnering male attention, and being high-maintenance + sexually promiscuous.

 

In case you're still dumfounded, I will go a step further to make this point incredibly clear to you. I'd like you to take a second to imagine the following scenario: Let's say we make a reality TV dating show in which there are 100 gay men on one side of a wall and 100 straight women on the other side.  The gay men and straight women do not interact with each other at all (obviously, as they are not interested in dating one another).  Now, let's say that both the gay men and the straight women are presented with 3 bisexual male candidates, all 3 of whom would be happy to go on a date with anybody who chooses them from either side of the wall.  Here are the contestants.

 

Contestant #1

 

Bradley: He's a low-maintenance guy who likes watching football, drinking beer, going to the gym, doing woodwork, and taking his dog to the dog park.

 

 

 

Contestant #2

 

Micah: He's a total sweetheart, in touch with his feelings, involved in various local charity organizations in his community, has a cat named Snickers, and loves his mom.

 

 

 

Contestant #3

 

Cody: He's a silly, sassy, flamboyant man who likes showing off his bum cheeks any chance he gets, can be found in local swimming pools riding on unicorn floaties, knows all the lyrics to WAP by heart, and occasionally dabbles in drag.

 

 

All 3 of the above men are bisexual and are open to dating either a man or a woman.  Now, let's first consider the preferences of the 100 gay men on the first side of the wall.  Out of those 100 men, I would say about half would be lusting after Contestant #1 right now.  Another 40% of the gay men would probably prefer someone like Contestant #2, as they think #1 is a bit too basic/boring for them.  7% of the gay men would be open to either #1 or #2.  And finally, three of the gay men would have a preference for Contestant #3.  So, the moral of the story is, from a gay male perspective, Contestant #3 only has about a 3% chance of finding love from another man, while contestants #1 and #2 have a pretty solid chance.

 

Now, let's shift our attention to the straight women's side.  If I had to guess, I would say that the vast majority of the straight women would go after Contestant #1, in a landslide victory that would make the gay men's side look incredibly tolerable in comparison.  I would guess about 80% of the women would choose Contestant #1 to go on a date with, as the other two guys would be perceived as "too fem" for them.  There would, however, be a smaller group of about 20% or so of the women who would prefer to go on a date with Contestant #2, because they like their man to be a bit more on the feminine side (however…again, a straight woman's idea of a "feminine man" is basically a joke compared to a gay man's).  And finally, 0% of the straight women would choose Contestant #3.  This contestant wouldn't even register on the women's radars as being someone they'd be open to dating.  In fact, they'd probably secretly feel disgust towards him (even though they wouldn't openly admit this because women are more socially-intelligent than men, and they are allergic to making themselves look bad).

 

In conclusion: the moral of the story is…gay men are already more tolerant than straight women when it comes to mate selection.  Women are incredibly misogynistic and homophobic towards men who exhibit any feminine traits, and they refuse to "settle" for a man who exhibits too many traits that they perceive as feminine. Gay men also have their issues with misogyny and internalized homophobia, but there is still a small minority of gay men who are open to dating a more feminine man.  However, the part of this that bothers me the most (and the point of this whole thread) is the fact that, despite being more tolerant of feminine men in general, gay men are still the ones who get chastised for their preferences while straight women do not.  Literally nobody (gay, straight, bi, whatever) EVER EVER EVER tells a woman she MUST remain open to dating an extremely feminine or flamboyant man.  Nobody does this.  Full stop.  Period.  This is only a phenomenon that happens to, and amongst, gay males.  Why is this? This is my whole question (that about 90% of the people in this thread seem to not be comprehending).   Why is it that straight women are allowed to shun feminine-presenting men and exclusively lust after masculine-presenting men without any social consequences, while gay men are given a shaming lecture about how we "must hate women and gays" because we aren't open to dating a feminine or flamboyant man? This seems like a deeply unfair double standard to me!  I'm not mad at straight women in this scenario at all, though.  They're allowed to be as picky as they want.  I'm only mad at the people who go around shaming gay men by telling us to "check our misogyny/homophobia" at the door, when in reality, it's the straight women who are the ones who need to check theirs.

 

tldr: I bet 90% of you won't read this anyway, and will continue to purposely misunderstand the point I am making.

[JanStan]

8 minutes ago, Bitter Aging Twink said:

Sabrina, sis…you know I love you, but with all due respect, I think that that you espresso has gone to your head.  If I had to hazard a guess, I bet you only read the title of this thread, took a short n sweet glance at my intro paragraph, didn't read any of my 7 posts that lie within, and then proceeded to misunderstand the entire point of this thread, like 90% of people in here did.

 

To reiterate my point again for the umpteenth time: women and gay men have a very different idea of what it means to "be fem."  From a woman's perspective, being fem is more about being in touch with your emotions, distancing yourself from the more toxic aspects of masculinity, and being brave enough to dress up and put on a little makeup every now and then.  From a gay male perspective, being fem is more about exhibiting an over-the-top aura of flamboyance: like being overly-dramatic and enthusiastic about literally everything, expressing yourself through the vernacular of a reality television contestant or drag queen, being dressed to the nines 24/7, wearing risqué clothing (like crop tops and assless chaps in public) in hopes of garnering male attention, and being high-maintenance + sexually promiscuous.

 

In case you're still dumfounded, I will go a step further to make this point incredibly clear to you. I'd like you to take a second to imagine the following scenario: Let's say we make a reality TV dating show in which there are 100 gay men on one side of a wall and 100 straight women on the other side.  The gay men and straight women do not interact with each other at all (obviously, as they are not interested in dating one another).  Now, let's say that both the gay men and the straight women are presented with 3 bisexual male candidates, all 3 of whom would be happy to go on a date with anybody who chooses them from either side of the wall.  Here are the contestants.

 

Contestant #1

 

Bradley: He's a low-maintenance guy who likes watching football, drinking beer, going to the gym, doing woodwork, and taking his dog to the dog park.

 

 

 

Contestant #2

 

Micah: He's a total sweetheart, in touch with his feelings, involved in various local charity organizations in his community, has a cat named Snickers, and loves his mom.

 

 

 

Contestant #3

 

Cody: He's a silly, sassy, flamboyant man who likes showing off his bum cheeks any chance he gets, can be found in local swimming pools riding on unicorn floaties, knows all the lyrics to WAP by heart, and occasionally dabbles in drag.

 

 

All 3 of the above men are bisexual and are open to dating either a man or a woman.  Now, let's first consider the preferences of the 100 gay men on the first side of the wall.  Out of those 100 men, I would say about half would be lusting after Contestant #1 right now.  Another 40% of the gay men would probably prefer someone like Contestant #2, as they think #1 is a bit too basic/boring for them.  7% of the gay men would be open to either #1 or #2.  And finally, three of the gay men would have a preference for Contestant #3.  So, the moral of the story is, from a gay male perspective, Contestant #3 only has about a 3% chance of finding love from another man, while contestants #1 and #2 have a pretty solid chance.

 

Now, let's shift our attention to the straight women's side.  If I had to guess, I would say that the vast majority of the straight women would go after Contestant #1, in a landslide victory that would make the gay men's side look incredibly tolerable in comparison.  I would guess about 80% of the women would choose Contestant #1 to go on a date with, as the other two guys would be perceived as "too fem" for them.  There would, however, be a smaller group of about 20% or so of the women who would prefer to go on a date with Contestant #2, because they like their man to be a bit more on the feminine side (however…again, a straight woman's idea of a "feminine man" is basically a joke compared to a gay man's).  And finally, 0% of the straight women would choose Contestant #3.  This contestant wouldn't even register on the women's radars as being someone they'd be open to dating.  In fact, they'd probably secretly feel disgust towards him (even though they wouldn't openly admit this because women are more socially-intelligent than men, and they are allergic to making themselves look bad).

 

In conclusion: the moral of the story is…gay men are already more tolerant than straight women when it comes to mate selection.  Women are incredibly misogynistic and homophobic towards men who exhibit any feminine traits, and they refuse to "settle" for a man who exhibits too many traits that they perceive as feminine. Gay men also have their issues with misogyny and internalized homophobia, but there is still a small minority of gay men who are open to dating a more feminine man.  However, the part of this that bothers me the most (and the point of this whole thread) is the fact that, despite being more tolerant of feminine men in general, gay men are still the ones who get chastised for their preferences while straight women do not.  Literally nobody (gay, straight, bi, whatever) EVER EVER EVER tells a woman she MUST remain open to dating an extremely feminine or flamboyant man.  Nobody does this.  Full stop.  Period.  This is only a phenomenon that happens to, and amongst, gay males.  Why is this? This is my whole question (that about 90% of the people in this thread seem to not be comprehending).   Why is it that straight women are allowed to shun feminine-presenting men and exclusively lust after masculine-presenting men without any social consequences, while gay men are given a shaming lecture about how we "must hate women and gays" because we aren't open to dating a feminine or flamboyant man? This seems like a deeply unfair double standard to me!  I'm not mad at straight women in this scenario at all, though.  They're allowed to be as picky as they want.  I'm only mad at the people who go around shaming gay men by telling us to "check our misogyny/homophobia" at the door, when in reality, it's the straight women who are the ones who need to check theirs.

 

tldr: I bet 90% of you won't read this anyway, and will continue to purposely misunderstand the point I am making.

I agree with most of what you are saying except l would strongly disagree about women feeling disgust towards #3 any more than a gay man would. I don't think either group would be any more interested in dating that person than the other. I also don't think anyone would find them disgusting as much as having zero interest in getting into a romantic relationship with that person. I think a majority of people equate person #3 to not being relationship material.

[Katamari]

41 minutes ago, Bitter Aging Twink said:

Sabrina, sis…you know I love you, but with all due respect, I think that that you espresso has gone to your head.  If I had to hazard a guess, I bet you only read the title of this thread, took a short n sweet glance at my intro paragraph, didn't read any of my 7 posts that lie within, and then proceeded to misunderstand the entire point of this thread, like 90% of people in here did.

 

To reiterate my point again for the umpteenth time: women and gay men have a very different idea of what it means to "be fem."  From a woman's perspective, being fem is more about being in touch with your emotions, distancing yourself from the more toxic aspects of masculinity, and being brave enough to dress up and put on a little makeup every now and then.  From a gay male perspective, being fem is more about exhibiting an over-the-top aura of flamboyance: like being overly-dramatic and enthusiastic about literally everything, expressing yourself through the vernacular of a reality television contestant or drag queen, being dressed to the nines 24/7, wearing risqué clothing (like crop tops and assless chaps in public) in hopes of garnering male attention, and being high-maintenance + sexually promiscuous.

 

In case you're still dumfounded, I will go a step further to make this point incredibly clear to you. I'd like you to take a second to imagine the following scenario: Let's say we make a reality TV dating show in which there are 100 gay men on one side of a wall and 100 straight women on the other side.  The gay men and straight women do not interact with each other at all (obviously, as they are not interested in dating one another).  Now, let's say that both the gay men and the straight women are presented with 3 bisexual male candidates, all 3 of whom would be happy to go on a date with anybody who chooses them from either side of the wall.  Here are the contestants.

 

Contestant #1

 

Bradley: He's a low-maintenance guy who likes watching football, drinking beer, going to the gym, doing woodwork, and taking his dog to the dog park.

 

 

 

Contestant #2

 

Micah: He's a total sweetheart, in touch with his feelings, involved in various local charity organizations in his community, has a cat named Snickers, and loves his mom.

 

 

 

Contestant #3

 

Cody: He's a silly, sassy, flamboyant man who likes showing off his bum cheeks any chance he gets, can be found in local swimming pools riding on unicorn floaties, knows all the lyrics to WAP by heart, and occasionally dabbles in drag.

 

 

All 3 of the above men are bisexual and are open to dating either a man or a woman.  Now, let's first consider the preferences of the 100 gay men on the first side of the wall.  Out of those 100 men, I would say about half would be lusting after Contestant #1 right now.  Another 40% of the gay men would probably prefer someone like Contestant #2, as they think #1 is a bit too basic/boring for them.  7% of the gay men would be open to either #1 or #2.  And finally, three of the gay men would have a preference for Contestant #3.  So, the moral of the story is, from a gay male perspective, Contestant #3 only has about a 3% chance of finding love from another man, while contestants #1 and #2 have a pretty solid chance.

 

Now, let's shift our attention to the straight women's side.  If I had to guess, I would say that the vast majority of the straight women would go after Contestant #1, in a landslide victory that would make the gay men's side look incredibly tolerable in comparison.  I would guess about 80% of the women would choose Contestant #1 to go on a date with, as the other two guys would be perceived as "too fem" for them.  There would, however, be a smaller group of about 20% or so of the women who would prefer to go on a date with Contestant #2, because they like their man to be a bit more on the feminine side (however…again, a straight woman's idea of a "feminine man" is basically a joke compared to a gay man's).  And finally, 0% of the straight women would choose Contestant #3.  This contestant wouldn't even register on the women's radars as being someone they'd be open to dating.  In fact, they'd probably secretly feel disgust towards him (even though they wouldn't openly admit this because women are more socially-intelligent than men, and they are allergic to making themselves look bad).

 

In conclusion: the moral of the story is…gay men are already more tolerant than straight women when it comes to mate selection.  Women are incredibly misogynistic and homophobic towards men who exhibit any feminine traits, and they refuse to "settle" for a man who exhibits too many traits that they perceive as feminine. Gay men also have their issues with misogyny and internalized homophobia, but there is still a small minority of gay men who are open to dating a more feminine man.  However, the part of this that bothers me the most (and the point of this whole thread) is the fact that, despite being more tolerant of feminine men in general, gay men are still the ones who get chastised for their preferences while straight women do not.  Literally nobody (gay, straight, bi, whatever) EVER EVER EVER tells a woman she MUST remain open to dating an extremely feminine or flamboyant man.  Nobody does this.  Full stop.  Period.  This is only a phenomenon that happens to, and amongst, gay males.  Why is this? This is my whole question (that about 90% of the people in this thread seem to not be comprehending).   Why is it that straight women are allowed to shun feminine-presenting men and exclusively lust after masculine-presenting men without any social consequences, while gay men are given a shaming lecture about how we "must hate women and gays" because we aren't open to dating a feminine or flamboyant man? This seems like a deeply unfair double standard to me!  I'm not mad at straight women in this scenario at all, though.  They're allowed to be as picky as they want.  I'm only mad at the people who go around shaming gay men by telling us to "check our misogyny/homophobia" at the door, when in reality, it's the straight women who are the ones who need to check theirs.

 

tldr: I bet 90% of you won't read this anyway, and will continue to purposely misunderstand the point I am making.

you made 1 and 2 way more appealing than 3

[Katamari]

28 minutes ago, JanStan said:

I agree with most of what you are saying except l would strongly disagree about women feeling disgust towards #3 any more than a gay man would. I don't think either group would be any more interested in dating that person than the other. I also don't think anyone would find them disgusting as much as having zero interest in getting into a romantic relationship with that person. I think a majority of people equate person #3 to not being relationship material.

yeah 1 seems chill and low maintenance and does woodworking

 

2 is empathetic and charitable 

 

while 3 (checks notes) knows the lyrics to WAP (???)

Edited Friday at 08:07 PM by Katamari

[John Slayne]

49 minutes ago, Bitter Aging Twink said:

Sabrina, sis…you know I love you, but with all due respect, I think that that you espresso has gone to your head.  If I had to hazard a guess, I bet you only read the title of this thread, took a short n sweet glance at my intro paragraph, didn't read any of my 7 posts that lie within, and then proceeded to misunderstand the entire point of this thread, like 90% of people in here did.

 

To reiterate my point again for the umpteenth time: women and gay men have a very different idea of what it means to "be fem."  From a woman's perspective, being fem is more about being in touch with your emotions, distancing yourself from the more toxic aspects of masculinity, and being brave enough to dress up and put on a little makeup every now and then.  From a gay male perspective, being fem is more about exhibiting an over-the-top aura of flamboyance: like being overly-dramatic and enthusiastic about literally everything, expressing yourself through the vernacular of a reality television contestant or drag queen, being dressed to the nines 24/7, wearing risqué clothing (like crop tops and assless chaps in public) in hopes of garnering male attention, and being high-maintenance + sexually promiscuous.

 

In case you're still dumfounded, I will go a step further to make this point incredibly clear to you. I'd like you to take a second to imagine the following scenario: Let's say we make a reality TV dating show in which there are 100 gay men on one side of a wall and 100 straight women on the other side.  The gay men and straight women do not interact with each other at all (obviously, as they are not interested in dating one another).  Now, let's say that both the gay men and the straight women are presented with 3 bisexual male candidates, all 3 of whom would be happy to go on a date with anybody who chooses them from either side of the wall.  Here are the contestants.

 

Contestant #1

 

Bradley: He's a low-maintenance guy who likes watching football, drinking beer, going to the gym, doing woodwork, and taking his dog to the dog park.

 

 

 

Contestant #2

 

Micah: He's a total sweetheart, in touch with his feelings, involved in various local charity organizations in his community, has a cat named Snickers, and loves his mom.

 

 

 

Contestant #3

 

Cody: He's a silly, sassy, flamboyant man who likes showing off his bum cheeks any chance he gets, can be found in local swimming pools riding on unicorn floaties, knows all the lyrics to WAP by heart, and occasionally dabbles in drag.

 

 

All 3 of the above men are bisexual and are open to dating either a man or a woman.  Now, let's first consider the preferences of the 100 gay men on the first side of the wall.  Out of those 100 men, I would say about half would be lusting after Contestant #1 right now.  Another 40% of the gay men would probably prefer someone like Contestant #2, as they think #1 is a bit too basic/boring for them.  7% of the gay men would be open to either #1 or #2.  And finally, three of the gay men would have a preference for Contestant #3.  So, the moral of the story is, from a gay male perspective, Contestant #3 only has about a 3% chance of finding love from another man, while contestants #1 and #2 have a pretty solid chance.

 

Now, let's shift our attention to the straight women's side.  If I had to guess, I would say that the vast majority of the straight women would go after Contestant #1, in a landslide victory that would make the gay men's side look incredibly tolerable in comparison.  I would guess about 80% of the women would choose Contestant #1 to go on a date with, as the other two guys would be perceived as "too fem" for them.  There would, however, be a smaller group of about 20% or so of the women who would prefer to go on a date with Contestant #2, because they like their man to be a bit more on the feminine side (however…again, a straight woman's idea of a "feminine man" is basically a joke compared to a gay man's).  And finally, 0% of the straight women would choose Contestant #3.  This contestant wouldn't even register on the women's radars as being someone they'd be open to dating.  In fact, they'd probably secretly feel disgust towards him (even though they wouldn't openly admit this because women are more socially-intelligent than men, and they are allergic to making themselves look bad).

 

In conclusion: the moral of the story is…gay men are already more tolerant than straight women when it comes to mate selection.  Women are incredibly misogynistic and homophobic towards men who exhibit any feminine traits, and they refuse to "settle" for a man who exhibits too many traits that they perceive as feminine. Gay men also have their issues with misogyny and internalized homophobia, but there is still a small minority of gay men who are open to dating a more feminine man.  However, the part of this that bothers me the most (and the point of this whole thread) is the fact that, despite being more tolerant of feminine men in general, gay men are still the ones who get chastised for their preferences while straight women do not.  Literally nobody (gay, straight, bi, whatever) EVER EVER EVER tells a woman she MUST remain open to dating an extremely feminine or flamboyant man.  Nobody does this.  Full stop.  Period.  This is only a phenomenon that happens to, and amongst, gay males.  Why is this? This is my whole question (that about 90% of the people in this thread seem to not be comprehending).   Why is it that straight women are allowed to shun feminine-presenting men and exclusively lust after masculine-presenting men without any social consequences, while gay men are given a shaming lecture about how we "must hate women and gays" because we aren't open to dating a feminine or flamboyant man? This seems like a deeply unfair double standard to me!  I'm not mad at straight women in this scenario at all, though.  They're allowed to be as picky as they want.  I'm only mad at the people who go around shaming gay men by telling us to "check our misogyny/homophobia" at the door, when in reality, it's the straight women who are the ones who need to check theirs.

 

tldr: I bet 90% of you won't read this anyway, and will continue to purposely misunderstand the point I am making.

one day you will understand that people are complex and not cartoonish representations of your weird stereotypes 

 

also you might want to examine some of your strong beliefs and perceptions and realise that the world is bigger than your little biased perspective leads you to believe

[Bitter Aging Twink]

2 hours ago, John Slayne said:

one day you will understand that people are complex and not cartoonish representations of your weird stereotypes 

 

also you might want to examine some of your strong beliefs and perceptions and realise that the world is bigger than your little biased perspective leads you to believe

The manner with which you responded to my comment embodies the entire essence of my thesis statement, so thanks sis 

 

It's nice to see another piece of evidence that proves my original hypothesis was right 

[John Slayne]

23 minutes ago, Bitter Aging Twink said:

The manner with which you responded to my comment embodies the entire essence of my thesis statement, so thanks sis 

 

It's nice to see another piece of evidence that proves my original hypothesis was right 

whatever you say, Bitter Aging Twink

 

[Dolce Vita]

We teach fem gays to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to fem gays, you can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful. Otherwise, you would threaten the mascs.

Edited Friday at 11:23 PM by Dolce Vita