Understanding Men, Part Two
By Steve_in_KC on June 19, 2009 at 10:30 PM in Humor
Warning: This post contains material that may not be suitable for all readers. It is intended as a source of humor and personal reflection. The opinions expressed are mine alone, unless somebody else wants to claim them.
This is the second, and probably last part of what I originally thought would be a serialized treatise on helping women to understand the idiosyncratic weirdnesses of men. I think maybe men are just too damn weird for women. Seems the more they learn about men, the less they like them. I can’t say as I blame them. I don’t like men much either.
No offense is intended by anything written here, and I apologize if anyone is hurt or insulted. I’m just trying to explain those other guys… not myself. My thoughts on these matters is based on my many long years as a heterosexual male, observing my peers. This doesn’t mean I think as they do. I just understand it from a man’s perspective.
Lesson Three: “Why are so many men homophobic?”
Probably the most contradictory aspect of the typical American man’s outlook on homosexuality is the dichotomy of homophobia as regards men, and the predominant male sexual fantasy of having sex with two women at once. Heterosexual men are as likely to entertain this fantasy as they are unlikely to ever actually achieve it.
Now don’t blow a gasket; I’m not talking about love and marriage here. I’m talking about sexual fantasies and primitive urges. And in the average male’s sexual fantasies, two women are better than one. Three women becomes a bit cumbersome, but what the hell, why not.
As far as the fantasy goes, this shouldn’t be held against men, nor should men feel guilty for thinking about it. It’s part of our primal genetic wiring to want to enjoy the pleasures of women as often and as abundantly as possible. A plurality of sexual partners is not evil; it’s just culturally foreign to our Western sensibilities. It’s the urge for reproduction, continuing the species. Since one male can impregnate a large number of females, the beast (or id) within men sub-verbally and instinctively pushes them to want sexual relations with every attractive woman they meet. And her friends too!
Of course, a man has limitations, losing the ability to stay in the game after his big moment. But he can still watch, can’t he? And since everyone is naked anyway, he reasons, the two women should keep things going while he watches… and recovers from his 90 seconds of participation.
In other words, most hetero guys have no objection to bisexual women.
Some, however, are confounded by true lesbians. They don’t understand being excluded. Some morons might even think, “Well, she could change; she hasn’t tried me!” Believe me, 90% of normal guys know that any guy who thinks like that is not just stupid, he’s offensive. She should kick his ass. And we want to watch that too!
So the only time homophobia is a problem for most hetero men is if it involves other guys. This is the heart of the matter, and it’s a bit complicated.
As the famous Seinfeld episode repeatedly stated, paraphrasing, “I don’t want anyone to think I’m gay… not that there’s anything wrong with that.” I think what made that episode so funny and famous is the universal understanding of the truth in it. Men who aren’t gay always want to be 100% certain that nobody thinks they are gay, but they’re not anti-gay. They just don’t want there to ever be any question about it, where they are concerned. But they truly aren’t anti-gay. Homophobia doesn’t mean anti-gay, it means they are afraid of gay men. They think homosexuality might be contagious.
Where it starts getting complicated is when people tease a guy, insinuating latent homosexuality, if he shows any interest in any of the things commonly associated with gay men. Enjoying things like show tunes, gourmet cooking, interior decorating, or flower arranging are some things that have come to be associated with gay men, which makes them pretty much taboo for most hetero men. And some gay men think it’s funny to “out” guys who exhibit any interest in such things, even if they know for a fact it’s not true. They’re the “mean girls” among men.
Homophobia is often most apparent in the way straight guys keep their distance, physically, from gay guys. Where they might feel totally comfortable putting an arm around a buddy, or even hugging male friends, they are totally unsettled by physical contact with a gay man, even if they are friends.
There are several reasons for this. The most obvious is that they’re afraid the gay man will take it the wrong way. Similarly, they are terrified a gay man might make a pass at them or try to “convert” them. I mean, what if a gay guy grabs his ass and he likes it? What if one of them gets “visibly excited” or something! It doesn’t matter which one!
Equally indicative of homophobia is the way straight men won’t sit close to each other. They may sit next to each other, but there is always a space at least the size of a basketball between them. And if it’s two guys on a sofa, it means opposite ends; neither one sits in the middle. But in any situation, they must make sure there is a buffer zone between themselves and the next closest guy. Especially if there are witnesses!
They wouldn’t want anyone, especially the other guy, to get the wrong impression. Peer pressure from homophobes can make even the average guy really apprehensive about being perceived as “playing for the other team.” Homosexuality isn’t contagious, but homophobia is!
Even if they don’t think it’s catching, I think some men are afraid homosexuality is like cancer or something. They think they might discover, even by accident, that they are in fact gay. Maybe they think it’s like finding out you were adopted, something you never would have suspected, then out of nowhere you find out you’re not who you thought you were. I guess it’s kind of like having a fear of spontaneous human combustion; it’s not likely to happen, but you never know!
Come to think of it, it kind of makes sense to compare homophobia to any other phobia: an unreasonable fear that can’t be swayed with logic. It’s kind of like a superstition or a religious practice (like holding up a cross toward a vampire or other symbol of evil, or making the sign of the cross). It’s as instinctive as covering your face when you think something is coming at you. When the object of your fear gets too close, the phobia kicks in, and you instinctively take a defensive stance. Several feet away, if possible.
Am I homophobic? I don’t think so, but in all honesty I do confess occasional discomfort when I see gay men engaged in public displays of affection. My favorite uncle has been openly gay since I was 15, and I always enjoy his company, and have always treated his partners as welcome guests. I’ve always had gay friends or workmates whose company I enjoyed, so I have no guilt for my minor aversions. I’m certainly not afraid of gay men, nor do I fear catching the disease of gayness. So I don’t think I’m homophobic. I still prefer my buffer zone with other men, though. Arm’s length seems about right. 
Part One (Lessons One and Two) can be read here.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Well, Steve, back for some more punishment, I see. I wish you well, and I would stick around and help you out with some of the comments that are about to come your way, but I’m really, uh, tired. Yep, that’s it. I’m really tired and have to get to bed now. Good night!
Oh, a lightweight, eh?
Okay, here I am after a good night’s sleep, ready to jump into the fray . . . Well, as I look around the battlefield, I can see that you’ve got everything well in hand . . . carry on . . . time, uh, to go do some volunteer work . . .
But why are straight men afraid of being around gay men while straight women aren’t afraid of being around gay women? You said men are worried someone might think they’re gay – why aren’t women worried about that?
My feeling has always been that it’s tied to sexism, or more specifically, the belief that women are inferior. Many people seem to think that gay men are “less than” real men, and are “like women”. So, I think that’s at least a big part of men’s fear, and why it wouldn’t apply similarly to women. Men are afraid of being compared to the lower rung of women.
What are your thoughts on that?
Why are women more comfortable around gay women? Because gay women are no longer the competition for a man! It really isn’t that deep.
Well, by the same logic, then, a straight man shouldn’t be uncomfortable around a gay man, because the gay man isn’t competition for women…
I would never attempt to speak for men.
lorac, I think you raise some interesting points. I’d like to point out that my observations of other men, as a man myself, are presented only as my impressions, and as I stated in the prologue, “intended for humor and personal reflection.” Not as the absolute truth.
I don’t disagree that that most men think of women and homosexuals as less than men. But it’s equally true that most men are less than women.
I’m kind of playing with the semantics, but I believe most women would insult another woman by saying something like she looks masculine, she walks like a lumberjack, she has a mustache… in all cases meaning she is less than a real woman. That’s the worst insult there is for most women, in my estimation.
The same applies to men. To insult a man, disparage his masculinity, imply that he is not a real man, or call him a sissy.
It seems to me, the insult is in the de-sexing, either way. It doesn’t mean one is “better” than the other, in my opinion.
But as I said, you raise a valid point, and I’m sure there are many macho guys who feel exactly as you suggested. But I don’t think they are the majority of men, and I’m not sure if it plays a role in homophobia. It doesn’t seem that way to me, but I can imagine other, less sophisticated men feeling that way. Good point.
There is truth to that about insults that women would use to demean another woman. Fat and ugly would be another tact that women would use against women.
Personally, I would rid the language of bitch.
“but I believe most women would insult another woman by saying something like she looks masculine, she walks like a lumberjack, she has a mustache… in all cases meaning she is less than a real woman. ”
I’ve actually never heard women insult each other that way, to be honest. They may insult each other, but not by saying they’re like men. This is probably due to men being “higher” in society, so it’s less likely someone would insult another person by saying they’re like the “superior class”. I really haven’t found there is a parallel between men and women – men demean each other by suggesting the other is like women, but not the other way around.
Of course, I’m sure there are exceptions. Especially since I think everyone’s circles are of different sizes – ie, some people only meet or notice (or attract) women or men of a certain personality/behavior type, and then they generalize those traits to all women or men. So if they only meet, for example, women who are backstabbers or power hungry or rude, they may assume those behaviors are an inherent part of being a woman. They then may close their eyes to exceptions to the rule they have made. The same could go for an example about a type of man.
Anyway, thanks for your input. And thanks to the earlier essays, I now know the little games men play when they use the toilet!
Steve,
Why do men feel compelled to put down women who are strong, independent and speak their minds? Most recent examples being Hillary and Sarah.
What I think you’re saying is that men are hard wired to act a certain way due to some ancient genectic heredity. So, does this mean men are not capable of changing such behavior as aggressiveness and being demeaning, abusive, dismissive and controlling towards any woman who does not stay within their definition of what a woman should be and how she should act towards a man?
I really don’t understand why men still view women as some sort of enemy, if we aren’t willing to be solely an object of sexual fantasy and desire for them. We are much more than that and I honestly don’t understand why that frightens men so.
Please explain.
Hi Kathleen. Thanks for your questions.
Before I try to answer, let me repeat what I wrote in my disclaimer at the beginning of this piece:
Although I am a man, I have very few male friends. I find most of them somewhat Neanderthalish and highly prejudiced. When a guy like myself tries to persuade guys like those to wise up, get over their prejudices, and become more rational, it usually falls on deaf ears. It seems that in their way of thinking, I’m the oddball, and they dismiss my attempts to educate them.
Let me take your questions individually.
I think this was explained by some of the asshole commentators, like Jonah Goldberg and Keith Olberman, when they made comments like, “She sounds like every man’s ex-wife.” “Her voice is like nails on chalkboard.”
Many men have had bad experiences with women who “harped” on them, “henpecked them,” and in the cases of ex-wives, “took everything they owned, including the kids.” I think it’s a little difficult for them to separate their own personal experiences with the women in their lives from women in power.
And yes, it’s true, some men are just plain idiots, misogynists, and homophobes, all in one!
I think if you look at the rallies that Hillary and Sarah held, with thousands of enthusiastic male supporters, and look at the ballot results of Hillary’s primary elections, it’s evident that large numbers of men have no problem at all supporting a powerful woman and voting to make her more powerful. This is not an area where most men think alike.
If they have had bad experiences with women in their personal lives (i.e., women who were not interested in making them happy, ex-wives who cleaned them out, and some female bosses who let their own bad experiences with men negatively affect how they manage their male underlings), they are more likely to recoil from women they perceive as “bitchy” or who got where they are by fluke (Sarah) or riding their husbands coattails (Hillary), or who seem like “affirmative action or Title IX” beneficiaries.
Plus, there are plenty of Neanderthals who just can’t take having anyone but a white man in power. As I said, these men are not my friends, and to be fair, there are plenty of women who give these men “reasons” to be prejudiced against women. It’s not right, but it’s real.
This is an example of why we who are smarter than average must take care to have our own prejudices under control. There are good and bad in every group. Most of the havoc in my life was caused by my former wives or lovers, because they were the ones I shared my life with. But I don’t blame all women for the actions of these few. I ask that the wise women here be just as responsible and be careful not to blame all men for the actions of a few.
Hoo boy, compound questions!
I think I kind of answered part of this above. As for our biological hard-wiring, men are aggressive by and large, as we were the hunter/warriors in our primitive cultures. Sexually, we tend to be conquerors too. Unfortunately, many men have not evolved much in this area. Some still think it’s OK to use their physical advantages to get their way. This does NOT apply only to females. These men use the same tactics against other men all the time, but with obviously different purposes. The Alpha male wants everyone to be subserviant to them, and the lesser males demand the same from those they can overpower. Most men see themselves as leaders and women as followers. Many (most?) women accept and reinforce this standard with their husbands. So, the powerful intelligent women are few and far between in the experience of these men, which makes it uncomfortable, sometimes intolerable, for them.
Men are very careful about how they deal with women they don’t know out of concern they may have to deal with her husband or the law if she gets upset. When they find they can’t deal with a woman on a personal or sexual level, nor on a peer level, or must be cautious out of respect or concern for the men who protect her, it might seem easier to be dismissive. I don’t know of any men, off the top of my head, who consider women The Enemy, except in facetious terms.
Sometimes evolution is painfully slow.
Not true.
As a straight female, i often find it uncomfortable to be around gay women.
Yes. Straight Women oftern feel uncomfortable because they think that Gay woman are interested in her because she is a woman…never realizing that as a rule, gay women don’t really want a straight woman. The energy is totaly different and disfunctional. It’s just not doable and the attraction is not there. A whole thread could be written on this.
Men are largely poor communicators because they are afraid to make a mistake or to be wrong. So in order to look good they don’t say much lest they stick foot in mouth and reveal how socially and emotionally incompetent they are.
Do men hate smart women is the question and why?
1st: Dysfunctional is a good description of the energy that we heteros often feel around those that identify themselves as gay. No attraction whatsoever. So why do some persist on hitting on us when they know we are straight?
2nd: I concur on the communication issue with men. But, sometimes it’s more form vs function than intimidation on the man’s part. I’ve had some mechanical things and construction issues completely explained to me in two sentences by a man. And, while I would have liked to make a whole conversation out of it, two sentences were enough when I backed off my own need for more words.
I don’t really think that smart, educated men hate smart women. But, perhaps they realize that in the word and understanding department a smart woman is going to demand more conversational exchange.
A friend once told me he would never hit on a straight man because it could be dangerous. He told me an acquaintance of his liked the challenge. I’m so happy to be a woman. I might not always have known who I am and where I was going, but I know I’ve never worried if someone is contemplating my sexual identity. Just one more thought. A man in a bar once accused me of being a lesbian because I wouldn’t go to his room. How often does this happen to men who refuse to have sex with a woman? Would they refuse? I don’t know, but it feels really good to have enough self esteem, to be mature enough to choose who I will be intimate with.
Thank your friend for not hitting on straight men. ^^^
Oh, hon, we have all had that experience..
My standard answer to that jibe, delivered with my sweetest smile, is “No, I am not gay, just very picky.” It cracks up the other men in the group and makes the man feel like a fool for accusing me of being gay. When I am asked if I am gay by a gay woman, I just smile and say, “Sorry, hon, I am straight.” It seems that the men mind that I am not gay more than the gay women do. Funny, isn’t it?
Disclaimer: This post agrees with Steve. If you don’t, move past this comment now!
Well taken, Steve. I think you speak the truth when it comes to this rather unPC at the moment topic. Seinfeld had it right.
My sweetie was hit on in a men’s bathroom years ago. It shook him up badly for a couple of weeks. He was completely puzzled as to why some guy would come on to him. He thought he had done something wrong and it was as good as abuse for his delicate male psyche. Finally, he was able to laugh about it but it left sort of a scar for awhile. Hence, the homophobia, as you wrote about.
As for lesbians, hetero women don’t really get that either. Why would you want to miss out? As much as we try to fully understand, we just don’t see the reason or need, but that’s what makes us hetero! I’m sure there will be rancor over that from a few.
There is more tolerance for all shades of preference today than ever before. It’s just society evolving on the subject.
So, if my comment or Steve’s offends some of the more angry people here, sorry, but it’s the hetero truth. That doesn’t make anyone a bad person to speak their truth.
Hey Buzz! I almost forgot to thank you for stepping into the fray in my defense! I appreciate it very much! Especially since you’re a woman, because it seems most of those who attack my opinions are women, and I was always taught, “Never fight with a woman, because you’ll always lose… one way or another.”
Frankly, I think you are making your fantasies into universal male truths, when in fact they don’t predate the wave of modern porn.
Also, Ye Olde Caveman Myth to explain promiscuity: We have a zillion studies to show that the offspring that thrive have fathers in the picture. So any Darwinian selection would presumably account for that. Spraying your sperm wildly around does not guarantee progeny when one exhausted woman is left to hunt, gather, nurture and beat back the tigers. You are projecting your sexual recklessness onto your ancestors for justification.
If this were really about guaranteeing progeny, anyway, than their would be no interest in “watching” lesbian sex — because it is by definition unproductive. Can’t have it both ways.
And the truth is, men just can’t get it up as much as they imagine they can. Especially the older ones.
We have our guilty desires, and then we project them backward in time to legitimize them.
Our basest impulses aren’t the most “real.” And as Fran Leibowitz once said, If our fantasies were of interest to others, they wouldn’t be fantasies.
Anna, I don’t want to argue, but I also don’t buy what you’re selling. As I stated clearly at the top, this post is offered as humor and reflection.
I am kind of floored by your first statement. Do you really believe that the menage a trois is a post-porn era invention? I’m pretty sure that the practice of having multiple sexual partners is documented at least as far back as the Bible. If the practice existed, the fantasies existed.
The references I made to the average male’s sexual fantasies were only in context of why men enjoy bisexual women in their fantasies, although few ever actually do it. This is both true and humorous, in my view.
And speaking of humorous, I love your phrase, “Spraying your sperm wildly around…” Very visual!
I’m not promoting the idea that men feel the need or desire to impregnate multiple partners. I was making a reference to the simple biological fact that most men are attracted to many women in a purely sexual way, and a single male can indeed impregnate many women year-round. Being a parent or provider has nothing to do with sexual fantasies.
I tried to make clear I was talking about fantasies and primitive urges, not societal norms of how we live today in our Western culture.
I really do appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but what does the frequency of getting it up have to do with anything here? We old men don’t need much reminding that we aren’t the stallions we once were.
Thank you, Steve.
I ran into a twenty-something last week that not only had a Bettie Page tat on her arm but also believed that everyone was wielding whips and striking erotic poses on their sofas in the 1950’s! It was in a college town so I can understand the non- knowledge behind that fantasy!
We had to burst the her bubble on that one. She didn’t want to believe us so we told her to watch some old Leave It to Beaver or Donna Reed or the movie Pleasantville.
Dang! Reality sucks for some!
Steve, human females may be limited in the number of pregnancies and gestation, however that does not mean desire only occurs during a fertile period either as it does in most other species. Even during menopause and after, most women are able to fully enjoy the pleasures of intimacy.
Women are able to have multiple partners without over populating the world. In your defense, older men are wonderful lovers simply because experience counts. Better an old man’s love than a young man’s toy. I still don’t understand the homophobia.
I have long thought that homophobia in men is because of a fear that they could be sexually taken advantage of. Girls as they grow up, realize that at least half of the human race is stronger than they are and could hurt them. We don’t believe that this is going to happen all the time, but it is always known — it is always taken into consideration. That most men, if they wanted to, could overpower them. I don’t think that men realize what it is like to live with this fear. But when it comes to homosexuals, I think that there is a realization (if only subconsiously) that a gay man could do to them what our society fantasizes them doing to women — and that is what is behind the concerns of them being in locker rooms and shower rooms with gay men. Or sharing sleeping quarters. Get over it — if we can live with the fears, so can you.
Good points!!!
I agree, and I think it’s true even on a lesser level – not just a fear of being sexually assaulted, but of being hit on. It always gives me a chuckle when I hear men freak out that another guy might hit on them (which consists of asking them out for dinner or something equally non-threatening).
Many men just seem to “get it” that they are always hitting on women (often times women who aren’t interested or available or in the mood for yet another advance by a stranger), but horror-of-horrors that *they* should be hit on (by a guy)! Of course, I realize the genders are different in the examples, but I still think there’s some truth in this…
oops *don’t* seem to get it!
“hitting” isn’t a gender thing, women hit on men all the time.
Are you sure about that, Anna?
…I copy Pyrrhos
who always preferred to Hermione his wife
the au pair girl
Rufinus circa Second Century AD
Professed curtezans, if they be any good, it is because they are openly bad.
Sir Thomas Overbury (1581-1613)
My father compounded with my mother under the dragon’s tail, and my nativity was under Ursa Major; so that it follows I am rough and lecherous.
From King Lear
William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
Men have always been men.
C’mon Buzz. I didn’t claim promiscuity is a new invention. Or adultery. Or even prostitution.
fantasy about the au pair girl…
Courtesans sell love and fantasy…
Lechery is all about fantasy and erotica….
just saying…
“Men have always been men.” And is this what being a man is really about? And do a few quotes from Shakespeare (I could find still others from the same Bard that would refute your contention) really make your case?
Why not go to the Mahabharata, where Draupadi has five husbands, and use that to make a case for the fundamental importance of polyandry to society? It’s a much older work.
Pulling selective quotes from the past won’t cut it. Nor is Shakespeare the Cave Man who shows what man was “meant” to be. He was also a man conditioned by the tastes and habits of his time.
All I’m quarreling with is a very modern man, making modern statements about modern men, and promoting them as timeless truths.
I know too much history to do that.
here here.
While I won’t call Steve out, because I don’t know his motivations (I assume this piece is what he says it is, a point to ponder), but
Rule 1 about men…
Never trust a man who tells you about how “men are” and excludes himself as the example.
While he may still be telling you his “truth”, he is also elevating himself above a projected character he holds in contempt that is based on anecdotal gathering and not on scientific standards and examination.
When we do this we ignore all the variables that defy our logic. In this case, this would include straight men who feel no angst about homosexuals, it excludes straight men who do not engage in fantasies outside what many puritan types call “normal”, and many other characterizations that simply are spotlight fallacies.
What seems to be true is that men are still vast mysteries to men and women. I would subscribe to the idea that men are very sensitive, have been highly oppressed, harbor huge insecurities, and that these are furthered by the stigmas that they live around regarding the role and standards for being…a man.
Instead of generalizations, maybe it should have been focused on…”those that do”…then we’d be able to deal with these concerns.
“Am I homophobic? I don’t think so, but in all honesty I do confess occasional discomfort when I see gay men engaged in public displays of affection.”
It might not be homophobia though. It could simply be an extension of the social stigma and that you are now on the front lines of this change.
I get uncomfortable when unattractive people make out…or people who are ignoring all around them and engaging in extreme petting…but this makes sense because what they are doing is out of the ordinary for our local scene.
Anna makes the very good point that many of these “fantasies” are generated from a porno laden society. That need not mean that such ideas didn’t exist before now, but I assure you that you aren’t likely to find many of these new…fantasies…in ancient stone carvings in India where the Kama Sutra gives tons of suggestions for pleasure, or in the art from around the world that depicts fantasies and realities. The Marquis de Sade wrote some rather depraved shit in his book Justine but it wasn’t exactly a book you could get on your local convenience store shelf like you can a ton of other junk mags.
By and large, I think it would be a useful discussion to examine how sexist constructs are dictating how men respond to each other and to women. Putting women in some sort of purity chamber as beings who don’t have fantasies like men or are somehow different is ignorant of the works of Nancy Friday and other doctors and authors who have done extensive studies in women’s fantasies and expectations. But we don’t exactly have a Nancy Friday for men. Maybe if we did, and the men could be honest, we’d fine that there is much more to our species than meets the eyes.
I thank you for raising the question for discussion.
TT007
Oh I get it…you need to be right, Anna.
Prove where your first sentence of your first post is irrefutably correct. My point is that fantasy has always existed in some form. If you are simply saying that the fantasies listed are post modern, how do you know how long men have fantasized about two at once? I believe the writings of Giovanni Giacomo Casanova would refute that notion that those types of fantasies are only post modern. He preferred troilism.
This isn’t about women with five husbands. It’s about men.
Let’s not forget that this is meant to be a humorous piece.
spelling correction:
triolism
Can you make a point on your own without backing it up with quotes from some dead guy’s books?
Can you learn something tonight?
I learned that you are a name dropper of sorts. Not anything that will be of use to me, but if it makes you feel smart, good for you.
And I’ve learned that you are resistive to widening your horizons. Your loss.
How so? Pls enlighten me oh learned one who lives his life through other people’s thoughts.
BTW, is that the best you got after 1/2 an hour? What’s the matter, didn’t read a book that had an appropriate comeback for you?
So, what you really don’t like is what you deem as snarky as opposed to new knowledge. Got it. No wait, you don’t like quotes either. YAWN.
“You tiny brained wiper of other people’s bottoms.”
Now that’s an apt quote that I quite like.
Pls spell out for me this new knowledge of which you speak.
If I need to point it out, you aren’t ready to learn it.
By the way, is that quote yours or do you need to cite your resource?
You made my point.
My point is, if someone doesn’t recognize a Monty Python quote, I am speechless.
Would that be “source”?
You are trying hard to misunderstand me. And succeeding.
I am not quarreling with your central point. What I dispute with is the idea that “two at once” is a DNA-ingrained, universal fantasy. The dominance of this theme began to occur within my own lifetime. Older pornography, and pornography of other centuries, was dominated by other themes.
All you have to see is trends in female body (almost all ancient pottery, sculpture emphasizes the hips rather than the bust, for example) to see that even sexual things follow trends. They are not objective and hard-wired, for the most part, but conditioned.
The point about Draupadi simply illustrates the dangers of picking selective examples and trying to make them representative.
If you are speaking of sexual acts recorded on ancient greek pottery where there are many partners of both sexes depicted then “more than one and of both sexes” might be appropriate.
However to claim that sexual fantasies only are era specific is a bit of an overstatement.
I am understanding you but are you understanding my point, also?
Erotica, Erotica II, and Erotica III by Charlotte Hill and William Wallace show that it is indeed not an “in your lifetime” phenomena.
Did you live in the Belle Epoque era? Are you familiar with rather lusty french daguerreotypes from the 1850s?
Now if you want to be specific in saying that the school girl or the “teacher” in the Van Halen – Hot for Teacher music video are modern depictions or that Bettie Page started it all, you may be correct. Also, pre Hayes Code Hollywood before about 1933 had scenes in movies that would not even make it in a film today, hence the need for a scale of rating movies for content.
Oh FFS, do you live vicariously through authors?
I wasn’t going to say anything ’til I read these snarky comments:
I can’t believe they were in the same post.
Reading for meaning is always a very important skill.
Now lighten up and think about three things you learned today.
That was a joke by the way…
Unlike you, I learned more than three things today. The things I learned about you, will do me absolutely no good. Wait, that’s not true. I had fun, and that is good.
As did I and seriously, I usually read your posts and think that they have general merit, but now I’m not so sure.
I think I’ll skip them for awhile.
My loss.
Maybe someday I’ll write a book and you can quote me and not even know it. :–)
Buzz, I apologize for being so snarky. I am in a mood and can’t use my normal anger management medicine because I have to humiliate myself into Big Brother’s UA cup soon, for a shitty ass job!
Anger management medicine… UA cup… job…hmmm.
Is this medicine in pill form, liquid form, or herbal form?
Herbal, natures finest!
Speaking as a woman, I sit on opposite ends of the couch and keep a fair distance from other women but this comes from a Britishy background rather than anything sexual.
No sex please, we’re British.
I keep my distance from lesbians because of an Aussie I met in Amsterdam. She was sitting near me and was “enjoying herself” under the table while talking straight faced to the rest of us. We got up and left her to herself. It was the same disgust I felt when I realized (because of heavy breathing) a guy I was talking to on the phone was “enjoying himself” during our conversation. Get a F^cking magazine and leave me out of it.
BlueTopaz, are you equally revolted by heterosexual couples making out in public places like airplanes, restaurants, elevators etc and brag about their exploits as though to proved how “viral or sexy” they are? Exhibitionism is not limited to one sexual preference over another.
Yeah, people masturbating in public or on the phone have a sexual problem unrelated to sexuality… Matter of fact, it’s illegal LOL
Correction: should be virile (or not).
I am revolted by anyone masturbating or fornicating in public. Aren’t you?
I just thought of an exception. When someone, let’s say Paul Reubens (Pee Wee Herman), masturbates in a dark theatre while watching a porn flick, I would not find that revolting. Arresting someone for jerking off at a porn flick, I would indeed find that revolting.
I guess as long as the theatre is ONLY used for porn movies! I sort of like my theatres relatively clean lol
Same here. Maybe that’s one ot the reason’s I just wait for movies to come out on cable.
Why didn’t he buy a video and stay home. Masturbation isn’t an unnatural act in private. In public, it is a perversion even in a dark theater.
How would I know? I’m not Pee Wee Herman’s keeper.
Masturbating (or having sex) to a porno flick is pretty much what they are for, however you want to label it.
I find it embarrassing and juvenile, but my point being your reference to the sexual orientation of the woman. It was gratuitous and unnecessary information.
Hmmmmm, interesting comments and insinuation. You took my post on twisted it into a very strange shape. You did read the article we are all posting about, non? You should have read part one.
If you are gay, don’t take offense to what I wrote. I also avoid sitting next to straight guys that I don’t fancy if I can help it.
I read the article, oui, but I’m not aware of twisting your post. Exhibitionism is a separate issue. I’m straight.
You insinuated that I am homophobic and then went into a rant about virility and exhibitionism w/o making a new paragraph.
If you found what I wrote embarrasing (and juvinile?) you wouldn’t last two minutes in Amsterdam’s red light district.
BTW, you obviously did not comprehend the article if you thought what I wrote was gratuitous and unnecessary information. It pertained to the article and the post to which I was responding. Although, I don’t think it’s necessarily homophobic to not sit next to a lesbian, if one has a “perverted” public memory attached to it. But, maybe I am.
I insinuated no such thing, BlueTopaz
I was merely pointing out public masturbation is a product of perversion and not sexual orientation.
Homophobia wasn’t the issue in your experience, hence it was OT since I imagine you would find yourself equally uncomfortable if a straight woman was doing the same thing.
Are one sentence paragraphs easier for you?
One sentence paragraghs are easier for everyone, I am not “special” in this respect. Also, I prefer to be succinct, especially when posting on blogs. Since you prefer long drawn out sentences (public places like airplanes, restaurants, elevators …… public places would have sufficed) and paragraphs that go from snarking a question, to making a statement or rant about something you are clearly fixated on, then I’ll make this more to your “style” (cough, cough). I’m not sure why you brought up heteros bragging about their exploits, bragging is not limited to one sexual preference over another.
Sorry
you
disapprove
of
my
writing
style,
BlueTopaz
.
Bragging is a form of exhibitionism not limited to juveniles.
Congratulations on your visit to the Red Light district in Amsterdam.
No congrats needed. I just hopped on my bicycle and went to the Last Waterhole to see some friends’ gig. Anyone can do it. It’s best not to look at the display windows of the sex shops, they are disgusting and depressing.
How did you know she was a lesbian? Of course, since she was touching herself, it was woman on woman action, I guess lol
lorac, there is a clear fallacy in that argument.
She told us.
Ha, ha, good one! I don’t think guys would have liked her action, though. She was very, very butch, not a lipstick lesbian.
I do not believe your post. And lumping all gay woman as being the same is like lumping all straight women as being the same. All people have their own personal quirks and behaviors in case you missed it. Being women, gay ladies don’t pleasure themselves under the table or act inappropriate in public..I do not believe you.
With you being straight, you are not attractive to gay women(yawn). Make a note of it.
Can’t help but agree with you.
I can’t help what you believe and don’t really care. I wish you had been there, maybe you would have enjoyed it and joined in. With all the strange sexual practices that go on in the world, this was hardly the most unbelievable. Have you ever been to Amsterdam? If you ever do venture outside of your sheltered lifestyle, I suggest you check out the photos and other products available at Amsterdam sex shops. You’d probably have a stroke. Public masturbation is nothing compared to what you can find there.
You lecture me on lumping all gay woman as being the same , state that All people have their own personal quirks and behaviors and then claim that gay ladies don’t pleasure themselves under the table or act inappropriate in public and With you being straight, you are not attractive to gay women (and you know this how? “Lumping” are we?)!!! Do you see the contradiction?
You’re funny, ha ha, but becoming boring, yawn.
btw, I never said she was a gay lady and if I were to make up a story, it certainly wouldn’t be this one.
“No sex please, we’re British.”
But… but… all the wild sexual rock and rollers that came from Britain…. is that why they came here? Or, if for example, the Beatles had stayed home, maybe YOU guys would have had the sexual revolution!
LOL! EllenD. I was taught that, also.
Steve, this is a bit OT, but maybe you have the answer. How come men no longer call each other b*stard or a**hole much, but more frequently call each other women’s curse names like b*tch, c*nt, etc? I suppose it’s more the middle aged to younger men. But, where’s that coming from? Have you noticed that too?
There is a crisis of male ego at this time in history. Women are evolving more rapidly than men. Either we play dumb (again) and wait for men to catch up or hope they can handle the stress when they realize “standing up” doesn’t translate to a superior brain.
“There is a crisis of male ego at this time in history.”
Where is the empirical evidence or studies that support this statement?
“Women are evolving more rapidly than men.”
First of all, we’re the same species, evolution can’t possibly progress more rapidly in one sex than the other. Second, evolving means change, it doesn’t necessarily mean positive or negative change. The impression I get from many years on this planet is that people are not getting dumber, but they are certainly getting more ignorant. In an evolution towards increasing ignorance, I’ll have to agree with you that women are leading the charge.
“Either we play dumb (again)….”
Are you saying it was all just an act? And if it was an act, can you blame men for the impression that act may have given them?
” ’standing up’ doesn’t translate to a superior brain.”
Your only accurate statement. But contorting oneself into anything but a natural position to relieve oneself might certainly indicate an inferior brain.
The answer to the first argument, widespread use of Viagra.
Number two, evolving indicates forward movement as opposed to static.
Playing dumb an act? In the past girls were advised not to show their intelligence or ability out of fear of not being attractive to men. Of course I can blame some men since, even though they recognized the ruse, it was necessary to maintain the illusion.
My last statement, you conceded was correct, but it was a metaphor so I’m not sure you understood my meaning. This is meant to be a humorous article and that was the intent of my comment.
If you have interpreted it as an assault on your ego, you have given me all the empirical data I need for my argument.
Viagra has little to do with ego, it adresses mostly a physical problem, a problem that prevents both sexes from a satisfying experience. It seems that Viagra benefits both sexes in this regard. Since you bring it up in a way to disparage men, you have revealed your insensitivity to the women that those men wish to please as they engage in the most intimate form of affection. It is a very selfish and insensitive woman that would attack a man for an inability to get an erection, or for her to link the use of Viagra as an indication of ego problems.
Evolving does NOT always indicate forward movement. Neoteny and hybrid vigor are both principles of evolution that demonstrate a reversal toward younger or earlier forms.
If girls in the past were “advised” not to show their intelligence, and they took such stupid advice, well….how smart is that?
And I did not take your statement as an assault on my ego, I take it as you’ve intended it, as a puerile and silly assault on all men.
Elise, thanks for bringing up Viagra, and I’m not sure I got the right meaning from your comment, but it raises an interesting point. (badaboom!)
Before drugs like Viagra were available, men with certain medical conditions, or who were taking certain medications, lost their sexual ability. I went through a period of two years myself when a particular medication I was taking made sexual relations difficult, sometimes impossible. My doctor prescribed Viagra for me, and it helped, but didn’t bring me back to normal. I regained normalcy when I stopped taking the original medication that was causing the problem.
Viagra was unpleasant for me. It gave me a bad headache and reflux, even nausea. While I was in that state of medicine-induced impotence, it was almost easier for me to forego sex. This created a problem for my marriage. We became less intimate, argued more, and we both became depressed. Flirtation and foreplay virtually disappeared from our marriage, because it was pointless to get aroused.
I think there is a cultural mythology that drugs like Viagra are recreational drugs, widely used by healthy men who want to have more sex than they are normally able to. I can’t say that phenomenon doesn’t exist, but by and large, the men who are prescribed Viagra are men who are impotent, for whatever reason. It allows them to get an erection, where they otherwise would fail. It does not enhance sexual pleasure for the man, except in the sense that it makes sex possible. It isn’t necessarily conducive to reaching orgasm. It just traps blood in the penis. Any man who is able to have natural sex would gain nothing from Viagra, except perhaps to be able to perform sex more frequently. But he’d have headaches and nausea to go with it.
Personally, I never finished the one bottle that was prescribed for me. On the plus side, it seemed to open a valve that was blocked, or perhaps it helped to break a mental block. Either way, before Viagra, it was impossible, after Viagra, things started to return to normal, even without the drug.
Impotence in men can lead to divorce. It can lead to their female partners seeking sexual fulfillment elsewhere. It can lead to men becoming suicidal. The frustrations caused to both partners in the couple are sometimes immense, potentially leading to unhappy lives, even if none of the above occurs. For this reason, Viagra and other drugs are a great boon to men AND women.
Thank you Steve for your perspective and honesty. It helps the validate my point and serves to instruct some people who have a rather prejudicial impression of ED and it’s effects on both sexes.
Viagra lowers blood pressure which allows blood to engorge the penis. It’ counter intuitive, but high blood pressure reduces the ability to get an erection. ED is more often physiological than psychological.
Steve! Where is your sense of humor? You have written two pieces about understanding men and both are based on reference to sex, therefore I made an assumption this is the only area we can learn something important about men,hence, the Viagra joke. Or is there no connection between the male ego and his ability to function sexually.
I am truly sorry for your problems and I know it is no joke to you or others with similar challenges and this is one place where women can’t relate. I suppose by bring up impotence, I fall into the category of an “insensitive” woman who very likely has a “problem” with men.
Menopause has been discussed openly and frequently for many years and personally I believe there was a male doctor conspiracy responsible for taking away my premarin. Well, maybe not.
Perhaps that is a more pointed illustration of the difference between the sexes. When we cross a certain age line, we can’t afford to be sensitive about that passage, but we have gained also with open discussion.
Gee, elise, I first responded with humor, indicated by the “badaboom,” like the drummer does at the punchlines. I assume you got the joke, but for those who didn’t… “Viagra…raises an interesting point! (badaboom)
And I just re-read my reply about Viagra, and nowhere did I reference you or your comments, except my first sentence, which stated “I’m not sure I got the right meaning from your comment,” which was pre-apologetic in case I didn’t get the right meaning. I wasn’t taking anything you said personally, and none of it bothered me at all.
I do understand your point. I have no objection to it. I just used the reference to Viagra as a springboard to explaining why I see Viagra and other ED medications as benefiting couples, not as a male ego thing.
Really, no offense was taken or intended.
Agree, no offense intended or taken. Apparently I have trouble communicating humor. My first response to lorac was meant to be a joke. Onofry took offense and I responded with a snark (for which I offer my apologies, Onofry) equally misunderstood.
I fear I have tarnished my reputation to a point where anything I write will be disregarded as the “ranting” of a man-hater. I have an unfortunate tendency to push the envelope like one of my favorite rock stars, Jim Morrison, in an effort to reveal an understanding of me (a woman) while striving to understand the other half of the world. For that matter, I can’t claim to understand completely what other women feel or think.
I personally was not happy with some of your posts, but since you are a Jim Morrison fan, you can’t be all bad,
.
Thank you?
I just can’t win with you, can I?
Elise….Nobody thinks your a Man hater especially me…
Thanks for understanding, Seattle. I am angry which is entirely a different issue and the result is a more confrontational attitude toward careless remarks I might have ignored a year ago.
Do other women feel this compulsion to draw attention to the disparity in respect afforded women? The first step in resolving a problem is to define it so it’s universally recognized and to fight the tendency to let things pass rather than rock the boat.
Steve’s post is meant to be humorous yet the reaction to my joke about Viagra was interpreted as an attack on male virility (which I strongly support and that is meant as a joke for those who don’t appreciate my humor).
lorac asked: How come men no longer call each other b*stard or a**hole much, but more frequently call each other women’s curse names like b*tch, c*nt, etc?
I find your question amusing and thought-provoking! I hope I can do it justice.
The first thing that comes to mind is that slang changes somewhat quickly, from one generation to the next. My wife and I love watching old black and white movies from before we were born, movies from the 1930s and 1940s. The slang used, especially in some that used “modern” slang that was contemporary or even cutting-edge back then, has some resemblance to modern slang, but often the words back then had totally different meanings. Other times, they were just trying to get around the censors, who in those days reviewed movies and ordered scenes cut or language altered before they would approve them for public release.
Bastard, meaning a child born out of wedlock, used to be a very serious insult. Now that so many children are born out of wedlock, it isn’t as powerful an insult.
Asshole is still used just as frequently as ever, I think. I love the Dennis Leary show “Rescue Me,” on the Fox Network, and he must use that word at least ten times per episode. It’s often the first phrase I think of when someone pisses me off.
Son of a bitch is another ageless insult that hardly anyone takes literally anymore, but it does fall into the same category as making “your mama” jokes. Since most men love their mothers, hearing their mother insulted constitutes fighting words.
I think the modern use of men calling men by female epithets (such as bitch) is largely the result of the popularity of hip-hop rap, which in turn comes from the urban black communities. In that vernacular, macho guys often call women bitches, or worse. It’s become such a common insult, it looses its power. I’ve always though bitch and bastard are two sides of the same coin.
In this instance, calling a man by a derogatory name for a woman is like two insults in one. First, they de-sex or neuter the guy by calling him a sissy (opposite of manly), but add a negative female epithet on top of it. So in one word, they get a two-fer insult.
It’s probably more complex than that, but that’s all I can think of at the moment.
I kind of thought that using the most degrading terms you can use on a women and lobbing it at another man was done because The Lessers to the kind of neanderthal who would use that terminology. So, using terms that degrade women, often a major part of the vocabulary of the kind of guy, further degrades the male they are targeting.
It’s funny that b______ means different things re a woman or a man. Alexis of Dynasty was a b_____ because she was ruthless and powerful, in Blake’s words a ’she-octopus’, a ‘rattlesnake’, a ‘cobra’, a ‘piranha.’ That’s definitely not what we mean when we call a guy a b_____.
I call myself a ‘lazy b_____!’ when I punk out in my workout — and I don’t mean gender. My yoga instructor Brandi is like Coach Lombardi — she busts my ass in yoga practice.
I think they are just seen as more outrageous terms. I don’t think it’s a sexual thing really… Just a matter of wanting to push the envelope.
This is OT but pretty interesting. In an interview last night with CBS, Obama actually said “we stand with the protesters” for the first time – but CBS cut that statement from what the actual broadcast, so hardly anyone is covering Obama’s statement. Hot Air has the story here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/19/new-obama-on-iran-we-stand-behind-those-who-are-seeking-justice-in-a-peaceful-way/
I think Obama probably told CBS to keep that statement out because he wants to downplay it, so that the Iranians don’t actually hear it. Knowing the way Obama does things, his statement of support was probably more for political reasons here at home.
This is pretty bizarre. The NYT did a story on the CBS interview and they too fail to mention Obama’s comment that “we stand with the protesters.” Hot Air has the entire interview and he clearly made that statement. Could this be Obama simply trying to have it both ways – so he can later go back and say that he “did” make a statement of support for them?
With a complicit press, “voting present” takes on a whole new meaning. He can say it and if it later becomes convenient, the press can dig out the tapes and play them in retrospect. If it turns out to be the wrong thing to say… just bury the tape forever. This way he can still take polls before doing anything, and the press can cover his tracks.
I always suspected the legitimacy of your revealed truths, Steve.
I double checked with my husband, and he seconds your perceptions.
Folks,
The biggest thing in medicine is combating low testosterone in males as close to 30% or more of the population now have low T which leads to all types of complications in later life such as Parkinson’s disease.
Just turn on the TV and see all the new adds for Low T.
Everyone needs to get checked and don’t be bashful. Do it!
A really good investment going forward is Savoy Pharmaceuticals as they make the product that puts the life back into a Man.
Correction…Salvoy Pharmaceuticals
http://androgel.com/?utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CNPO6KnGmZsCFRxNagodIRVNpQ
Yup they give them hefty doses of steroids so they can be just as crazy as they were when they were younger.
Testosterone replacement therapy is no different than Premarin or other estrogen replacement therapies in what the goal is…
The improved health of both Men and Woman.
For Men reaching the age of 50 T replacement therapy leads to increased focus, stamina,decrease in depression and a more prosperous outlook on life.
Would you like me to call my wife in from the other room…She can tell you much more on the benefits of maximizing male health.
Testosterone replacement therapy uses 100% testosterone hormone which is naturally occurring in men and is not a steroid.
Men need a 400-800 score to be in normal range. Otherwise they are at increased risk of heart attack,prostate cancer and Parkinson’s.
Hey Obama!
Listen up…Go get tested for Low T.
Maybe then you might stop being such a wimp…
“Maybe then you might stop being such a wimp…”
Example for us to see..
This is what causes Homophobia.
WE have long lectured our boys about being wimps and sissies. If we can put a stop to this ridiculous notion, maybe we’ll make progress in stopping homophobia.
TT007
Example for us to see..
This is what causes War!
Thought I would correct that for you..
You know I said it first..The Iraq war is a brilliant strategy and is leading to sustained uprisings now in Iran. The Iranian’s want democracy just like the Iraqi’s and see the opportunity to throw off the yoke of tyranny.
Obama has shown that coddling dictators and not upsetting them is more important and quivers and quakes in fear than defend the freedom fighters in Tehran.
Cheney by being a hard ass kept our enemies at bay. Now they are laughing…Just ask Kim J.
Obama was elected by a movement of wimps!
Obama is now a National Security risk and has turned his spineless back on America’s central principle which is protecting and expanding liberty and freedom everywhere we possibly can.
Pushing the envelope always against the forces of tyranny
Obama blew it on Iran…What a wuss!
Obama blew it on North Korea…..What a wimp!
and about that homophobia…
Remember back in December…I warned of the Backlash against the gay movement. It’s here right on schedule.
Maybe it was hanging Sarah in effigy for three weeks in West Hollywood.
Or maybe Sarah’s church being burned.
Or maybe the demonstrations and militant intimidation tactics bullying those that voted for prop 8.
Or maybe Perez Hilton’s performance that has set gay rights back 20 years.
It would seem that Gay’s are their worse enemies.
Now the majority once again is conservatives and moderates.
Liberals bring up the rear with a pathetic 21%.
The proof of that backlash is evident to all now as support for Gay marriage has plummeted.
Don’t blame me…Moss just reports the Truth!
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010272.cfm
Lump Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Bruno” in there, too. Bruno is definitely NOT funny.
Sacha Baron Cohen is not gay. I think Bruno is funny. Some people just don’t get it: The joke isn’t so much what Bruno does – it’s how people react to it. That’s the same as with his other characters (Borat & Ali G) — It’s funny (to me and to others that like this humor) to see people react to what makes them uncomfortable (whether it be homosexuality or whatever else.)
Just because you think it’s funny, doesn’t make it funny.
It has nothing to do with the gay theme. People are finding Cohen’s humor unappealing just like they didn’t like Letterman’s Palin jokes.
Uh… What you just stated as “America’s Central Principle” is anything but. That idea is a NEOCON philosophy that has nothing to do with the history of America. Obama was elected, in part, to turn back the clock on that kind of insane foreign policy. In short, you could not possibly be more wrong even if you tried.
Is Low T different from being down low? (Snark) Maybe Obama could get tested for both. It would certainly put any misconceptions to rest and meanwhile Obama does need to work on the wimp problem.
Don’t we miss the swagger now!
there was nothing wrong with his T..
Yeah, America just doesn’t do metrosexual for POTUS. It’s causing cognitive dissonance on a national scale. LOL!
thank you Steve.for the article.i did learn a lot.
Thank you, Foxy! That means a lot to me!
Straight women aren’t afraid of being around gay women because women cannot do anything to them, i.e., they do not have a penis. Straight men, however, have every reason to be afraid of gay men because they have a penis, and can do damage if they choose to do so. So it’s really pretty simple.
It takes two to tango. If a straight man is afraid of gays because he doesn’t know if the gay man will ‘damage’ him with his penis, then the straight man isn’t exactly so straight, is he?
That is really insane logic imo. Also I’ve found that straight women and lesbians often do not get along at all. I find that straight women do often get along with homosexual men though. My wife loves hanging out with homosexual men as she met many through her work. I quite like her homosexual men friends as well. I love hanging out with them actually because they are fun and more interesting than most heterosexual guys.
Methinks Uppity needs to write a rebuttal series to these works, ala “Understanding Women”. Except it will probably be in about 14 parts. lol.
That sounds about right, Uppity!
That reminds me of a cartoonish photo of two control boxes. The one labeled men had like a total of three switches or knobs, and the one labeled women had about 20, all different shapes and sizes.
And I say that with the deepest love and gratitude in my heart for all women! No, really, I mean it!
…And we love you men who realize that we are goddesses and are dedicated to serving us well….;-)
All in a day’s work!
One Man’s Homophobia is Another Man’s Domestic Policy.
Boycott DNC fundraisers. The DNC is not lifting a finger to ensure that the GLBT community access to their Constitutional rights as US citizens.
I’m a heterosexual male who has none of the usual homophobia that heterosexual males possess. I am actually much more phobic of the sort of alpha male BS that most men take part in. I hate that crap. Your average dude is just incredibly boring and ignorant. Watching football and drinking bad beer and eating bad food. Bah. I actually quite like hanging out with gay dudes as they tend to be more interesting and outgoing.