Comments on: Commentary: No Fats or Fems: A Gay Culture that is at War with Itself

By: hatebeingay21

hatebeingay21 — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:09:43 +0000

I agree with this ad not only am I a twink. Im sick of guys who use me for my looks or ass. We say we hate when straight guys are mean to us but we are the bigger bullies to each other. N stop this twink on twink action.

By: rob

rob — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:58:47 +0000

no fats no fems :
I am on the heavy side: tough meeeting men sometimes

but these arrogant bastards is ruin it for other people
whne I see heterosexuals having sexin there cars and goverment
vehicles at parks my phoned is dialed into 911

thats all these people
and gay men 2
men an another person devasted a park

now the community runs through trails where gays hang out take pictures
or an undercover cop sevral times a week..
so if you cannot play fair you cannot play..

henry

By: pink_minx

pink_minx — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:00:20 +0000

I am guessing from the first post that this is a mainly American site?

Interesting reading guys, thank you.

Firstly can I state the primary reaction to the opening post is “your ‘gay culture’ appears to be male only?!”

I identify as a gay female. I also Identify as very femme. My gf is what over here is called a soft butch (not sure if you have the same terminolgy?). With regard to “We need to stop using terms like fats, femmes, twinks, and trolls” why? we have no need to lose the terms, we have a need to lose the negativity attached to the terms. For some people they like their labels, it helps them identify in an already very complicated scene.

I happily identify as a femme, my best mate’s bf (OMG a lesbian who is friends with a gay male….fnacy that!) is massivly into his pet term “twinks” It is not the language that is wrong, but our perception and induction into the abuse of the language that is wrong.

I am all for keeping the language and reclaiming the pride attached to some of the terms.

Raising a glass to all the poofs, stone dykes, butches, leather boys etc etc keep your titles if you are happy with them, it identifies our own unique diversities

By: Unknown

Unknown — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:22:24 +0000

Nice strawman. Maybe someone born yesterday will buy it. No one asked anyone to have sex with anyone they aren’t attracted to. Forest/Trees
The real and larger issue is the normalization of superficiality derived from the very pernicious effects of a culture of objectification. Are all feminine guys alike? Do all chubby or African American men look alike? Despite the voices of those toeing the gay party line on any issue of sexuality, there is nothing “natural” about being attracted to / repelled by isolated features rather than a whole person. We are moving into a society of fetishism. Is that ideal? A few evidently believe this topic to be a piece in political correctness. But in reality, it’s the gay ideology that as long as the criteria of “consenting adults” is satisfied, there is nothing that need to be challenged in regards to human sexuality. And I know that many are deathly afraid of having their ideology questioned.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:59:33 +0000

At the end of the day, some people just don’t like femme guys. That’s just how it is. Some people also don’t conform to the gay stereotype. If a society where everyone has sex with anyone regardless of attraction to one another is your idea of an ideal “gay culture”, you better believe that we’ll be at war with ourselves.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:16:58 +0000

Thanks Karl!

By: Karl

Karl — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:21:32 +0000

Wayne I REALLY loved ALL your comments. KUDOS TO YOU!

By: Wayne

Wayne — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:08:53 +0000

I came out at 16 in 1983 and I thought “finally the previous 10 years of teasing and bullying are over”. Well was I in for a big surprise because the gay community has been worse,far worse. If you don’t look like a model on the cover of any men’s magazine, don’t even think about being part of the “in crowd” or the “A” list as I call it(unless your filthy rich, they will over look a 33 inch waist if you have cash). What is worse is that the “in crowd” takes great pleasure in being as bitchy and mean as possible to anyone not in the “in crowd” (Go on any gay men’s site and the lists of dont’s and wont’s is amazing and really bitchy). As an adult I have never fit in or felt like part of any gay community. I started weight lifting when I turned 28 and during my 30′s I did get more attention and have some incredible sex with some hot guys, but nobody wanted me for anything more than sex. In fact the majority of the guys I was now getting attention from where so screwed up emotionally that a relationship was impossible for them. It’s really sad, all looks and no substance. As I entered my 40′s I rejected the “Golds Gym” lifestyle and secluded myself to just a small group of close friends, other “outsiders” who don’t cut the mustard of unrealistic gay standards. I’m 44 now, I work out 3 to 4 times a week, I’m not a drama queen, I have a great job, nice car, but at any qay bar or function I attend its like I dont exsist so I just don’t go to those places anymore. I order in for sex and the only gay places I go are resturants and some certain shops. I feel far more comfortable living in a straight setting in the burbs then I do living in the gay ghetto, which is where I live now, but Im considering another move out of the city, where there is a mixture of people. I’m really excited to run across this site, of course Im not a twink but I do appreciate those who feel the way I felt at a young age and I hope that those in their 20′s now have a better opportunity to live a fuller and happier life not trying to fit in with a very narrow group of people, who I think are probably the most unhappy of all of us. Just be YOU and live a life with all people in all sectors of society and don’t judge yourself by “Gay” standards, because they are very shallow and unrealistic for the greater population of us at large.

By: Jackson Goff

Jackson Goff — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:09:47 +0000

@Chris Kaos “If you don’t fit the above description (9 out of 10 don’t) then find what makes you special.”

Good on you. Why blame muscle heads for going to the gym, then cry when they’re not interested because you’ve never been. If you’re fat and find it’s just as OK as Oprah says, don’t put yourself down or do it to anyone else. And ignore anyone who’s doing it to you because they don’t feel OK.

Our ideal love muffin is also often our ideal self. You’re better off to pursue the characteristics you admire, rather than depending on fate to hook you up with them?

At one time, I could bench my own weight. Bad news is that was 230 pounds on a 5’6″ frame. I’ve been to both extremes. From a 32″ waist to 54″ and back. That’s when I stopped worshiping looks and started looking for kindness, honesty, decency. You know what’s goony: when I find someone has those traits, I find them very appealing. The other thing that makes someone attractive is when they like me. LOL

By: FatAlbert

FatAlbert — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:53:43 +0000

Glad I could be of service.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:51:40 +0000

I think I see it all clearly now. I grasp what you say, and disagree. Thanks for your input.

By: FatAlbert

FatAlbert — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:28:32 +0000

What clear is that you still did not grasp what I said. I submitted my suspicion that it has no biological basis, and followed that even if it does, that would not make it neutral or good. Where do you get the idea that I believe “very strongly”? Is is because I am responding to ALL of your comments to ME? I believe what I do based on my observations and experiences. What do I derive? Gee, an explanation to phenomena. Is that answer not redundant enough?

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:53:37 +0000

@FatAlbert: I don’t think the question is all that weird. Clearly you embrace the opinion that the “excessive fastidiousness” of gay men has no biological basis, and believe it very strongly. Why do you believe it very strongly? What benefit do you derive from this belief?

By: FatAlbert

FatAlbert — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:40:28 +0000

That’s a weird question. I could ask you what you get out of believing that it’s biological, and that IF it is, how that makes it a good or neutral thing, ipso facto. Seriously, what would I get believing what I believe that is any different from you get in believing what you believe?

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:18:50 +0000

Wow. Clearly you hold your beliefs strongly. May I ask, what is your stake in maintaining your argument? What do you get from believing the “excessive fastidiousness” of gay men with regard to potential mates is not rooted in biology?

By: biology minor is occationally useful

biology minor is occationally useful — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:52:00 +0000

Yeah, second the wikipedia link. Go read it. “Physically fit” is not the same thing as “capable of successfully producing and raising offspring”. “Survival of the fittest” is a very poor statement of the workings of evolution; attributing colloquial meaning to the words used makes it borderline nonsensical.

By: FatAlbert

FatAlbert — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:21:28 +0000

Well if you choose not to “whine” and are happy with that choice, more power to you. But if you are insinuating that that’s what I am doing, I suggest you get a grip and come back to this discussion when you are mature enough to have an adult conversation without the needless hyperbole and revelation of your own emotional issues related to your weight. Stand by your “assessment” if you like, but I must tell you that it hasn’t addressed anything that I’ve said.

And for future reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:51:16 +0000

@FatAlbert, I stand by my assessment. What nature does is not beholden to my logic or desires. It will operate by its own internal logic. Human beings, homo- and heterosexual are inately attracted to physically fit people, even though that attraction can sometimes limit the number of people one could possibly have sex with.

I myself am overweight. Now, I could waste my time griping that homosexual men should get over their hangups and make themselves find me attractive, or I can just accept that it’s not going to happen, and then move on to accepting either being overweight and having a lower chance of finding a mate, or raising my chances by losing weight. Either course of action is up to me, and therefore choosing between them is my responsibility.

Whining that homos should be finding me attractive because there’s no reason for them not to defies reality and is counterproductive. It can only lead to resentment or worse.

By: FatAlbert

FatAlbert — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:55:50 +0000

Papa, were you in such a rush to claim that my statements were “self-serving”, and “obviously” so (I wonder if the “FatAlbert” name is what made it so clear) that you read what you wanted? But that is not how reading comprehension works. Please see my post dated 16 September 2009 at 5:25 pm for what *I* have disputed.

By: FatAlbert

FatAlbert — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:47:35 +0000

Kyle, you continue to walk right past the pink elephant in the room. If homosexuals were “programmed” to seek fit partners, they would not be seeking someone of the same sex in the first place, but instead the opposite sex. This is the second time you’ve referred to things in nature not being beholden to human logic, and now “desire”. First of all, if you read either of my posts thoroughly, there is no way you would have had the idea that either was my goal, simply because I made a speculation – something you have done yourself. For example, what actual proof do you have that all human are “programmed to seek fit partners”? I suppose I’m entitled to assume that because it’s been a long-standing logical theory about heterosexuals, your lofty desire has you concluding that homosexuals fit into this scheme. It’s quite absurd to eschew the role of logic in understanding nature. Of course, logic alone is not sufficient, but luckily there are people who make a living out of researching and experimenting in such fields.

By: Queer Blogger

Queer Blogger — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:14:54 +0000

I think what all of this boils down to is this: we need to work finding value in others even if we don’t want to sleep with them.

So often queer people and maybe even humans in general (but definitely queer people, because we’re always looking for that needle in the gaystack) we dismiss people who we don’t find sexually attractive. We dehumanize them to the point where it’s okay to be mean to them and shit all over them (metaphorically speaking).

The solution is for everyone to stop conflating people’s value as human beings with their sexual attractiveness. Just because you don’t want to fuck someone doesn’t mean you have the right to be rude. Maybe we all need to wear those “Mean People Suck” t-shirts?

By: Papa Snow

Papa Snow — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:51:08 +0000

Yeah, it sounds like you’re observing what is and disputing it just because you can’t figure out why (ostensibly, at least – of course it’s for much more self-serving reasons) – that’s not how understanding works.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:49:27 +0000

@FatAlbert: we are picky because like heterosexuals we are human beings, and human beings are programmed to be biased toward the fit when it comes to sexual attraction. It’s in our hardwiring. And things in nature may have a reason to exist, but that reason doesn’t have to bend to human logic or desire. (In other words, we may or may not know or understand why X occurs – in this case “x” being a bias toward the fit in sexual attraction among homosexual males – but things occuring may have a causes that are not subject to human reasoning yet.) It’s reason for existence is independent of human reasoning about it, or lack thereof, and it most certainly isn’t beholden to your desires. I want a lot of things I cannot have. Life is not fair. Nature is not fair either, or else we’d all look alike. And biology will work in certain ways regardless of whether you think it is reasonable or not.

By: FatAlbert

FatAlbert — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:25:50 +0000

My observation is that things in nature have a reason. While there are more than one possible explanations, “it just is” or “this is how it will be” are invalid because biology is neither unjustifiable or necessarily fate. Also, I disagree with your theory that homosexuals are just inverted heterosexuals. My observation of the way gay men judge each other compared to the way women judge men, and also the way lesbians judge women compared to the way straight men do, show that be false. And again, heterosexual obviously have an excuse to be excessively picky about mates. What is homosexuals’ reason?

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:49:09 +0000

@ FatAlbert: My observation is that biology isn’t beholden to human logic. I suspect that when it comes to homosexual attraction, what one would find attractive if one were heterosexual-but-of-the-opposite-sex is what one would find attractive as a homosexual. For most human beings, biology dictates an attraction toward fitness. That holds true whether one is heterosexual or homosexual.