Man Crush

Off Topic
42

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Given the region that the “man crush” article was written for, I’d say he was just writing toward his audience, who are profoundly gay.

If the sentiments expressed about wanting to be with Justin Timberlake were true, then maybe the author just wants to be manhandled a bit and treated like a dirty little girl. Not in a gay way, just more like a role playing/manlove sort of thing.
(not that theres anything wrong with that)

It’s not like I’m homophobic either. I used to play with dolls too. We would mix up some styrofoam and gasoline napalm, light them up, and throw them at eachother. Who ever got hit usualy caught fire and would get in trouble for catching fire.

That don’t make me gay, does it?[/quote]

Model rocket engines baybeee. I don’t know how many fires I started and “dolls” I destroyed trying to find new ways to propel those damn things around the neighborhood.

43

[quote]shawninjapan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How about getting annoyed that some people feel the need to insult others because they do something outside of standard gender stereotypes?

How about being bothered that some feel the need to force others to have specific personality traits just to make the former feel comfortable?

How about the observation that its mostly just homophobia?

Oh well. Maybe women just shouldnt be doctors and men shouldnt be teachers. Wouldnt fit the gender stereotypes.

How about anytime anyone expresses anything that is vaguely masculine and calls for some form of distinction between the sexes it mean he hates gay people?

Shutting down discussion by painting people with your broad brush is repugnant, too.

[/quote]

Because the only thing I see that reasonably unites these things some posters are bitching about is that they can be seen as indications of homosexuality.

Wearing pink. Gay. Calling admiration for/reverance of another male a “guy crush”. Gay. Playing with dolls. Gay.

Now, maybe if it were a case of someone doing something unmasculine like watching another man hit a woman and not standing up for her… that would be both unmasculine and not indicitive of homosexuality. Maybe if they were bitching about men who dont show others respect. Lacking class is unmasculine. But I dont here people complaining about that.

Why? Because they dont associate lacking class with being gay.

As I sarcastically pointed out in another post in this thread, what about male teachers? Or single men who raise children? Or men who are hairdressers? How about men who cook?

Arent cooking, child raising, hair cutting, and teaching stereotypically feminine?

Yet plenty of men break these “gender roles” without the “real men” complaining or insulting them.

Why?

Because breaking gender stereotypes is ok, so long as it isn’t correlated with homosexuality.

So please, spare me the “They aren’t homophobic, they’re just pro-testosterone!” argument.

44

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That hasn’t stopped you from calling everyone who sees traditional masculinity as a positive a “homophobe”.

[/quote]

Seeing traditional masculinity as a positive is great. Putting others down because they dont fit into your definition of “traditionally masculine” when the only traits/actions you complain about are correlated with homosexuality indicates homophobia, to me.

If it has nothing to do with sexuality, why don’t I hear any bitching about things that are both unmasculine and not correlated with being gay?

45

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
shawninjapan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How about getting annoyed that some people feel the need to insult others because they do something outside of standard gender stereotypes?

How about being bothered that some feel the need to force others to have specific personality traits just to make the former feel comfortable?

How about the observation that its mostly just homophobia?

Oh well. Maybe women just shouldnt be doctors and men shouldnt be teachers. Wouldnt fit the gender stereotypes.

How about anytime anyone expresses anything that is vaguely masculine and calls for some form of distinction between the sexes it mean he hates gay people?

Shutting down discussion by painting people with your broad brush is repugnant, too.

Because the only thing I see that reasonably unites these things some posters are bitching about is that they can be seen as indications of homosexuality.

Wearing pink. Gay. Calling admiration for/reverance of another male a “guy crush”. Gay. Playing with dolls. Gay.

Now, maybe if it were a case of someone doing something unmasculine like watching another man hit a woman and not standing up for her… that would be both unmasculine and not indicitive of homosexuality. Maybe if they were bitching about men who dont show others respect. Lacking class is unmasculine. But I dont here people complaining about that.

Why? Because they dont associate lacking class with being gay.

As I sarcastically pointed out in another post in this thread, what about male teachers? Or single men who raise children? Or men who are hairdressers? How about men who cook?

Arent cooking, child raising, hair cutting, and teaching stereotypically feminine?

Yet plenty of men break these “gender roles” without the “real men” complaining or insulting them.

Why?

Because breaking gender stereotypes is ok, so long as it isn’t correlated with homosexuality.

So please, spare me the “They aren’t homophobic, they’re just pro-testosterone!” argument.[/quote]

Are you gay? Do you feel left out on a Testosterone forum for some reason? I am confused as to why someone would log into TESTOSTERONE.COM and proceed to whine anytime someone speaks positively of masculinity and negatively of guys wearing pink, eyeliner, and women’s pants.

46

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That hasn’t stopped you from calling everyone who sees traditional masculinity as a positive a “homophobe”.

Seeing traditional masculinity as a positive is great. Putting others down because they dont fit into your definition of “traditionally masculine” when the only traits/actions you complain about are correlated with homosexuality indicates homophobia, to me.

If it has nothing to do with sexuality, why don’t I hear any bitching about things that are both unmasculine and not correlated with being gay?

[/quote]

Are you saying that only gay guys wear pink, eyeliner and women’s pants?

These are things only correlated to homosexuality?

Doofus, if you haven’t noticed, people are debating why this is becoming MAINSTREAM, not whether gay people wear this. Are you that dense…or just SOOOO sensitive that every post has to be about you?

You’re so vain…I bet you think this post is about you.

Don’t you?

47

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
shawninjapan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How about getting annoyed that some people feel the need to insult others because they do something outside of standard gender stereotypes?

How about being bothered that some feel the need to force others to have specific personality traits just to make the former feel comfortable?

How about the observation that its mostly just homophobia?

Oh well. Maybe women just shouldnt be doctors and men shouldnt be teachers. Wouldnt fit the gender stereotypes.

How about anytime anyone expresses anything that is vaguely masculine and calls for some form of distinction between the sexes it mean he hates gay people?

Shutting down discussion by painting people with your broad brush is repugnant, too.

Because the only thing I see that reasonably unites these things some posters are bitching about is that they can be seen as indications of homosexuality.

Wearing pink. Gay. Calling admiration for/reverance of another male a “guy crush”. Gay. Playing with dolls. Gay.

Now, maybe if it were a case of someone doing something unmasculine like watching another man hit a woman and not standing up for her… that would be both unmasculine and not indicitive of homosexuality. Maybe if they were bitching about men who dont show others respect. Lacking class is unmasculine. But I dont here people complaining about that.

Why? Because they dont associate lacking class with being gay.

As I sarcastically pointed out in another post in this thread, what about male teachers? Or single men who raise children? Or men who are hairdressers? How about men who cook?

Arent cooking, child raising, hair cutting, and teaching stereotypically feminine?

Yet plenty of men break these “gender roles” without the “real men” complaining or insulting them.

Why?

Because breaking gender stereotypes is ok, so long as it isn’t correlated with homosexuality.

So please, spare me the “They aren’t homophobic, they’re just pro-testosterone!” argument.[/quote]

So in order to criticize something it must fit into the guise of an action that is feminine but not gay. How about I don’t criticize what you tell me to and criticize what I want to regardless of whether or not it is associated with homosexuality.

Nobody in this thread has to justify their criticisms to you or to anyone else and to think that you can set the standard for what is available for criticism is ridiculous.

Get off your soap box.

48

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Are you gay? Do you feel left out on a Tesosterone foruym for some reason? I am confused as to why someone would log into TESTOSTERONE.COM and proceed to whine anytime someone speaks positively of masculinity and negatively of guys wearing pink, eyeliner, and women’s pants.
[/quote]

No, I’m not gay. If its really that big of a deal to you, yeah, I’ve hooked up with a few guys. Really didn’t get into it. My sexuality falls somewhere between “not straight” and “not gay”. We’ll go with bi, I guess, if you need a label. I prefer the term “stray”.

If its just speaking positive of masculinity, why aren’t you being negative about male teachers or men who raise children (stereotypically unmasculine things)?

49

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That hasn’t stopped you from calling everyone who sees traditional masculinity as a positive a “homophobe”.

Seeing traditional masculinity as a positive is great. Putting others down because they dont fit into your definition of “traditionally masculine” when the only traits/actions you complain about are correlated with homosexuality indicates homophobia, to me.

If it has nothing to do with sexuality, why don’t I hear any bitching about things that are both unmasculine and not correlated with being gay?

[/quote]

My gay friends make fun of straight people all the time. Call us breeders and such. No big deal.

50

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Are you gay? Do you feel left out on a Tesosterone foruym for some reason? I am confused as to why someone would log into TESTOSTERONE.COM and proceed to whine anytime someone speaks positively of masculinity and negatively of guys wearing pink, eyeliner, and women’s pants.

No, I’m not gay. If its really that big of a deal to you, yeah, I’ve hooked up with a few guys. Really didn’t get into it. My sexuality falls somewhere between “not straight” and “not gay”. We’ll go with bi, I guess, if you need a label. I prefer the term “stray”.

If its just speaking positive of masculinity, why aren’t you being negative about male teachers or men who raise children (stereotypically unmasculine things)? [/quote]

Since when is being a teacher a feminine career choice? You do realize that historically, professors and teachers were mostly MEN? No, you didn’t know that, did you?

Careers associated with a certain gender have mostly fallen by the way side aside from those that clearly need more strength in action. Even those, to a large degree, are now becoming open to anyone who can prove themselves. That is why it is not uncommon to see a woman firefighter or a woman in the military actually in the fight.

Not one person here has said anything about jobs that certain sexes can’t do. Only YOU have done that. I know many male nurses and will be the first to stand for one of them if someone makes a comment about it being a woman’s job.

You don’t even seem to know the people you are debating with. I suppose that is hard when you are confused about the topic and assume it is about YOU.

51

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I prefer the term “stray”.[/quote]

lol

52

When I was a kid I played with dolls.

The ones that were men, wanted to blow shit up, and shoot it, and they had cool weapons that could take an eye out, before the law banned those things.

I knew some little girls back then that had barbie dolls. I didn’t play with the dolls but I thought they had great tits, great hips and perfect skin. Ken was a piece of crap and couldn’t blow stuff up and also, he had no balls. He was an offensive P.O.S … didn’t know he was modelled as barbie’s brother, didn’t care either he was crap.

Barbie looked better with clothes because without she was a bit … inaccurate. But hey here’s for trying.

I had an original superman but I never could work out, that if he flew head first, how the heck did he land on his feet? They never showed him landing in the old b&w series. Also if someone stabs superman and the knife bends, surely that means THEY bent the knife? I mean if I stab a brick wall I am not strong enough to bend the knife on the wall. Bit of an oversight.

I also liked giant robots and dinosaurs. Nobody yet had thought to combine the two …

What was the topic?

I don’t care if people are gay, or hate gays, or fear them, or are gay and don’t know it, or feel their masculinity challenged by others who aren’t acting to their standards, or are, or whatever.

These behaviours might define masculinity in a very superficial way, they might define manliness, but they don’t define a Great Man.

They don’t touch upon the many deep, profound aspects of what it is to be a man. Which are difficult to put into words, but all men have a sense of it, and however similar in every other way a man and woman may appear, these profound, deep differences exist regardless.

I don’t have any man crushes but I have met men who utterly put me to shame on so many levels, for their tireless pursuit to improve the world, through sometimes tremendous self sacrifice, and, can you believe it, also incredible looks, strength, wealth, breeding, manners, connections and some of them still single - and not gay. (but of course most of them married). I’d call that admiration not a crush.

Similarly I have contempt for the opposite, which would be be described as a male paris hilton - a spoiled brat.

Anyway I wish people here would stop fighting over these things it seems everyone is really arguing the same point but are caught up in the details. I honestly believe the androgynous youth of today are actually trying to discover what masculinity is without all the superficial external shite that has been shoved down their throat from ad companies.

I don’t think they are trying to destroy it. I also think that fad/phase is coming to an end and in 2-4 years there will be a new one based on angry fat youth who want physical transformation.

53

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Are you gay? Do you feel left out on a Tesosterone foruym for some reason? I am confused as to why someone would log into TESTOSTERONE.COM and proceed to whine anytime someone speaks positively of masculinity and negatively of guys wearing pink, eyeliner, and women’s pants.

No, I’m not gay. If its really that big of a deal to you, yeah, I’ve hooked up with a few guys. Really didn’t get into it. My sexuality falls somewhere between “not straight” and “not gay”. We’ll go with bi, I guess, if you need a label. I prefer the term “stray”.

If its just speaking positive of masculinity, why aren’t you being negative about male teachers or men who raise children (stereotypically unmasculine things)? [/quote]

How are either of those two unmasculine?

Why do you seem to think homosexuals are some protected class of society? If they want equality they aren’t, nobody is protected from criticism. Get over it.

54

[quote]Magarhe wrote:

I also liked giant robots and dinosaurs. Nobody yet had thought to combine the two …[/quote]

You have insulted Dino-bot fans the world over. You are either way too young or way too old to acknowledge the greatness that is Transformers…more than meets the eye.

55

I could care less what other men wear, or if they have “crushes” on other men. I’ve never had a crush on another guy. I occasionally meet another man whom I respect and admire for one reason or another. But it only makes me think, “Damn, I wish I was more like that guy”, not “Gee wiz, I wish I could follow him around like a puppy dog all the time.”

I don’t care that the writer acts a little gay. What irks me is that he insists that we are all like him, and if we don’t agree it’s because we are too scared to admit it. Do whatever the hell you want but don’t insist that your tendencies/standards are universal and that the rest of us just need to stop being so uptight.

But it seems obvious that this was the writers intention. He deliberately set out to push buttons, just to get attention. If he was a halfway descent writer who actually had something to say, he wouldn’t have to resort to such cheap tactics in order to get noticed.

56

[quote]Professor X wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That hasn’t stopped you from calling everyone who sees traditional masculinity as a positive a “homophobe”.

Seeing traditional masculinity as a positive is great. Putting others down because they dont fit into your definition of “traditionally masculine” when the only traits/actions you complain about are correlated with homosexuality indicates homophobia, to me.

If it has nothing to do with sexuality, why don’t I hear any bitching about things that are both unmasculine and not correlated with being gay?

Are you saying that only gay guys wear pink, eyeliner and women’s pants?

These are things only correlated to homosexuality?

Doofus, if you haven’t noticed, people are debating why this is becoming MAINSTREAM, not whether gay people wear this. Are you that dense…or just SOOOO sensitive that every post has to be about you?

You’re so vain…I bet you think this post is about you.

Don’t you?[/quote]

You know how I know you’re gay? You quote Carly Simon lyrics.

57

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You’re so vain…I bet you think this post is about you.
[/quote]

You know, I was sitting here reading this garbage thread, remembering why I just stayed away from this website for a month, then I get hit with this quote. It’s stuff like this that makes me hang around here.

58

“Know how I know you’re gay?”

59

[quote]vermilion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That hasn’t stopped you from calling everyone who sees traditional masculinity as a positive a “homophobe”.

Seeing traditional masculinity as a positive is great. Putting others down because they dont fit into your definition of “traditionally masculine” when the only traits/actions you complain about are correlated with homosexuality indicates homophobia, to me.

If it has nothing to do with sexuality, why don’t I hear any bitching about things that are both unmasculine and not correlated with being gay?

Are you saying that only gay guys wear pink, eyeliner and women’s pants?

These are things only correlated to homosexuality?

Doofus, if you haven’t noticed, people are debating why this is becoming MAINSTREAM, not whether gay people wear this. Are you that dense…or just SOOOO sensitive that every post has to be about you?

You’re so vain…I bet you think this post is about you.

Don’t you?

You know how I know you’re gay? You quote Carly Simon lyrics.
[/quote]

Janet Jackson remade that song.

Everybody liked Janet Jackson.

You’re gay for knowing the original artist…and typing it correctly.

60

[quote]Professor X wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Are you gay? Do you feel left out on a Tesosterone foruym for some reason? I am confused as to why someone would log into TESTOSTERONE.COM and proceed to whine anytime someone speaks positively of masculinity and negatively of guys wearing pink, eyeliner, and women’s pants.

No, I’m not gay. If its really that big of a deal to you, yeah, I’ve hooked up with a few guys. Really didn’t get into it. My sexuality falls somewhere between “not straight” and “not gay”. We’ll go with bi, I guess, if you need a label. I prefer the term “stray”.

If its just speaking positive of masculinity, why aren’t you being negative about male teachers or men who raise children (stereotypically unmasculine things)?

Since when is being a teacher a feminine career choice? You do realize that historically, professors and teachers were mostly MEN? No, you didn’t know that, did you?

Careers associated with a certain gender have mostly fallen by the way side aside from those that clearly need more strength in action. Even those, to a large degree, are now becoming open to anyone who can prove themselves. That is why it is not uncommon to see a woman firefighter or a woman in the military actually in the fight.

Not one person here has said anything about jobs that certain sexes can’t do. Only YOU have done that. I know many male nurses and will be the first to stand for one of them if someone makes a comment about it being a woman’s job.

You don’t even seem to know the people you are debating with. I suppose that is hard when you are confused about the topic and assume it is about YOU.[/quote]

And did you know that originally baby boys were wrapped in pink blankets and baby girls in blue? So, despite the fact that HISTORICALLY pink has been a masculine color, now its suddenly “unmasculine” to wear pink.

I asked about career choices because it falls under generally accepted gender roles. Within the context of our current society, being a teacher is generally seen as a “womans job”.

The same way, within the context of our current society, wearing pink is for girls.

I brought up a point because it was relevant to the conversation at hand (gender roles).

I do not think this debate is “about me”. Now you’re just reaching.

61

What’s wrong with straight men thinking man-crushes are wierd? Whether or not I have tolerance for homosexuals has nothing to do with the fact that I still think it is wierd. I think people who dress up in furry animal costumes and have sex are wierd, much like I think it is wierd when two men have sex. Does this make me a bad person then, lol?

I have always hated the fact that tolerance is interpreted as thinking something is cool and totally within the norm. Tolerance just means you don’t hate the people you think are wierd. As defined in the dictionary, tolerance: 2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own. No where in that definition does it say I can’t think people who act differently than me aren’t peculiar.

In fact, I would argue you are an opinionphobe (new word I just created) CappedAndPlanIt, and are unwilling to accept people’s differing views.