Today, as many of you no doubt know, is Gay Pride Day. Here in Chicago, that means the annual Pride Parade, a celebration of all things LGBTQetc — and a nice aerobic workout for parade participants. (Gyrating on a float for three hours dressed in a leather harness and thong will burn roughly 1000 calories. But beware of chafing!)
Rookh Kshatriya, proprieter of the Anglobitch blog (devoted to the notion that women in the Anglosphere are, well, bitches), has evidently decided to celebrate Pride Weekend by offering us all his theories on gay male sexuality. Which is to say, his theory that there is no such thing as gay male sexuality, and that all those gay men out marching today would much rather be spending their Sunday eating bagels and doing the New York Times crossword puzzle with some comely (non-lesbian) lasses.
Yep, in Rookh’s World, gay men – or, as he puts it, “gay” men — are actually nothing more than exceptionally horny straight men who have been unfairly denied sex-on-demand with women of their choosing.
Let’s let him explain this:
Despite their rhetoric about lifestyles and the contemplation of flowers, gay men are clearly entranced by orgasm to an extent far surpassing that of heterosexual men.
Alas, in our Feminazified world, women sometimes refuse to have sex with men. Deprived a natural outlet for their sexy urges, horny dudes have to, well, improvise a bit. Why try to finagle your way into a vagina assiduously guarded by some dumb lady, when other dudes just as horny as you have holes of their own available for the asking?
As Rookh sees it, these uber-horny dudes really have no other choice.
[A]re most gay men just hyper-sexualized males – a self-selecting group whose priapic urges can only be satisfied by rejecting the relative sexual deprivation inescapably attendant on heterosexuality? The more one considers this possibility, the more plausible it seems. Even some badass with the looks of Apollo, the Game of Roissy and the confidence of a warlord would struggle to enter a nightclub and say: “I want sex NOW!” and expect to get it.
A terrible, terrible injustice. But there is a way out:
Yet homosexual men can enter any gay bath house in any Anglosphere city, say the very same words and expected to be sexually serviced by several men in a matter of minutes! In short, the sexual mismatch between the sexes makes the heterosexual lifestyle a poor option for any hyper-sexualized male – a non-option, in fact, if he wants to fully slake his sexual thirsts. By contrast, adopting homosexuality allows him to instantly indulge his every sexual whim in every manner conceivable.
Unless, of course, these whims involve sex with, you know, women. But lust is apparently stronger than mere sexual orientation. As Rookh sees it, homosexuality is the only rational choice for uber-horny men – even if they’d rather be boning women.
Since sex is so scarce and difficult to acquire in a heterosexual context, it simply makes no sense for an Anglo-American male with priapic urges to remain heterosexual – hence the self-selection of hyper-sexualized males towards homosexual lifestyles, not to mention the hyper-sexualized nature of homosexuality itself.
Is this all a prelude to a touching coming-out announcement by our man Rookh?
No such luck. It’s actually an excuse for, yes, more feminism-bashing. For it is the evil feminists who, in Rookh’s world, have been encouraging the “female sexual ostracism” of poor suffering straight men:
As we all know, women seek to control men by limiting sexual supply, be it representational (pornography) or actual (prostitution) – and that feminism is, essentially, an institution created for that purpose.
And so, in Rookh’s world,
homosexuality has advanced in lock-step with feminism. … [F]eminism – by assailing marital monogamy and allowing women to indulge their primordial attraction to dangerous thugs, moronic bullies and swaggering plutocrats – produced an unwanted ‘rump’ of educated, economically stable but sexually disenfranchised males. Given that gay males are disproportionately intelligent, solvent and educated, it is fairly obvious that members of this group have opted for homosexuality as a means of escaping the living death of involuntary celibacy, that the two phenomena are in fact closely related and that feminism is directly responsible for the advancement of homosexuality across the Anglosphere.
Feminism, by encouraging women to say “no” when they don’t actually want to have sex, may have created modern homosexuality, in Rookh’s view. But that doesn’t mean that feminists actually like gay dudes. No. Ick!
[T]he vast majority of Anglo females detest gay men as vehemently as they hate men in general. … the real link between pan-Anglosphere feminism and homosexuality [is that] the latter is a reaction to the former, which hates it with boundless counter-reactionary zeal.
Yeah, seems to me that the only one here who really “detest[s] gay men” is, well, Rookh, so much so that he’s decided to completely erase gay male sexuality – to put “gay” in scare quotes – in order to give himself another opportunity to run down feminists and women in general.
Now, human sexuality is a weird, messy, complicated, wonderful thing. It may well be that some bisexual men end up having sex with men more often than with women because they find it easier to find male sex partners for casual sex. But guys who are thoroughly gay – who would score a 6 on the famous Kinsey scale – don’t actually want to have sex with women. They really don’t. Drop a beautiful, eligible, horny (straight or mostly straight) woman in the midst of a bunch of Kinsey 6 guys, and this is what you get:
Court’s free!
I like laid back guys, (like the guy I’m crushing on) not loud obnoxious guys o_O loud and obnoxious doesn’t automatically = confidence.. often it shows lack of confidence as much as nething >_>;;
And he’s hardly cut (and as I said he’s about our height, maybe slightly shorter) :3
How do I dress? I don’t know. Normally? I’m wearing a Red Sox t-shirt right now. I like the Red Sox. I remember when I was obsessed with baseball back when I was like 8. I practiced literally like 4 hours a day with my dad and on my own and shit. Didn’t feel like practice though because I liked it so much. Unfortunately I was never any good because I have terrible depth perception and baseball is ALL depth perception. Hahaha. Just bad luck.
“Being loud, obnoxious, and arrogant is a really terrible way to get into my pants.”
Also that. Huge turn off. I like people who are talkative but have a generally quiet demeanor.
@MRAL:
So… Women are thinly disguised racists, heightists who take Brad Pitt as the peak alpha, and like loud and obnoxious.
You, on the other hand, want a nice girl, who shares interests with you, is fun to talk to, and as a bonus has big tits.
Do you see the huge disparity here? And do you notice how not one single girl on this forum would agree with your prediction of their desired qualities? What does that say about your perspective?
Hell yes. My current boyfriend is very calm and laid back, which is fantastic, since I can be a very intense person. But loud and obnoxious has never turned me on. It just annoys me.
MRAL, do you find that people meeting you for the first time assume you are younger than you actually are?
Yup – I seriously love having a partner who, at the end of the day, will chill out on the couch with me and watch TV while snuggling, or just touching. One of my favourite parts of being in a relationship. I made the mistake of getting with an extrovert who couldn’t sit still and was loud and wanted to be the center of attn all the time. Phew. It was exhausting!
I’m being ttlly serious about being up for going out w/ MRAL btw xD
What do you think it’d be like btw MRAL? Like if we were out and I tried to introduce somebody to you, what do you think they’d do? xD Or if I set you up on a blind date w/ a friend :3
Johnny Pez: I LOLed! Good one!
MRAL: It’s not just NOT talking about yourself–try to talk to other people about what interests them, or talk about what’s going on in the world around your, even, heavens forbid, say nice things. There are some srs cool people on this blog–can you acknowledge that instead of dissing the group so often?
Lyn: The more work they put into different shapes of jean the better. I have the opposite problem–broad shoulders, fairly ‘straight’ line figure (not hourglass, relatively small butt, high waist), and when I was very much younger, it was easier and cheaper to buy boy’s jeans (plus they often lasted longer, ditto boy’s sneakers). I am not able to shop online because I have to try stuff on because there’s no consistency across brands or sizes.
And clearly we have to have these interesting discussions between ourselves because the MRA don’t participate–however, it’s clear that they do a great job of kicking topics off.
Sarahejones: I was undersized and underweight when I was a kid–problems with compromised immune system and major allergies, etc. I was 5″, 5″1 until I was a sophomore in high school, then puberty kicked in (kinda late for that too), and BAM I grew six inches and put on weight, and freaked out. My allergies went away too (they came back with perimenopause sigh). I have a hellacious time considering myself ‘tall’ because so much of my body image was set when I was SHORT and TINY. And yes, it sucks to be the smallest one in the class–but my friends who were overly tall also suffered their own hell.
So, he’s looking for a skinny woman with a C cup? Who is normal looking? FYI, skinny with a C cup is not particularly average. It’s the heavier ladies that often have Cs and Ds, not the thin ones. If it is okay for you to prioritize unusually large breasts for body size, why would it not be okay then, for some women to prioritize unusual tallness? Also, I note that you only have two or so items from your own list:
– not fat (apparantly, you have this one)
– normal-looking (not according to your own, possibly highly distorted, view)
– friendly (nope)
– likes video games (okay, I take your word for it)
– fun to talk to (not so much *stop spitting in my eyes!!!*)
– big tits (nope)
Not really. I’m pretty young for my year I guess, but others don’t notice that.
MRAL, did you miss your therapy appointment? Please reschedule, and stop working out your issues here.
Meanwhile, I went to roller derby last night for the first time. Lots of kids in the audience. I wonder what they’ll turn out like, with such amazing women kicking ass (well, elbowing it) in front of them? Professional women, dentists, lawyers, who dress up in short shorts and fishnets on weekends, and compete in a pretty serious way. They practice 3x week, full on commitment to be on the team. (serious+camp=sexy!)
I, on the other hand, grew up going to the horse races. Gave me (5’9″) an interesting admiration for small, short men (jockeys are hot!).
“Trust me, getting lucky with a big boobed lady isn’t hard. Just treat her like a human instead of a pair of tits and you’ll go far.” Fourthed
Also, a bit of a tummy on a guy is really cute. They’re more cuddly that way. They’re also more cuddly when they’re not loud and obnoxious. Seriously, the Tucker Max type is about as far away from my ideal as you can get. So, yeah, I’m sure that’s an ideal list for a few women but it’s definitely not the majority. Again, see the vast majority of average people who are married or otherwise in a relationship.
@Ithiliana I know this happens a lot, but that same discussion (about clothing designed for a very specific body type of women) happened outside my changeroom today w/ my friend and the sales woman and about how nothing fits and etc etc and how it’s designed for rly tall thin model types…
the sad part is, they all fit perfectly on me xD cuz well I am a tall thin model type >_> even if I dun see it in the mirror most of the time if at all :
but as I said to my friend, I think it’s pretty screwed up if female clothes are being designed just for ME -_-;;
I didn’t say skinny, I said NOT FAT. There’s a difference.
Let’s see here:
WHAT A WOMAN LOOKS FOR (IMO)
– Over 6’0 (if you’re 5’11 or strong 5’10, you might be able to pass as 6′ if you work out)
Only 5’10”, but I don’t work out. Well, I bike, but that only started a few months ago, and didn’t exactly affect any of the relationships since the current one is 5+ years.
– Cut physique (even with clothes, you can usually tell. At the very least you must look lean).
Not entirely sure what this means exactly, but I’m pretty damn sure I don’t fit it. i was ~210 lbs for a very long time, which is pretty overweight for 5’10
– Blue eyes (honestly I think this is thinly disguised racism)
Got hazel eyes. I quite like them, actually. They’re unusual. But not blue.
– Brad Pitt-esque facial features. (Doesn’t have to be AT THIS LEVEL, obviously, but use him as a baseline. The closer you are, the better).
Pretty damn far away from that.
– Being loud and arrogant and obnoxious. (A lot of women seem to confuse loudness with intelligence or authority or confidence or whatever. It doesn’t matter if you’re a fucking idiot. Just shout when you talk, interrupt people, and put others down.)
Nope, I’m really shy except when around good friends, and quite a few of my good friends are much louder and more obnoxious then me.
So, I fit absolutely none of these. I’m close to one, and that’s it. And yet I have an excellent girlfriend (overweight, I admit, but damn is she hot. And she cares about that way more then I ever do) even big breasts! (and she would second that they are annoying as hell sometimes). And even got two other girlfriends in high school, one of which would hit about everything on your list, when I was quite overweight and was even quieter since I had only two good friends. I also had dates to both my proms while one of my good friends who would almost certainly be an Alpha by your scale (except for the obnoxious bit, he was a good guy), had to scramble both years.
Strange, isn’t it, how your system makes no goddam sense when applied to real people.
MRAL, thanks for the reply. You have a very different manner from the blokes your age that I know, and I wondered if it was because they come from a different background from you, or if you have a young manner. I see it’s the background.
Boring, dude. You can stand apart from the crowd by dressing yourself up a bit. Even the PUA guys know that (although their choices are tacky as frak. Screw those guys).
For your height and build, I suggest a nice, simple suit…
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4maQfQqxVLY/SlQ4LBz-f8I/AAAAAAAABJQ/BX5xLP0kmwI/s400/Ted+Baker+Wool+2+Button+Suit.jpg
Two button jackets lengthen you a bit, so that’ll help. Also, skinny lapels and skinny ties. Wide lapels and ties will flatten you out. Luckily, the Mad Men look is popular right now- for good reason, too; they look cool as Hell.
Maybe pinstripes? They don’t actually make you look taller and slimmer – that’s a myth – but they don’t hurt either.
Expense isn’t an issue. I’ve found thrift stores carry great suit selections. I got most of mine for under 30 bucks, and they all look fantastic. I’m taller than you, so it’s probably easier for me to find stuff that fits. Still, I’ve tried on so much awesome stuff that was a bit too small for me. Don’t get anything too bulky or too snug. Make sure whatever you wear fits well.
Spearhafoc we need to go shopping sometime :3 I still need to finish finding business casual clothes and my other shopping/fashiony friends are all going on vacation 😐
Also, fyi, I think MRAL’s list of what to look for in a guy is seriously flawed, so I compiled an answering list to his points of how he’s wrong from this one woman’s perspective.
-Height – meduim/average. I’m exactly average for a woman of my ethnic background and would prefer that my s.o. not tower above me as I find that kinda threatening, even when it’s not intentional. I have no objection to shorter men, but this is a list of ideals, so ya, average height.
-physique – not cut. At all. The biggest assholes in my life have been those frat boy males who could pose in underwear ads. Some of the nicest have been the slightly pudgy black-belts who could benchpress the frats if they tried (and throw/pin them in about a million varied and interesting ways), but don’t have the time in their day to run the extra 10 miles to get rid of that cute little belly
– eyes – um, is it bad to say glasses are preferred? Or at least that I think they make a guy look really intelligent? “and out come the brainy specs. You don’t need them, you just think they make you look clever!”
– facial features – again, the biggest assholes I’ve known, romantically or not, have been those who know that they are above average in looks. The ones who think they are the chosen few, the ones who can hurt and embarrass at will… I’d prefer character over flawless features any day.
– as for confusing volume with intelligence? puhleeze. Not on my watch. If he can’t intelligently defend a position that he holds, then he’s not worth the time. I don’t care if the position is in politics or in geekery, if you can’t explain why Picard is better than Kirk (or vice versa) when challenged on the details then gtfo.
– related to the intelligence point – he has to care about something. I don’t care what he’s passionate about, Sega games, Byronic poetry, rebuilding motorcycles from parts, knitting…. whatever. It doesn’t even matter if I share the interest. But I have yet to meet a person who was enthusiastic about learning and growing intellectually who didn’t have something they were passionate about.
So there’s my answer to MRAL’s list of what women want.
Yeah, MRAL lives in bizarro world.
We’re all carrying around height charts? My husband is 5’9″, I love rubbing his furry beer belly, he has the tiniest nose I’ve ever seen on a grown man (seriously, it’s so cute and wee!) which is emphasized by his enormous chin and forehead (balding) and while he does have blue eyes, I didn’t even realize until our third date when he took his glasses off for the first time. Hell, I didn’t even realize that he had a much harsher voice than I’d known for like two months after we started dating because he always tones down and softens his voice when I’m around – hearing him on his work phone was a surprise!
Meet and talk to some women. There are no, I repeat, NO hard and fast rules for dating or having relationships. Getting to know different other people, however, is helpful.
You know that saying “there’s only one beautiful baby in the world, and every mother has it”? It’s like that with lovers. The hottest person in the world is the one you are making love with. Everything about their body is fascinating and beautiful, right down the the sexy ingrown toenail!
And also, to the person who said I was unrealistic, it’s an IDEAL. I already said I’d pick pretty much any non-obese woman. Hell even if I couldn’t fucking stand her. If could choose one “extra” physical feature, it would be big tits. Not that I’ll get that chance, but again it’s an IDEAL.
@MRAL- For the love of all that is holy, how hard is it to understand that women are people too? People don’t have hive minds. They have varied interests, varied turn-ons, and things that they’re looking for in a relationship (or a zipless fuck. Whichever).
It’s a damn good thing, too, because otherwise a very small segment of the male population would die of sexual exhaustion, and then the human race would die out.
. I already said I’d pick pretty much any non-obese woman. Hell even if I couldn’t fucking stand her.
Rly? o_O why?
are we talking about dating or just a hook up for sex?