Iconsting said:
Catchphrase said:
Iconsting said:
Catchphrase said:
Iconsting said:
Catchphrase said:
Actual said:
Catchphrase said:
What part of it? Everything?
The part about gay men not being men.
I do not include "metrosexuals" into my definition of "man" so I will not include homosexuals either.
I have nothing against any sexual preference in specific, like I don't have anything against emo or scene kids...
I already agreed that there is are anatomical similarities, obviously... Har har. But beyond that, the
mentality of a gay man is extremely far from what I think is a "man".
Well
that's not a generalization at all.
What?
Why do you care? Should I have written "While I find that some men that I percieve to have non-straight preferences more-or-less also have other values and morals than myself"? Are we really playing so child-friendly?
You find absolutely nothing wrong with the bold text? No stereotyping in the form of flamboyant homosexuals being grouped in with all homosexuals? Are you sure that's not condescending? Not at all?
How is it condescending?
I am talking about behaviour, likes, dislikes, interest...
While I do not have a world of experience, I do have some. There are not many similarities there.
And by grouping all homosexuals together in that category, you have stereotyped anyone who is attracted to males as completely flamboyant, which is ridiculously condescending.
That's true. How am I to dispute that?
What is your point?
It's prejudice. It's everywhere.
Just like you, with me lumping all homosexuals into the same flamboyant category, probably think of me as an ignorant idiot, and may or may not expect me to be racist.
Just like everyone judges everyone all the time.
Are you saying that the general consensus is that gays are
not flamboyant, girly, self-obsessed people? Are you really being serious?