...sure to be a controversial article....

So in Toronto, we have this free magazine called Fab. It's silly/fun/entertaining/often-shallow/image-obsessed....basically, you're average large city's gay oriented free rag that gets published. Well this week they posted this article. KUDOS to them for bringing this out into the light....I'm hearing a lot of talk about it, plus you can see for yourself the online comments going on about it. The Blog section here seems to have a crowd of thoughtful discussions. Was curious as to your take on it.

anyway...here it is: http://www.fabmagazine.com/story/not-just-a-preference


Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • We are not free of any of the power structures in our society. What I like about the article is the importance to be positive about the language that we use to describe those who we think fit our desires. (Another conversation is how those desires where shaped: internalized, interpersonal, institutional and structural 'isms' do shape that...) No fems = Can convey misogyny and buy into 'male/female' constructs. No fats = Can convey buy into ideals of beauty that are not the same for everyone. Clean = Can convey that those who live with disease are discarded. It might be 'soap boxy' but it does bring to fore some constructs that will do us good analyzing.
    LGMBoston 10/16/2011 12:29 PM
  • I read the article and in summary must say, briefly, "what is the point!?"

    This whole article is much ado about nothing. The writer is biased in his premise as he begins writing his article. While the article is written in academic style (the author is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto), the purpose of this article as evidenced by what I perceive to be a false premise permeates all the words he gathered together and put out as some kind of worthy tome for the poor souls looking to get sexually gratified in ways they never imagined before!

    Frankly, I have never heard of "sexual diversity." Diversity is a buzz word in the hallowed halls of academia and in government and it is sold (at great cost I might add) as some kind of panacea to all the problems facing our society in modern times. That premise is absolute bunk!

    The author speaks about "more inclusive" sex. You have got to be kidding! My reaction to such crap is "are you serious!?"

    The author jumps from language in profiles and in the very next paragraph alleges that we need to "correct our bad behaviors." How on earth does what one write in a profile aimed at hooking up arrive at a sanctamonious conclusion that the behavior of a profiler is bad behavior? In this case adding one plus one does NOT equal two!

    I found it offensive to read about the "white boys" when the author referred to them as "the gold standard" when he said "...I don't know why some guys only want to fuck Hitler's Youth. I think it is ugly, and I don't want to reward that. Tell them that because of what they say, they're not getting laid tonight." (quote by Miller) This writer thinks he found a way to improve the world by offending a major portion of the population! Generalizing that all "white boys" are verile and members of the "Super Race" (my own term) is simply irrational.

    I am alarmed for this writer to say "... its within our power to change how we frame our desires, and even to create more inclusive screwing." When did "inclusive screwing" become a gay community value? For the writer to assert that this is desirable is merely to state a personal preference but where he goes wrong is to infer that everyone would, naturally, subscribe to this as a desirable thing for all men seeking a male connection. I think that is absurd in the extreme.

    The fact is that profiles are generally brief. Guys tend to be private and want to reveal more when and only when they feel secure enough with another guy to share additional information. Everything cannot be explained up front and conclusively. One small example is that a guy might declare on his profile that he only practices "safe sex" but when it comes down to it that same guy does not define "safe sex" to include a condom. Words written in brief format simply cannot be used as evidence that men are lacking sensitivity, understanding, or a desire to expand their experiences. Using politically correct concepts such a diversity, inclusivity and such when referring to male sex misses the point entirely.

    While well-written, the article deserves a written response to this PhD who is seeking a degree in history. Get him out of social studies of male sites. He is missing his calling!

    everysooften
    west Michigan
    everysooften 10/14/2011 09:27 PM
  • Just because you have a preference to a particular race, that doesn't make you a racist. Skin, eye, hair color are physical aspects that people like or dislike based on whatever criteria they use to determine if someone is attractive and/or desirable. Personally I've seen guys or every race I think are hot as fuck, but that doesn't mean I would want to fuck them. I go ape shit over red hair, green eyes, and freckles on the shoulders and would choose them over nearly any other guy in the room, that doesn't mean I think Hispanics are shit or I hate my own people. I just like fucking red heads.

    But there are less offensive ways to state your preferences other than saying some shit like "no blacks" or my personal favorite "sugar and spice but no chocolate and rice"....I find that to be demeaning to everyone and a poor excuse for humor. Its much more polite to say something along the lines of " preference for Hispanics" or whichever race you are into. Yes upbringing can influence who some view as attractive. But the way I see it if a guy at this stage of his life can choose for himself what is handsome and he's worried about what his grandma thinks...why would I what to fuck with him in the first place?

    There are sexy men of every race, color, and creed from every corner of the Earth, but if you like dark skinned guys, go after them. If light, go after them. That is not indicative of a racist attitude, it a preference. Its when you feel other races are undesirable for no other reason than their race you have a problem. I mean come one people...Matthew McCaughnehy, Benjamin Bratt, Dwayne (The Rock) Johnson...?? You telling me they're not all hot as fuck!!!???
    coolsteve 10/14/2011 01:17 PM
  • We all have preferences for sexual partners, part of it is a throw back from the stone age when we were looking for the strongest mate to ensure the survival of the species much as all animals use criteria to determine who to mate with.

    That being said, part of the preference is also determined by how you were raised, what values you were taught, what kind of people you interacted with as a child. There are many profiles I pass over simply because there are too many must have's whic comes off to me as negative and I prefer positive people.

    Is part of our preferences determined by racism, pretty sure it is. We all grew up in a racist society. My grandparents who I loved dearly referred to African-Americans as jigabos (sic) and told us not to go on Schuyler Street. Did it affect me, of course it did. My father on the other hand was only 2nd generation Irish and he taught us to treat every as equals. He worked to integrate the plumbing/steam fitting trades however the first time my youngest sister brought home a Hispanic guy he went through the roof. Of course we are affected by what we learn as children, what our genes program us to do. Just because we aren't looking to procreate doesn't mean we don't have the same biological urges to find the strongest mate however subconsciously we are defining that.

    We at least are aware of racism. The next generations are overcoming it. Come back in 100 years and they will be complaining about something else in the fluff gay magazines. There is always room for improvement.
    txholdup 10/14/2011 12:39 PM
  • Very very apposite. The net/ phone app world allows for remarkably bad and ignorant behavior, yet there is little 'come back. This encourages more...
    RufferUK 10/14/2011 09:32 AM