Is it wrong that I prefer the company of straight dudes?

this is how things happened from my perspective:

1. i agreed with sth VG posted, more specifically that most of the behavior most female persons exhibit more often than not is that 'craziness, drama and irrationality' (bell curve upper half) and how people interpret said attitude when they come across it. said view is based on my personal observation of real life, and it is an opinion i hold. it's not specifically targeted at any one particular female, which i'm aware may or may not exhibit said negative traits.

2. you --IS-- and QP immediately started yelling fire at the sexism at that point in time.

3. i pointed out i thought that was an over reaction on your part. whether you responded specifically to me or VG or both, that i didn't know, but it wouldn't have changed my opinion anyway, since i think too many people are making too big of a deal out of other people's personal point of views. i.e. people are too damn sensitive these days. so i would have said what i said whether that was directed at me initially or not anyway.

the rest is a mess of an argument that i'm not even sure what it's about anymore. we've all agreed one has a right to voice their opinion whether it's a positive or a negative one, and we've agreed other parties have the right to agree or disagree or criticize, etc. so what in the hell are we still arguing about? 'cause i fail to see it...

 

Whilst VG's post was similar to yours in some respects, his was more positive about females as a whole. Yes, it was a tad over the top in it's generalisation, however, it was tempered with a bit more positivity. But yes, my response was not directed at you only.

"Yelling fire" is a gross over exaggeration. There was no hostility or aggression displayed by me or QP in our posts. I expressed my opinion on what I saw as sexism, and QP agreed with that. What we did was no different to what you were doing, expressing an opinion. It was a measured response to what I saw as sexist comments. There was nothing hysterical, or irrational about my response (or QP's for that matter). And response is the apt word here, rather than the rabid outburst you appear to be claiming it was.

How was it an over reaction? I could maybe understand this attitude if me or QP were ranting and raving about it, when neither of us were doing that. It's quite clear to me that the fact we responded to it at all, even in a measured and non-aggressive way was in your eyes an "over-reaction". As I said earlier, you have criticised others personal points of view before, so making such a big deal about me and QP doing that seems a bit hypocritical. And not only that, unrealistic, when you're posting such views on a popular, public messageboard. Your response to our responses was far more sensitive than either of us had displayed to start with. All I did was air my personal point of view, and you have been far more vociferous in your condemnation of that than I was about your original POV in the first place. So who's response was disproportionate?

We were still arguing because you were trying to insinuate that I was saying that you had no right to air your opinion, or to react to others' opinions, when I had said the opposite to that repeatedly before then in previous posts. What you're saying now, is different to the attack you just launched on me in your last post. The arguement would not have continued had you not (falsely) accused me of saying you had no right to your air your opinion.

I do not want to argue with you. Aside from this one issue, I have basically seen eye to eye with you most of the time. You aired your views, I then aired mine, that I found them to be overtly stereotypical and generalistic, but still do not deny you your right to either hold those views, or to state them openly. So really, where's the problem? There's no reason for this arguement to continue any further.

 

okay, so maybe I made more of that than was there. what I was trying to get at was that people have the right to hold a negative view on someone/thing. it seemed to me you two were saying that was wrong. if you didn't, then I misunderstood you at that point. I didn't claim it was an outburst on your part, I used 'yelling fire' because that's just the way I talk sometimes, I use forceful expressions. some people might and do take it the wrong way.

you mentioned man-hating lesbians and inferred that what was said on this thread was perceived by you as a male equivalent to that. which, yes, I find an over reaction, or maybe a more correct word would be 'exaggeration'. i'm not an academic professor on linguistics, my choice of words may not always be as adequate, sometimes it's a rounding to a meaning.

I don't find that I have been 'vociferous' or more sensitive at all. I tend to use forceful/colorful language, as I already said, and get passionate about arguments, even in the circumstances where the issue isn't personal or that important to me. that's just the way I am. it's something I'm not even consciously aware i'm doing. so it can be that I came on too strong than what was really going on. because on my side I really don't see where you got the impression that I was too 'disproportionate'; on my side this is how I am in any argument, whether important insignificant, personal objective....

I said one could draw such a connection. I said it in conditional. and when you expressed your standpoint being the opposite I understood it and dropped the case, which I hoped my lack of further response on that particularity would give off I got the picture.

i'm just trying to be clear. we start an argument, we finish it. i can't do that if i can't even make sense of half the things that get thrown at me.

 

Dude, you could have avoided all this grief by simply using the word some. The word most makes people think of that FATAL ATTRACTION chick. Make any sense?

Anyway, I'm glad to see we all have somehow found some common ground.

That's always cool (in my book of life). Big time. :sunny:

QP

 

Well, this just seems like a case of misunderstanding and crossed wires. You clearly did misunderstand me. I did state at the earliest opportunity (after you had taken exception to my response) that you were entitled to your views even though I didn't agree with them, hoping to defuse any potential arguements about that, but it didn't work unfortunately. lol It was a forceful expression, and very easy to take the wrong way. It did seem a disproportionate phrase to use in regards to our responses, though if you say you weren't claiming it was an outburst on my part, then I will accept that.

Well, if it was lesbians making exactly those same points, but in reverse: being highly negative about males instead of females, most would put them in the "man-hating" category. And I don't think it is an overreaction to have stated that. Of course, you could say that a lesbian making negative generalisations about men isn't necessarily a man-hater, but it is fair to say that is the conclusion that the vast majority would reach if presented with that scenario. I'm not saying you hate women, but I did find the comments too stereotypical, and over generalising. Although in any case, you were perfectly within your rights to air your personal opinion on the matter. We are both entitled to our opinions.

Well, if you use forceful/colourful language, then it's only to be expected that others may very well take what you're saying to be hostile and antagonizing in nature. And can't really be blamed if that is in fact not the case. Especially on the internet when things are usually taken more literally and at face value, as you don't have things like tone of voice, or facial expressions that can help you make a more measured evaluation of someone's true intentions behind what they're saying. I am not aware that is how you are in any arguement, so I could only go on the way you presented your words at that moment, which you concede was forceful and probably too strong in proportion to what was actually going on. Now I know your true intention though, no harm done.

But how, when I clearly stated several times before then that that was not my stance at all? The only way someone could have drawn such a conclusion is either if they didn't read my previous comments, or they did read them, but paid them no heed. I only further reiterated that, because you asked me why the arguement had continued. When anyone reading the previous exchange would see that I was responding to what clearly appeared to be direct accusations that I insinuated you had no right to air your opinions. It was only after that post was made that you conceded that I did feel that you were perfectly within your rights to air your opinions, even if I didn't agree with them.

So now, I do know that you have got the picture, and hopefully now we can end this disagreement. We may have differing opinions regarding your original statement, but as long as we respect each other's right to air those differing opinions, then that's the main thing.

 

Amen, sister. Amen. :sunny:

QP

 

it's not exactly the first time that what's 'normal' intensity for me, can be 'too much' for others. so, yes, some people think i come on too strong, where the reaction for me is fully within normal intensity. and yes, communicating over the internet makes it even worse with body language making up most of the content of the real meaning behind words. this is also why i don't choose my words that carefully and am not that sensitive about them, because i'm used to looking past the words most of the time at the real person and how they behave when they say what they say.

as far as i'm concerned this mess has been cleared out.

 

IS, As for man hating lesbians its a term used to describe usually butcher gals from one aspect most everyone else sees being confrontational with guys. If they have their girlfriend next to them, then and only then they become overprotective, boystrous, then guys get that even if they sulk.

The parts no one else sees is the dickheads coming up to them when no one else is watching, making dumb comments about threesomes, or sayng bitchy or nasty things. After a whioe of that its not hard for them to work out which guys are going to be like that just by the look on their face as they approach, before they even open their mouth. Then a good defense becomes a good offence and the gap will start off with a 'F off princess' - which again to the casual observer oooks like man hating

Those types of girls usually have gone through their life, mostly male friends, more male friends than most other girls, can easily spot which ones will be dickheads. The only ones that really get into the secret guys clubs. Labelled as a man hater when she spent the previous night sitiing around with half a dozen guys drinking beer watching the footy. Labelled s a man hater, like its her fault 'most' of the male population are those type of dickheads that will come up and whisper something nastu to her girlfriend.


Its not too hard to work out by the way they talk what type guys like our op and meridian are. QP, centered reserved, cultrued a Quentin Crisp type, he,s not going to attract the crazy types. Where meridian is, younger, cool, doesnt have much to do with girls, yhey are going to bark more to get his attention. In itself doesnt mean anything, but day in day out all the time, then over decades, its fucked

All it means in the end if QP is more diplomatic about it, that he doesnt see that, cos they see him as more refined the type of guy, the type of guy to go to art galleries with, sip chardonnay on a boat cruise

My previous post, I wasnt takking about all of them of course. Sexism is discrimination based on gender. I was discriminating based on being vain selfish little princesses. You can hate someone and still respect them, incertainly dont think they are dumber than their male couterparts, if anything the reverse is true

Like Maelstrom said, cant get on with guys, never could. I listed a few catergories of female that I'k fine with. Bitching about females is sexist, bitching about bitches isnt. Not my fault, I will use the word most, are miserable selfish creatures

 

Forgot the last paragraph, so as for the Threads question, yeah its a little weird, i cant really get on with straight guys, but if I feel the need, yhe biggest stumbling block is usually the control freak he's married to

 

There is no wrong or right, It's what makes you happy!

 

LOL. VG, never assume!

Although I thank you big time for the many kind things you said about me (I especially liked the comparison to Quentin Crisp -- I also am a horrible housekeeper, and I can easily write QP in the dust on my desk, etc.).

But some things you took for granted. Big time.

I had my own Fatal Attraction chick experience.

I met a very pretty girl that could not believe a gay dude would NOT want to have sex with her?

Hell, she claimed I was the only dude (gay or straight) to ever resist her charms. And she was a totally sexy woman. Big time.

But as time went on, and she finally realized that I was not about to have sex with her or any other woman -- she became quite hostile.

I later learned that the so-called gay dudes she managed to seduce, were all into drugs and booze big time. While I was fighting to stay sober.

Anyway, she once said a totally revealing thing to me: "If I can turn a gay man straight, then that makes me all the more powerful and attractive. I can get any straight dude I want. But gay men are the real challenge."

I asked her why drugs and alcohol had to be part of her power trip? And she never gave me an answer. But she sure as hell wanted more from me than my appreciation of fine art and even fine wines.

She knew I was totally gay.

Yet she was so sexy and aggressive, that she could NOT accept ANY male (gay or straight) telling her no thanks. This even included married men.

We remained friends for close to a year.

But I remained true to myself. Big time.

In the end, she forced me to keep her at a very safe distance.

It ultimately became a very sad story. I did value her friendship. She could be a very warm and intelligent companion. But I did not want to have sex with her. Period. And she refused to accept that. No matter that I identified myself as a gay dude. That was not enough for her. She was determined to "change" me.

And when I made it clear that was not gonna happen -- she made several quite ugly threats.

And that's when I told her to fuck off. Big time.

QP

P.S. So was my reaction to her threats "diplomatic?"

 

Look, all of that just reaffirms what I was saying. It would be pretty obvious to anyone you are a nicer guy than I am, far less likely to say bitchy things all the time, especially to them

And try what is probably now 10,000 times, It may have only happened a few times, BECAUSE you are a nice guy. Its got nothing to do with it being a 'challenge' its relative to every other male out there. You are nice to them at the start combined with being reserved, which they mistake as being controlled

Yeah, cos they are not friggin gay to begin with. Mostly with guys, but getting sneaky with the odd girl, even if its only when drunk or stoned, still doesnt make you gay. I know that sounds snotty, they may refer to us as gold star gays or whatever, but thats where some of the stupid shit from the girls comes from. The previous 'gay' guy they knew, him and a few of his friends got drunk and they did whatever, so every 'gay' guy she meets after that, she thinks thats what it means

Thats only what she's prepared to say to you. Not even remotely close to the truth, nothing about a challenge. That resentment that builds up from the way some straight guys treated her is pretty fierce, and usually comes first. The catch being you would only find out the truth if you went through with it. Or if not that, its because you are reserved, controlled. They learn pretty quickly and guy that gets too excited when they first meet them ends up translating to no more than 5 mins in the bedroom. Or becuase you are gay thats going to end up involving a couple more guys at the same time - trying to get that from straight guys damn near impossible.

Nothing about a 'challenge' if she's going to get off on you feeling disgusted and abused the next morning, or you'd have to do all the work in the bedroom anyway, or their is 5 of you and you all take turns making sandwiches

Again type. Male and gay, how "gay" you are is really up to teenage girls, they are the ones that get objectified the most, at the same time mostly petrified of getting pregant, guys there age just want to stick it in all the time and nothing else, any older straight guy they are interested in always has a wife that will rip them a new one if they get to close.

In their heads, quiet and reserved, likley they see you as too sophisticated too intelligent to want to hang out with silly litttle girls, which you may laugh at, but that is the Quentin Crisp or Andy Warhol persona. Andy Warhol is another great example cos that control ends up looking more like asexual than homosexual. Whereas ones like Meridian, he's too cool for them, so instantly bitchy and high pitch around him, again whats in their heads, not want he thinks he is. Whereas if you are 7 foot tall and look like the security guys they see outside the gay night clubs they go to, then you become the instant bodyguard or spare dad, which has a tendency to attract the most vain and annoying ones, often their own father is fed up with them


So back to the term man hating lesbians, reverse that into 'Lesbian hating men'. Lipstick lesbians, like its their fault too many guys are going to get excited and act like dicks, then bitchy cos they cant get them. Or butch girls, hanging around the bar having drinks with and being comfortable with men that are actually men, and every other guy barking like a chihauhau trying too hard to be butch because they get intimidated by her, having to slap the odd chihauhau for saying the wrong thing to her girlfriend. Like its their fault thats the way it is.

As for the topic at hand, getting on with straight guys, its a lot easier nowadays, sort of, with the ones my age, thats just about biology in the end, cos they arent all angry hormone ravaged young men

Being more dilpomatic about all of this in the end or not, being a dick about it or not, does it make any difference in the end, or even trying to lable yourself, they are still just going to believe what they want to believe. And a lot of stuff you just dont see unless you are a certain type. No one has a choice, what you really are is up to everyone else

 

You are preaching to the converted here. I am perfectly aware of all that. Now, there are some women who do hate men in a in an extreme, and irrational way, who have no real reason to hold those views. However, those women are very much in a small minority, and certainly, most who are labelled "man hating lesbians" are erroneously labelled that. Many, especially men, will label a woman that simply for being a lesbian.

It is a term that is in the main at least, abused, and is not really an accurate description of most lesbians who many would label that. But when I mentioned that in a previous post, I was merely stating how most people view that, I wasn't refferring to my own personal views regarding that. There's nothing you've said in that post that I wasn't already aware of.

I think if there's one thing the last few posts have shown, it's never be too quick to jump to conclusions about anyone.

 

yes it was. you gave her a chance at friendship, at some form of compromise between the two of you, and that for a year no less, whereas i would have told her to fuck off (in more of less forceful language) from the start. had she persisted after that i would have cut all contact.

there's the difference between being diplomatic and not. even diplomatic personalities draw their limits at some point. i know my limits and i don't compromise. i enforce them.

 

No mistake, there. Dude. I usually give folks a second chance (or three). :sunny:

You don't compromise? Ever? How curious.

Then how have you managed to stay alive? *Bee Gees*

You must know some secret the rest of us are totally ignorant of?

Please share? We're all holding our breath.

QP

 

Wow. LOL. Again, VG, you leave me at a loss for words.

First off, I am far from sophisticated. Dude, read my 3 things thread.

And I can only wish to be like Warhol or Crisp. :2thumbsup:

So I think you might have hugely misinterpreted my online persona?

Or else you are being extremely kind?

Upon which I thank you, Sir:

101 times,

QP

 

I totally agree. There are just as many gay men that make snide remarks whenever a lesbian enters a male gay bar.

All those childish remarks about tuna and such. WTF?

I always liked it when a lesbian came into the bars I used to frequent on a regular basis.

Sadly, they never stayed long. It was more than obvious they were not welcome. Hell, even the bartenders were totally rude to them.

QP

 

IS, you win the HF award for the most generous and intelligent post (so far) on this thread. :2thumbsup:

QP

 

this is precisely how i've stayed alive and am living a life i'm relatively satisfied with. I have a great job, one I would do even if I wasn't paid for it, I have amazing friends I have chosen to let into my life, and my living arrangements and general state of life is one i'm deeply happy about. and this is all because I never once compromised myself. i've walked out on jobs and people/situations that tried to infringe on my freedom, stayed true to myself and found something else that also happened to be better than what I had before.

this, of course, is big things. things that matter to me a great deal. and who I have sex with and people i'm friends with fall under that. of course I am capable of compromising on little things. and in a situation where i'm in a relationship with a guy I really care about, if there was something I needed to give up so that he would be better off, I would do it (because it is him that matters to me and it wouldn't really be a compromise anyway). but your example isn't such a situation at all. your situation is some stranger wanting to convert you to their will/belief essentially, a person you didn't care about beyond possible friendship wanting to force sex on you (for their own self-image no less). that's not worth giving up part of your self-integrity for so that they could get their jollies. and such an attitude alone would repulse me enough not to even bother with their friendship.

this is how I live. I know what I want and I go after it. I never compromise. I lose some battles because it's not possible to have the whole world to myself, but at least I try to have it all and more. and as a consequence I have most of what I want. you aim above the mark to hit it, you know.

 

MW, why do you assume the girl in question (actually, she was 29) was just some stranger I had no empathy or feelings for?

Yes, she was a troubled soul. And I acted accordingly. Being that I am far from perfect myself (who is?), I had hoped we could somehow help each other to improve the quality of our lives.

I'd recently lost a lover. She was trying her best to avoid a totally abusive boyfriend. So we just fell into a natural friendship (she was a waitress at my favorite restaurant).

We began going to AA meetings on a regular basis.

We frequently did the dinner and a movie deal.

We talked on the phone every day.

In short, I started out caring about her big time. I considered her a friend. And I thought the feeling was mutual.

It was only towards the end of the friendship that I finally could see no amount of genuine concern or interest (on my part) might make her accept me just as I am: A gay dude with no desire to have a sexual relationship with her. And that's when I ended the friendship.

And I did so in order NOT to compromise myself.

However, if I had simply avoided her from the start -- I would have felt like a total bastard for being so cold to someone that obviously was reaching out for friendship and support. So I have no regrets. And I don't feel I compromised myself. Ever.

QP