Escaping the 'Gay Culture'

[Ostroeuropa]

We are not the OP.

I responded to the OP. You argued with me.

Because people are arguing against the OP badly.
You've now improved, to be fair.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

I think I'm tired. But you didn't help, clearly trying to confuse me.

I don't think you needed much help. Disliking specific personality traits is not sexism racism or any ism.

Cacete, meu filho.

The thread is about how one hates effeminate gays.

A random person starts to criticize something clearly in context because said person don't know how to read between the lines.

I imagine the person is an intelligent, perceptive creature and not just some pedantic freak that wants us all to obey to every minor ideological/philosophical perfection in each sentence.

Shit starts. Don't blame the guy who is sleepy and would just defend the obvious.

[Des-Bal]

Calling someone submissive or vain in a negative way is not misogynist. Calling someone "girly", which is pretty much what the OP is doing, is. Seriously, how the fuck is a guy being interested in fashion or hair, or using the word "fabulous", "bad" in any sense but a misogynist one?

That sounds off but it does make a little sense. If however you just dislike people who pay attention to their fashion and hair independently of gender calling that sexism is asinine.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't think you needed much help. Disliking specific personality traits is not sexism racism or any ism.

Cacete, meu filho.

The thread is about how one hates effeminate gays.

A random person starts to criticize something clearly in context because said person don't know how to read between the lines.

I imagine the person is an intelligent, perceptive creature and not just some pedantic freak that wants us all to obey to every minor ideological/philosophical perfection in each sentence.

Shit starts. Don't blame the guy who is sleepy and would just defend the obvious.

Being precise is important.
I don't get why people don't think the difference between:

"Hating those traits makes you a bad person"
and
"Hating those traits because they are present in males makes you a bad person"
isn't an incredibly important difference.


You were arguing in a manner that implied the former. If anything, I could accuse you of trying to confuse us by being so unclear.

[Jello Biafra]

Most likely you dislike onions because you find that they taste and smell unpleasant to you.

I don't like the taste of onions because I don't like the taste of onions.

It doesn't go deeper than that.

Perhaps not, but I'm trying to figure out which unpleasant sensory stimulus that someone being flamboyant creates.
And better yet, can you give an example of flamboyance (commonly found) in heterosexuals that you dislike?

[The Blaatschapen]

Most likely you dislike onions because you find that they taste and smell unpleasant to you.

I don't like the taste of onions because I don't like the taste of onions.

It doesn't go deeper than that.

On that note, I like women because I like the taste of women.

It does go a little bit deeper than that. Some inches.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

DEAR, WHAT IS THIS WHOLE THREAD ABOUT?

You were confusing me for trying to argue over minor non-issues that no one gives a fuck about.

Ah, you're just like my stepmother.

The thread is about gay culture, and the gay stereotype.
Saying "I do not like the traits that the gay stereotype holds." and then you saying "You dislike people who hold these traits because they are men." is a complete non-sequiter.

We already know the stereotype.

Barbies/Ronaldas complaining about Bichinhas.

Everyone in gay culture knows this type of gays, and everyone knows that at their heart their problems are pure sexism.

I said it in the first page. Everyone in the LGBT community in Brazil is already used to it. They are bitching all over the world because they are still bitter over how they need to be accepted by society but those femmy freakos don't want to help.

[Des-Bal]

Cacete, meu filho.

The thread is about how one hates effeminate gays.

A random person starts to criticize something clearly in context because said person don't know how to read between the lines.

I imagine the person is an intelligent, perceptive creature and not just some pedantic freak that wants us all to obey to every minor ideological/philosophical perfection in each sentence.

Shit starts. Don't blame the guy who is sleepy and would just defend the obvious.

You know what I'll blame the guy whose using the fact he's in no condition to discuss an issue to defend his inability to discuss an issue. You've said you were going to leave twice now and that you're too tired about three times. If you need to log off log off.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't like the taste of onions because I don't like the taste of onions.

It doesn't go deeper than that.

Perhaps not, but I'm trying to figure out which unpleasant sensory stimulus that someone being flamboyant creates.

Me and my social group are fairly mellow, easy going individuals.
It's exhausting to have to pay attention to someone who won't stop being flamboyant and over-excited.

The phrase "Ohmygosh!" exlaimed with glee should be used rarely, and only when appropriate, since it will immediately call our attention to you and we'll be all "Whats up?!"
If you then respond with something utterly trivial, you have annoyed us.

It's a minor example, but it's one of my main problems with people who are flamboyant.
They draw too much attention to themselves.

[Verbal Pararhea]

Being precise is important.
I don't get why people don't think the difference between:

"Hating those traits makes you a bad person"
and
"Hating those traits because they are present in males makes you a bad person"
isn't an incredibly important difference.


You were arguing in a manner that implied the former. If anything, I could accuse you of trying to confuse us by being so unclear.

Because most people aren't careful thinkers. They go through life doing as little thinking as possible, they get their personal sense of right and wrong from what others tell them rather than a coherent ethical philosophy, and they don't have any real overarching worldview.

[Verbal Pararhea]

Perhaps not, but I'm trying to figure out which unpleasant sensory stimulus that someone being flamboyant creates.
And better yet, can you give an example of flamboyance (commonly found) in heterosexuals that you dislike?

It reminds me too much of vapid teenage gossip and bullshit.

[Ifreann]

Are we also not amused?

I'm always amused. Or angry.
Or aroused.
Or nonchalant.

Ostro is the Queen. Headcanon.

[Jello Biafra]

Perhaps not, but I'm trying to figure out which unpleasant sensory stimulus that someone being flamboyant creates.

Me and my social group are fairly mellow, easy going individuals.
It's exhausting to have to pay attention to someone who won't stop being flamboyant and over-excited.

The phrase "Ohmygosh!" exlaimed with glee should be used rarely, and only when appropriate, since it will immediately call our attention to you and we'll be all "Whats up?!"
If you then respond with something utterly trivial, you have annoyed us.

It's a minor example, but it's one of my main problems with people who are flamboyant.
They draw too much attention to themselves.

How are they supposed to know what you find to be trivial?

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

You both are not LGBT. That means you're rookies to at what level the author of the topic was speaking.

It is not my fault straight people don't have a clue that sissyphobic gays are sexist-influenced gays because they are not in the community to know. Obviously we would talk about sexism. Obviously in the given context we would be talking about men. Obviously, the word gender role, meaning people forcing you to be macho when you have a penis and flowery when you have vulva, came up.

But you insisted. Don't blame me if I raged.

[Des-Bal]

Perhaps not, but I'm trying to figure out which unpleasant sensory stimulus that someone being flamboyant creates.

I dislike this personality trait because I dislike this personality trait. I dislike flamboyant people because I dislike flamboyant people. Quiet, reserved, understated people, they're just aces in my book.

[The Parkus Empire]

Calling someone submissive or vain in a negative way is not misogynist. Calling someone "girly", which is pretty much what the OP is doing, is. Seriously, how the fuck is a guy being interested in fashion or hair, or using the word "fabulous", "bad" in any sense but a misogynist one?

I would call anyone being interested in fashion or hair a problem.

why

[Ostroeuropa]

You both are not LGBT. That means you're rookies to at what level the author of the topic was speaking.

It is not my fault straight people don't have a clue that sissyphobic gays are sexist-influenced gays because they are not in the community to know. Obviously we would talk about sexism. Obviously in the given context we would be talking about men. Obviously, the word gender role, meaning people forcing you to be macho when you have a penis and flowery when you have vulva, came up.

But you insisted. Don't blame me if I raged.

How do you know I'm not LGBT?
In fact, i'm Bisexual.
I have no idea where the fuck you got this weird idea from that if I disagree with you, I simply can't be an LGBT.
Prejudicial much?

[Des-Bal]

You both are not LGBT. That means you're rookies to at what level the author of the topic was speaking.

It is not my fault straight people don't have a clue that sissyphobic gays are sexist-influenced gays because they are not in the community to know. Obviously we would talk about sexism. Obviously in the given context we would be talking about men. Obviously, the word gender role, meaning people forcing you to be macho when you have a penis and flowery when you have vulva, came up.

But you insisted. Don't blame me if I raged.

Bullshit. I have no other words. Pretending to be speaking from a position of experience to shield your lack of understanding is just childish.

[Carnivorous Flying Lunchboxes]

Indeed. If I wanted to act like I was stereotypically straight, I would have stayed totally in the closet. No. I like the flamboyant nature of gay culture. Its fun and liberating. Don't like it, don't participate. No one will make you.

I mean really. Let's talk about this. What if we switched it around and said that no, effeminate gays are NOT ruining the movement. Cis-gendered, masc gays who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves and want everyone to be like them are the ones holding us back, imo.

Cultural exclusivity is not a way integrate yourself into the larger community its a way to cut yourself off from it. That being said I don't think effeminate men are ruining the movement...and anyway I'm a straight so it's not even my place to comment.

[Jello Biafra]

Perhaps not, but I'm trying to figure out which unpleasant sensory stimulus that someone being flamboyant creates.
And better yet, can you give an example of flamboyance (commonly found) in heterosexuals that you dislike?

It reminds me too much of vapid teenage gossip and bullshit.

Do you typically associate vapid teenage gossip with teenagers of both sexes, or just teenage girls?

[Ostroeuropa]

You both are not LGBT. That means you're rookies to at what level the author of the topic was speaking.

It is not my fault straight people don't have a clue that sissyphobic gays are sexist-influenced gays because they are not in the community to know. Obviously we would talk about sexism. Obviously in the given context we would be talking about men. Obviously, the word gender role, meaning people forcing you to be macho when you have a penis and flowery when you have vulva, came up.

But you insisted. Don't blame me if I raged.

Bullshit. I have no other words. Pretending to be speaking from a position of experience to shield your lack of understanding is just childish.

It also seeks to imply that homosexuals, left to their own devices, would ALL be flamboyant and such.
Fuck that.
That's not how this shit works. In fact, it's a stunningly homophobic stance to take.

[The Parkus Empire]

Calling someone submissive or vain in a negative way is not misogynist. Calling someone "girly", which is pretty much what the OP is doing, is. Seriously, how the fuck is a guy being interested in fashion or hair, or using the word "fabulous", "bad" in any sense but a misogynist one?

That sounds off but it does make a little sense. If however you just dislike people who pay attention to their fashion and hair independently of gender calling that sexism is asinine.

Ever seen someone with hair who doesn't pay attention to it? Especially long hair?

[Verbal Pararhea]

why

Because it's a waste of cognitive and financial resources.

[Jello Biafra]

Perhaps not, but I'm trying to figure out which unpleasant sensory stimulus that someone being flamboyant creates.

I dislike this personality trait because I dislike this personality trait. I dislike flamboyant people because I dislike flamboyant people. Quiet, reserved, understated people, they're just aces in my book.

I'll ask you the same question: Can you give an example of flamboyance (commonly found) in heterosexuals that annoys you?

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

You both are not LGBT. That means you're rookies to at what level the author of the topic was speaking.

It is not my fault straight people don't have a clue that sissyphobic gays are sexist-influenced gays because they are not in the community to know. Obviously we would talk about sexism. Obviously in the given context we would be talking about men. Obviously, the word gender role, meaning people forcing you to be macho when you have a penis and flowery when you have vulva, came up.

But you insisted. Don't blame me if I raged.

How do you know I'm not LGBT?
In fact, i'm Bisexual.
I have no idea where the fuck you got this weird idea from that if I disagree with you, I simply can't be an LGBT.
Prejudicial much?

http://osentendidos.com/2013/03/13/essa ... epresenta/