Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Mine's a toss up between alcxxk and ma0sm.
if I hadn't written it at 3:44.
Just so you all know.
although I'd have to agree that alcxxk is easy on the eye
why do they need a word to distance themselves from queer men? 'Man crush' and 'bromance' are kinda problematic terms, imo.
but just a way of men saying nice things about other men, but this is just how we choose to express ourselves.
We have to have certain language to get round some of the social conditioning that doesn't allow us to compliment other guys.
yeah the whole girlcrush/lady crush thing too proper gets on my nerves
and the spirit animal thing which is just daft to be using such a term
theres some articles on xojane and refinery29 that mention 'girlcrush' or 'womancrush' as being the cis girl equivalent of 'no homo'
It's a bit daft but it's clearly used to express a platonic crush, innit. I mean we can talk about the embarrassment with which it's usually used bc cishet dudes are not good with these sorts of feelings but I don't think it's an innately useless idea.
why not say you want to be their best mate?
far less problematic and queerphobic
that doesn't in any way imply or capture a platonic crush tho
sounds a bit oxymoronic. i think asexual people have their own terms for platonic crushing, i had an asexual mate who used to go on about how sexual people are all at least a bit gay and in denial of it.
have an insight into what sexual people's own preferences were?
into what other sexual people's socalled preferences were?
The experience of sexual desire per se doesnt give you access to that kind of knowledge either.
Claimed as much.
The question wasn't 'how could one person have insight into the preferences of other people?'
It was posed in a way that suggested something specific about asexuality and experiential knowledge.
Who brought the (a)sexuality of the person into the equation.
Lucien didn't suggest that sexual people have insight into what other people's sexual preferences were.
Also that's not a logical fallacy (people still actually using them?)
It's not relevant. Unless you think it adds a specific insight.
asexual people have a purer understanding of platonic relationships. I can kind of see why someone might think that. In as much as they might be able to identify when sexuality is coming into things better than others because it seems alien to them or something. But I definitely don't think it holds any water.
he automatically assumed the opposite to be true when in actual fact it appears he was just questioning the original statement.
but aside from the fact that that's an extremely mundane observation - it's almost *the* cliche "everyone's a little bit gay" response - and then applying that generalisation to everyone….aside from all that, why even mention that it came from an asexual person?
It reeks of - I don't even know how I'd put it? - minority fetishism? I don't see any other reason to mention who said it. As if it ascribes added insight to the comment.
'Everyone's a bit gay'/ 'everyone's a bit bi' thing is counterproductive. Cause, ya know, if that's the case then why are most people still 'straight'? Where are all these queers? It just kinda seems to express complacency and acceptance of the way things are now. Like people can have gay 'tendencies' as long as they don't all become radical queers and become like ACTUALLY GAY.
The point is we live in a heteronormative and homophobic society. all of our institutions, cultural practices, the resources we have readily available for making sense of the world, etc. are constitutive of this. We already know that its very difficult to find ways of interpreting and articulating the range of non-straight 'feelings' that anyone has towards another person.
Basically I'm not really interested in helping cishet people find ways of describing their feelings that reinforce the 'naturalness' of being straight. Not saying its an innately useless idea at all but that it conceals quite a lot about how/why these feelings apparently stop short at 'platonic'.
at the same time I'd be super wary of dismissing someone's own idea of what their feelings were.
At least it's some progress that this is now a thing everyone feels they *can* talk about, even if it's in a slightly tedious jokey way?
whevs I guess, can someone tell EmO off for derailing the thread I have to check some email I suppose
anyone's 'own idea of what their feelings are' any more than pointing out that words like gay and straight also perform a regulatory function would be doing so. Nothing wrong with defining as straight or gay but they are both undeniably categories which help pattern and stabilise the gender binary and other restrictive sexual and gender norms. And constrain the possibilities for dispensing with the whole hetermormative order. or of demonstrating that the 'fact' of our majorative straightness is historically contingent and propped up by homophobia and sexism.
It's like when Diego Tristan came back and was really fat and couldn't run properly. Just sad to see.
it does more good than it does harm, personally. I always feel a little bit more comfortable around a bunch of straight people if they're comfortable enough to discuss men they think are attractive.
or even that its necessarily homophobic. I just think the existence of words like mancrush is quite revealing and worthy of discussion.
As someone says below it may be used to acknowledge some kind of spectrum of male sexuality. But its interesting imo that this can apparently only be done within the confines of heterosexuality to be acceptable and intelligible. For me it's not really embracing sexuality as fluid or a spectrum but telling men that any homosocial feelings they have are OK as long as they don't actually want to fuck other men. So it actually creates a threshold within a spectrum. Or two different spectrums. Not one big spectrum.
Do this on #ManCrushMonday #MCM
Sexual - Everyone else
Platonic - Balonx and Chadders
Sexual - Everyone else
So the rest of you can bollocks
the term "mancrush" was a tacit acceptance of the sliding scale of male sexuality even amongst those who identify as straight
that being said, DiSers don't really do it for me. I like a manly man
One of these days society will catch up with my progressive attitudes and its restrictive definitions and compartmentalism will fall away.
under ma'am crush
under mam crush
you are currently in a queue, in position EIGHT SEVEN EIGHT. Please hold, and one of our advisors will be with your shortly.
did you have a man crush on me before that?
what a horrorshow
Oh good god the comments in this thread!
you're so touchy about this stuff it's hilarious. Even CG isn't this bad.
What about them?
"I like you but the thought of you naked repulses me" "I would fuck you into the dirt"
the nature of that awe is different for each.
Except team Xylo who I pretty much want to be my harem.
*cruelty and inhumanity no issue in this case
can it be a lovely double bed instead
you're your man crush?
then got slightly better
then got really really terrible again
(would totally nosh off Theo)
terrible start:"Who is your DiS man-crush?
in_wainbows 95 replies 03:38, 7 January '15
got worse: "toss up between"
got slightly* better: "alcxxk"
then got really really terrible again :"and ma0sm."
*classic understatement lols
autocorrect suggestions include hetero norm activity, hetero not nativity and hetero nor at it it.
that is all.
between my thumb and forefinger.
But I would NOT look him in the eye
because i thought he might look a bit like olivier martinez for some reason
the man doesn't seem to be able to open his eyes
give it a go at lunchtime.
foppyish, in aeons passim.
who is genuinely offended by the term "man crush"
Happy to clear that up
(thinking any discussion about stuff is people just being "offended").
But I'm not offended
I was just annoyed cause I originally thought it was a campaign to crush all men
no thread's safe from a civic markee'ing.
but you can't even express your biphobia coherently.
weird that you talk about dissers like you aren't one yourself