Ask Your Question today
What "type" of man do you tend to go after?
| Manly, hairy chest, strong jaw bone | 56 | |
| Nerdy, tucked in shirt, glasses, smart | 27 | |
| Boyish, cute, soft features, soft hands, feminine | 82 | |
| Dirty, hard working, with a gut | 27 | |
| Stylish, not really good looking but boy can he dress! | 28 |
a very large wallet with lots of money to wine and dine me then he can fuck me all he wants anytime anywhere
Poll creator, a word of advice: always include an "other" option instead of limiting the choices to just what you could come up with.
You'll get more votes this way, I promise you.
I totally love my effeminate boys! Not that I'm really into the subculture and its complexities, but... that straightened out hair with bangs hanging over the eyes, skinny, tight clothing, EYELINER! Maybe some tattoos, and little studded glovelets :) Oh, and if they're Asian it's like a bonus x10 multiplier!
Cliche? Maybe... but man they're hot! Just google Gackt.
I am white but live in China, and I cannot say I like Asian guys. Okay, I just don't like effeminate guys period. But, if that's what gets you going, more power to you. With the shortage of women here, you should come right on over and get yourself a man!
totally agree, but it's more like tae geun suk from you're beautiful for me. also, asian guys are able to pull off the "pretty boy" part pretty well, as well as emo guys who aren't too suicidal
OH, I see your type now.
Now I understand the familiarity, I feel the same way about girls.
skinny, tight clothing
Oh, and if they're Asian it's like a bonus x10 multiplier!
You know, pretty :)
Okay i'm not a woman right but this picture seems to be fitting the topic http://dailypicksandflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Men-wtf-happened.jpg
Yes. Yes, it does.
Men these days aren't men, they're boys.
Hell, sometimes, they're girls! -noting the uncomfortably feminine boy to the right of the man.
That's absurd! What you're calling a man is a traditional stereotyped version and not all 'men' have to be like that! Besides, girls dig pretty guys, and it doesn't make them less of a man, they're simply themselves and shouldn't be judged for it :)
"they're simply themselves"
Please.
They're not being themselves, they're imitating something on television & in magazines & so on. There's nothing original about it. It came & went in the 70's with people like David Bowie, the 80's with just about every British or German band, the 90's because by that time it was considered retro & now because it's considered to be ESPECIALLY retro.
If these BOYS were truly being themselves, they'd be gay.
As for girl who're into that sort of thing; of course they are, they're girls. When & if they grow up, they'll lose their false sense of attraction to boys & develop a real attraction to men... or women.
Ok, when I said they're being themselves I meant that they're comfortable being that way. Why is that such a problem to you?
Sure men have changed over the decades, they may dress differently and possibly look after themselves better, but that doesn't mean they're any less of a biological man! Could you really be so judgmental as to say that men who wear jewelry are gay and, in the opposite case, women who like playing football are lesbians?
And just because he's a 'pretty' guy doesn't make him any more of a gay guy. There are plenty of gay guys out there who don't dress or look like pretty guys! (My uncle and his partner being two of them) Gay guys have types too you know!
Had you considered the possibility that some men would have always liked to dress like this but couldn't because of the repressive society that they lived in with such firm gender roles?
They're now given something new to explore and it's not so alien nowadays because we've moved on from that old way of thinking! (At least I hope we have..)
Maybe you need to let go of the gender stereotypes. One could suggest that you feel threatened by this new 'kind' of man because it's too different to you and they're taking all the girls... I don't know it's just a suggestion that someone could deduce from your comments :)
Are you kidding?
I don't have a problem with people being comfortable any which way, I fucking PRAISE & CELEBRATE people who don't give a flying fuck & express themselves exactly how they want to (look me up at fetlife if you'd like some proof). What I don't care for is pretentiousness. Granted, there's nothing new under the sun & everything we think is original has at least been thought of before by someone else, but a grand percentage of these doughy douchebags aren't a "new 'kind' of man" who dress a certain way as a means of expressing their true selves through their outfits. A mere handful did do just that at some point & a whole bunch of people thought either it might catch on & become popular or they'd be admired by their bravery in doing it, too, so they did.
I'll give deserved props to someone expressing themselves any day.
I do not have any admiration or respect for people doing something because it's "in".
And don't tell me you don't believe that that's exactly what easily 99% of these people are doing unless your just as full of it as they are.
To those who genuinely do what they feel, I apologize. I was hasty & unpurposefully may have lumped you in with those jackasses. That was certainly unintentional & I'm sorry.
People being themselves; I love you.
People trying to be something you're not; you can suck an exhaust pipe.
People supporting & eating the bs of the previous people mentioned can keep on eating their bs in peace as I've no desire to insult you anymore you're doing to yourselves already.
Why does the dirty hardworking guy have to have a gut? How much of a gut? Can he still see his penis when its flacid? I hope so, otherwise, too much gut. I like me a hard workin man :) I don't mind dirty. We'll get get even dirtier then clean up together
Strong, tall, handsome. Big arms w/ broad shoulders, flat stomach, sexy eyes, big lips, short or long hair. With a nice long, thick, trimmed ....! Lol!
I have a very particular taste in guys looks. I've always liked longish dark hair.
I remember a story like this but for females. Atleast a quarter of the female commenters were complaining that the male OP was just making it seem like they were just things to pick off of a shelf. Now someone has done it for males and not one female is saying the same for males, nor is any male saying it. So it's not ok to treat females this way but it's ok for males to be treated that way?
Also. The comment from SoccerStud88 is this "Confident, with a secure job that can support a family."
That comment has -1 points. How the hell does that have -1 points? So, is a confident guy with a secure job that can support his family not a good thing?
Typical petty females that constantly bitch about when males do this to females but when it's theother way around, those people aren't saying anything.
Typical.
Funny isn't it? And if I sleep with 10 guys this week I'm a slut yet if a man sleeps with 10 girls he's a legend.
Who calls her a slut? I've litrally nevcer met a man that has said that about a woman, I have only seen it on television. The funny thing is that females constantly say this while most males are sitting down thinking "what? I've never said that about a female or heard a male say that" but according to females, it happens.
Secondly. Don't even think you know what males think about other guys that do that. If you actually took time and "talked" to males one on one when he's not with his friends, you'll see that they think it's terrible. But, ofcourse, females have men figured out 100%. it's "males" that don't understand females, according to the female gender.
I've seen endless, countless numbers of men that call women sluts, whores, easy, loose, skanky, etc. etc. etc. for sleeping with multiple men. Women calling other women these things for the same reason are even more numerous and worse. I'd like to live wherever you are that men don't call girls sluts for sleeping around.
That being said, there are plenty of double standards and both men and women are victimized there, so your point does make sense to some extent. Many men can be misogynistic pigs that objectify and verbally abuse women, many women can be catty, deceitful, hypocritical back-stabbers. And the other way around. And there are countless exceptions to these stereotypes.
Let he who is without sin... aw, fuck it. No stones would EVER get thrown that way.
Good god. Of course there's a double standard (there can't not be), but you seem to be stuck on this heroic(?) undertaking, so let me lay down for you why there's a fucking difference between discrimination against the institutionally oppressed and discrimination against the marginalized. It might be difficult for you to see from the tower you sit upon while you shoot arrows at those uppity misandrists, but the entire world is run on a patriarchal sociopolitical hierarchy, and you are not at the bottom. You do not have to suffer an immediate handicap beyond your control when applying for a job, because you're lucky enough to have avoided job stratification, not to mention income disparity. You are not just now emerging from a world that considered you unfit to vote, work, speak, or think. But that's just on a macroscopic level. You don't have to work harder to demonstrate your personal and intellectual worth, and you don't face catcalling, groping, sexual harassment and objectification to even a tiny degree that women do. You do not have to fight dehumanization, because you know you are human, and do not have to prove it. To quote sociologist Michael Flood, "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny."
I know you think you're fighting a noble battle, but you're part of the problem.
I don't need to work harder? Oh, I dissagree. The army, the police force, the fire department, and others in that category. Females don't need to do as much as males on those interviews and fitness training simply because they're females. Even if all the males are better at the "job" some females will get picked instead of them so that the department etc doesn't seem to be "sexist". That's right. If there's a burning building and their is a female firefighter on one end and a child on the other side of the door of a burning building, that child has a higher risk of dying due to the female not having as much physical strength to break down the door. This is all so that the females don't get their feelings hurt. A child is more likely to die all because females don't want their feelings hurt.
So yes, me defending the right that males should be in situations of jobs more than females that could save a childs life is me being "Part of the problem". That isn't me being part of "the" problem, that's me being part of "your" problem. The "female" problem.
Oh, another thing. Females get more praise in sport record that males have beaten. Isn't sports etc (the official type) females "just" beat the records of disabled people while men that aren't disabled are far better at sports. Females get said to "Win the gold for britain" for beating the "female" record, not the all time record. For example, there is a gold medal runner for britain, there are so many more males that can run faster than that female and yet are not recognized, even though they run faster that her.
Females get let off with more than you thing.
I'm part of the problem because I don't think there should be double standards and think we should be equal. That's "me" being part of the problem. According to you anyway.
Part Deux.
Paragraph 1 - "Affirmative action kills children!"
Affirmative action pertains to job-qualified applicants, and if a company or institution is hiring anyone unqualified for ANY reason (regardless of race/gender/background), then that is unacceptable. But god forbid a woman makes a mistake on the job, because clearly that dainty little girl was incapable of doing anything!
Paragraph 2 - "Nonsensical ramblings!"
As if firefighting is the only place discrimination can exist?
http ://www .ipu. org/ wmn-e/classif. htm (remove spaces)- statistics of women in politics
Only two (tiny) nations in the world have a percentage of 50% or more women in their parliaments. The USA sits at 16.8%, the UK at 22%. After all, weak little girls couldn't possibly... hold up a pen? Let's look at income disparity in the jobs they can actually hold, shall we? The current gender exchange rate is 77 female cents to a male dollar! http ://preview .tinyurl. com/ 5pl8or (remove spaces) - more sources of actual information. Don't you just hate those?
Paragraph 3 - "These narcotics are making me woozy!"
This argument is just too absurdly petty to me (and to you, I suspect).
Males get let off with more than you think.
And just to let you know, I'm not female.
I eagerly await your preposterous response.
Ok.
Here's a point. I want your honest opinion here.
If society made it an actual law that you have to have no less that 45% workers on a workforce, would you approve? (I would say yes or no is an acceptable answer).
Now, say if after a year after every workforce has 45% - 50% female workers but society seems to be doing far worse than they originaly were, in politics, saving lives, and loosing wars etc. What would your opinion be then? WOuld you happily admit that females aren't better at the job?
See, I don't think you would. I think that even when it's obvious females are making the workforce take a turn for the worse that you would still support the females getting to have 45% of them working in any workforce. Anyone that would try to make the 45% go down to a lower number would be branded a sexist that encourages descrimination against females. Even though they are just trying to make society run more ssmoothly, they get branded negative things for it. Females and people like you would much rather have females do jobs that males can do better rather than having the better gender for the job.
There are jobs males can do better than females, that's a fact. I haven't heard of a job a female can do better than a male but I'm going to assume there is and say the same on the situation in vice versa.
So, would you still encourage females having to fill up that 45% even if it comes at risk of society?
You watch too much TV. Are you telling me that you have been to thousands of workplaces and females get treated like if they do one thing bad then they do everything bad? Ask any male that and they'll laugh right in your face for saying they do something that they themselves agree is wrong. Would you treat a woman such a way? Or are you some sort of special male that there are very few of?
So, because females aren't very large in the politics area that means that they're being descriminated against? perhaps they weren't as good as the other males in politics? Oh, but that's sexist, even though it's a possibility, right?
So, you change the conversations from jobs that risk their lives to save lives into a conversations about politics? Good one. Because, I mean, they're both completely the same, right?
Once again, you claim that if there is not 50% of females on a job, then there is some descrimination going on. What's to say they're not better than the other females? What if there were fewer females qualified for the jobs than there were males?
What are you talking about males get off with more than I think? I know that, I never denied it. They get let off with alot but that doesn't mean that females don't get let off with things unfairly than a man would.
Yes, I already knew you were male, I knew this a long time ago.
80% of everything you see outside was put there by males, the other 10% is nature and I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that atleast 10% are from females.
Actually, not really. Arguing with ill-informed idiots really tuckers me out, and it's difficult to provide a cohesive argument against something that makes no sense. It's like countering a claim that "pear stems speech electricity quickly toilet and!" How can I debate that?
So I'll argue no further, but feel free to shout by yourself if you'd like.
Of course woman are going to get praise for braking a new record! Even if they aren't as fast as a lot of men, it's not fair to compare them because men are faster runners. Does that make their achievement pointless?
It's physically impossible for the fastest woman to run quicker than the fastest man, doesn't mean that their achievements should be neglected though.
Official sports isn't about "how fast a man" can do it or "How fast a woman" can do it, it's about who can do it the best. If females can't do it as well as males then they haven't broken a record in sports because that record has already been broken, just not by a female.
Black men are usually faster than white men, they still compete against eachother.
It's cause the black folk are constantly running from the fuzz and yelling, "MUTHA F**K THA POLICE!" *sigh* ya gotta love em though, lolololol
TROLOLOLOL ;)
The only reason black men would be faster is because they train more, not because it's in their genes to be faster. The only difference between black men and white men is their skin.
However, women run slower. That's a fact. I don't see how being the fastest woman isn't an achievement just because men can run faster. That fact is completely irrelevant because the athletes should be judged on how well they've reached their potential.
What about blacks? They have had their freedom more recently than females have and yet females complain far more than black people do. Tell me, were females being lynched as much as blacks? Were they treated as badly as blacks? No. So why is it that females seem to think that they're the ones that have been descriminated against the most when they haven't.
Heroic? No. I'm someone that either thinks, the male gender gets treated better for more of the things they have done for society or we all get treated "100%" equally. Funny thing about females today is that they view having all the positive and none of the negative as "100%" equal and fair.
Sexual harrassment? Ok. Perfume in the workplace. Now you're thinking "Perfume in the work place, that's not sexual harrassment". Well, it is. Perfume isn't deodrant, it's a custom to attract males for sexual/flirtious reasons. So, now we have that explained, why should females be allowed to put on perfume when the perfumes reason is to get a specific type of attention? Sexual/flitious attention.
So, how many females do you know that apply perfume before going to work? I'd count just about all of them. Applying perfume attracts that sort of attention. If I was to argue the case at work that I don't want her to wear such a thing because it makes me focus on her, does that mean I would have a just claim? Ofcourse not because a male accusing a female of sexual harrasment just isn't classed as "sexual harrasment".
Females get paid less. What do you think that will start to make? That will start to make females get employed more than males due to them not being paid as much. This will lead to females getting more money than men.
Tell me, what age were you when females weren't allowed to vote? That's what I'm sick of, females trying to get sympathy for things "they" never went through. It's a disgrace to what the females of those times were able to achieve. Making their problems seem to have some sort of life impact on you. Typical.
I read your first paragraph, realized that you were even less informed than I could have ever imagined, and was tempted to call it quits. But I'm up for the task. Not of convincing you of anything - that much is clearly impossible to do on rational grounds. But to best you purely in logic - that is my favorite game. Let's do this like professionals.
Paragraph 1 - "But black people have it worse!"
Anecdotal, irrelevant, and contradictory. Anecdotal insofar as the idea that "blacks" complain less is non-verifiable and completely subjective. Irrelevant in that even if it was true, it wouldn't make a lesser plight any less legitimate. Contradictory in that if we were to assume that it IS true and that it is THUS less legitimate, it should follow that fighting for male empowerment is even LESS legitimate because they've encountered less discrimination than both demographics. It should be noted that black women have historically received the shortest end of the stick.
See: http ://preview .tinyurl. com/ 6wcqmty (remove spaces)
Flutterhigh, don't try to act like a big shot to me. Your whole attitude just screams that you have two seperate personas. One persona has this big intelligent "I'll come at you" attitude while you're online and the other is that you don't at all act this way in reality.
You're saying that blacks don't complain less? I come acroos thousands of people like you a year complaining about how females are badly treated, I only come across a few black people that complain about their problems.
So, if males fight for the bad treatment they get in society by the way you say, then we're morons. If we complain even though we're not descriminated against the most, we're morons.
You don't need to inform me that black females have had it worse, I know.
There is a difference between wanting to look presentable (which is how you should look in the workforce, not sexually attractive customs). So don't try to tie the way your appearance is in the workforce with un-needed perfume. So no, people who "comb their hair" don't deserve that treatment because they are trying to look official, if that makes them look anymore attractive then there's no problem because they are dressing and presenting themselves the way the job "requires" them to look. Perfume isn't required, official apearance is.
Don't even try to say that my opinions are like that of someone that thinks rape is deserved, don't even try. What is it with people like you? If you claim one point of negativity against the female gender then you get people like you jumping at the chance to say "well, if you say that then you support rape". Now, you didn't directly say that but it's what you were implying.
The only part that was stupid and vile was your part in saying such a thing.
Paragraph 3 - "Women invite discrimination!"
Certainly, and if you comb your hair in the morning, it can't possibly be for any other reason than to look desirable to other people, thus you deserve any inappropriate comments or gestures that come your way. Your argument is analogous to those who try to argue that rape is deserved when a women is baring her knees. I know I said I'd keep this professional, but this one was particularly vile and stupid.
Paragraph 4 - "Evil of the past has nothing to do with us!"
CEDAW (an international bill of rights which ensures, among other things, the right for women to vote and hold office) was fully ratified and put into effect by the UN in 1981. Even if that wasn't the case, arguing that wrongdoing of the very recent past should be forgotten is ridiculous - particularly considering I never argued that we should avenge our oppressed grandmothers or anything, I was pointing to a very recent era in our history, the repercussions of which still ring today. Please give me one example of a period in any culture in which men were not allowed to vote or hold office, and I'll give you a thousand.
http ://preview .tinyurl. com/ bre7p (remove spaces)
No, I can't give you any clture in which males aren't allowed to vote. Say, can you give me the name of a culture that has made such a civilization like ours? Can you give me one that was created mostly by females? Darn, poor you for not getting your giths, but fuck the males that pretty much created the society you live in, right? Give me a "thousand" of those.
What the hell is wrong with women today. I mean come on, you want the tight clothes definintley gay guy, or (and i love this part) you want asian dudes! Literally the scientifically proven smallest dicks in the world. Women...why, just why.
My perf boy is my boyfriend.
Manly, smart, cute hard-working stylish stud. <33 True story : )
these choices are so weird...the first one is the only one that sounds attractive to me at all
manly, hairy chest all the way! i love a hairy man! no hair on the back though, that is a little bit much.