As you know, I think guys need to take a chilly pill on being afeared of a gay planet.
A pal of mine, had this to say:
I think you have an inherent flaw in your most recent one about gay dudes. Gay dudes, I assume, are much like straight dudes. Dudes are thinking about sex. A lot. Much more than chicks. So to say gay dudes are much like straight girls is wrong. Even good looking dudes sometimes lower their standards for some dome from a below average chick. Girls don’t do that. Dudes are on the prowl for even bad looking chicks if they think it will be easy. Those are called sluts. Girls dont do that. So basically what I’m saying is that gay dudes are way more on the prowl than straight girls. WAY MORE. Not to say that someone needs to be scared, but come on Pitts, gay dudes is trying to get after it like straight dudes, not chicks.
An interesting take. Many of the gay dudes I know do in fact have exploits of such quantity so as to render my parallel heterosexual travail virginal. Still, the argument doesn’t quite hold up for me insofar as the elements in the equation.
Firstly, the point I was trying to make with the female parallel is that hetero women and gay men both like men. Just because they like them does not preclude them from being able to discriminate between that which they find appealing and that which they wouldn’t fuck with someone else’s penis and vagina, respectively.
In short, A LOT of guys can rest easy knowing that they’re just not coming up on the aesthetic radar of gay men.
Secondly, I would assert that ‘prowling’ cannot be considered actually doing something about that nut you want to bust. Just because a straight dude prowls often doesn’t mean he’s getting the job done. In the case of the very average Joe hetero prowlers who fear they’re terribly irresistible to the gay populace, plenty of night’s out lead to little more than an empty bed and angry mutterings of ‘bitches’ as he fires up the RedTube.
And this little stat makes me feel increasingly confident in that belief.*
More importantly, beign attracted to a person doesn’t intrinsically mean anything more than that. To say it plain, there are all kinds of women I would take to Pumptown, but that is merely a statement of fact and no reason for those women to flee in fear.
*I shouldn’t chortle at that figure, but I’m a small person.
*Polanski dared risk capture for a few reasons, but the oft-overlooked factored seems to be that he is 76 years old. What 76 year old do you know that gives a damn about a whole lot?
*People seem pissed Woody Allen is backing Polanski. Wouldn’t it be more strange if Woody didn’t back him up?
*Hollywood is a secret society. Outsiders think they’re hip to the game, but they’re really, really not.
*Hollywood’s support is deeper than supporting a talented filmmaker, though that is obviously the case on some level.
*Theory: This sort of thing happens with enough frequency that it is somewhere between a non-event and a quietly accepted, par for the course occurence.
*Dude has been a high-profile fugitive for over thirty years, working and everything. People are outraged by what he did, but didn’t seem too interested in expressing that through shunning his work. It was a generally-accepted fact that Polanski was a great filmmaker who couldn’t come to the US because he was a wanted fugitive. Just as people vote with their money, they excused with their acceptance.
*The lesson: Your griminess to talent ratio must be directly proportional.
Don’t blame it on the sunshine,
Don’t blame it on the moonlight,
Don’t blame it on the good times,
Blame it on the boogie
Not to speak ill of the dead, but…why can’t you blame it on the good times, Michael?
I can sort of understand why you wouldn’t want to blame celestial forces for why you can’t get no lovin’. And that’s no lie. I mean, if you’re woman’s acting up, I don’t see anything wrong with looking to the sun or the moon for answers seeing as that’s how so many goofy dames seem to be governed. But I can also appreciate wanting to dig a little deeper, go past the celestial bodies and explore the realm of boogie. If that with a healthy dose of cocaine is keeping her in the club, you have to address that fact.
But if you can blame it on the boogie, can’t you also blame it on the good times? Assuming the boogie precedes or is the proximate cause for the good time, isn’t the good time an accessory after the fact?
So let me get this straight: The options you are offering to a young tenderoni you’re trying to woo are:
1. Going to the tropics to sip fruit-flavored alcoholic beverages.
2. Going to the slums, slums notable for being a locale in which killers get hung.
First of all, what kind of choice is that? Hmmm…Turks and Caicos or Trenchtown? That doesn’t seem like much of a choice to me.
But let’s just say, the young woman in question wouldn’t prefer white sand beaches and the like. Why in the world would you want to be gallavanting about town with a woman who elects to go to a slum where killers get hung?
In the American nomenclature, ‘Black’ and ‘African’ aren’t the same.
But the Ivy League doesn’t know that. Or, at least, they’re acting brand new in that regard.
A recent article in the HUFFINGTON POST outlines the “overrepresentation” of African immigrant students in the Ivy League . In the article, some attributed this disparity between immigrant Africans and West Indians and the Black students whose families had been in the United States for generations to differences in acculturation. It was argued that the immigrants’ commitment to academic excellence was stressed more in the home and the culture overall. On Twitter, some opined that often, these African students are from the more well-heeled classes of their varying nationalities.
My years as a son of Eli cause me to add a wrinkle to the first argument that is often overlooked in the discussion of the Black immigrant and (archetypal) African-American achievement gap.
I call it the Bottom of the Best Barrel theory. Think of each country as a barrel in which people live–some at the top, some at the bottom. The United States is, for the time being, still the best barrel to be in, top to bottom. It’s bottom is better than the bottom of any other barrel. Those who leave other barrels to come into the US’, even if they have to start at the bottom, are, more often than not, improving their situation and that of their families. More importantly, they have the perspective of life in their previous barrel to aid them along the way.
But what if you’re at the bottom of the best barrel? Is there not some disadvantage to having no other barrel to jump to? Is it not reasonably more difficult to appreciate the possibilities within the barrel if you’ve only known its depth?
Is the above meant to explain away the gap? Hardly. Besides, there are far more elements not taken into account regarding the problem’s complexity. Still, the question must be raised: How powerful is perspective with regard to acculturation?
Taylor, Justin, Christina, Jon B, Robin and Joss: Teena Marie accepts ‘thank yous’ via phone, fax, text, email and smoke signal.
Acrylic nails. Monica fades. Vinyl. Fishnets. Choreography in ankle-deep water.
And we can *poom poom* all through the night until the early morn…
Adina…that’s a long time. Especially if the dog in you is keeping time.