Jake Angeli is hot ngl

[BlackDude]

4 hours ago, Blatinobttm said:

You make a great point! I wonder what kind of reaction would a faceless pic that said “gangsta BBC ex-con thug” would get. The other side of the coin is being exoticized because of your race/ethnicity. 

Excellent point! Although, no one would go online and admit they liked the thug ex-con as openly. 

[GermanFucker]

7 hours ago, BlackDude said:

Excellent point! Although, no one would go online and admit they liked the thug ex-con as openly. 

Disagree.

Exhibit A: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Meeks

Case closed 😁

(But now I fear because he's multi-racial the next discussion would be if Maya Rudolph is black or white... 🤣 )

[Alias]

43 minutes ago, GermanFucker said:

Disagree.

Exhibit A: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Meeks

Case closed 😁

(But now I fear because he's multi-racial the next discussion would be if Maya Rudolph is black or white... 🤣 )

That’s a good example but I think the pervasiveness of the (ridiculous) “BBC/thug top” archetype (at this point it must be a porn archetype) also shows that there are probably millions of horny guys who would embrace any stereotypically “hot” guy regardless of any perceived criminal status. 
 

For me I look at this person (Jake Angelo) and see a walking crazy person that should be avoided at all costs. But hey: in a darkroom or sauna  you never know who you might run into, and you’re not usually talking politics or mental health before you dick each other. 
 

But regarding this point, I had a few conversations and even met in public this one guy  who was a right winger,  when Obama was president. Good looking guy, racist as fuck. When he started ranting about Obama being an uppity you know what I blocked him. Which is to say, plenty of people have hard limits for that nonsense.

[Close2MyBro]

30 minutes ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

But regarding this point, I had a few conversations and even met in public this one guy  who was a right winger,  when Obama was president. Good looking guy, racist as fuck. When he started ranting about Obama being an uppity you know what I blocked him. Which is to say, plenty of people have hard limits for that nonsense.

I miss the days when sex partners didn't have to be passed thru a 'political' filter first. That destroys the spontaneity and anonymity of raw animalistic sex.

[Alias]

4 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

I miss the days when sex partners didn't have to be passed thru a 'political' filter first. That destroys the spontaneity and anonymity of raw animalistic sex.

Well they don’t have to be. In the past I’ve had sex with: Republicans, racists, Islamic fundamentalists, etc. In this particular case I drew a line, but I’d also add: It wasn’t remotely spontaneous. I’ve taken and given cock in plenty of situations where I’m sure that the person’s beliefs would horrify me. 
 

But when I know? Honestly I don’t want to have a meal with people who think that, in that case in particular, black men are inferior.  So why would I fuck them? Or let them fuck me? It’s not a bathhouse or darkroom scenario where some guy blurted out MAGA unexpectedly. 

[GermanFucker]

3 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

But regarding this point, I had a few conversations and even met in public this one guy  who was a right winger,  when Obama was president. Good looking guy, racist as fuck. When he started ranting about Obama being an uppity you know what I blocked him. Which is to say, plenty of people have hard limits for that nonsense.

You can say it: An uppity Irishman. It's all because of his Irish roots. They are known as troublemakers.

Or am I missing something here...🤔

[GermanFucker]

3 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

I miss the days when sex partners didn't have to be passed thru a 'political' filter first. That destroys the spontaneity and anonymity of raw animalistic sex.

I think MichiganBottom has a point: you want to avoid the crazy. And one thing applies to both racial politics and sex: a laid-back live-and-let-live attitude is always better than fear and divisiveness.

[holefucker]

3 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

Well they don’t have to be. In the past I’ve had sex with: Republicans, racists, Islamic fundamentalists, etc. In this particular case I drew a line, but I’d also add: It wasn’t remotely spontaneous. I’ve taken and given cock in plenty of situations where I’m sure that the person’s beliefs would horrify me. 
 

But when I know? Honestly I don’t want to have a meal with people who think that, in that case in particular, black men are inferior.  So why would I fuck them? Or let them fuck me? It’s not a bathhouse or darkroom scenario where some guy blurted out MAGA unexpectedly. 

Did you know he was an Islamic fundamentalist before you had sex with him? 

[Alias]

2 hours ago, holefucker said:

Did you know he was an Islamic fundamentalist before you had sex with him? 

Well, it was obvious once I arrived that he was very, very devout except for the obvious penchant for fucking guys up the ass. He was a nice guy and really, really hot and very muscular.  From Yemen and I think he was just raised ultra religious. 

[raw773]

1 hour ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

Well, it was obvious once I arrived that he was very, very devout except for the obvious penchant for fucking guys up the ass.

This is so awesome ♥

[BlackDude]

10 hours ago, GermanFucker said:

Disagree.

Exhibit A: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Meeks

Case closed 😁

(But now I fear because he's multi-racial the next discussion would be if Maya Rudolph is black or white... 🤣 )

Funny story. But overall, gays aren’t going around in public talking about their fetish for black thugs and convicts. 

[ErosWired]

Several posts in this thread seem to try to make a point that attractiveness simply is what it is, and justify a willingness to engage with the lunatic seditionist because his appearance exists independently from his behavior. I disagree, and I think the evidence lies in the fact that we can be aroused by someone right up to the point that we learn something invalidating about him, and then not be aroused at all, even though his appearance has not changed. Put succinctly, ‘pretty is as pretty does’.

 The guy would have lost me in any case the minute he put on the horns.  `o.O ‘ 

These events have caused me to revisit my commitment to my duty to give my ass to any man who wants it. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic - no aid or comfort to the enemy. That includes sexual service. This man and his cohorts are the definition of ‘enemies domestic’. Yes, in a darkroom or a bathhouse or an anon hotel room they might have me anyway because I won’t know. But if I’m aware, they’re getting nothing.

[GermanFucker]

6 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Several posts in this thread seem to try to make a point that attractiveness simply is what it is, and justify a willingness to engage with the lunatic seditionist because his appearance exists independently from his behavior. I disagree, and I think the evidence lies in the fact that we can be aroused by someone right up to the point that we learn something invalidating about him, and then not be aroused at all, even though his appearance has not changed. Put succinctly, ‘pretty is as pretty does’.

I think that is the basic fallacy of καλοκἀγαθία : One assumes that someone pretty is also a good guy. And one is surpised when he's not. But in this case you know the ugly side of him right from the start. So, IMHO, to answer the question why some still find him attractive AS A WHOLE you have to look at the semiotics and psychology of audience reception theory. What kind of signals is he sending? And what makes one predispositioned to react to them?

E.g.:

Men who are anxious about their masculinity are more likely to support aggressive politics and to have voted for Trump: [think before following links] https://www.psypost.org/2021/01/men-who-are-anxious-about-their-masculinity-are-more-likely-to-support-aggressive-politics-and-to-have-voted-for-trump-59417

Precarious Manhood Predicts Support for Aggressive Policies and Politicians: [think before following links] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167220963577

 

[Close2MyBro]

9 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Several posts in this thread seem to try to make a point that attractiveness simply is what it is, and justify a willingness to engage with the lunatic seditionist because his appearance exists independently from his behavior. I disagree, and I think the evidence lies in the fact that we can be aroused by someone right up to the point that we learn something invalidating about him, and then not be aroused at all, even though his appearance has not changed. Put succinctly, ‘pretty is as pretty does’.

 

I don't think we can reach that conclusion in every instance. I know a lot of guys who would not "invalidate" a guy because of one perceived flaw and choose to still be aroused and have sex with them.

[ErosWired]

6 hours ago, GermanFucker said:

Men who are anxious about their masculinity are more likely to support aggressive politics and to have voted for Trump

Without a doubt. Show me a guy with a dozen guns in his house and I will show you an insecure, frightened man.

4 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

I know a lot of guys who would not "invalidate" a guy because of one perceived flaw and choose to still be aroused and have sex with them.

The “one perceived flaw” we’re talking about here isn’t a receding hairline or even (though this is borderline) owning a Nickelback album. It’s having a Nope-inducing character flaw like racism, bigotry, homophobia, or having performed an act of sedition against the nation. If you know a lot of guys who wouldn’t invalidate a sexual contact on that basis, I’m very sorry to hear it. A lack of a social conscience is also a serious flaw in a man’s character. I might suggest that you avoid those people; a man becomes known by the company he keeps.