actually having read the article and thought about this, it’s a bigger bunch of bollocks than i originally thought.

effectively this is a piece that states the bleeding obvious. male sexuality is something that shouldn’t be automatically rendered negative ? who’d have thought it ?

however, this is obviously something that needs to be done in order for your guardianista to get through his lartay fuelled day knowing that you can actually be a white, heterosexual, middle class, comfortable, male and not automatically be a murderous, pillaging, famine causing donkey raper.

although obviously, crippling amounts of guilt will still have to be borne.

😉

^^ brilliant….

i know someone who fits that picture to a ‘T’.

TM – leave it out with the anti guardian stuff. They’re all far more intelligent than you, so they know not to rise to it 🙂

TM – leave it out with the anti guardian stuff. They’re all far more intelligent than you

don’t say that. it’ll only cause more hand wringing guilt. 😉

Lol, ‘I got completely the wrong end of the stick, but I was still right’ 😆

If you read the society you live in rather than read the tabloids I think you’ll find that males and females get along just fine; the vast majority know the written and unwritten rules of the mating game and find partners to satisfy their needs that they can satisfy at the same time.

Very true (although not stridently convinced on ‘majority’).

Lol, ‘I got completely the wrong end of the stick, but I was still right’

i’ll level with you, i did get it wrong. at first i thought it was agreeing with the contention that

you’ll need to search very, very hard to find any positive appraisal of male heterosexuality

which is of course ridiculous. how can male heterosexuality be inherently negative ?

but, on broadening my horizons (actually reading beyond the first paragraph 😳 ), i discover that the whole piece is telling Mr V Concerned of Islington that he shouldn’t worry because male heterosexuality shouldn’t be seen as inherently negative.

the fact that this needs spelling out to anyone is even more riduclous.

so yeah, you’re right, i’m right, even when i’m wrong. 😀

Nope you still don’t get it TM, try reading it again.

the fact that this needs spelling out to anyone is even more riduclous.

It needs spelling out to some women, that’s for sure.

Nope you still don’t get it TM, try reading it again.

i think i understand it just fine………….

If we can begin to openly and joyously celebrate the positives to male sexuality, it might become easier for men to be happy and confident sexual partners, and in turn become better lovers, and sometimes better people.

does any of that really need saying ? ^^^^^^

thought not, but then again you’d probably need to be free of these hang ups in the first place to ‘get it’.

Do we think Mboy will be in any state to post again in the next few days having spurned two women in the last couple of days?

One of the major problems with discussing anything to with sex is that many men, and some women, are of the opinion that ‘sex’ is something men ‘do’ to women. Others of us feel that sex is like playing a musical instrument. You can get a decent solo tune by yourself, which is nice, but a duet in perfect harmony can be so much better. Taking the analogy even further, a few of us feel that a duet with someone who plays off key is actually rather less fun than playing solo, so we pick our duet partners with some degree of care.

Do we think Mboy will be in any state to post again in the next few days having spurned two women in the last couple of days?

Sorry, just finished unsticking all the keys on my keyboard.

Anyway, you were saying?

😉

Nope you still don’t get it TM, try reading it again.

the fact that this needs spelling out to anyone is even more riduclous.

It needs spelling out to some women, that’s for sure.

does any of that really need saying ? thought not, but then again you’d probably need to be free of these hang ups in the first place to ‘get it’.

Depends on who you think the article is aimed at. If it’s only for the bleeding hearts and artisits, TM might be right…

For those of us who consider it to be an interesting piece for wider society – then there is some thought provoking and topical content, which reflects many peoples’ thinking…

Stepping aside from the “direct” arena of dating / sex, and consider workplace interactions….

…If a female colleague makes big, round, appealing eyes at a male colleague (either because she actually likes him, or wants to use body language to get her own way…), the male is very unlikely to complain, and if he did complain, would be even more unlikely to be taken seriously.

… On the other hand, if he was gazing longingly into a female colleague’s eyes, I’d be pretty sure that sooner or later he’d be branded a creep, be on the receiving end of a complaint – and the complaint would certainly be taken seriously.

To me that is one of the things the article is about – the suppression of normality – for one gender only

i like that explanation rkk01!