First published in the Boston Globe Magazine, August 5, 2007
"I can't date someone with a different belief system" is what he told me. I expected this answer from the guy I had been casually seeing. From early on, I suspected that our differing political bents - his liberal, mine more conservative - would ultimately cause a split. Once, we had a heated argument when I said offhandedly that people who could not afford to care for children should not have them (not a policy prescription, just a profession of personal ethics). After that, I tried to avoid political discussions altogether. So his answer did not come as much of a surprise when, a few weeks after we broke up, I asked him for his reasons. His beliefs euphemism didn't render the blow any softer: We're both Jewish.
So much for dating a proud, progressive, and ostensibly tolerant liberal. But with him, as with other liberals I know, tolerance does not always extend to appreciating someone else's differing political views. Now living in Cambridge and having grown up in the suburbs of Boston and gone to school at Yale, I've been surrounded by liberals for nearly all of my life. Most would be astonished to hear that they're the most intolerant people I've ever met. After all, I, the supposedly closed-minded conservative, never considered this guy's liberal politics anathema to the point of wanting to call off our relationship. A Mary Matalin-James Carville pairing (she the Republican adviser to Dick Cheney, he the Democratic strategist who helped Bill Clinton get elected) ours would not be.
As a gay recovering leftist - to my eternal shame, I canvassed for Ralph Nader in high school - I have grown accustomed to having difficulties in the dating world. At Yale, most people knew me as "the gay conservative" for a column I wrote in the school paper, and my notoriety - not the source of sexy fascination that I might have hoped it to be - certainly did not help my dating prospects. My reputation preceded me. Once, at a party, a gay freshman who had only been on campus for a few days was introduced to me and said, "Oh, you're that [expletive] conservative." On Facebook.com - where people of my generation self-importantly advertise themselves to the world - I selected "Libertarian" to describe my "political views." I hate using labels and am hardly a doctrinaire free-marketeer, but I generally believe that government makes a mess of things and that society is better off when the state only does what's absolutely necessary.
Most gay people are liberal, and this is somewhat understandable; the left has embraced gay rights as a part of its political agenda, whereas the right, with some important exceptions, has not. But for many gays, liberalism is just as much a visceral, reactionary tendency as it is a positive affirmation of political belief. Many gays I know - especially those from red states - blame conservatism writ large as the villain that repressed them for so many years. Thus, their homosexuality dictates their political views on everything. For these gays, it is just as much a part of the "coming out" process to be a loud liberal as a proud homosexual.
But there's nothing about my homosexuality that dictates a belief about raising the minimum wage, withdrawing immediately from Iraq, and backing teachers' unions: all liberal causes that I strongly oppose. Yet there's a common, unattractive feature that many conservative gay men share: a serious chip on their shoulder. Being part of a community that is so intolerant of their views, gay conservatives can be embittered, patronizing, and castigatory of their gay brothers. It's not a particularly attractive attitude. Perhaps it's for this reason that I have not started cruising Log Cabin Republican meetings for dates.
Luckily, I am now dating someone who, though more liberal than I, appreciates my political independence. Let's just hope it lasts through this long campaign season.
Corvino, John
{ 71 comments }
Heh, I didn’t realize “withdrawing immediately from Iraq” was a liberal cause. It’s not just liberals who see the colossal mess we’ve made there or even that we shouldn’t be there in the first place, y’know.
And who knew ‘don’t have kids if you can’t afford them’ was a conservative position? I just thought it was common sense.
More than any political stance, it’s the “chip on the shoulder” attitude that would drive me away from a potential mate. Who needs that kind of anger in a relationship?
Poor James, he got dumped, so he turned it into a ‘liberals aren’t tolerant’ mini-rant.
Jeez, if being tolerant towards someone means we have to date ‘em, then there are some hot straight boys who better be calling me for a weekend date.
“…gay conservatives can be embittered, patronizing, and castigatory of their gay brothers.”
“Kettle? Hi, it’s Pot here. Just wanted to let you know–you’re black.”
People shouldn’t overeat, have unsafe sex, drive too fast, or play computer games all day. Yet, often they do. And sometimes the repercussions become ours, as when they have children they can’t support materially as they should. A liberal sees the situation as part of our human condition – partial knowledge yielding partial responsibility. If conservatism is synonymous with a basic lack of empathy, then it’s not hard to see why most gays are liberal. We’re not blind to the occasional kindnesses of strangers, nor should we be. In fact, it’s helpful to acknowledge them since the opposite is often too real for comfort.
Givem me a break, walt. There is a class of welfare-dependent women who keep having children because, hey, they got welfare. Folks can take responsibility for themselves; when you excuse their behavior, you’re enabling their dysfunctional — and not helping them at all. It’s the “soft bigotry” of low expectations (and, often, liberal racism).
Cry me a river…
Some of the comments in response prove the writer’s point.
It works both ways. How many dedicated conservatives will date a dedicated liberal? Or a libertarian date a socialist?
How many white LGBT people will date a person of color?
I have met nice and not-so-nice LGBT people of various self-avowed political beliefs.
I had some bad experiences with fellow LGBT students, but thats more likely a product of age and few number of students who are actually out and involved.
Liberals are mean and won’t date right wingers. Why? Because most liberals expect the worst from right wingers, an expectation that the right seems more than happy to meet time and time again.
I am a daring liberal Democrat who has dated more than one gay Republicans. My observations: Their presumed castigation from “main stream gay politics” was enough of a badge of honor that I was left wondering if the castigation was the point in the first place. One man cried explaining that it was harder to be a gay republican than to come out to his family…including his wife. (we broke up..I ended it…dogmatic liberal bastard that I am.)
I am happily espoused to a man of similar ethical and moral convictions, hence our politics align as well. Call it political narcissism, but I love being able to respect his point of view.
So, if the kitchen is too hot, stay in the log cabin.
As much as I love good, blood-boiling political debate, when I’m out on a date I usually like to talk about less contentious topics anyway.
Hyper-political, chip-on-the-shoulder women bore me. There seem to be quite a few of them out there, but fortunately I have also found many eligible ladies who have better things to talk about than politics.
A “match made in Heaven,” it seems to me, best follows a recipe like that.
I hate to be the voice of skepticism, but here goes: Getting dumped for your belief system? I put that in the same category of “It’s me, not you” — a chickens__t way for some people to avoid admitting that they are bored, disappointed, or resentful about the relationship they are leaving. Indeed, I suspect the term “belief system” is uttered by some people who are profoundly troubled by issues and by a far greater number of people who actually believe in very little.
While this thread is growing stale, one other thing deserves mention. It’s the conservative tendency to inauthentic victimization. It’s a bit ironic that the party of white people see themselves as victims of media elites and bureaucrats, all the while having materially better lives than the minorities they demonize. Rush Limbaugh is an obvious purveyor of this bizarre kind of ideation: the self-pitying bully. But the argument that gay liberals are mean to gay conservatives depends on a similarly neurotic tic. “They hate you because…..they’re liberals!” is both meretricious and dishonest. It’s why a definitional requirement of modern “conservatism” virtually requires a psychological explanation.
AS a gay conservative I recently had the displeasure of facing a blatantly intolerant individual who was proud of himself for starting to think that maybe not all conservatives were total abominations. He looked upon me and saw a blight. I looked at him and saw a person. That is what is wrong with the picture. The left is programmed to hate – Hate Bush, Hate the War, this that…How can it not spill over into other areas?
What if the right launched a multi-media campaign to get young people to “Hate Hillary”, as was launched against Bush before the last election? Would that be seen as progressive?
Some of the liberals I know (gay) were been extremely ugly to me when they heard me say I was conservative – to the point of calling me names at dinner parties and elsewhere.
Calling me stupid is my favorite – I have an advanced degree in Quantum Mechanics.
Emotion, verve, and indignation have to be used to unify and animate the left – they can’t stand criticism and seem to be ignorant of the most basic fact-reason relationships. They want to believe what they believe – and nothing or no one is going to rob them of the right to feel superior – and to hurl invective as self-righteously as any bible thumper – it is just that there is apparently no guiding Deity.
Look, the reason liberals tend to be a bit short with you people OUGHT to be fairly obvious. Who are the enemies of gays? Any clues? Please, read the platform of the Republican Party. Better yet, tune into Sean Hannity or Michael Savage. Or read blogs like Little Green Footballs. Gays aren’t blind. We know who hates us. And when we meet gay conservatives, we want to know why they are blind to THAT reality. An ideology that gains power by demonizing gays fully deserves the scrutiny and contempt of gay liberals.
The problem is not gay liberals asking impertinent questions of blindered conservatives. It’s really why any self-respecting citizen would compartmentalize his life in order to overlook such obvious gaps in self-interest. The most common reason given is that their self-interest is economic, and not political or social.
Liberalism is born the moment you notice how your life intersects with others. The innumerable interdependencies of life present an escape from the smugness and small-mindedness of modern conservatism. The moment you start seeing these connections, you cease being parochial.
Of course, conservatives NEVER judge anyone else by their politics. I’m sure North Dallas 30 would love to date liberals, if only they gave him half a chance….
I don’t need to date liberals, Randy; I’m partnered with one. A fine, upstanding, talented, loving, artistic, and wonderful Jewish man from NYC who also happens to be a lifelong Democrat.
Next, Walt:
It’s really why any self-respecting citizen would compartmentalize his life in order to overlook such obvious gaps in self-interest. The most common reason given is that their self-interest is economic, and not political or social.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Walt, gay Democrats and liberals have exactly zero problem with parties and politicians who support the FMA, support state constitutional amendments, pander to people who consider homosexuality a sin, fire gay employees, and proudly proclaim how they hold “the same position” as the Republicans gay liberals and Democrats deem “homophobic” — as long as said people are Democrats.
And these are people who gay organizations like NGLTF and HRC have endorsed as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, who they claim “love gays”, and to whom they’ve poured literally tens of millions of dollars.
From a psychological perspective, I think the reason gay liberals are so intolerant about gay conservatives is the same reason that enablers of alcoholics spend all their time blaming everyone else for making the alcoholic drink.
And finally:
Liberalism is born the moment you notice how your life intersects with others. The innumerable interdependencies of life present an escape from the smugness and small-mindedness of modern conservatism. The moment you start seeing these connections, you cease being parochial.
Which is why liberals are such rotten givers and volunteers.
Brooks shows that those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes. The average donation to educational causes among redistributionists was eight dollars per year, compared with $140 from their ideological opposites, and $96 annually to health care causes from free marketeers versus $11 from egalitarians.
A 2002 poll found that those who thought government “was spending too much money on welfare” were significantly more likely than those who wanted increased spending on welfare to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or give food and/or money to a homeless person.
Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn’t explained by income differential?in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. And while religion is a major factor, the figures don’t just show tithing to churches. Religious donors give significantly more to non-religious causes than do their secular counterparts.
And perhaps most striking and particularly pertinent to gays and gay activists:
The people who give the least are the young, especially young liberals. Brooks writes that “young liberals?perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today?are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood.”
That’s because, Walt, demanding that the government do something is shirking your personal responsibility for doing it yourself — and trying to lessen your own burden by forcing others to pay for it, whether they want to or not.
If John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, George Soros, etc. really wanted to make a dent in health insurance coverage, for instance, they could easily do so; the amount John Edwards charges for a one-hour speech on poverty, just to name one, would provide health insurance for ten to eleven families for a year. Hillary Clinton, if she were to set aside just 2% of her estimated wealth, could kick one million dollars towards families who need health insurance per year — enough to cover two hundred families.
But instead, they try to raise taxes on everyone else, including families that have barely a fraction of their wealth, to pay for it.
Part of the reason is sheer selfishness; they avoid having to spend their own money. But the other reason is sheer greed; if they can collect money from you via taxes, there is nothing stopping them from spending it on whatever they want and whoever they need to spend money on to buy votes. But if you give it to a charity, that money is lost to them; it goes directly to the person who needs help without the intermediate step they can use to exploit it.
It must be sad living on the island of misfit toys.
I think North Dallas Thirty’s version of reality is pretty much Rush 101, but something else does deserve consideration. During the plague years, gay men rallied to one another in a way we had never seen before or since. As Andrew Sullivan eloquently noted, we were a community fully vested in love and mutual concern. But this wasn’t simply a miracle of volunteerism. It was also liberals – and even some conservatives like Orrin Hatch – coming together to weave a safety net for AIDS sufferers. It was acutely unpopular among most conservatives to give gays any assistance. Their viewpoint could be summarized as pretty close to the homocon attitude toward poor black women.
Like it or not, we’re part of a larger community. This is why conservatives spend so much time denying the exigencies of the public square. To understand we are mutually dependent is an admission of complexity. We start to understand that it’s not just what I have but what I owe to the community that sustains me.
Politics is a noble cause because it gives us a chance to strengthen the ties that bind us together. The “I’ve got mine” attitude of gay conservatives may be a useful counterbalance, but given recent gay history, its blindness is astounding and notable.
I was just on a professional blog whose articles were full of great thinking on important topics of grave concern to gays and straights alike of whatever political bent. The contrast was striking. Also, that’s a great response from Walt.
This is why conservatives spend so much time denying the exigencies of the public square.
Actually, based on facts, it seems that conservatives are far better at seeing and acting upon said “exigencies”, both in terms of money AND time.
And as far as the “love and mutual concern” goes, that is rather interesting given the assertions in your same post that all gay people who are not liberal Democrats are racist, selfish, and blind.
ND30, I recommend that you actually read the book “Who Really Cares” and not rely on a book review (!) for you information.
ColoradoPatriot, if you wish to accuse the article’s author and the article itself of lying, provide evidence of it.
And if you aren’t accusing them of lying, then deal with the information presented.
Who said anything about lying (and how do you, one of the biggest hypocrites/liars on all of the internets, get off with the accusatory tone)? I’ve read the book and recommend others to do the same…once you do you might reconsider throwing words like “facts” around in regards to the conclusions the book comes to. Book reviews are not the best places to glean information from.
As suspected, you had no evidence or proof that the article or the article’s author was lying.
Now, again, deal with the information presented, instead of stalling and making accusations that it is false.
I am happily espoused to a man of similar ethical and moral convictions, hence our politics align as well. Call it political narcissism, but I love being able to respect his point of view.
So, in other words, you are incapable of respecting any point of view that differs from your own.
That says a lot right there about liberalism.
ND30: “As suspected, you had no evidence or proof that the article or the article’s author was lying.”
What are you going on about now? Where did I say anything about the book review being untruthful? I have read the book, have you? If you had you wouldn’t be presenting the book review as “fact”.
Where did I say anything about the book review being untruthful?
Ironically, your most recent example is two sentences later.
If you had you wouldn’t be presenting the book review as “fact”.
Like I said, if you wish to accuse the article’s author and the article itself of lying, provide evidence of it.
And if you aren’t accusing them of lying, then deal with the information presented.
I’ll date you Jamie. Just poke me on Facebook.
ND30: “Like I said, if you wish to accuse the article’s author and the article itself of lying, provide evidence of it.”
I’m still confused as to why you think I am accusing anyone of lying. I’ve read the book, have you? READ THE BOOK, NOT A REVIEW OF THE BOOK.
As usual, the liberals here think only liberals, blacks, hispanics, women and arabs are persecuted. Anyone else can never be victimized, and if they are deserves it. That’s what explains the negative reaction to Kirchik’s article.
As for you, ETJB, I’ll answer the questions you posted to all.
“How many dedicated conservatives will date a dedicated liberal?”
—I will. I enjoy arguing. To me it’s all about looks and personality.
“Or a libertarian date a socialist?”
—It could happen, the personal arena is different than the political arena. Otherwise homophobes would never get a haircut.
“How many white LGBT people will date a person of color?”
—Asians are one of my prefered dating groups. They’re great in bed, really open minded, tolerant, and don’t get upset if I say something controversail. Especially foreign born asians which been corrupted by the beauty ideals of the American gay community which brainwashes them to desire only skinny and lean men. I also like some brownish latinos.
“I had some bad experiences with fellow LGBT students, but thats more likely a product of age and few number of students who are actually out and involved.”
—Groupthink is common in college, I was a liberal back then and I got rejected by my gay comrades for “outing” some people in one of my radical leftwing e-mails. I remember what I wrote “we shouldn’t be marching with the crazy christian fundamentalists from the Southern Baptist Student Alliance to protest the Nation of Islam coming to our campus.” Which is why I no longer see gays as comrades. In a way, they did me a favor, if they had embraced me I would have stayed a left-leaning republican hating loony.
Who knew someday I would actually respect the baptists and all those conservatives I hated back then.
Bobby:
Conservative Christians do get haircuts, but has anyone noticed how awful they are? I suspect that they may have attended a special “Christian” hair dressing
school that bans experienced
gay coiffurists from instructing
them, ergo the unaesthetic outcomes…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
Jesus Christ, I’ve never heard a bigger bunch of cry babies in my life. For all the talk I hear from fellow gay conservatives about what pussies Democrats are I have to say, with all honesty, that I’ve never seen bigger cry babies than gay Republicans. All I ever hear is Boo hoo, so and so was mean to me. Boo hoo, so and so won’t play with me. Boo hoo, so and so doesn’t like my opinion and tells me so. Boo hoo, so and so doesn’t want to spend time with someone he has nothing in common with…
Stop acting like we’re any less selective, intolerant or abusive than they are and for god’s sake grow some frickin nads powder puffs!
Why are conservatives against something as common sense and humane as raising the minimum wage? I don’t get it.
Bobby:
“Asians are one of my prefered dating groups. They’re great in bed, really open minded, tolerant, and don’t get upset if I say something controversail. Especially foreign born asians which been corrupted by the beauty ideals of the American gay community which brainwashes them to desire only skinny and lean men. I also like some brownish latinos.”
Yeah, it’s a shame no one desires heftier guys. Maybe if they repositioned themselves as…oh, say, “bears” or something, they might find a niche market.
Got balls?, I agree with you about the tone here, but I don’t think the underlying issue is insignificant. One of the things we value most in America is the assumption that even people with positions that differ radically from ours have taken them based on good faith and reasoning. We’re supposed to like individuality and differences and all that good stuff. When you meet someone who’s willing to dismiss you out of hand as inhumane or selfish or stupid, it’s an affront. Since I’m one of those tiresome people who insist on identifying themselves as libertarian, I suppose I’m kind of hors de combat with regards to the whole conservative-liberal thing. But in my experience, Kirchick basically has it right: left-ish gay people really are more likely to be sententious in the I-don’t-even-want-to-talk-to-you-if-you-voted-for-Bush way, and right-ish gay people are more likely to play up the noble-suffering routine.
Please, give me a break. I know, people on the left can be hypocrites – I was once a canvasser for Green Peace and got paired with a guy who told me that if he ever knocked on the door of a homosexual and ended up talking to him he was afraid he would get AIDS – GreenPeace, mind you. Nevertheless, at the same time (late 1980′s), Republican operatives were funneling the media the slander that gay men ate feces and the media, by the way, didn’t balk. So which is worse – the liberal who fails to live up to his professed ideals of tolerance or the conservative who knowingly spreads hateful lies? It seems to me that gay conservatives often flee the imperfect liberal for the re-assuringly consistent and vicious conservative. Or is it a longing to be accepted by those who despise you?
The problem isn’t that most gays are liberals. It’s that most gays are Democrats. I’m a Libertarian who is seven years into a relationship with a dyed-in-the-wool socialist Green Party member, and we’re very happy (we got married at Cambridge City Hall back in March). The one thing we agree on politically is that neither Democrats nor Republicans can be trusted to treat gay people fairly. And the fact that we agree on that point drives his Harvard Democrat buddies out of their minds.
It works both ways. How many dedicated conservatives will date a dedicated liberal? Or a libertarian date a socialist?
Most libertarians date non-libertarians, since we’re only about 19% of the US population.
I tend to agree with the article premise that liberals aren’t very tolerant dating-mates (I’ve had several end a date early after finding out I wasn’t planning on voting Democratic in a current election).
However, conservatives can be just as bad. I had a dreadful date with a neocon who kept talking about the Iraq war and wouldn’t let me agree to disagree with that policy disaster — demanding that I “either support the President” or he “wasn’t interested.” Of course, my interest ended far before his!
Political orientation is something everyone has, and it’s a personal preference. True tolerance is accepting another person as he or she is — and appreciating him/her for that, rather than trying to change him/her.
Anyone who would refuse to date someone due to differences in political beliefs is as shallow as someone who wouldn’t date someone due to his accent, skin color, age, hair color, etc. It’s ultimately a superficial requirement from people who aren’t secure enough in themselves to believe in what they believe without external validation from a partner.
Libertarians are individualists. We recognize that people have differing beliefs from our own, and that’s their right, as individuals. If they want to be socialists, or leftists, or rightists, or conservatives, or neocons, that’s their own choice — after all, as individuals, they have a right to be wrong!
JamesK, gotta be honest with you: a strange article. Here’s what I found strange. You spend most of it decrying the way liberals stereotype and castigate of gay conservatives, rightly so. Then you wrap up by….stereotyping and castigating gay conservatives. Whoa, where’d that come from?
I shall quote, “there?s a[n] unattractive feature that many conservative gay men share….gay conservatives can be embittered, patronizing, and castigatory….Perhaps it?s for this reason that I have not started cruising Log Cabin Republican meetings for dates.” Way to hold a sweeping, castigating, and probably wrong stereotype of Log Cabin Republicans.
You do include a couple softeners….it’s “many” gay conservatives (not all), they “can be” that way (not are), and so on. But come on. We readers see the tendency, or where you ended up.
For Rhywun at the top of the thread – Yes, you should consider “withdrawing immediately from Iraq” very much a liberal idea. Let’s put it this way: If it’s a good idea and it comes true, you can take credit (if you’re liberal). Back in the real world, though, it’s not just conservatives who see what an unbelievable tragedy it would cause – basically surrendering America’s position in the Middle East to al Qaeda, and probably leading to civil war / killing in Iraq that makes today’s look like nothing in comparison.
TJR “Why are conservatives against something as common sense and humane as raising the minimum wage? I don’t get it.”
As a libertarian, I can’t tell you about conservatives. Here’s the most common libertarian view, though. Raising the minimum wage isn’t humane. It’s proven that the higher you raise it, the more jobs are destroyed. Why are liberals against something as common sense and humane as unskilled and/or young people having jobs? I don’t get it.
Brian Miller – can you please listen to yourself? People to your left are intolerant. People to your right are intolerant. Who’s the tolerant one? You! You’re a super-tolerant libertarian, you’ll have us know. So tolerant, that that dude to your right (on your date) deserves to be called “dreadful”, a “neocon” (name-slinging, anyone?) and by the way, -you- gave up on him first-, you’ll have us know, -before- he considered giving up on you.
Nice visiting here folks, bye and good luck!
People to your left are intolerant. People to your right are intolerant. Who’s the tolerant one? You! You’re a super-tolerant libertarian, you’ll have us know.
Pretty much.
I’ve never met a libertarian who insists that his date change his/her political orientation to Libertarian (or libertarian) — or who demands a date just like himself.
I meet conservatives and liberals, every day, who demand that their dates do just that.
by the way, -you- gave up on him first-, you’ll have us know, -before- he considered giving up on you
Not really. He told me that unless I changed who I was, he wouldn’t date me. And whenever anyone demands I change who I am “for them,” I hit the road — early on.
It’s not only about politics.
that dude to your right (on your date) deserves to be called “dreadful”, a “neocon” (name-slinging, anyone?)
Neocon is a description, not a “name,” and I called the date “dreadful,” not the person.
For a libertarian, you’re not spending a lot of time getting the facts or context right!
GotBalls offers from the StraightTalkBus ReDeux “For all the talk I hear from fellow gay conservatives about what pussies Democrats are I have to say, with all honesty, that I’ve never seen bigger cry babies than gay Republicans.”
I think you’re in the shallow end of the dating pool, John. The gay conservatives I know aren’t anything like that at all… to a man, they are literate, articulate, commandingly well opinioned, strong in character and self-esteem, great sportsmen and deeply involved in their community –and not just the gay community.
Maybe you’ve gathered a faulty perspective based on all that time you’ve spent in the shallow end of the dating pool. I suggest you drop the wannabe men in Fla who tell you they are gay conservatives, come north to the Midwest and date real guys –guys who are confident, assured, informed by life experience and distainful of whining, self-absorbed wallflowered sissies.
“Yeah, it’s a shame no one desires heftier guys. Maybe if they repositioned themselves as…oh, say, “bears” or something, they might find a niche market.”
—It’s not that easy, bears who are into chasers face overwhelming competition from other bears who like the same thing. So the best thing to do is lose enough weight until you become “average,” after reaching that goal, you can keep losing weight or mantain your weight.
Now that I’ve become average, I find my dating ads getting better results.
I would however like to see a picture of the author of this article. Could he also be getting rejected for his looks?
Shouldn’t we all be getting tired of this bashing that we do of one another? I’m a liberal in a very conservative world, and while I find myself sometimes confused by what I think is “fuzzy” thinking…I try to remain respectful of others’ opinions and views. I read IGF because it helps me understand other perspectives. I think that James’ former date WAS narrow minded, and I thought the article made a lot of sense. (By the way, in the “good old days,” when there were pictures of the contributors, I saw James’ picture, and you don’t need to worry about his not being attractive…he’s a pretty hot, young guy!)
The issues that bind us all together are much stronger, I think, than the issues that divide us. Bickering among ourselves to the point that we will not date someone or will not behave responsibly at a dinner party is just plain silly. I worry, too, about the ease with which we slap each other in public without even knowing who we are talking to! Would you walk up to someone on the street and start berating them for their politics, their sexual orientation, or their views on the state of the world? I think not, unless you’re Bill O’Reilly or Howard Stern. (Both of whom, by the way, I put in the same category: obnoxious and of marginal relevance.) Let’s all take a deep breath, sing a verse of “Cumbayah” and start over. After all, “the only love we take is the love we make…”
“unless you’re Bill O’Reilly or Howard Stern. (Both of whom, by the way, I put in the same category: obnoxious and of marginal relevance.) ”
—Now you understand where all the bickering comes from? Comments like yours and mine create a lot of bickering. I love Bill O’Reilly, I used to like Howard Stern until he became obsessed with lesbians and his penis. Stern is quite arrogant, I saw him interviewed by O’reilly and he makes O’reilly look humble in comparisson.
I think that while you seek unity, the world is built on division. I myself am a huge believer in “divide and conquer.” That’s how most elections are won.
In my line of work I play the same game, if my Sr. Art Director doesn’t agree with my work, I go to my boss. Why should I get screwed by anyone else?
I respect your opinion, but in my life I’ve seen too much bullshit to believe in unity of any kind. Divided we stand, comrades!
One wonders how many of the men who complain that others won’t date them are themselves shallow in some aspect of dating others.
I know lots of people who whine, endlessly, that nobody is interested in them. . . who turn down literally a dozen interested guys every year because they’re two inches too short (heightwise or otherwise), or don’t earn enough money, or don’t live in the right part of town, or are the wrong racial mix, or don’t have the “right” education, or aren’t an A&F model, etc.
Ironically, many of those guys are themselves not too tall, have jobs of marginal utility, live in odd parts of town, and are far from model quality themselves.
The world is a self-defeating place — try not to emulate its worst practices!
Hey James, maybe he just wasn’t that into you. And, by the way, “conservative” men don’t whine to the Boston Globe about not being able to get a date. What’s the matter? Wouldn’t The National Review print it?
“I know lots of people who whine, endlessly, that nobody is interested in them. . . who turn down literally a dozen interested guys”
—What you’re asking them to do is what the people who turn them down don’t do themselves, which is to lower their standards.
Right now I’m dating a colombian, he’s not skinny enough but I’m gonna give him a chance because he has a nice personality. That doesn’t mean I have to settle for him just because no one else answered my ad on craiglist. I’ll give him a chance, but if it doesn’t work out, I just won’t date for a while. No big loss.
As for Abercrombie & Finch, I hate those motherfuckers, they have created a standard of beauty few people can emmulate. They plaster their stupid billboards and ads all over town, telling everyone “you have to look like us or else.”
Then if you watch Nightline yesterday, you’ll see a report about how good looking Vladimir Putin is shirtless and thank God the previous russian president didn’t take his shirt off in public. That’s why this country is going fucking nuts. You can’t even take off your shirt without the media bitching about it.
And I’ve seen this more than once, in travel magazines there’s always some asshole writer that complains about the ugly people he saw at some nudist resort.
And you know what’s the worse? Understanding all that and being just as shallow. Like yesterday I saw a fat black comedian on last comic standing and I changed the channel. That’s the power of the media, my brainwashing is complete.
Comments on this entry are closed.