Renaudo's User Profile

Join Date: June 2, 2009 1:53 PM

Total Number of Posts (Comments + Entries): 2

City: Ann Arbor

State/Prov: MI

Country: USA

Interests: music (esp. classical), languages, acting, figure skating, dance, anthropology, psychology, history

Favorite TV Shows: House, Gossip Girl, Supernatural

Recent Entries by Renaudo

• Renaudo has posted no entries.

Recent Replies by Renaudo

• On 'What's New in Gay Sex?: "Looking for Masculine"':

  Yes, the clarification makes more sense, haha. Now that I reread what you wrote, it's actually pretty clear. I simply shouldn't read things so late at night.

  As far as the "not into black men" topic, I was aware that you weren't saying that is was racist. I was in fact, agreeing with you. So yes, we were saying the same thing.

• On 'What's New in Gay Sex?: "Looking for Masculine"':

  This is well-expressed, I must say. I think the tone is very much appropriate for an issue (that has many angles). The question of what is meant by "masculine" is an issue. It can't just mean "normal" because there are many types of straight men. I am "physically" attracted to just about any guy, whom I believe is attractive. However, there is a certain perspective that isn't very negative. Everyone associates certain words with certain thoughts that are based on their experiences and observations. "Masculine" for some people could be a way of saying that they are not very attracted to flamboyant guys. For example, I find "some" jocks to be extremely attractive. IF that were the only kind of guy in whom I was interested, how would I describe the such?" Language is limited. Sometimes people just simply cannot think of a better way to describe certain characteristics. Just as a disclaimer, I'm not only interested in "masculine" men, but people who say that they are, may not necessarily mean it in the way that you interpret it. As I said before, language is limited. Suffice to say, "masculine" for you i.e., your associations with the word, may not necessarily be their associations with the word. While I do agree with everything you've written above, I'm just suggesting another angle that doesn't seem to have been considered. Also as far as "not into black men", that also isn't always very negative. Though I'll admit, every time that I see that, I hate that I'm not even given the chance. I'll use the example of Asians. I tend not to be attracted to Asians. Not that I am not open-minded to the idea. If I were to see an Asian to whom I was sexually attracted, then I would go for it. However, it tends to be a trend that I am not. It's not that I'm excluding them, though I think it's accurate to say that in general, I'm not into Asians. Why? Well, despite the thousands I've probably seen in my life, I've only been "sexually" attracted to many 3. It's important to note however, that as stated above, I'm not closed to the idea, just making a comment on a general trend within myself, that I cannot help but to notice. Just tossing this out there. Despite what I've just written, I can say that I would probably not write "not into Asians" on a profile, seeing that I am open to the idea, despite the contrary trend. This is just to say that when people say that they are "not into black men", it may not be that they actually are closed to the idea, despite the fact that their words say otherwise. Sorry, if this isn't quite coherent, hehe. It's late. Just to clarify, this isn't to disagree with you, just to add to what you've said. :D By the way, I also don't fall in the masculine category and I’m excluded by the "not into black men" category. Guess that's a double whammy on me, haha.