Thursday, September 1, 2011

DELICIOUS AMERICA: Bye Bye Bandwagon of Delusions


Mark Sanchez. New York Jets

by Dick of All Dicks & Poli Tico (formerly Straight Boy Poster)

Sexy Britain, delicious America.
I mentioned in a previous post that the gay issue is almost a dead horse (read the arguments here). The watershed was the discovery in a recent census in Britain that only 1% of the population were left willing to identify themselves as gay, & that came despite decades of massive gay propaganda. It confirmed a fact known for centuries: B-lister gays are hard to sell. I don't think America has a poorer taste than anybody else. This post is just to tie down some loose ends. For the rest of our discussions on the topic, check out this folder.



Nearly half in the US are colored so pay attention. But gays willing to expose themselves could be as few as 1% nowadays as proven in more sexually liberated areas. Here's a fair question: should you allow stabilizing institutions of your society like marriage to be messed around & cheapened just to pander to the 1%? I wrote in the last post that instead of using gay marriage, the term adopted should be "Strong-stomaching", just to underline the fact most men who are into men don't have the strong stomach to actually "wed" another gay man, much less have sex with one. Between me & my straight-boy loving neighbor Greg, we already use the word between us in our coded conversations ("Is it true so-&-so got strong-stomached?"). Tom from Sydney suggested it should be "Strong-stomachaige" to rhyme with "marriage". Yves from Paris called up it should be "Strong-stomakation"- meaning, you make a strong stomach (as in strong statement) to go through with it. Hmm, let's see. So, using our example from last time ( the conjugation of which also applies to "stomachiage") instead of saying John got married to Fred...
Before:
John got "strong-stomached" to Fred because he could stomach having sex with him.
It could also be:
John "strong-stomaked" Fred because he could stomach having sex with him.

Choose whatever you like. Simple options. With that, those who could stomach it could have all the gay civil unions they wanted WITHOUT aggravating anyone without the stomach for it. B-lister gays constitute a very tiny segment of the men who are into men population but it's only their delusions which are being projected as the gay reality. Frankly, so many wishful thinking are coming around it's probably time to prick baloons to give reality a chance to be reality again. I don't consider this blog anti-anybody, it's more a reality checker. It's just that some quarters who are fighting what they call bigotry are practicing bigotry themselves. Talking about Victim-Bigot complexes working at the same time. Remember when an all-male porn star who happened to be gay did a sex scene with a female & incensed so many who wanted him to stick to being gay only? Or those army of propagandists who flooded for years blogs & comment sections online claiming "majority of gays" don't want gay-for-pays when the the fact was sites featuring only gays don't make money while those that claim they have gay-for-pays still lord it over as it has always been? Or just write you love straight men & they will harass you with condemnation letters like what they did to this blog early on? Because they have this idea they suddenly could dictate what men who are into men should desire (or at least, they fantasize they could create a bandwagon so that everybody would share their delusions), that you should fall in line to their taste & it should be like theirs. Lol. To think just thinking having sex with the likes of them always gave me nausea & they have the nerve. It's actually ridiculous it's funny but they actualy made a political movement out of it. That's a sad commentary to the current political system because it couldn't distinguish the appropriate time to laugh or to get serious. Some desperate politicians were obviously scouring the barrel for issues & supporters. But stark reality is catching up. If in Britain, there are only 1% B-listers left, I don't doubt it must be lopsidedly less than that in the US.

Do you really believe Americans have less taste than the British?

The B-listers try to imagine a bandwagon but it's obvious they're not riding in it. The few times I read B-lister gay blogs make me cringe sometimes: majority have sex only with gay men, majority are in favor of gay marriage, majority, majority, etc. So many "majority". Makes you wonder how, despite the intense media promotions in Britain, those who are willing to identify as gay is nearing the disappearing point instead. Were all the people for the last thousand years really so stupid not to realize they're better off choosing who they wanted to prance among them? If most of the men who are into men are repelled even now, how about the overwhelming straight male population? The noise in the media, as shown in Britain, couldn't sell a product that has been a flop for centuries. I was turned off from the very beginning; even when I traipsed the world to suck the most spectacular straight men, I stayed clear. What more about the straight themselves? I live in the most liberal part of California & I circulate among highly-educated straights basically, they know me as straight so we interact as fellow straights, & it's not hard to see good-natured patronizing with those not straight but no bandwagon was ever in sight: they have more important things to do, they're above it all. In this age when there are so many distractions, the media itself is fighting for its place in people's attention, it's simply not the 1990's anymore where it could manage the cultural agenda. It's more like converting the converted. The part of the media that could be infiltrated by gay propaganda could only target a small, & mostly wrong, demographics which would overwrite it fast anyway as they multitask. The British were decades ahead in media gender-bending but they overwrote it fast. Surely you won't expect Americans to let themselves be left behind.

Of course, all of these are moot. The gay polemics have started becoming irrelevant (see here). I am more interested in the bigger canvas where unfortunately even irrelevant things are accorded superfluous mileage. I stayed clear, so far, in treading the landmine of the American cultural divide (which I think will also become irrelevant shortly). The economic crisis which mainly led to the election of a liberal Savior didn't solve anything, it just stoked the uncertainty. In times like this, however, you don't look at the flow of Left or Right rhetorics because spit is cheap. Culture can't fluorish on spit, especially in a supposed to be rich country where people expect more to be comfortable than playing pretend-cool. You look at the movement of money, the favorite whipping-boy of the intellectually pretentious, because that's unfortunately the engine of real cool. As the economy of the West becomes more unpredictable & precarious, like most with something to protect, I tend to be calculating rather than devil-may-care, not content merely to pretend as cool but to make sure I end up still really cool. At least, the losers of the Beats & the Hippies had the fallback of living in a rich country then, how about the one now where the seeming prosperity is largely propped up by over-extended debts which might default anytime? Look outside the West. The perennial problem of poor nations: are there political rights when there are no economic rights? Shades of things when heavy debts, poor growth prospects & deficit spending can't provide anymore the illusion of wealth safeguarding a political system where everybody could just engage in wishful thinking. There is a time you know you can afford to take a risk, there's a time you can't afford to be stupid. No time to pretend to be cool patronizing intellectually dishonest delusions. People will simply say there are more important things.

Reality check: only 1% remains. What bandwagon?