That's exactly why people are gay *rolls eyes*. Stay classy.

Because, clearly, not basing your sense of virtue on a woman's whims is the seminal sign of sexual attraction to other men.

~ Kole, whousedahelluvacoolhomoeroticdescriptortoclownsomechuckthatcantconceiveofastraightmanthatdoesntdeifyhumanswithovaries.

See Ashleigh
You are placing anger on me that just plain does not exist... Yes I am blunt, sometimes crass but I do not have the anger you seem to believe I do. We have been through this before on other threads.

For me to get angry it implies an emotional investment. With the exception of a few people here on tribe who I do talk to frequently on the phone and in real life, I have no investment. Anger in such a situation would be wasted energy.

You are correct that i am bad at taking compliments. makes me think someone is trying to pull one over on me. That is my deal and one that I have worked at getting better at. In general though the reason for the giving of compliments has some sort of motive seen or unseen, seldom are they honest. This makes me wary of those who would freely give them

I would like to say i am am sorry i push your buttons, I'm not, it amuses me at times to watch someone spin up or jump at the bait. What can I say I am a bit sadistic.

Anger... nope, only time I have been angry with you was your libelous accusation of misogyny. That is over and done with.

JSin

i've kept out of this thread because personally, i find it disingenuous to say "props to all men for what you do" -- people deserve to be acknowledged for who they are, and for specific things that they have choices about, not the genitalia they were born with. and using michael jackson as an example of manhood was a bit weird, too. men can also be dangerous and hurtful and selfish beyond belief, but all of those are individual cases, not sweeping generalizations.

categorizing things by sex is, in my opinion, sort of lazy. and sexist. and naive. so i didn't add my props. there are men i have great appreciation for, and there are women i have great appreciation for, and not one of them is because of their genitals (ok, well, maybe one or two, but that's not exactly what we're talking about here ;^)

bottom line, i don't buy the old-school OR the new-age sexist baloney. if you want to acknowledge human beings who do great things, that's awesome. but to lump all men or all women together is just lazy.

but now i'm piping up to say that i didn't feel jsin was projecting anger. he was simply saying that he doesn't do what he does in order to impress women. (though jsin, i think that the feel-good payoff of altruistic acts is nothing to run away from, it's pretty much a win-win situation). i wouldn't expect a man to gush with thanks at a compliment like "all men are great" -- there's just not enough substance to that to take personally.

and sean, i guess you're new here -- and i guess you thought that a crack about how jsin must be gay was in some way appropriate or intelligent or insulting. unfortunately, it was none of the above, and the remark just made you look immature. i invite you to seriously consider and understand why it landed as badly as it did.

and ashleigh, do you really "love men" -- you know, actually love, with the real definition of the word? and do you really mean all men? every one of them, just because.... um... they have a penis? or might you have a fantasy of how especially hard it is to be a man so if they can actually pull off a relationship and a job and a family, they should be patted on the head for it? why not acknowledge **people** who do these things, and stop trying to tie it to what someone has in their pants? i'd be down for acknowledging anyone in this challenging life who can keep it all together and bring up healthy and balanced kids. props to all the good parents out there. that i can get behind.

but sweeping generalizations? not so much.

if someone posted a "did i tell you how much i love women" thread here or in the aaswa tribe, with these sweeping generalizations, i'd be equally unimpressed. i have no problem with singling out specific groups of people for their contributions, but when you're talking about half the population, who represent a range of personalities from psychopaths to wimps, from progressive thinkers to traditionalists, from nice guys to assholes... well, i really just don't see the point.