To me its the same as not being interested in fat men (obese), super duper tall guys, or mamas boys.

I don’t discriminate against heterosexual men and never even suggested that they can’t or don’t confront toxic masculinity. I’ve been fortunate to know many who do. What I very clearly stated is that I’ve found bisexual men more likely to have fully dismantled those constructs, if for no other reason than that those…

If you fly at extremely off-peak hours, you can find an empty seat. On a flight departing JFK at 10pm, I once had the entire row to myself.

Okay, but I ask because I can articulate the reasons for my more recent preference for bisexual men, so it only followed that you may be able to articulate your reasons for your preference against them.

Yes, as much as I adore palace intrigue, I do hope the film highlights Catherine’s substantive accomplishments, of which there were many.

She was perhaps more vivacious than lovely, but still attractive in her youth. But she was said to have pretty hair and a nice smile. She grew fat with age, and toward the end, she took up two seats at the theater. But thanks to her position and renowned generosity, she almost never wanted for hot, twenty-something…

Overthrowing and executing her husband with the aid of her then lover points in that direction, as well.

She was a German princess, originally intended to be a consort to Paul I, not an empress in her own right. She seized the throne from her cruel, dim-witted husband with the help of her lover, Grigory Orlov. She went on to have a long and glorious reign, with the support of Potemkin, as well as a string of many lovers.

Read it first! Athenais de Montespan was something else!

Okay, but out of curiosity, why do you prefer a “wholly heterosexual male?” Do you know? Can you stipulate?

Potemkin used to select a lot of Catherine’s favorites for her (and exercise his veto power with some others.) For her part, she’d often lavish his young lovers with expensive jewelry and bags of cash. They’d act jealous sometimes, but I think that was mostly just foreplay, and they may actually be an excellent…

Ah! I just read all about Catherine and Grigory in “Sex with the Queen” by Eleanor Herman. The two of them were both larger than life, and I can’t wait to yell all my complaints about historical inaccuracies at the screen.

I’ve seen him out and about. He had a nice tan going and looked sexy AF.

We’re not condemning body shaming because it’s not nice and we’re concerned with hurting the flasher’s feelings. We’re condemning the lauding of “baby dick” as a generally ideal insult because body shaming, particularly body shaming that’s rooted in upholding of toxic masculinity, is antithetical to feminist…

The point is to dismantle the patriarchy. You can’t do that by using the master’s tools.

Congrats, then! As another commenter points out, by body shaming flashers, you may be playing exactly into their hands.

I’ve known wonderful men with small penises. They don’t deserve to be shamed just because this guy is a jackass. But that’s what happens when “baby dick” is lauded as a perfect go-to insult. It’s been explained quite well throughout this thread.

You’re right. Calling men “baby dick” will end sexism.

Okay then, so I’ll be the killjoy who points out that this is body shaming and there’s a litany of other wonderful insults that aren’t.

You’re just committed to showing your homophobic, biphobic ass all up and down this thread, aren’t you? Go ahead on and keep your boring sex.