why were straight women obsessed with suffering of gay men?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
why were straight women obsessed with suffering of gay men?
why were straight women obsessed with suffering of gay men?
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Why do you disguise your obsession with gay men as an obsession with straight women being obsessed with the suffering of gay men?
It's no disguise. I ama gay man obsessed with gay men. I simply want to know why straight women are obsessed with my suffering.
>suffering
Just stop being a homosexual.
Because you choose men over them.
Women love suffering men, specially homosexual ones, because the aversge man is rude, masculine and potentially violent. By making the xharacter a homosexual, and a suffering one at that, you make the man relatable (he likes men like you, he gets penetrated like you) and makes them vulnerable, something heterosexual men are afraid of being. In a word, because they are what frightened women wish men were like.
Ofc there are more reasons for it and it depends on the person but in general that's what i see. Not all eomen into gay men are there to see them suffer, some just like that there's two men going at it and find that fun
Gay men provide a window to romance that is not affected by misoginy and the patriarchy. Sinceen are equals the oppression is not from one partner to the other (look at 50 shades of grey, the man has full control over her) but instead from the outside world to the relationship (homophobia)
*average *character *women * since men
sorry for toiletposting this.
None of that is real
Why do you say that? Some of it comes from personal experience or secondary sources
Because white women have zero personality and intellect
Do Christians really?
I finished this book a couple weeks ago. It was pretty much dogshit.
I saw another anon summarize the book as "rich asian girl writes book about gays killing themselves", and as acidic a thing that is to say, it's essentially spot on.
The prose is serviceable, with one or two passages that are great, but the vocabulary and phrasing is mostly flat, pockmarked with little choices of words and phrasing that are jarring and damage the writing.
There is no center to the book, no big idea, no deep exploration of themes, certainly nothing resounding to normal lived experience. It's hollow. It's exaggeratedly sad with zero payoff or purpose.
The book is hailed apparently as specifically exploring a few things, namely friendship, trauma, and living with chronic pain.
As for friendship, this book was written by a woman, and it becomes obvious because the portrayal of male friendship is not accurate or insightful at all. At one point, there is a falling out measured in YEARS in the main friend group because one of them made fun of another one in an offensive and hurtful way.
As for trauma... the plot of the story is basically "gay orphan gets raped and beaten, and then gets raped and beaten, and then gets raped and beaten, and then gets...". Certainly there are probably one or two people who are THAT unlucky, but as an exploration of trauma applicable or relatable to the typical reader, it's completely stupid.
Oh, yeah, and despite the insane mental trauma he supposedly endures and relives every day, he magically becomes a super smart mathematician and rich top-level lawyer. His only real dysfunctional behaviors are that he cuts himself and is self-loathing. Despite the fact that he apparently can't stop reliving his memories, he is completely functional for essentially the entire book. Stupid.
As for living with chronic pain... I don't know. It shows up at the start, disappears for most of the book, and then shows up again at the end of the book when she wants him to get amputated to make it extra sad.
It's just not good. The worst aspect of the book is that it goes out of its way to be exaggeratedly sad and horrific with, as I've covered above, essentially zero payoff. At one point, Yanagihara actually invents a fictional genetic disorder for one of the side characters to watch their son die of, presumably so she could make the disorder exaggeratedly gruesome and sad (which it is).
The one thing I can say I liked about her writing is how she is able to seamlessly move in and out of current events and character memories in the narrative, the transition never feels unnatural or jarring. That was good.
Hey you stupid Christian get the frick off of my board.
Not OP but seek Jesus
Muh physical pain instead of psychological pain of the world
you couldve just said you were filtered by the book instead of writing all that
I read the whole thing. Doesn't filtered mean you stop reading it?
What did you like about it? Where did you think I was wrong?
Not that anon, but they'll never reply. The internet is awash with total dribbling fricking idiots who make claims without having read/watched/seen/listened the thing themselves.
I thought you have an interesting review anon, I wondered what the deal was and you've prevented me wasting my money.
The Whale by Brendan just sodomize my fat suit up Fraser Parmesan
Asian women are
Yuck
Why are they like this?
I dont wanna know I just wanna look away but white dudes love these bug people and are intermarrying them
You have to be 18 to post here kiddooooo
women are gay
I still cant believe that a panfaced moonfaced asiatic wrote a gayhag book to critical acclaim. White women are a fricking meme.
Had no idea that this book was about gay people being oppressed by Christians, woman moment
When I was in high school a chick I knew wrote yaoi fanfic about me and another guy who I played basketball with. For straight women fantasizing about gay men is like straight men fantasizing about lesbians.
>is like straight men fantasizing about lesbians
... anon, real lesbians are fricking repulsive lol
Correct, that's why it's fantasizing
yes and
One of the most laughably bad books I’ve ever read. Hanya and Donna are exemplar for this new genre of NYT slop. Men who are victims and emotionally stunted twerps to match their female readership, they craft a modern mythology of total bullshit
Men love victimizing themselves though.
We don’t have a choice, dumbass
>Men
That's a weird way to write "women."
I still can't get over that cover.
He looks like that downy from Workaholics.
Looks like Jim Carrey to me
>why were straight women obsessed with suffering of gay men?
TWO PENISES TOUCHING EACH OTHER
TWO
AND WHICH ONE IS THE GIRL?
DO THE BOYS FEEL SPECIAL LOVE?
>AND WHICH ONE IS THE GIRL?
Oh man does that one get old fast
>t. misogynistic homosexual every gal wanted as a "gay best friend" a decade ago
I kept waiting for a paragraph about how fricked up Jude's anus is from getting raped every five minutes for 30 years that never came
I suppose white women want to be gay men
something to do with Freud?
gay hags love gay men while gay men love straight men. The gay hag has sex with straight men while the gay man has sex with gay men. After they tell each other all bout it. It's a voyeurism/Exhibitionism relationship.
It is autoandrophilia. Anne Rice is the best example of this.
Because they can post a picture of Keith Haring's uncompleted painting or post an infrographic during pride month and replenish their ancestor's sins.
I can understand them getting attracted to two men hooking up, but suffering part is a mystery to me too.
A man suffering and surviving it demonstrates his strength.
Women are attracted to strength in men.
Same reason they get turned off when they see you cry, they don't like weakness.
I assumed this was 'A Child Called It' for people who read The Guardian. Am I wrong?
Lol
Read up on the author, guys a habitual liar. He claimed that the book was nominated for a pulitzer (he sent a form in) and he always brags about how long the book has been in top 100 lists despute manipulaity figure by buying in bulk.
You’re all a bunch of racist neo-nazis
Yaoi genre is a fixation for women because they can project their internal emotions without physically identifying with the gays as a "safe" outlet, so it can't emotionally them them back. What I mean is if a woman writes about getting raped repeatedly and killing herself, and then reads about it with her physical body being identified in the book as such, there's an emotional recourse. The emotional recourse is ofcourse empathy and our conscious modeling center in our brain. The physical body identification is the strongest form of empathy. The closer it is to you, the worse the feedback. Thats why we can empathize with mammals so easily because we're so close physically/genetically/emotionally/etc, while not so much with insects or plants which are far distant.
are you calling gays "insects"?
Thats an insult to insects
Hah yeah. In a sense, that would be correct way to look at it when you compare insect v mammal empathy meter for humans.
Straight mens' stress response to kissing homosexuals is about the same as when seeing maggots so I guess you could say so
This anon has it. The literary torture of gay men has more distance to it than that of women or straight men. They exist to these authors and readers not as people but as sexualities, as personified aspects of love similar to how the heroes of myths seemed to personify bravery and strength; thus their stories are read as tragedies by modern audiences, though in reality it's just senseless violence.
Why gay men instead of gay women? Because, ironically, even effeminate men are supposed to be capable of "handling it."
As an author you can break a male character down bit by bit, breaking his bones and killing his loved ones until he's near Johnny Got His Gun-levels of suffering, and your readers will believe still that he can handle it, because... he's supposed to. Even progressives who tout the abolishment of "toxic masculinity" believe, consciously or subconsciously, that men are by nature supposed to abide by this soldier mentality, where we keep moving forward no matter how much we hurt. The torture of male characters is read with the anticipation that they'll pull through and become stronger.
With women, gay or straight, their torture is read as just that: torture. If you write a woman being raped or amputated or struck with some horrible disease readers will take it as you having a grudge against the whole gender. There's no expectation for a woman to bootstrap herself after being beaten in the street. The episode of The Sopranos where Melfi gets raped is structured in such a way that it's about her *resisting* the urge to cry for help, and her success in that is viewed as a triumph of will. Despite how much girl power society has pushed on us, women are still viewed as victims; men as soldiers.
Women read these stories because they want the edge of spirit-breaking without the relatability of it. They want to sympathize, not empathize. Peter Sotos is the only author I know that writes gay torture as it should be written - with humanity.
Quality post
gay anons are so much more intelligent than breeders
Women are a vector for social contagion. They can be guilted into spreading almost any idea
*sniffs*
I know it’s superficial if me to judge this book by its cover, but the covers of this book are all embarrassing shit. They have completely killed my desire to read this book.