I'm racist!

Anonymous

Ben6899 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Well, guys know how they feel about seeing two guys at it, regardless of what they say on here.
I have just been honest.

How do I feel? Tell me how I feel. Regardless of what I might say on here.

Go on.

I was talking generally.
I obviously don't know what you actually feel, but am damn sure a lot of people don't tell the truth

Ben6899

Carbonator wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Well, guys know how they feel about seeing two guys at it, regardless of what they say on here.
I have just been honest.

How do I feel? Tell me how I feel. Regardless of what I might say on here.

Go on.

I was talking generally.
I obviously don't know what you actually feel, but am damn sure a lot of people don't tell the truth

Okay then. Generalise about me. Go for it.

Anonymous

Ben6899 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Well, guys know how they feel about seeing two guys at it, regardless of what they say on here.
I have just been honest.

How do I feel? Tell me how I feel. Regardless of what I might say on here.

Go on.

I was talking generally.
I obviously don't know what you actually feel, but am damn sure a lot of people don't tell the truth

Okay then. Generalise about me. Go for it.

That makes no sense.
Its not possible to generalize about specifics

DeVlaeminck

meanredspider wrote:

It's a bit of a joke because we tend to be genetically programmed to fancy people like us.

Speak for yourself, middle aged men in lycra do nothing for me love.

Alex99

PBlakeney wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

This is part of a larger ideologically driven agenda which includes any way that you can think of to be a victim and label someone else (usually white men) as the oppressor.

As a white man who has just been labelled, I am not sure if this makes me an oppressor, or a victim. :?

If you subscribe to this world view, then as a white man it is not possible for you to be the victim. It is quite disgusting.

But I have just been labelled. People who subscribe to these views say labelling is wrong so I must be a victim. In their view. It's a confusing world.

It's confusing to you because you're being reasonable. As I said, it's ideological.

If someone says that you're racist because you fancy women dark/light skinned women less/more than the other, then they are redefining the word racism, they most likely have an agenda, and they are being ar$£holes.

I may have been reasonable, but I certainly wasn't being serious.

Yeah, I know you're not taking it too seriously. It's one of those subjects that I'm possibly too serious about. It just seriously frikkin winds me up.

rjsterry

Carbonator wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If two guys start snogging right next to you in a bar and you leave, or you wince at gay (man on man) sex scenes in a movie, then no.

You are a normal heterosexual male and don't worry about it.

Guess I must be abnormal then. I can't for the life of me understand why some people are so squeamish about normal human behaviour. No-one is saying you have to be aroused by it. I mean it's only two people kissing in a bar for crying out loud; it's not as if it's for your benefit. Maybe the sex scene in the film is part of a story rather than just being there as a bit of soft porn.

Part of the story lol, get real.

Talking of getting real in sex scenes, have you ever been to bed with a woman that covers her boobs afterwards/in the morning :roll:

Well, guys know how they feel about seeing two guys at it, regardless of what they say on here.
I have just been honest.

Funny how you abuse my feelings (feelings are something you cannot deny) yet are so 'right on' about a guy feeling he wants to jump another guy.

I did not ask you to 'understand' anything, I just ask you to accept it.
I do not understand how you could want to get it on with another guy, but I accept it.
I think that makes me better than you

I'm not sure I'm abusing your feelings, but sorry if it came over that way. Put it another way: if I met a friend for a drink, and half way through they said they had to leave because two men kissing at the other end of the bar, I would think that was quite an extreme reaction to something that had nothing to do with them. I genuinely don't think most straight people would have that kind of reaction; I think most wouldn't care either way, but that's just my impression. I suppose my point is that there is a pretty wide gulf between not finding something a turn on and not wanting to be in the same room as it. As you say, you can't help who you are attracted to, I'm just curious how one gets from not fancying someone to being repulsed by two other unrelated people being attracted to each other.

cycleclinic

It think the channel 4 programme and the guardian article has some holes but it got you all talking which possibly was the point.

Anonymous

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not sure I'm abusing your feelings, but sorry if it came over that way. Put it another way: if I met a friend for a drink, and half way through they said they had to leave because two men kissing at the other end of the bar, I would think that was quite an extreme reaction to something that had nothing to do with them. I genuinely don't think most straight people would have that kind of reaction; I think most wouldn't care either way, but that's just my impression. I suppose my point is that there is a pretty wide gulf between not finding something a turn on and not wanting to be in the same room as it. As you say, you can't help who you are attracted to, I'm just curious how one gets from not fancying someone to being repulsed by two other unrelated people being attracted to each other.

It was just an example that you have taken too seriously and out of context.

I don't fancy any men (for the context of this thread ) so not fancying a particular man is different from not fancying a particular woman.
Also, I am not repulsed by two people being attracted to each other. I have no problem with that at all.

I do find seeing male gay sex acts a bit repulsive, as I think a lot of guys do if they are honest.

I have no problem at all with seeing female gay sex acts though so figure that more than equit's me on the homophobia accusation

dinyull

Why is it's that those willing to tell the "truth" are usually massive wallopers?

mfin

Carbonator wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not sure I'm abusing your feelings, but sorry if it came over that way. Put it another way: if I met a friend for a drink, and half way through they said they had to leave because two men kissing at the other end of the bar, I would think that was quite an extreme reaction to something that had nothing to do with them. I genuinely don't think most straight people would have that kind of reaction; I think most wouldn't care either way, but that's just my impression. I suppose my point is that there is a pretty wide gulf between not finding something a turn on and not wanting to be in the same room as it. As you say, you can't help who you are attracted to, I'm just curious how one gets from not fancying someone to being repulsed by two other unrelated people being attracted to each other.

It was just an example that you have taken too seriously and out of context.

I don't fancy any men (for the context of this thread ) so not fancying a particular man is different from not fancying a particular woman.
Also, I am not repulsed by two people being attracted to each other. I have no problem with that at all.

I do find seeing male gay sex acts a bit repulsive, as I think a lot of guys do if they are honest.

I have no problem at all with seeing female gay sex acts though so figure that more than equit's me on the homophobia accusation

I would say you are homophobic. Just my opinion and guess. You did imply it is normal for you "If two guys start snogging right next to you in a bar and you leave", that's hardly graphic is it? It's just two people who are being affectionate. Is it predjudice on your part? Not in itself.

BUT, that said, I don't think it is some people's choice to be homophobic any more than it is a gay person's choice to be gay.

You do tend to find homophobia is more common in people who don't meet gay people around them in their everyday life, in the same way that you find racist views and xenophobia are common in areas of the country where the population is almost all white.

cycleclinic

That is a very broad definition of homophobia. I dont feel comfortable seeing some hetro couples kissing. PBA's no matter the gender involved are sometimes not what you want to see.

Half the problems here are labels. in short some people we dont want see kissing or having sex. There are plenty of woman who turn me off. Generally anyone who smokes, does that make me smokist? Some people I dont want to even see or hear from again.

If I say I want to never see or hear from again or I dont fancy in any way even if she was the last woman on the planet Katie Hopkins does that make me a sexist, left leaning, liberal, PC, guardian reading t***. the whole problem with labels is they label. I dont think labels help people change there minds much. They do entrench opinions though.

BelgianBeerGeek

I find public displays of affection disturbing, and possibly wrong. I am British. There, I said it :oops:

haydenm

As a slight tongue-in-cheek aside, if I'm not allowed to decide for myself who I find sexually attractive does this get me off the hook for when girls say 'I want a guy to be taller than me'? The amount of times a girl starts her list on that stupid First Dates programme with 'Oh, I couldn't date a guy who is shorter than me' and everyone seems to think its entirely acceptable? If I started that list with 'She needs a bra size of x or above' I'd imagine I'd get a fair amount of criticism, and rightly so. I wonder how many of those girls actually mean it and how many of them just say it because it's the socially accepted norm...

For the record, my type is anyone who I get on with generally, I could imagine my ideal woman but their ethnicity would be largely interchangeable, short arses tend not to have a big choice

Alex99

HaydenM wrote:

As a slight tongue-in-cheek aside, if I'm not allowed to decide for myself who I find sexually attractive does this get me off the hook for when girls say 'I want a guy to be taller than me'? The amount of times a girl starts her list on that stupid First Dates programme with 'Oh, I couldn't date a guy who is shorter than me' and everyone seems to think its entirely acceptable? If I started that list with 'She needs a bra size of x or above' I'd imagine I'd get a fair amount of criticism, and rightly so. I wonder how many of those girls actually mean it and how many of them just say it because it's the socially accepted norm...

For the record, my type is anyone who I get on with generally, I could imagine my ideal woman but their ethnicity would be largely interchangeable, short arses tend not to have a big choice

From Bottom (I think)
"...I have to be firm on the jugs, and the jugs have to be firm"

veronese68

Dinyull wrote:

Why is it's that those willing to tell the "truth" are usually massive wallopers?

I was just thinking I'm usually quite honest on here. :oops:

fat daddy

Dinyull wrote:

Why is it's that those willing to tell the "truth" are usually massive wallopers?

Normally in internet bickering, the trend is to start to insult those with opposing views ..... I can assume you find those willing to tell the truth are wallopers because you are of the opposing view and like to Lie a lot about your real feelings

mrb123

Good thread this.

I'm still trying to work out if not fancying Caitlyn Jenner makes me trans-phobic.

Ultimately it may be safer not to fancy anyone at all on the basis that if I do fancy someone I may be objectifying him/her/them or potentially discriminating against some other oppressed minority group.

veronese68

fat daddy wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Why is it's that those willing to tell the "truth" are usually massive wallopers?

Normally in internet bickering, the trend is to start to insult those with opposing views ..... I can assume you find those willing to tell the truth are wallopers because you are of the opposing view and like to Lie a lot about your real feelings

I think it's more a case of people justifying views they know are controversial by claiming they are only telling the truth and are just saying that which others are afraid to. When in reality the views expressed can be quite nasty and are not held by the majority of the population. It's almost as bad as "I'm not ???ist but..."

dinyull

Veronese68 wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Why is it's that those willing to tell the "truth" are usually massive wallopers?

Normally in internet bickering, the trend is to start to insult those with opposing views ..... I can assume you find those willing to tell the truth are wallopers because you are of the opposing view and like to Lie a lot about your real feelings

I think it's more a case of people justifying views they know are controversial by claiming they are only telling the truth and are just saying that which others are afraid to. When in reality the views expressed can be quite nasty and are not held by the majority of the population. It's almost as bad as "I'm not ???ist but..."

This

dinyull

fat daddy wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Why is it's that those willing to tell the "truth" are usually massive wallopers?

Normally in internet bickering, the trend is to start to insult those with opposing views ..... I can assume you find those willing to tell the truth are wallopers because you are of the opposing view and like to Lie a lot about your real feelings

The "truth" tellers aren't sharing their own views......rather selling their views as the same as everyone really has but are too afraid to admit.

Pross

I'm not convinced everyone on here acts in real life in the same way they talk on here though. I bet some of those who are always keen to say the 'right' thing on a public forum aren't like that talking to their mates after a few drinks. Likewise, I hope that some of those who come across as cockwombles on here probably aren't like it talking face to face with people.

As for the public affection thing, I hate seeing snogging in public but will quite happily visit a car park to watch people sha..... oops, I forgot you're not supposed to be honest on Internet forums!

Anonymous

mfin wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not sure I'm abusing your feelings, but sorry if it came over that way. Put it another way: if I met a friend for a drink, and half way through they said they had to leave because two men kissing at the other end of the bar, I would think that was quite an extreme reaction to something that had nothing to do with them. I genuinely don't think most straight people would have that kind of reaction; I think most wouldn't care either way, but that's just my impression. I suppose my point is that there is a pretty wide gulf between not finding something a turn on and not wanting to be in the same room as it. As you say, you can't help who you are attracted to, I'm just curious how one gets from not fancying someone to being repulsed by two other unrelated people being attracted to each other.

It was just an example that you have taken too seriously and out of context.

I don't fancy any men (for the context of this thread ) so not fancying a particular man is different from not fancying a particular woman.
Also, I am not repulsed by two people being attracted to each other. I have no problem with that at all.

I do find seeing male gay sex acts a bit repulsive, as I think a lot of guys do if they are honest.

I have no problem at all with seeing female gay sex acts though so figure that more than equit's me on the homophobia accusation

I would say you are homophobic. Just my opinion and guess. You did imply it is normal for you "If two guys start snogging right next to you in a bar and you leave", that's hardly graphic is it? It's just two people who are being affectionate. Is it predjudice on your part? Not in itself.

BUT, that said, I don't think it is some people's choice to be homophobic any more than it is a gay person's choice to be gay.

You do tend to find homophobia is more common in people who don't meet gay people around them in their everyday life, in the same way that you find racist views and xenophobia are common in areas of the country where the population is almost all white.

Homophobia is actions, not feelings in my book.

I cannot help not liking gay sex and 'feeling' uncomfortable if I see it.
I would say its almost natural for a heterosexual to feel that way. Not in a nasty way, just that its the opposite of how mother nature made me.

I know quite a few gay guys and been to a gay wedding.
They always seem very accepting that I might not want to see them at it lol.
Its 'right on' heterosexual guys that seem to have an issue with the concept

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

It's a good thing different people are attracted to different types, were it not for that a lot of us would be lonely.

Or inbred.

I honestly can't see what the fuss is about - Rolf or C4.

I get tired of the holier than thou race to the bottom of the politically correct barrel. It does irritate me that some deranged baroness in the House of Lords (in article and programme) thinks it's OK to label me a racist because I have a specific taste in female beauty. And I dislike being labelled a white racist by someone by whose own standards could be labelled a black racist (the lass presenting the programme). I wonder where this is all leading to.
But mainly it seemed like the basis for a fun thread!

Rolf, just caught up with this thread and I have to say you have gone up a bit in my estimations

If you're at fault for anything in my books, it was thinking that you could make a fun thread on the subject of racism given this is Cake Stop and some of the 'usual suspects' on here...a bit like fun threads on the subject of politics

ballysmate

Speaking of 'usual suspects', I am surprised they are not on here bleating about the injustice of Claudia Winkleman having to get by on £450k a year.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Speaking of 'usual suspects', I am surprised they are not on here bleating about the injustice of Claudia Winkleman having to get by on £450k a year.

Oh go on then.

I do find it weird that nobody in BBC senior management seems to have realised this was going to cause a big hoohaa and p*ss off half their presenters. I mean it's not as though this was a surprise story broken by the DM, or one of the other traditional enemies of the BBC.

Also, clearly R2 is where you want to aim for the big money. Or football, obviously.

ballysmate

For me, the issue is that a body, funded by the public through what amounts to a poll tax is paying such eye watering salaries to its staff.
What is bizarre is having seen the figures that were published, people clamour for the 'poorer' paid staff to have their salaries increased to parity with the higher rewarded. My reaction was that salaries should have been slashed across the board.
AFAIK all the people on the list negotiated their own rewards with the BBC. As much as I dislike Lineker as a presenter, I blame the BBC management, not him, for his salary.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

For me, the issue is that a body, funded by the public through what amounts to a poll tax is paying such eye watering salaries to its staff.
What is bizarre is having seen the figures that were published, people clamour for the 'poorer' paid staff to have their salaries increased to parity with the higher rewarded. My reaction was that salaries should have been slashed across the board.
AFAIK all the people on the list negotiated their own rewards with the BBC. As much as I dislike Lineker as a presenter, I blame the BBC management, not him, for his salary.

There are clearly some agents more pushy than others. There's competition between channels and private production companies to hire the big names so limited supply and high demand means high prices. Everyone except the BBC can spend what they like so unless you want a BBC entirely staffed by the people nobody else wants, the salaries are going to have to keep up. That said, this still doesn't explain the pretty massive differentials between, presenting MOTD and Strictly, let alone between presenters on the same show doing the same job.

joenobody

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

For me, the issue is that a body, funded by the public through what amounts to a poll tax is paying such eye watering salaries to its staff.
What is bizarre is having seen the figures that were published, people clamour for the 'poorer' paid staff to have their salaries increased to parity with the higher rewarded. My reaction was that salaries should have been slashed across the board.
AFAIK all the people on the list negotiated their own rewards with the BBC. As much as I dislike Lineker as a presenter, I blame the BBC management, not him, for his salary.

There are clearly some agents more pushy than others. There's competition between channels and private production companies to hire the big names so limited supply and high demand means high prices. Everyone except the BBC can spend what they like so unless you want a BBC entirely staffed by the people nobody else wants, the salaries are going to have to keep up. That said, this still doesn't explain the pretty massive differentials between, presenting MOTD and Strictly, let alone between presenters on the same show doing the same job.

Would be interesting to see a "per hour" breakdown based on all "on air" time as I understand that, particularly for presenters on the same show, the report didn't really highlight when presenters were presenting on multiple shows.

dinyull

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

For me, the issue is that a body, funded by the public through what amounts to a poll tax is paying such eye watering salaries to its staff.
What is bizarre is having seen the figures that were published, people clamour for the 'poorer' paid staff to have their salaries increased to parity with the higher rewarded. My reaction was that salaries should have been slashed across the board.
AFAIK all the people on the list negotiated their own rewards with the BBC. As much as I dislike Lineker as a presenter, I blame the BBC management, not him, for his salary.

There are clearly some agents more pushy than others. There's competition between channels and private production companies to hire the big names so limited supply and high demand means high prices. Everyone except the BBC can spend what they like so unless you want a BBC entirely staffed by the people nobody else wants, the salaries are going to have to keep up. That said, this still doesn't explain the pretty massive differentials between, presenting MOTD and Strictly, let alone between presenters on the same show doing the same job.

But doesn't that explain exactly why Lineker is paid more then Winkleman.

If he wanted, he'd double his salary at Sky, and I bet he earns more from BT too. He's established himself over the past 20 years as THE presenter of football.

The problem the strictly presenters have is there is no alternative to negotiate against on a different channel.

chris_bass

JoeNobody wrote:

Would be interesting to see a "per hour" breakdown based on all "on air" time as I understand that, particularly for presenters on the same show, the report didn't really highlight when presenters were presenting on multiple shows.

yeah, i agree. I think the difference in pay may be hiding the true problem in that the BBC (and all other broadcasters, I don't think the BBC are a special case or unrepresentative) have more male tv/radio presenters. I saw an article (it is a bit old now) in which it said that male presenters outweighed female presenters by a ratio of 4:1, given how the same person often presents more than one show this seems to reflect the differences in pay as well (Chris Evans' £2m compared to Claudia Winkleman's £500k).