The Converted Invader v3.0

hermocrates:

convertedinvader:

hermocrates:

No… not really. There’s a difference between an observable fetish and judging one phenomenon to be an example of a fetish that can’t be observed in any other situation. 

For example, the counterpart: straight man fetishization of gay women. This is easily observed apart from any fantasy-creating straight women into gay ones. 

The same can’t be said for the woman fetishization of gay men.

Source: smellthatoceanburn

And here you go again with twisting words and trying to redefine what “fetish” means. You know, words have set definitions for a reason, and that reason is not so you can twist them in search of cop-outs. And for the record, even if I go with the above presented bullshit, you’re STILL wrong, as the fetishization of gay men DOES go to the same extent as the fetishization of lesbians. You must be either deliberately ignorant or plain blind to not notice that.

Um, there’s an entire genre of pornography built around the fetishization of gay women. In fact, the vast majority of easily found “gay” woman pornography is produced for straight men (uh, anecdotal evidence). 

By contrast, there is no porn industry built around the fetishization o gay men by women. Men fucking is likely made for men. 

Really, if anything says anything about objectification and sexualization, it’s porn. That’s about as fucking clear as you can get. 

Thanks for proving how illogical, biased and frankly sexist you are.

First of all, you can find porn catering to pretty much ANY fetish.

Second, your “porn is just for men” attitude is plain ridiculous. Porn is for anyone who enjoys it.

>Men fucking is likely made for men.
Assumption fueled by confirmation bias. That is, “I have no proof, but it fits into my ideology, so I’ll say it’s Teh Troof!”.

Now GTFO and don’t come back till you have a valid, provable argument.