The Ruffled Fag
A fag, bristling with indignation, e-mailed FuelMix. Fag had just read FuelMix's profile on a website and had taken umbrage at the inclusion of the words, "D/D free, UB2".
Fag alleged those words were crass, grossly insensitive and amounted to the worst thing one man could say to another. Fag finished it off by insisting he would never hookup with such a person.
Well....OK. At the time, FuelMix's profile had been sitting on that site for a year and a half. Other than said fag, nobody took exception to those words. If anything, the profile attracted plaudits. Secondly, fag's approach to FuelMix was unsolicited. Since no hookup was ever discussed, the purported rejection was moot.
But there is a deeper point: was the fag suggesting the words "D/D free, UB2" were arbitrary, exclusionary, discriminatory or unnecessary? Fag never did say. And that's the point. Why would those words be hitting him so close to the bone? His profile on the same site said nothing about his health or his drug use.
Considering that both profiles appeared on a site that was all about getting naked, on what basis was the fag alleging that setting criteria for drugs and health was in bad taste?
In the meat markets, as in the mall, it's all about caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). Retail has its Better Business Bureau. What protection does a fag have in the online and real worlds? Is an advertising fag supposed to assume that a condom is the answer to all his queries and is the only protection he needs?
A clear statement of "D/D free UB2", is neither discriminatory, redundant or exclusionary. Neither is it a "preference" (another favourite fag online term). It's a non-negotiable pre-requisite.
If a fag cringes at asking - or being asked - drug and health status, then political correctness has gone to ludicrous and potentially fatal extremes. FuelMix declares that fags upset by "D/D free, UB2" are trying to play anonymity and implicit potential deceit, against legal liability.
Fag alleged those words were crass, grossly insensitive and amounted to the worst thing one man could say to another. Fag finished it off by insisting he would never hookup with such a person.
Well....OK. At the time, FuelMix's profile had been sitting on that site for a year and a half. Other than said fag, nobody took exception to those words. If anything, the profile attracted plaudits. Secondly, fag's approach to FuelMix was unsolicited. Since no hookup was ever discussed, the purported rejection was moot.
But there is a deeper point: was the fag suggesting the words "D/D free, UB2" were arbitrary, exclusionary, discriminatory or unnecessary? Fag never did say. And that's the point. Why would those words be hitting him so close to the bone? His profile on the same site said nothing about his health or his drug use.
Considering that both profiles appeared on a site that was all about getting naked, on what basis was the fag alleging that setting criteria for drugs and health was in bad taste?
In the meat markets, as in the mall, it's all about caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). Retail has its Better Business Bureau. What protection does a fag have in the online and real worlds? Is an advertising fag supposed to assume that a condom is the answer to all his queries and is the only protection he needs?
A clear statement of "D/D free UB2", is neither discriminatory, redundant or exclusionary. Neither is it a "preference" (another favourite fag online term). It's a non-negotiable pre-requisite.
If a fag cringes at asking - or being asked - drug and health status, then political correctness has gone to ludicrous and potentially fatal extremes. FuelMix declares that fags upset by "D/D free, UB2" are trying to play anonymity and implicit potential deceit, against legal liability.
A fag has no constitutional right of silence, and neither can a fag invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when asked a direct queston about his drug use and health - regardless of whether "D/D free, UB2" appears in the allegedly offending profile.
Eat that you fuckin' fag.
Originally published 28 October 2006
Amended and Republished 12 September 2011
FUEL INJECTED MALE 5 YEARS 2006 - 2011
Copyright 2011 FuelMix All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.