Disclaimer: Not trying to attack anyone in my post below.
I am of two opinions on this particular post.
My first thought agrees with Calson and Hajde, at least in some parts, in having preferences. Some people are simply more direct about what they want or do not want in a person and place it on the table. "I'm not into people who are (said skin color, height, weight, proportion, build, eye color, zodiac sign, ethnicity, religious background, et cetera)." As human beings, we are all preferentially inclined to make decisions based off of what we find attractive.
However, here is where my second thought expresses concern of the preferences; having a/any preference IS inherently alienating and unequalizing-- period. It's obectifying one standard, feature, asset about a person and raising it above all else. This-Is-Inequality. There is no 'fallacy' when considering what we are doing here: We are telling people "You're good for me, you're not." While the intention may not necessarily carry a malicious element, it remains inherently ostracizing and alienating. When human beings are alienated (especially those who may see it consecutively), we do feel it. This is not speculation or some fru-fru shit. It's backed by scientific research and proof. [Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bWlTZZN3DY] Parallel behavior is also observed in the Stanford Prison study.
But, okay, how are those particular studies relevant to the topic at hand? Simple. These two situations follow a close pattern of inequality-- appreciation vs deappreciation, power and powerless, desired vs undesired. In the Brown Eyes/Blue Eyes study, one group of kids are told they are "beautiful" while the others are told they are not. This creates inequality which makes one group feel lesser than the other. Of course, the study incorporates an element that disenfranchises the other but where one group is placed on a pedestal, the other descends into feeling shame, guilt, and a sense of depreciation. While, in this case, "Whites" are not disenfranchising "blacks, asians, fems", they are supporting an increasingly rejective attitude which IS alienating in nature. It subtracts and makes a person feels depreciated.
Stanford study takes this into a whole new level. The guards/prisoners were assigned 'roles'. At first, everything seemed jokes and games but over the progress of time, what we see is the powerful correlation of disenfranchisement occuring as one group oppresses the other subjugating them to terrible conditions and maltreatment-- even the professor (a.k.a. The Warden) finds himself sucked into his role. Gay men victimize each other in a similar way albeit not living in close quarters with each other. When one is depreciated in an obvious manner, the punches begin to roll in.
Humans can be such spiteful little maggots.
We all want to be wanted, we all want to be needed and appreciated. This is what the desire is; however, when one kind of appearance, behavior, mannerism, attitude, or lifestyle is supported, the other one will automatically begin become to feel inferior. There is no way around that.
Hadje states, "No one has a monopoly on what it means being "gay"." While this is true, everyone does seem to play a vital role in constructing what it means to be gay. We don't need to be sociologists to understand the dynamics of gay culture. You can see it in the streets, the magazine, on Grindr, and even here. Grindr's portrayal of gay men is not an "accident". Nor is it a "coincidence". It is VERY relevant in addressing the key concerns and attitudes that go behind the despotic and marginalizing behavior of gay men.
Heterosexuals have preferences as well. While not a perfect model simply when considering societal and porportion, heterosexuals do not (usually) berate and alienate individuals outside of their preference. Perhaps largely in part because they simply don't have to. They can find it anywhere. If one could compare the pool of homo/bisexuals to heterosexuals, their pool would be like an ocean while ours a kiddy pool.
So, yes, if men want what they want (and arguably are going to 'act like men'), they have to take control and address their wants/needs at the door so not to invite the uninvited. Being straight forward and honest is welcomed (and perhaps becomes necessary on Grindr-- which is mostly looking for sexual gratification anywho).
Attraction is, in parts, not a choice but it is societally manipulated. We are suggested through years of conditioning that a certain "type" of person is better for us. Of course, this has varying degrees of success (e.g. I know a Louisianian friend who was raised in a very white part of place, to like girls, and to like fair-skin types but he does neither nor). While we can't count on knowing how exactly human attraction is structured (or at least I don't know for sure not being an experiment), I can say for certain that there IS flagrant bigotry within the community (and outside). "No Asians" becomes "No Rice". "No Arabs" becomes "No Camels". "No Indians" becomes "No Curry". Again, these are not just 'random' spots of bigotry.
In Dallas, my experience with the many men who live here, "sexy" is not Latino, Black, Asian, or Native American. It's White. That's what sells the most in magazines, in products, in a lot of outlets.
In gay culture, the undefined skinny femme is not what is "hot" (except for maybe a pocket of people). It is the strong, muscular, and 'masculine'.
It's becoming pandemic because there is no traction, no one to say "It's not okay to marginalize people". In fact, quite the opposite! If anyone who complains about these things, he is ridiculed for being "mamby phamby" or "a pussy" or anything else that objectifies/marginalizes the female condition of emotional sensitivity and weakness-- in their minds.
Yeah.. totally no
misogyny. *Rolls eyes*
Anyway, when preferences become a pejorative, it's prejudice, not prerogative-- other than being an ass. Just my two cents hence.