rezdylan saidI am consistently stunned by the number of people who can't think beyond their own personal proclivities, into a world where there are infinite variations on what is considered attractive.
And what I consider attractive is not infinite variations, but masculine men. Let someone else like the fems in bed, that's great, leaves the butch boys for me. Your model of choice works both ways.
I'm not saying you should be attracted to everyone, don't get me wrong. You should be attracted to whatever your body responds to sexually. I definitely have a very narrow window of guys after whom I lust, and that window shares your view: a field full of sexy butch muscle guys, perhaps bathing in a natural waterfall spilling from the cliffs in the distance.
I simply wish more people would realize that their personal attraction-specs aren't inherently better than anyone else's, or worse yet, that their attraction-specs are the only attraction-specs, and therefore everyone else should be attracted to those specs as well. It implies an inability or unwillingness to consider the variable world views and thoughts and opinions of others. It makes me angry (and it hasn't happened in here yet, but I guarantee it will eventually if this thread doesn't die) when someone responds to a thread regarding specific attractions with things like "yuck," or "no siree thank you bob, that's gross."
It also annoys me (and I understand this is somewhat of a tangent) when people label flamboyant gay men as feminine because it indicates a lack of thought on behalf of the labeler -- and an extreme misogyny considering that it's almost always used as a pejorative descriptor. A lot of people just accept that flamboyant gay men are feminine -- but when you look at the behavior, it's really its own thing.