I like Jayden….

You guys sound like a bunch of whiny fags because they’re too twink or not straight enough for you.

i cannot @ peeps using Sean Cody threads to post up their dissertations. x-D

really tho, who the heck uses ‘twink’ to describe gay guys that have more feminine traits? I have never seen that. LOL

Yes, we are the children of Satan, but even Satan has his favorites.

A blind Martian can tell that Sheridan is gay and Dan is a single Indian woman.

moondoggy – hahahaha!

Anyway, I know you all are a bunch of drama queens here and everything is always a new low for these studios but I have to say, this was the first Sean Cody video I’ve looked at in a LONG time where I was like “Uh…..nope.” Final cumshots look hot but that’s not worth a download.

“some of the comments are mean-spirited in essence”

you lost me on that sentence.

This is WAYBIG, we are the children of satan.

yeah, a few boring “straight” tops nobody cares about except for a few self-loathers

Pardon, these terms*

In regards to the OP 1flyboy1’s comments, I believe I can sense where they are coming from. What is classified as a gay “twink” as we understand it may be in some ways an existing sociological stereotype of the aspect of the homosexual male. Albeit a fading one, as people become better educated, and their perceptional awareness expands. If qualities of this stereotype are observed, some people may consciously, or subconsciously show active vocal avoidance, or outright denigration in order to not be seen the same way themselves. Now, is this “homophobic”? In a sociological outlook, and how it impacts us, yes it would seem to qualify under the definition. But at the same time, we know that the gay community is very diverse, that there are “masculine”, “feminine”, and those who represent both descriptive elements in their behaviours and actions. It isn’t really “masculine”, or “feminine” that is the problem, but the negative connotations attached to their superficial sort of “nomenclature” constructs. Where as one as seen an ideology, or achetype to achieve or aspire to, and the other something to flee away from at all costs. Essentially, people don’t want to appear vulnerable, and through such become the subject of being preyed upon. The reasoning for doing so is comprehensible when related to one’s environment. Again, this is a view by society, likely derived from deep anthropological roots nurtured by many previous generations, but it is also something clutched by, and ingrained in many individuals that keep its fires stoked. Because there still is a large consensus or presence that keep to these ideals, it still maintains the active ability to impact, and effect others. Which as, evidenced from most of our surroundings, apparently has. Though I understand that this isn’t always the case. There isn’t anything wrong with being “masculine” or “feminine”. Nor is either philosophically attributable to one gender, or one sexuality. Personally, I feel we are all composed of both, and that the polarising qualities of terms do greater harm than good in means of classification. Yet, I do not believe that this is entirely the source of this specific quarrel, rather the question being asked here is whether natural masculinity, or inauthentic masculinity for the sake appearing “masculine” is what is appealing to some.
In any matter, that is all for my “thesis”. It is my hope that my words have not caused any offense, and that my hastily jotted down series of thoughts were fluid enough to emanate a perspective.

Well, since this is the update you decided to address it on, are you seeing any of the comments here that scream homophobia?

Elmtree, people on this very thread have used the term twink as a means to call a guy too fem and not masculine enough, therefore an insult. I never said twink was an insulting term, it isn’t, but that’s my point, it’s being used as an insult, with reason. And it’s being used as an insult against guys deemed not masculine enough. Dio, Landon Conrad isn’t a twink but had always gotten the “you’re not a credible top” card from almost day one because he’s fairly fem overall and people couldn’t imagine a non overly masculine guy topping. People assumed Landon was a bottom and he said several times he didn’t get it and that he wasn’t. Now he’s bottoming and that’s gone away because he’s not strict top anymore. Brett isn’t even that twinkish anymore, more like a twunk. But he copped a LOT of crap on this site when he was more fem in appearance and act when he was younger. We have our preferences and we all want to see ourselves in the porn we watch but at the same time there is a difference between preference and bias.

My problem is with the anti-fem attitudes on this site that *some* here most definitely have. It’s not about the term twink, or straight vs gay, it’s about anti-fem attitudes. And it’s about homophobia. And at least a few here see my point so I know I’m not the only one who sees it.

elmtree, I really enjoyed our debates but couldn’t imagine doing it now. Horrors, does that mean I’m aging? BTW, I agree with everything you’ve said here. I was trying to add a brief comment of my own, but something in it is triggering mod so I gave up after two tries. Too many parentheses, perhaps?

Been trying to post something but it keeps getting held. I don’t know what’s triggering the hold, but by the time it appears no one will be reading the thread anymore. OTOH Sean Cody threads never seem to die, they just continue to get bloated (kind of the opposite of the model trend).

@litper

There have been quite a few models with Sean Cody that didn’t give up the ass so that doesn’t really mean anything.

To be honest and I’m probably alone but after seeing him constantly on the splash of SC, I’m kind of missing Jeffrey a little bit.