Today it is apparently not OK to have sexual preferences that limit eligible partners unless one has a firm political and social allegiance with either “The Left” or “The Right”. It is apparently a greater social sin today to be politically and ideologically unaffiliated in one’s sexual preferences than to be sexually discriminatory based on any attributes whatsoever.
For example, if one is both “Progressive” and either a member of a sexual minority or female, then it is OK to have preferences. In fact, if one has the proper certifications and affiliations one can have a sexual preference for blind albino vegetarian intersexed dwarves with Central Asian ancestry and eschew all others without any social stigma. Otherwise, one is obligated to accept into one’s bed all comers provided of course they adhere to the same political and social ideologies of the proper affiliation.
To further illustrate the point, the director, John Waters, once admonished, “If you go home with somebody, and they don’t have books, don’t fuck ’em!”
One presumes that this directive was issued prior to the advent of electronic books and reading devices. In my view, it is fine for Mr. Waters to state his preference and position with regard to his discriminating taste of sexual partners and even to admonish others to follow his lead but it is not OK for hysteric, chanting, parrots to invade the bedrooms of suspected deviants from this policy and otherwise engage in “gang shaming” or censorship. For to discriminate against the illiterate is to discriminate against the brainwashed, dyslexic, and underprivileged, and such behavior is only socially sanctioned when it is performed by the female feminist, homosexual, transsexual, or minority. A white heterosexual male (Waters is gay) would be called “elitist” if he were to adopt Waters’ stance.
In my view, if any “gang shaming” is socially permitted with regard to any sexual preference whatsoever then they should all be permitted. Actually, free speech, in my view, is of more importance than political correctness but “right to privacy” trumps the expression of free speech within one’s private domain meaning that ultimately one’s sexual preferences or practices as well as distastes ought not to be the business of nonparticipants. It would also seem that “freedom from association” is a right worth fighting for. My bed, for example, is not an equal opportunity employer and my tastes are esoteric.
Censoring an “offensive” article that expresses the author’s sexual preferences including “likes” and “dislikes” is hypocritical unless all “likes” and “dislikes” are prohibited. It doesn’t matter to me if the writer is repulsed by transsexuals or metrosexuals. It is all the same to me and none of my business. If he is repulsed by “Amazonian blondes” such as myself, then he has done me the tremendous favor of alerting me not to waste my time on him. Allow me to express my gratitude now to all men who have made their distaste of me abundantly clear. Thank you! Your respect for my time and energy is appreciated.
On “The Right” it is perfectly OK to confine one’s sexual activity to one person of the opposite sex and the same race and belief system for purposes of reproduction. On “The Left” it is perfectly OK to confine one’s sexual activity to all persons who state that their political beliefs are “politically correct”. However, whether one is on “The Left” or “The Right” it is apparently not correct to deviate from the group-think position while engaging in private acts. It is also not OK to “think” anything “bad” or to otherwise have distaste for the predominant preference.
In other words, on the left, the only “body shaming” that is permitted is toward white heterosexual males. For example, if a white heterosexual male is unable to summon up arousal for a gay man, transwoman, obese woman, or bisexual woman this is apparently a sin against political correctness. Gang shaming such a man is supposed to correct his failure to be aroused. I doubt that such a tactic is effective.
However, shaming a woman for any sexual discrimination whatsoever is confined to “The Right” which in itself seems to promote an in-race monogamy bias. Whereas we often hear the feminist left chanting, “No means no.” White heterosexual males are not permitted “No” however, for that would be “transphobia,” “homophobia,” “racism,” “body shaming,” or “misogyny.”