>is that what all this wholly unnecessary pushback and rah-rah
>is about?
>
>it seems to me that b/c *I* posted it y'all have to attack the
>article b/c you think i'm adopting the author's position and
>calling y'all out as bad ppl b/c you don't engage in platonic
>touch as described by the author.
>
>if that's the case y'all are completely off base. b/c that
>was not my intention at all. i didn't read this article as an
>attack on individuals - it's more an attack on homophobia as a
>concept. not unlike the many think pieces out there that call
>out other phobias and isms like racism and sexism and
>chauvinism and xenophobia and misogyny et al. the author's
>point is that homophobia works to keep men isolated from touch
>- not that men who don't engage in platonic touch are
>homophobes (though the 2 aren't necessarily mutually
>exclusive, but i digress). as i read the article it says the
>men who are isolated from touch are relatively blameless - the
>avoidance of touch is a result of their conditioning. the
>guys can't help it. and when i posted this article that's
>what i thought - that the men who avoid touch b/c of
>homophobia aren't necessarily to be blamed for it. hell, when
>i read the article i immediately identified and i don't think
>i'm a bad person b/c i avoid touching other men for the most
>part b/c of my own internalized homophobia. i'm sad for me
>and for other men but i'm not angry about it.
>

It comes across as an attack on individuals. As much shit as y'all give Case of his agenda it's clear that you're on a similar track but go about it a different way.

It's an attack on these individuals whether or blatant or not. Just because someone doesn't like other men touching them then they're homophobic according to the article. That's not the case at all.