Every time I post something about Norman Reedus and it gets reblogged you fangirls just gotta swoon and add your own cutesy caption. Nothing against fangirls but here’s a challenge. Swoon over this! Good luck.
OP, it is clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of one or more of the following:
‘fangirls’
‘swooning’
‘challenge’
I mean we could probably use this as a really interesting launching point for the fundamental disconnect between ‘what people actually find hot’ and ‘what society/patriarchy presumes is hot’ and how the assignations of gender roles and sexuality fuck with that. Like the presumption that the female gaze doesn’t even exist, or if it does that women-intersted-in-men find the same things about men sexy that men-interested-in-women presume they do/should.
I mean, how many ‘porn for straight women’ magazines have tried to launch and asked a bunch of straight women what they wanted in porn -and gotten answers of ‘smiling dudes’ ‘dudes giving bedroom eyes’ and ‘cock’ - only to then said ‘yeah no, we’re giving you tough,aloof-looking shirtless guys with power muscles and weapons instead (because regardless of what any of you say you want we know that the majority of you want tough looking guys with power muscles and weapons because that’s what masculinity is because sexiness is feminine-coded. I mean obviously the only reason a man would display in a sexually-inviting way (as opposed to an aggressive way or a disinterested way) is if he’s trying to attract a man! Ergo anything in which a man is display in a sexually inviting or (gasp) submissive way is gay gay gay gay gay and thus the anti-masculine and no woman would ever want it. We know better than you what you like and want and find sexy) and then failed and blamed the failure on the totally legit and well known phenomenon that women just don’t get off on visual stimuli they’d rather read erotica.
But I’m too busy getting off on images like the above.
