"If "sane" is lusting after fat middle aged women with hairy vaginas then I prefer being insane."

It's OK enough to hate that they are trying to force-feed you something contrary to your orientation. You don't have to misidentify it on purpose.

Now the couture industry had to be coerced into agreeing not to use anorexic 13 year olds.

But they are a statistical outlier, and runway models aren't the advertised product.

The product, according to music videos, hardcore, Hef, magazine covers &tc, is the slim, early-twenties woman with a shaved vulva.

Like I say, if you're allergic to strawberries, you're allergic to strawberries; no need to say that they fed you dirt when you know it was strawberries.

Further; its possible to say that pubes aren't your thing without telling girls that there is something wrong with how Ghod made them.

Think of the flat-chested 11 year old. At that stage the entire beauty industry is telling her that she's deformed for being flat, and that the sparse down developing on her girly-bits is also hideous. Basically, she is only acceptable if she is altered; but not as she is.

Its possible to not prefer gingers; but you need not tell them that freckles are horrible and that red-hair should be treated as a disease. Its not the 11 year olds fault that she is starting to develop in a direction that no longer turns you on.

And the same folks who've crammed the covergirl down your throat have crammed it down her throat. You are merely being told that you're defective for not liking the "beauty icon." She is told that she's defective for not being the "beauty icon." Which of the two is easier to escape? Its easy enough to find the answer when you think of what it was like to be black in the era when Marilyn Monroe was the beauty icon.

Dante