94 thoughts on “Substance Douche”

  1. I’m not really sure what the issue is with this guy.
    “slim/toned” – true
    “Have the decency of a face pic”- Is that a lot to ask? People here constantly accuse grindr users of being closet cases for not showing their face.
    “Looking for guys with substance” – That’s a bad thing?
    “I’m generally attracted to muscles.” – He’s keeping it positive and not saying something like, “No fatties”.
    Oh and he doesn’t like fake profiles. How dare he?!

  2. I don’t get where the douchie part comes in. Is it the pose? Or the smiley face at the end? If he just wants muscled guys that’s fine but he didn’t even put that in a dickish way. I think someone just got pissed at him cause he turned them down!

  3. Agreed with the other posts, not douchey at all. If this is too douchey you’re basically saying that any level of selectivity or standards makes you a douche.

  4. LOL.
    2 of my best friends have been posted on this site.

    McB, you should have changed “fakes can go die” to “everyone can go die” seeing it wouldn’t have stopped you from being posted on here.

    I actually really hate this site due to the people who post people on here being far bigger douches than the people who turned them down.
    Maybe that’s why they aren’t interested, because you act like a 14 year old girl when shit doesn’t go your way.

  5. Yeah he’s a little douchey but that’s what I love about him.

    I think it’s hard for anyone to make a good/accruate first impression.

    All I can say is I want him on my muscles NOW.

  6. This is in poor taste – this guy’s a mate of mine, and is just about a big of douche as Gandhi.

    Seems like someone got turned down and got bitter about it. Or is just looking at him with green eyes.

  7. yall are dumb. he says he looking for a guy with substance and then directly states that he wants a guy with muscles…contradiction.

  8. Let’s see how this guy is a douche.
    Fakes can go die-he speaks truth, fakers waste people’s time, energy, and are just frustrating to deal with. Not douchey.

    slim/ toned- from his pic he does seem to fit this category so he’s not a liar. Not douchey.

    Have the decency of a face pic- Since he’s showing his face, this is a relevant request for others. Not douchey.

    looking for guys with substance- aren’t we all. Not douchey.

    Generally attracted to muscles ๐Ÿ™‚ – He puts a positive spin on what he likes. Instead of saying no fatties or something else that a real douche would say, he states what his general leanings tend to be without ever putting anyone down. Not douchey.

    Admin should remove this picture as it may be negatively impacting this seemingly nice guy. The tag for his douchiness is arrogant, what arrogance is shown?

    And @mg, how the hell are substance and musculature contradictions?! Plus, he doesn’t state that he’s looking for muscles, just that he’s attracted to guys with them. He states that he’s looking for substance. A guy with substance can come in all shapes and sizes. Those who think that this guy is a douche are probably just bitter at how well put together he portrays himself to be.

  9. nothing wrong with this sexy guy
    his hot n he knows it nothing
    wrong with that id so tap that
    just saying and the guy the posted
    his profile up is clearly a reject of this stud

  10. My, you all pretty dumb to not spot the glaring contradiction in this guys profile. You can’t say you want someone of substance and then say your attracted to men with muscle. If you don’t get that then your as stupid as he looks.

  11. Sorry this meth addict bitch isn’t sexy, skinny anorexic bitch needs to eat and if anything he looks like he is about to die, I would hope so cause the bitch looks like death.

  12. I’d understand being angry with him if he ripped people apart in his profile. But he didnt, so he is not douchey. You guys can’t get mad at everyone who might not deem you their type. Simply because some of you might end up bitter and mad at the world. I bet if he had said he was into husky older men, some of you would slap your Momma to get at him!

  13. @gsb

    sorry – there is just no need for the language on his profile. I’m not sure what’s in everyone’s heads as they object to him, and there’s probably a lot of different reasons at work.

    He is douche-y. It’s the ‘fakes can go die’ which, when juxtaposed against what he’s projecting – image and look, not substance, makes him immediately stand out as – at the very least – confused, and at worst – blind to his own hypocrisy.

  14. Are you guys trolling? Substance and muscles aren’t mutually exclusive. Unless you’re 10, and the only muscular guys you know are Johnny Bravo and Arnold Schwarzenegger. And Bobby, you should probably work on your grammar weaknesses before you call others retarded.

  15. @black saab,

    I’ve seen you post here before. You have assumed the same basic orientation in all your posts which tend to support abusive conduct.

    You are correct. Substance and muscle are not mutually exclusive. However, do I need to point out that substanceless muscle is what a douche is.

    Aren’t the profiles that are devloved self-evident to you? Arrogance, categorically, when associated with body assets is *not* substance, is it.

    It is arrogance. So, what’s your point? I seem to have missed it.

  16. All my posts support abusive conduct? Unsupported assertion.

    Glad we agree they’re not mutually exclusive. My post was aimed at Mg and Bobby.

  17. @black saab

    “….support abusive conduct?”.

    “Unless you’re 10 and the only muscular guys you know are Johnny Bravo and Arnold Schwarzenegger…”

    Rather disingenuous don’t you think? Snide. Perhaps acceptable if you were making a socially responsible comment.

    Are you really suggesting that body-image narcissm and socially irresponsible behaviour by those with body assets does not occur in our community? Really?

  18. That’s not abusive. A little Internet sarcasm never hurt anyone.

    No, I’m not suggesting that. I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.

  19. @ Black Saab

    do you know of the terms ‘denial and minimisation’. What you are doing is termed ‘tacit collusion’ or ‘implicit, not explicit abuse’.

    You are minimising the impact of the exposure of the community to body-nazi-ism. What you’re basically saying is ‘hey, guys with hot bods aren’t trying to hurt you, so toughen up’.

    I’ve asked you a question: are you suggesting that body-image narcissisms and socially irresponsible bheaviour by those with body assets does not occur inour community’.

    Can you please address the question.

  20. Gen Y are truly the gift that keeps on giving. It’s not their fault…they are brought up believing that everyone wants to fuck them, that it would be our privilege to be so honoured too & its all about them. Delusion is soooooooo entertaining.

  21. ๐Ÿ™‚ ….. of course! How terribly rude of us to be critical of all their amazing looks, entitled outlook. It’s only natural that ‘they’ should be worthy of more than everyone else!

    How very selfish and my disappointing lack of empathy for the over-privileged and arrogant ๐Ÿ™‚ Praise arrogance! It’s such a wonderful, lovely force.

  22. I’m not saying that at all. My point was that it is possible for muscular men to have substance (with a slight implication that to think otherwise is childish and simplistic–hence Johnny Bravo and Schwarzenegger). You read way too far into my words.

  23. @Black Saab

    Evasive. You have repeatedly been the ‘defender’ of body-assets here at these posting boards.

    Look at the douche we’re posting on here. We are not talking about hot, sexy, buff men with manners, humility and who are not dismissive a-holes in public spaces.

    We’re not talking about warm men who ‘gettit’ and who have embraced diversity in their outlook in eclecticism.

    What you’re doing, Black Saab, again is minimising, deflecting and shifting your emphasis.

    Disingenuous, isn’t it. And, case in point: you still have not answered my question.

    I’ll ask it again (please read it upstream)

  24. You also really diminish the assets of people who post here if you honestly believe that the guys here are not smart enough to have figured out that ‘not all hot guys are arrogant douches’.

    Um, we gettit.

  25. Defender of body assets? What does that even mean? Your posts are murky and not very easy to follow.

    I made no comment on Substance Douche. I’m not defending him. I agree that he is a douche.

    I don’t believe the guys here aren’t smart enough to have figured out that ‘not all hot guys are arrogant douches’.

  26. Glad to hear that you concede that arrogant douche who thinks he’s hot is not so hot.

    I’m not going to apologise for how I craft my posts. I will clarify for you, however, on request.

    “defender of body assets”.
    You’ve repeated the assertion ‘not all hot met are a-holes’. I wrote that to *spell it out* to you that we understand. If you read my posts, you’ll see I agreed with you, but provisionally, teasing apart your argument more carefully.

    It is obvious to every reader that our community has saturated us with images of dismissing, hot abs and naked torsos for decades!

    I like to show my body off too! I’ve worked *very* hard to conform myself to the body-image that we find so compelling as a group.

    But, you know, it’s a bit purile, to be honest, and I’m certainly not going to defend it as ‘evolved’.

  27. @Black Saab,

    You’re evidencing an incapacity for self-reflection and for taking responsibility for your own words.

    Let me quote you:

    “My point was that muscular men can have substance”.

    So, Black Saab, either you do or you don’t feel that ‘muscular men can have substance’.

    You’re being reductionist and overly literal. My paraphrasing of you ‘not all hot guys are a-holes’.

    So if you do not concede that – then you are saying, instead, the converse

    basically ‘all hot met are a-holes’ in which case, why challenge any of the posters on these boards at all! Particularly those commenting on arrogant douche, above.

  28. Stephen said, “He is douche-y. It’s the ‘fakes can go die’…”

    Just for clarification, Stephen – what do you think he means by this?

    Do you think he means “fakes'” are guys who don’t meet up his standards of muscular men?


    “Fakes” who are guys who post fake pictures and fake profiles to collect naked pix of men?

    OR … do you have an entirely different interpretation altogether?

    Btw, if you’re unsure, I think ‘ramrod’ is the guy in question, maybe you wanna ask him what he meant?

  29. i base substance on what is internal to an individual. E.g. morality, standards and personality.

    Stephen is just trying to intillectualise Grindr, which is ridiculous. Before makign assumptions about mine, he should focus on his own life. Those that try to bring you down are already below you, imo.

    It’s not douchey to have a type or prefer certain kinds of men on a physical basis. EVERYONE needs physical attraction to be interested in a guy. However i dont just base it on superficiality like that, internal factors like communication and conection are what KEEPS me interested in a guy. Looks are nothing without substance. HENCE MY COMMENT about it.

    I like guys with muscles because they have worked hard for their fitness, and it shows the ability to commit to something that betters themself.

    all their claims about me are unsubstantiated, not that it matters, i have had enough support on here to practically invalidate and prejudice.

    To sum it up. i hate guys who pretend to be others just to get cock pics or create a facade, which in turn wastes time and energy that an individual may invest into someone. People who are fake, are NOT worth it.

    Everyone but Stephen and a couple of others get exactly what i mean, and are the more intelligent individuals here. And it proves Articulation and use of big words doesnt necessarily make you smart, thought it may create that illusion.

  30. @ramdrod

    Excellent – glad to see an attitude with some thought and substance.

    You are entirely entitled to an opinion and your comments make sense to me.

    You can’t get or have hot sex (for long) without a connection with the guy, ultimately. Substance, heart, life, passion, intellect, meaning, value – some of the words that come to mind in relationships that help you grow.

    Grindr tends to be a zone of devolved conversation. Occasionally – very occasionlly, I get more from it, and usually when I put more into it.


    I take your point. He is very douche-y whichever way you look at it.

  31. I don’t wanna get involved in this but I think we should be careful who we label “douchebags” because if we are seen as arbitrarily labelling people douchebags, then our message of calling people out on more offensive stuff will be diminished because our credibility will be gone.

    It’s already hard enough to educate and influence people as it is – and no doubt it’ll be harder if people view us as self righteous fascists. Just my two cents.

    Maybe your method is the more effective way, I don’t know…

  32. I don’t have to take responsibility for words I didn’t say. Even if I did say those words, and later denied doing so, it is still your responsibility to provide evidence that I said them. You claim something, you back it up.

    “not all hot guys are a-holes” is a horrible (and wrong) paraphrasing of “muscular men can have substance.” The two are completely different ideas. Unless you equate “hot” with “muscular” (and I’d have to challenge that) and “substance” with not being an a-hole.

    “Are we done?”

    You say it as though I started this discussion.

    Just an aside- is English your first language?

  33. @ black saab

    I cannot help that you are having difficulty deciphering meaning in sentences greater than five words. As I said, I don’t apologise for my posts.

    Read them again and you might figure out how you’ve embarrassed yourself.

    sophistry and semantics is splitting hairs about meaning and defining arbitrary schisms in language where there are no substantive differences to note. Here you go: ‘not all guys are a-holes’ is a horrible (and wrong) paraphrasing of ‘muscular men can have substance’. The two are completely different ideas.

    There you go again – shifting meaning and distracting us for the isomorphic implications of your position. Look up the word if you’re having difficulty.

    You started by defending body image narcissism by trying to tell us what we already knew ‘some hot muscular guys aren’t a-holes’.

    As you have been told, several times, we get it.

    Then you review semantics and technicalities in language to try to reclaim your dignity and present a more measured view of the topic matter.

    It’s simple….

  34. @Black Saab

    We have been bombarded by body-image narcissism, and by men who strutt, narcissistly about, showing off their body assets, presuming superiority and claiming social power in our cohort.

    Visually hot model-esque vain men who decry ‘oh! I have to be rude because if I didn’t I’d be hit on all night’ are indulgent, selfish men.

    You asked before what I meant by ‘body assets’. It’s self evident, really. Physical attributes grant gay men social status in our community, ergo, muscular structure, definition and looks are ‘body assets’.

    If you don’t want a reply and do not seek a discussion – as you so stated – ha – then don’t reply to this message!

    Say what you mean and mean what you say because your actions speak *louder* than the (semantics) of your (sophistry) in your words!

  35. You: Black Saab said X.
    Me: I did not say X.
    You: Yes you did. See, look: “Y.” Don’t split hairs.
    Me: I did say Y. But X and Y mean totally different things. *evidence*
    You: Don’t split hairs.

    You’re running in circles. I think I’m done.

  36. @Black Saab

    Good! I expect you learned little because you’re deaf, and committed to both denying and agreeing with your own premises in your arguments.

    I expected you to seek to defend your dignity. Very human of you, isn’t it.

    Thank you for your comments on’the body beautiful’ – semantics – isomorphic with ‘hot guys who aren’t a-holes’ is isomorphic with terms such as ‘not all muscular guys lack substance’.

    Thank you, also, for failing to publicly accommodate new ideas. All boringly normal.

    But, I expect you will, privately, to review your thinking.

    Don’t be a douchebag – object to body-image nazi-ism and help us evolve as a community.

    See you round these parts – I’m watching.

  37. Stephen, you’re a buffoon. I’ll come right out and say it, even if no one else will.

    People with muscles can indeed have substance. Not all hot guys are a-holes. And “body fascism” doesn’t mean what you think it does.

    The profile in question is not a douche, and he doesn’t really seem all that arrogant. He doesn’t like fake people–who does? He’s looking for guys with substance. That’s a positive thing. He generally likes guys with muscles. That’s a positive way of saying what he likes physically without offending people. All in all, he seems like a decent guy.

  38. @Bear

    I’ve seen worse – he’s not as douchey as others. It’s the ‘fakes can go die’, juxtaposed against him tensing his abs – as he announces his visual body assets that makes his words incongruous.

  39. Nothing incongruous about it. He doesn’t like fakes. He’s not being a fake by posting a pic where he’s posing, since what he’s showing is an honest presentation of himself.

  40. ….it’s fake to seek substance and announce superficial traits to do so.

    That’s why he unded up here. Are you a friend of his?


    Are you the profile?

  41. @ramrod

    hey, congrats – you’re living the same tonal quality of your profile – ‘duh’, of course.

    about bear – well, we think it’s just lovely that he’s defending a friend. Not that the conflict of interest will give his emphases any real objectivity.

    Of course, I’m sure, to him he knows more about the ‘real’ you under the fascade you project (that burns one’s retinas when we read your profile).

    And that he’s empathising with your feelings, is great.

    Now, what about empathising with the people not priviledged to know you and see your better side.

    Fakes can go die.

    I don’t know about you, but that’s not how I address my peers.

  42. …so now show us your ‘substance’ – where’s your wisdom. Your posts will reveal what you are. I’m curious to know how you reconcile what you project with your post, and what you mean by ‘substance’

  43. Steph. are you fucking blind?

    i dont know Bear.AT ALL.

    He like most the others apart from a troll like you dont try to over analyze my profile and actually see it for what it really represents.

  44. You really need to get a life lmao, instead of trolling on websites.

    Fix your own life before assuming things about other people’s.


  45. @ramrod

    Ramdrod’s substance and means of expressing himself when asked to reflect on the topic of body narcissism:

    “fix your own life before assuming things about others”.

    As he makes and assumption to comment on his own assumptions.

    What we can only know about your life is what you express about it through your interactions with us. Those include the Grindr medium, this website, and your response to comments about the topic matter.

    “Fakes can go die” – tense those abs and lets hope you attract ‘substance’ with your method.

    Good luck on your search!

  46. @stephen – I’m sorry – I don’t wanna get involved in this because I think this topic has gone far too long and it seems neither party want to concede to the other. And while I somewhat understand what you are arguing about but why is he telling guys with fake profiles to go and ‘die’ is such an issue for you though?

    We don’t know who these guys with fake profiles are – we can only assume they are after naked pictures because usually these guys disappear after getting cock pix.

    Guys with fake profiles lie about everything – they lie about their age, stats and the pictures they use. They use celebrities photos like models from foreign countries and when they engage with anyone they will lie to get info and pictures. And sometimes they use the pix of other guys on Grindr and pass off as their own and damage the reputations of those guys.

    Are these the types of guys we should be defending? Unlike ramrod here — they wouldn’t even engage in a discussion about why they do what they do.

    So, I’m a little confused why you think it’s so offensive that ramrod used the phrase “Fakes can go die”. I understand you would have preferred him looking earnest and fully clothed when saying that but the message however would be the same – which is guys with fake profiles should get lost and not mess with guys who are genuinely on Grindr to connect with others.

    And may I suggest with everyone here – rather then getting involved in long petty arguments – wouldn’t it be better to get involved in some actual research or activism to fight discrimination? There are many groups and organizations looking for volunteers, I’m sure.

    Just a suggestion…

  47. Fakes can go die? Faggy douche talk. Shitty English…negative as hell. He obviously has enemies…drama is present.

    Total douche. I bet he commands a small social circle. Beverly Hills Housewives meets a faggy, shitty attitude.

    I’m a bodybuilder.

    Dude…you’re a douche. Accept this.

  48. Wow, he’s looking for a guy with substance, but generally likes guys with muscles? It’s totally contradictory. He’s not really interested in substance at all if that is a priority. If muscles were a sign of substance Arnold Schwarzenegger would be the most intelligent and wholesome man in America.

  49. You’re kidding, right? You walked right into my reply: “Substance and muscles aren’t mutually exclusive. Unless you’re 10, and the only muscular guys you know are Johnny Bravo and Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

    It’s not contradictory to want muscular guys with substance. It’s impractical and unreliable maybe, especially on Grindr. But IT IS TOTALLY POSSIBLE FOR MEN WITH SUBSTANCE TO BE MUSCULAR.

  50. I think there’s a guy he rejected, sitting at the computer screen crying into a tub of icecream right now and screaming “THATS WHAT YOU GET FOR NOT LOVING ME” while stroking one of his many pet cats.
    Seriously thats the only way this could be on this site…

  51. Oh man, Stephen, grow up and get a life – quit overanalysing and overblowing the implications of a grindr profile of a guy you don’t even know.

    Fair enough if – much like most of the posters on here – you’ve just given it your 5c worth of opinion, but no– you’ve decided dedicate your time into maintaining a long-drawn, presumptuous, pretentiously-articulate, yet poorly-comprehensible rant of rubbish about an individual whom you clearly have no clue on.

    You seem to pride yourself on intelligence, yet manage to make the murkiest and least understandable points of all the posters– and if you find that your time is truly worth these exertions, then it’d be pretty sad to find out what kind of life you do lead outside your critical and pitiable cyber existence…

    You sound like a sad, vain, and overcompensating old man spiting those whom he envies.

    Out with you.

  52. ^ u are all idiots. Is your arse jealous of the amount of shit that comes out of your mouth?
    And where the hell do u find the time to write so many comment?!?!? Wtf?!?
    Ps this is mainly directed at the wank-a-thon Stephen ๐Ÿ™‚ but u all need to chill the fuck out.
    Nick E.

  53. This guy is one of my best friends.

    He is not a douche. And he has a lot of friends who loves him dearly, both FAT (like me) and skinny or muscly… but people like you lots that over-analyse his profile (esp Stephen) are the real douche

  54. I am one of the many who agree that he shouldn’t be on here. His picture isn’t douche-y because he’s mearly showing off one of his attractive qualities. In the same way that my Grindr picture shows off one of my attractive qualities… my blue eyes. While “Fakes can go die” is a strong way of putting it he’s being assertive and only trying to (hopefully) scare off people who are trying to scam him and get dick pics. And the whole substance/generally attracted to muscular guys is not contradicting. He said “generally” not “only” meaning he is REALLY attracted to muscualar guys but doesn’t limit himself to muscular guys.

  55. This guy is hot!! I would agree, he is not a douche at all. He’s sexy! So is this you, ramrod, because you’re hot. Where do I have to go to meet guys like you? Canada? Australia?

  56. Huh funny. No Fakes?! But Ramrod, that isn’t you in the picture. It’s actually someone else. I know that person and he has told me that he never had grindr. So who is really the fake? Someone should report this profile.

  57. Huh funny. No Fakes?! But Ramrod, that isn’t you in the picture. It’s actually someone else. I know that person and he has told me that he never had grindr. So who is really the fake? Someone should report this profile.

  58. Sorry, Ralph. That’s here-say. How do the rest of us who haven’t met him in person even know that this person has a lot of friends? (How do we also know that you are his best friend and NOT him, the featured profile member himself? But this is irrelevant)

    We can only go by what is in the profile, which starts with “fakes can go die!” That is not very evident of a “good friend who has a lot of friends who loves him dearly.” It’s not so much making an assumption as it’s the mere impression her gives: someone who is a “good friend” would be a friend, no matter how “fake” the other person is. Of course, I’m not going to deny that some people make hasty assumptions about the profiles represented here. However, the rest of us are merely responding to the behaviours implied in the profile. If his heading is not “douche” behaviour, then what is? (No doubt, he’s not nearly as bad as some of the other featured ones on here, but bad nevertheless).

    Now, if I may share my opinion without being branded one of the “real douches” by you, I believe that someone who says that he likes substance only to also say that fakes can “die” and directly after that he “generally likes muscles” (as in, he (generally) wouldn’t reply if you don’t have a good amount of it?) is usually going to find it rather hard to be taken seriously by others, including myself.

  59. I think the douchey part is his contradiction.

    His profile is all about physical attraction: shallow, but totally fine. The silly part is when he chimes in about substance.

    It would be just as ludacris to have a profile with the same shirtless pic, the same lines about what you want physically, and then say that to only like guys who read Shakespeare.

    Really? It’s a non-sequitur, and reeks of being disingenuous (i.e. fake).

    But then again, they can “go die” according to his profile.

    My, what substance he shows.

  60. You guys STILL ranting? xD Being presumptuous based on one little Grindr profile that is HARDLY douchey compared to many out there is hilarious.

    And Jo – come to Sydney, Australia ๐Ÿ™‚

    P.s. Wills (whoever you are) -If you know me, message me on facebook to clarify. ;p

    Raph* is correct, as are the guys here that know me ๐Ÿ™‚

  61. i wish straight guys profiles would look like this! straight to the point in what they are interested in and puts a face to the name! he looks like he takes care of himself and works out ๐Ÿ˜‰ so he deserves someone in the same kind of nature! this guy is one of the most genuine guys i know!

  62. He’s not a douche. He’s out of your league.
    He’s young, fit, handsome, direct and wants same.
    If that doesn’t include you, who’s fault is that?

  63. Hes not a douche he’s being a typical drunk young guy and we’ve all said the same – not very pleasant comment but I’m sure it was changed quickly after.
    Unlike the commenter above me who is a douche – a big ol apologist who will forgive any nasty queen as long as they are attractive to him

    1. LOL
      Trent, he doesn’t want you.
      Let it go, already.:)

      Your posts prove that you guys are the “nasty queens” on this site. It’s time to man-up and quit projecting.

    1. Tent, you’re projecting again. I am not a douche.
      I just tell the truth, which obviously burns you at every turn.
      Simply prove me wrong. Once.
      Take your time…:)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *