Find better matches with our advanced
matching system

—% Match
—% Enemy


21 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA Man


I’m looking for

  • Men
  • Ages 18–22
  • Near me
  • For new friends, long-term dating, short-term dating

My details

Last online
Today – 8:00am
6′ 2″ (1.88m)
Body type
Strictly anything
Aquarius, and it’s fun to think about
Working on university
Has dogs and has cats
English (Fluently)

Similar Users

My self-summary
Write a little about yourself. Just a paragraph will do.
A-List is social blackmail. There, I said it.
Oh God, I've discovered my kryptonite: cute guys having fun with adorable animals. I just lose complete control.
My sexual identity could be best described to people who have never met me as: a random arrangement of Soft Cell lyrics.
"What does it matter how many lovers you have if none of them gives you the universe." -Jacques Lacan
"If you say, I love you, then you have already fallen in love with language, which is already a form of break up and infidelity." -Jean Baudrillard
"Seduction is always more singular and sublime than sex and it commands the higher price." -Jean Baudrillard
"To love someone is to isolate him from the world, wipe out every trace of him, dispossess him of his shadow, drag him into a murderous future. It is to circle around the other like a dead star and absorb him into a black light." -Jean Baudrillard
“Someone tells me: this kind of love is not viable. But how can you evaluate viability? Why is the viable a Good Thing? Why is it better to last than to burn?” -Roland Barthes; A Lover's Discourse
“If I acknowledge my dependency, I do so because for me it is a means of signifying my demand: in the realm of love, futility is not a "weakness" or an "absurdity": it is a strong sign: the more futile, the more it signifies and the more it asserts itself as strength." -Barthes

I wanted to use a couple quotes from The Pleasure of the Text, but I couldn't find my copy. This actually turned to be a good thing I guess because it made me remember A Lover's Discourse which is way more applicable to my desire for a good relationship and the gay community in general, Barthes being gay and so comfortable with talking about his love of other men. It's a series of fragments on the objects of his love and desires that are both at once deeply intellectual and sensual.

Please tell me I'm not the only one that ends up feeling extremely turned on reading quotes like those.
What I’m doing with my life
Don’t overthink this one; tell us what you’re doing day-to-day.
Community college then transferring.
Developing teleportation technology to expand my dating capabilities to a wider radius.
I’m really good at
Go on, brag a little (or a lot). We won’t judge.
REALLY good at? The bar has been raised. What was wrong with asking what my favorite things to do are? Or just, you know, ask about my hobbies? Now I have to feel conceited about my hobbies. Is it not enough to be merely "good" at long walks on the beach and talking to your parents? Professional athletes are REALLY good at something. Renowned actors are REALLY good at something. Neil Degrasse Tyson is REALLY good at something. He can say, "Well, I'm pretty good at teaching people the secrets of the universe,"on his OKCupid. But no, OkCupid has to create conflict among us mere mortals. Now I have to ask myself: Are you actually REALLY good at that? Do you have a wikipedia page yet? Is it that you take pride in your abilities as a virtuoso at the mandolin or are you just an asshole? I remember watching a documentary a while back about a sushi chef who had been making sushi for sixty odd years and thinking to myself damn he's really good at cutting fish, I mean REALLY good. But what about those of us who don't want to date eighty year old sushi chefs and have to settle for something less?
The first things people usually notice about me
I’m an empty essay… fill me out!
Well the two things I have always heard people mention when they are looking for me is my blond hair and my height.
Favorite books, movies, shows, music, and food
Help your potential matches find common interests.
My three favorite books are Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace, Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami, and The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoevsky. I'm a lit major because I dunno, I have no real goals, so my books are one of the few things I take seriously. I like Postmodern lit in particular as long as it's not stupid and sarcastic to the point of parody. So yes, Don Delilo, Vonnegut, Toni Morrison, etc. are among my favorites. I lean toward short lit. In this regard, I prefer the likes of David Foster Wallace, Anton Chekhov, Ray Carver, George Saunders, and Cheever. I think Hamsun deserves some recognition here for Hunger even though it was written in the final decade of the 19th century and despite that little incident where, y'know, he became a Nazi and sent his Nobel prize in lit to Goebbels.
Most of my nonfiction interest is reserved for critical theory, deconstruction, and any other continental philosophers with a linguistic leaning. My favorite philosopher is Jean Baudrillard (here's a small quote to give you a bit of an idea just why Baudrillard was dope as fuk "There is nothing funny about Halloween. This sarcastic festival reflects, rather, an infernal demand for revenge by children on the adult world.") with Michel Foucault in a close second. Roland Barthes is a fav too, but I can't make up my mind and stick with it about where he fits into my philosophical hierarchy so he's just in a corner or wandering about doing his own thing, mostly looking seductive, smoking cigars, and getting run over by a laundry truck. I think he would've preferred things this way anyways. I've read and enjoyed bits and pieces of most major postmodern or neomarxist philosophers: Derrida (a true labor of love), Zizek, Lacan (not really postmodern, but whatever, Lacan is timeless.), Althusser, Spivek, etc. Not huge into feminist/queer theory, but I've read some Judith Butler, Irigaray, and Sedgwick. And I do have to say, the homoerotic triangle ranks up there as one of the most easily applicable and generally fun theories to use on media. Nietzsche also deserves a mention because I think he was postmodern before it was cool and I think some of his more mainstream ideas are experiencing a bit of a resurgence. As for his, well, more out there ideas, I think they help us better understand how it is we construct meaning and the importance of doing so even if they are divorced from reality. My goals for reading in philosophy for the near future involve reading Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein (Lord only knows if I can manage to read the whole thing) and a work or two by Deleuze and Guattari. Don't worry if philosophy isn't your cup of tea, I'm not a snob about it, and the whole esoteric lexicon is pretty easily distilled for the most part if it ever comes up.
As for movies, nothing really stands out at the moment. Of recent, Nightcrawler and Gone Girl are the only names that come to mind (I'll watch anything with Jake Gyllenhaal in it). In the past, some of my favorites have been The Cremator, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy (preferably extended edition watched back to back with the proper breaks for breakfast, second breakfast, elevenses, lunch, tea time, dinner, and supper). Somehow, I almost forgot PT Anderson. I love anything by him. Except for Magnolia that is, but we can all forgive that.
Haven't been listening to much music of late. The album The Cave of Forgotten Dreams by Ernst Reijseger and The Rite of Spring by Stravinsky stand out. Not a huge fan of rap or techno, but if it's good, it's good. I listen to a lot of different bands so attempting to expound upon what exactly it is that makes me click with a song or group would be an exercise in futility.
Regarding food, I enjoy my epicurian delights as much as the next guy, but I'm not really of discerning taste. It's always fun to try something new, but I am by no means "foodie". Yes, I do cook from time to time, and yes, I will make you dinner as an early date if I really like you. And good cheese will always win me over.
Why no favorite painters? Well Nicholas Roerich for anybody curious.
The six things I could never do without
Think outside the box. Sometimes the little things can say a lot.
Stupid question. I'll get to it if something hits me.
Update on this stupid question: I've decided to think of six things I really can do without.
1.) People with an unhealthy obsession with Disneyland. Not that I despise Disneyland or anything, but once a year is the most I can handle without running out of things to think about while I stand in line. Gay days would naturally be my Disneyland day of choice. It's always nice to get together for some Pride and have a bunch of bears yell at me to flash them my "titties" on It's a Small World.
2.) People who read fanfic and write when they can't sleep, but take their writing way too seriously. This is a weird pet peeve of mine, and their stories always make me feel uncomfortable like I'm being forced to think about something sleazy against my will. Not that I have it out for all fanfic. If the writer has a good sense for the kind of whimsical comedy that somehow borders the grotesque and lewd at times which is a hallmark of the medium and a good imagination that lends itself to plot-driven storytelling then fanfic can be excellent reading.
3.) Atheists who think they're special. What a world they must live in, wondering why nobody seems to understand them and how well reasoned they are. A world where Richard Dawkins never seems to change a theist's mind in a debate no matter how right he is (!). Poor special atheists, martyrs for the cause. A frustrated sigh of solidarity for the special atheists out there. The world will recognize you were right all along one of these days and that they really must be stupid in comparison and you can make all the smug faces at them you want. Just have faith special atheist
4.) People who fail to place commas where required then use several misplaced commas a few words later. I mean I'm not a huge prescriptivist in any way. It's all about style and flow and all that jazz. Lord only knows I love my conjunctions more than I ought to (If you haven't already noticed). But really, solecisms that serve no stylistic purpose whatsoever, but instead make the content difficult or confusing to read are way too common here. You're supposed to tend to your sentences, not chop them into pieces with commas like you've taken some kind of grammatical meat cleaver to your writing. I'm sure I make this mistake from time to time as well so I know it's really a snooty thing to nitpick about, but I'm not really THAT much of an asshole about it. I'm just sitting here and silently judging you. =)
5.) Soul patches. The world would be a better place without soul patches. More like soulless patches, ammirite? I instantly distrust anybody with a soul patch. "Why," you may ask. Because people with soul patches clearly think they're some kind of vaudevillian or carnie. Are you trying to grow a goatee? Did you miss a large patch while shaving? Too much uncertainty. It's the intent of the soul patch to sow confusion this way. Educate yourself, don't fall for it.
6.) The sound Facebook makes when you have a new update. I call the tone they use "Pavlov's Bell".
I spend a lot of time thinking about
Global warming, lunch, or your next vacation… it’s all fair game.
I dunno, lit theory, continental philosophy. The societal needs fulfilled by (often largely esoteric) cultural phenomena. This seems like a loaded question. Might as well ask somebody to define consciousness as they perceive it which is an inherently drawn out, long winded thing to do that ends up confounded by its own solipsistic nature anyways. And it makes me want to come up with something 'deep' and intellectual. I guess whatever floats into my head in the most distracting manner. The problem is, I find the ontology of the thought to be more compelling than the content (there has to be some kind of contradiction in that clause re the concept of the ontology of epistemology. The two are traditionally inseparable in traditional academic thinking of course, but I can't help but find myself chuckling in my head about the concept as I read over it again), and this inevitably leads to a whole rant on phenomenology. I like to come at the problem at all angles, and I think a greater understanding of neuroanatomy has allowed us to distill the great mystery of 'the thought' into a process. My interest lies in considering the relationship the thought has with cognitive processes after it has become an object of the mind. Once again, all angles of approach are useful here. Western thought has constructed a whole elaborate narrative on the triumph of cognitive thought so a scientific based inquiry is useful here to gain bearing by that we may understand the nature of the implicit bias present in cognitive thought. But I find the relationship between cognitive thought and more automatic processes of the mind to be really important to how we construct meaning as individuals and is a fundamental aspect of our struggle with ourselves. It speaks back to the idea of some kind of sine qua non binary we struggle with, a division between the known and unknown, the great mystery of the curtain: what it partitions. It's a constant procession of repetitive narrative formed from shared signs as well as a deeply personal system of signs each person develops locked in an inseparable spiral with cognitive deconstruction of said narratives. The spiral reveals at once epiphany through a greater understanding of the processes that comprise the thought and emptiness through the very act of distillation, of turning the thought into a process. That is, it creates contradiction and in this regard eludes the toils of understanding. We find the curtain lifted and nothing behind it. The entire thing begins with confusion and ends with confusion, but I'd submit the constant wandering between one confusion and another is worth consideration. The analogy that is most distracting right now regarding all this involves things bobbing about haphazardly in some kind of liquid. It's all very vague. So I guess my answer to this one is perfomative, and I'll leave it at that.
On a typical Friday night I am
Netflix and takeout, or getting your party on — how do you let loose?
Depends. Either out with friends or relaxing at home. Sometimes I'll go to a concert if it is a special occasion.
You should message me if
Offer a few tips to help matches win you over.
You want to talk. I have no singular goal in being here. Just to meet interesting people and see which way the wind blows. By all means, visit me. And by all means, message me. I can be a shy partner in the dance about one another that always seems to be going on here, but I figure we all essentially want the same thing: to reach out for some kind of connection. It could go nowhere more than a few replies back and forth or maybe we find nobody waiting at the other end, but its better to always imagine yourself close to something. Really, the only other choice is to become more and more an aspect of watching, the constant scopophilia this site indulges so well. But to watch is to become a thing farther and farther away and detached from the things you long for. I dunno, for me, really coming out for the first time to myself was about allowing myself to really want something, and I bet it felt that way on some level to a large number of the people here. It feels like a shame to spend time on this site once more unsure and self-censored and scared to pursue the things that might make you happy as you watch them from a distance. We're all just trying to avoid that feeling.
Oh, and if you actually bothered to read all this. If you message me after that and I don't answer, it's my own damn fault.