" 

  
 == What the...?!  (Proposal to clarify or delete paragraph from article) == 
 Can't believe nobody's brought this paragraph up for discussion, as I was sure it would be edited out of the article by now: 

 <> 

 For one thing, it seems to be misworded or badly edited.  Androphiles are persons of any sex or gender identity who are attracted to men.  The writer doesn't support the declaration of the final sentence with the previous two.  Is the author's point that gay men aren't attracted to all types of men, but rather to men whose sexual image is either stereotypically gay (even if not actually gay or bisexual, like some of the boybanders people keep putting up here), or iconically straight (even if actually gay or bisexual, like Rock Hudson or James Dean), thereby excluding types of men more typical to the gender, such as Eisenhower or whomever this Garlits character is?  And who is the author of that paragraph to imply that gay men not attracted to Iggy Pop or Muhammad Ali?  I'd say the sexual component to both of those men's appeal was within the realm of that appreciated by some gays, if not to the level of gay iconography.  On the other hand, Iggy Pop has always been cited as one of the major proponents of androgyny, alongside David Bowie and Marc Bolan, and as such would have a fairly iconic stature affecting the sexual or gender identities of some who grew up with him as an influence.  So if that was the writer's point, the glam Iggy Pop - or for that matter, the very vain and rather handsome Muhammad Ali, who spouted poetry about his own physical beauty - would seem to be out of place, as they do have a sexual appeal to certain segments of the gay community, and therefore don't support that point. 

 The only way it makes sense as I read it is if Eisenhower, Einstein and the rest ARE gay icons yet gay icons whose appeal is not explained by the definition.  Yet...is there a subculture of gays who would cite Eisenhower, Einstein and Garlits as chief among their icons?!  (""Drag racing legend"" seems to me about as synonymous with ""gay icon"" as ""Aboriginal spear-thrower.""  Less, as at least the Aborigine shows some skin.)  Finally, the writer doesn't make the point that gay icons are limited to celebrities by citing other celebrities - Bella Abzug or Harvey Milk, while known personages and people who fought for the rights of women and gays (and thereby candidates for iconic appreciation), were not celebrity-famous, and neither classically attractive nor part of a trendy subculture, and would more appropriately festoon (?!) a list of those lamentably relegated to would-be icons but for the fact they're not celebrities, if that was the point.  Could the original writer, or someone who understands and can explain this point clearly, help me and others understand what this statement means, so that we can clarify that point in the article?  If not, I propose it be removed.   "