|By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 09:21 am: Edit|
Pikkle. That's like saying "this is the best breakfast I've had all morning".
|By Pikkle on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 08:11 am: Edit|
Well, I've never met a gay I didn't like who was
drinking powerade and absinthe. As for being
PC, I'm far from it... as for being tolerant, that's
a whole 'nother story. Quite a difference.
|By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 05:01 am: Edit|
Midas: Tangent? Hello??? You've said nothing about how gays or PC has influenced Absinthe & Powerade! I want a written essay on my desk by tomorrow.
|By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 04:58 am: Edit|
Oh Lordhobgoblin... How well you know me.
|By Midas on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 04:15 am: Edit|
This is a bit of a tangent, but I just discovered a fabulous book. It's called "Truly Wilde" by Joan Schenkar, and is a biography of Dolly Wilde, Oscar's neice. The similarities between the two are surprising. Physically, sexually (Dolly was bisexual with a preference for women), habitually, and even their writing style and sense of wit were similar. She was just as interesting as her more famous uncle, and even a little more debauched. Really worth reading.
|By Anatomist1 on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 03:36 am: Edit|
Actually, the phrase 'political correctness' and 'PC' orginated with hardcore left wingers as a joke. If you were arguing socialist dogma with one of your leftie buddies and he wasn't toeing the line, you'd tease him for not being 'politically correct'. Shortly thereafter, Limbaugh and other demagogues got hold of it, turned it into a crude bludgeoning weapon, and set to work indiscriminately smashing things. I've seen plenty of 'PC' attempts at launching totalitarian policies here at the University of Wisconsin, and I've seen a few people denounced as monsters for innocently using out-of-fashion terminology and such. These types of things do happen. However, in my observation, most of the people who rail against PC with evangelistic fervor have never really been exposed to it, and certainly haven't suffered enough harm from it to justify their stridency. Totalitarian-style propaganda runs both ways.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 03:34 am: Edit|
Or maybe a lost cause.
|By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 03:17 am: Edit|
Or maybe the lost Resident.
|By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 03:15 am: Edit|
I'm the lost Beatle.
|By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 03:09 am: Edit|
Head: was this the lost verse from Lou's "Wild Side"?
|By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 01:43 am: Edit|
There once was a boy from Brazil
Who liked to take estrogen pills
shaved the hair off his knob
changed his birthname from Bob
Grew some breasts now she calls herself Jill
|By _blackjack_ on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 11:52 pm: Edit|
I don't get it. I've probably been hit on by more men than women, and, well, I think it's sweet. They take no for an answer, after all. If anything, they're embarrassed to know their gay-dar was off...
And I don't think it is either sexist or Dworkinesque to say their is a difference between a man hiting on a woman and a woman hitting on a man. Men are (usually) physically larger and, well, more prone to violence. This is NOT to imply that all men are rapists, but, well, most rapists are men. That is why I drew the analogy. Men rarely see a sexual advance as a potential threat, unless it comes from another man. Women often do.
On the other hand, I can think of a few women I'd have fealt threatened by if I'd known ahead of time...
|By Don_walsh on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 11:46 pm: Edit|
"Marc is right if you're a white heterosexual male you're fair game for anything. PC assumes that prejudice against white people, against males, or against heterosexuals cannot exist. What a load of shit."
'Political correctness' is little more than the modern American equivalent of Mao's little red book (different content) and at its heart is just Orwellian Newspeak/Doublespeak. It started off as a bit of a joke but unfortunately, not everyone has the same sense of humor...
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 10:33 pm: Edit|
"it astonishes me how often I straight guys speak with terror that some gay guy might want to have sex with them. Hey, sparky, now you know how all those women you hit on feel..."
Come on Blackjack it's not the same, and you assume that "hitting on" is something that is only carried out by men on either women or other men, your comment is I'm afraid inherently sexist. Today's women are not afraid to make advances on men (and a good thing this is to).
I personally would feel extremely uncomfortable if a gay man "hit on me", I would feel disinterested and mildly flattered if a woman I didn't find attractive (i.e. ugly) "hit on me", and I would be interested and very flattered if a woman I found attractive "hit on me". Likewise heterosexual women feel the same. Making advances is a normal and essential part of sexual behaviour, the attitude that there is something sexist and wrong with men "hitting on" women is crap.
I am not homophobic but the thought of a man having sex with me revolts me and does not have the same effect as the thought of an ugly (no apologies for the use of this non-PC term) woman having sex with me. It is all about what an individual views as being natural or not, and each to his own.
I used to have this "liberal" friend who used to say to me that I should be flattered when gay men made advances on me, as I should be flattered that another human being found me attractive. What a load of bullshit. If I was bisexual or gay then I would be flattered, but I'm not so I'm not. Even though I wouldn't want to have sex with them, I am however flattered when ugly woman find me attractive and make advances.
You can't change the nature of human sexuality, we are who we are and we will be attracted to and revolted by whatever our sexuality determines. The reality of individual human sexuality doesn't fit well with 'political correctness' but that's just tough, we are who we are, and each to his own.
|By Head_prosthesis on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 08:34 pm: Edit|
Queer Duck he's intellectual
Queer Duck he's homosexual...
|By Head_prosthesis on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 08:29 pm: Edit|
Have you ever heard of the holiday called BEER-N-ZA.
It's a celebration of
D. The La-Z-Boy
All are invited. Except those people that ask all the same questions over and over again during the game(I forget what they're called).
|By _blackjack_ on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 08:17 pm: Edit|
A note on gay-bashing and such: it astonishes me how often I straight guys speak with terror that some gay guy might want to have sex with them. Hey, sparky, now you know how all those women you hit on feel...
My pal Chief is a gay skinhead. He has a t-shirt that says "Bash Back." He's 6'5" and about 280lbs, and squeals like a schoolgirl when he sees a cute pair of shoes...
|By _blackjack_ on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 08:14 pm: Edit|
PC assumes that prejudice against white people, against males, or against heterosexuals cannot exist. What a load of shit.
|By _blackjack_ on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 08:07 pm: Edit|
Sorry, I was unclear. My problem with the term "homosexual" is that it is a Latin root with a Greek prefix, and, more specifically, the Latin sexus does not mean "sexual intercourse" but "physical gender*." Therefore, "homosexual," as an adjective, describes any number of things that are the same physical gender. Any two man are homosexual, because they are of the same sex. It is only when applies to things like "homosexual relations" or "homosexual intercouse" that it starts to apply to gay-ness. "Homosexual intercourse" is intercourse between members of the same sex, but calling those who engage in it "homosexuals" misuses the word.
Of course, like I said, usage determines meaning. "Homosexual" is now used specifically to mean "engaging in homosexual intercourse" and that's that. English can be messy, but it gets the job done.
*Yes, I know that I'm technicaly mis-using "gender" here, but there isn't a better word in English other than "sex."
Bonus round: name a non-euphamistic, standard Modern English word that has as its primary definition, "to fuck".
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 07:56 pm: Edit|
No decent person would condone homophobia, racism or other hatreds, but things have gone too far when someone can be branded for making a simple joke about someone of another sexual orientation, race or sex.
Political Correctness is all about a group of up-tight guilt-ridden individuals exerting their control on others. PC makes me sick, some London schools have now banned children playing "musical chairs" in school (encourages violence) and are replacing it by a game where children all sit in a circle and turn to the person next to them and tell him his good points, (a bit difficult if you're sat next to the school bully) what a load of nonsense. Also I've heard that some schools encourage boys to dress up as girls in play-time and vice-versa so that the children grow up to have empathy for members of the opposite sex, (more likely to grow up with an identity crisis). PC is not funny.
Marc is right if you're a white heterosexual male you're fair game for anything. PC assumes that prejudice against white people, against males, or against heterosexuals cannot exist. What a load of shit.
|By Don_walsh on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 07:36 pm: Edit|
Homosexual means 'same sex' not 'man sex'; lesbians are female homosexuals and there ain't no men around.
Homo in same sense as homonym, homolog, homogenous. Same.
Opposite: Heterosexual. Other/opposite sex. As in Heterogenous. Hetterodox. Mixed.
I can understand your theoretical problem with 'homophobic' and 'homophobia' but here the Homo part I think means not same, but rather Homo as slang contraction for homosexual. Fear of homosexuals as root cause of gay-bashing and worse -- hate crimes against homosexuals. Jackrolling, or mugging of gays used to be a sport in parts of NYC and elsewhere and an easy way to pick up a few bucks, pretend to be a hustler, then beat the shit out of the gay guy and take his money. Of course, it was advisable to pick your victim carefulyl because some of those faggots are tough mothers and will beat the shit out of YOU. No I don't mean you, blackjack, I am just editorializing. All I mean to say is that the line between gaybashing and gayBASHING is still a thing one. I say this as a very heterosexual sort, I just don't think anyone needs to build a ghetto for anyone else on the basis of sexual orientation.
I mean, more women for thee and me, right? At least when I was younger...
|By Head_prosthesis on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 07:25 pm: Edit|
Let's say you just got done working on your car. You're all greasy and dirty and you really have a jones for some Absinthe in a fresh glass.
Instead of washing up you go straight to Meijer for glasses and you rush out into the cold Mid-western air with your scarf wrapped around your head. You get to Meijer and your voice starts to go from the chilly icey air and you can't speak a thee english no more. You go in anyway.
Meanwhile, a bunch of mad (we'll use the term) "interlopers" is planning an act of terrorism(They plan on buying all the long johns). The local police and the feds have been tipped. They are waiting. You happen to be walking in right behind the "interlopers". You appear to be part of their group and right about the time you see what's going on John Law comes around the corner.
You try to speak but nothing intelligible is coming out. Officer Law is slapping the cuffs on you as you point to your wallet. He's read you the miranda and is checking out your credentials.
"This don't look like you" he says
Then a toothless clerk screams "That's the one Orificer, I seen't him come in with the rest ah them "interlopers"!!!!
Immediately a throng of red armed, mullet wearing, nascar sporting, locals point and holler in condemnation.
You are whisked off to some jet where they immediately fly you(no movie, no meal,no frills) to "interlopia".
Just a hypothetical...
|By Martin on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 07:09 pm: Edit|
I must say, if I were wrongly accused and convicted of something that could get me deported, I would most likely do something that would give them some very legitimate reasons to deport me. At that point, I wouldn't have anything to lose would I?
Yeah, nothing suprises me... I try not to think about what the people in power have the ability to do... it makes me too angry.
|By Martin on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 07:04 pm: Edit|
|By Head_prosthesis on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 06:59 pm: Edit|
I guess the same way innocent people get put in jail. Being arrested in a case of false identity?
"Nothing is impossible, just because it is improbable"
|By Martin on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 06:36 pm: Edit|
"He prefers the company of men."
So mr. prosthesis, how can your friend get me deported? I'd really like to know. I'm seriously fascinated by the subject of a person being kicked out of their own country of birth. I must've done something really terrible. I'd like to know what it was.
|By Head_prosthesis on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 02:38 pm: Edit|
sorta like -ade
I hate that too.
|By Head_prosthesis on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 02:33 pm: Edit|
As Malachy's Irish mother said to the young African American Male who brought her son's wallet to the house after it was lost...
"Well ya' can't believe everything ya' read in the papers about you folks, now can ya'?"
|By Midas on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 02:26 pm: Edit|
"Homer, doesn't he seem a little festive to you?..."
|By Bob_chong on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 02:25 pm: Edit|
Your 8 p.m. post reminded me of a little rant of my own regarding diminishing legitimate evils by playing chicken little every time the pettiest thing comes along: I hate the suffix "-gate" being added to any and every semi-scandal involving the White House.
Watergate was serious. "Filegate" and "Troopergate" and gate-ing everything else the Clintons ever did is just stupid--and this is coming from a person who thinks Clinton has been about as great a president as Rutherford B. Hayes, William Henry Harrison, or Chester Arthur.
|By Midas on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 02:20 pm: Edit|
Don, I agree totally. People generally don't know or don't care about the difference between a cross dresser, a transexual, and a drag queen. This amounts to all of the above being classified as the same. Those who are familiar with CDs, TSs and drag know that the differences are immense in regard to intent, sexual orientation, etc.
Luckily in my scene there is alot of gender bending that goes on, and it's not related at all to sexual orientation (as would be true in your scene as well I assume), so intolerance of Mr. Miss isn't a problem too much.
I'm glad to see people like Eddie Izzard trying to open the eyes of the great unwashed to cross dressing and transvestitism.
Marc, I admire Wayne/Jayne County. She said a mouthful with that song. And as for drag queens being men who want to be fabulous, you hit the acrylic nail on the head.
Rupaul once said "You can call me he, you can call me she, you can call me Regis or Kathy Lee, just don't call me dude." You go, grrl.
|By _blackjack_ on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 02:15 pm: Edit|
"Homophobia" is a sloppy neologism. It doesn't mean what it should, etymologically, but neither does the word :homosexual". There are lots of words like that: hemophilia, diabetes, meloncholy, taxicab, bus. However, usage determines meaning. The word "homophobia" is used to mean "prejudice against homosexuals," and that is the meaning it has taken. Unless you have a better suggestion (which is hard, since there isn't a good Greek or Latin word for our concept of "gay"), the word is in place in the language and we're stuck with it.
|By _blackjack_ on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 02:00 pm: Edit|
Well, I won't worry too much about the negative effect PC has on straight white males until they no longer, y'know, control everything. Whatever prejudice is leveled against us is nothing compared to that the various others receive. What worries me more about the whole thing is the way it is used as a weapon against legitimate causes, how taking things to absurd levels dilutes the fight against real problems.
Real sexual harrasment is a problem. Putting a person (of either sex and any preference) in a position whre they fear for their livelyhood unless they comply with a sexual advance is a problem. But when you start calling a single instance of innocent--perhaps misdirected--flirtation, sexual harrasment, you weaken the definition. When you accuse someone of being a racist because they may not be familiar with another culture's mores or what-have-you, the word means less when you use it aginst genocidal, dragging-behind-pickup-truck monsters.
As with most things, I think we need to learn moderaion. Martin's discomfort with leather-boys isn't the same as beating someone and leaving them for dead. PC bullshit makes liberals look as abusrd as the Jesus-frenzy of a small body of reactionaries make conservatives look. And as a liberal, I have a vested interest in avoiding such things.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 01:48 pm: Edit|
Hey, you asked for it. You said "I think just about eveyone here can agree that..." As a semi-retired professional contrarian, such a sentence is like the 'bat-signal' to me. I could sense my services were needed before I even turned on my computer.
I wasn't denying social problems to which you refer, I was questioning the way discourse about them is commonly framed, particularly as evinced by your occasion for bringing it up. Of course there are angry, destructive people who hate homosexuals. However, the word 'homophobe' doesn't seem an appropriate label for them. It means, literally, 'fear of sameness'. In some circles, it is believed that hatred of homosexuals stems from fear of members of the same sex and/or fear of one's own affectionate propensities toward members of the same sex. This seems like highly speculative armchair intellectualism to me, and the effort to pack this ideological baggage into a simple term seems disingenuous and sinister... like 'Pro-life' or 'Pro-choice'. Trying to rig a debate through the use of booby-trapped language is a dishonest way to conduct public discourse, and unlikely to propagate anything but confusion and emnity.
I see a similar problem with the way the word 'racism' is tossed around. To be literal about it, I would think a racist is someone who hates everyone of a particular race and/or believes in their inferiority as a categorical maxim... in the same way someone believes in the universality of the laws of physics, or the immorality of murder. How many people really think like this? Members of the Aryan Nation, of course, but who else? I don't really think security guards who regard a particular group of people with increased suspicion really qualifies. Was this busload of blacks wearing business suits and toting copies of the Wall Street Journal? If they were, do you think the guards would have had the same reaction?
I think you gave a perfect illustration of what I am calling contemporary tribalism, not racism. The security guards were probably worried because the people were foreign to them in a number of ways in addition to just having different skin coloration: style of dress, speech rythyms, etc... Condemning their behavior as though they believed in Nazi-eugenics ideology is not productive. If people are really interested in solving problems regarding hatred and uncivilized behavior, they are going to have to dump all the indignation and ideologically loaded language and start making a real attempt to understand what's going on.
|By Marc on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 12:13 pm: Edit|
Political correctness can lead to increased homophobia, sexism and racism. As a white male,
I resent that women, gays and blacks can freely express their biases without fear of retribution.
If a black man calls me a honky, it's okay. I deserve it. If a woman calls me a pig, it's okay. I deserve it. A woman can say "look at the tight ass on that guy" and no one bats an eyelash. If I make a similar comment about a woman's ass, it's sexual harrassment. When gay men flaunt their sexuality, it's considered fun and theatrical. A hetero male doing the same is considered a macho pig.
Political correctness seems to only apply to white males. Maybe we deserve it. Maybe not
|By Pikkle on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 09:35 am: Edit|
Have you ever been to Detroit? You think
racism and homophobia are misnomers and
myths of a bygone era? You really need to
visit this fabulous metro area, I do believe your
horizons need to be broadened a bit before
you start de-stereotyping the stereotypes. I
was raised in an almost all white area. When
I was growing up, you did not go to Detroit.
When the bus stopped at the corner strip mall
and blacks got off the bus and headed into
whatever department store, security went on
high alert. There are too many examples to
mention but they happened and still happen.
Do you know what 'white flight' is? Detroit is a
perfect example of legitimate racism. Things
have changed very little since then too.
Perhaps this area is unique like that but
perhaps not. It's far from being a
cosmopolitan center but so is most of the rest
of this country. If you want to preach about
having intolerance for intolerance, you need to
open your eyes because I see it everyday and
it makes me sick.
|By Martin on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 07:04 am: Edit|
Gee... check out for a few days and the threads certainly fill up quick....
Anyway, just to set the record straight. I have no problems with gay people whatsoever, I had a roommate who was gay, I have many friends that are gay, my kindergarten Sunday-school teacher was gay... I can't help it that leathermen creep me out (and Marc, I certainly agree, they do look ridiculous). I am comfortable enough with my heterosexuality and my masculinity that I don't feel either of those things threatened at any point when I'm around people who are different.... I just think leathermen are creepy, okay?
I noticed the strangest thing about where I live now... I used to live in Chicago, a big city with a very big gay population and "scene"... oddly enough, I've met about ten times more gay folks in Kokomo than I ever did in Chicago. It is a strange place filled with strange people.
Anatomist... right on with that post.. one thing you got a little wrong... my ex-con friend doesn't carry a knife.. he's not allowed to due to the circumstances of his conviction. And just think, he was awarded custody of his 2-year-old daughter.. that should give you a clue what her mother is like.
Head... your friend can get me deported, eh? That sounds interesting. For what specifically? Where would I be deported to? England? Hmmm, I could get all the absinthe I want then..... dare he make my dreams a reality?
|By _blackjack_ on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 06:44 am: Edit|
drag queens are men who want to be fabulous.
|By Chrysippvs on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 03:29 am: Edit|
"I am not myself a CD, as I look like Tugboat Annie in a skirt"
This when when having a mind like a steel trap really bites you in the arse...
|By Artemis on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 11:44 pm: Edit|
"I have come to regard intolerance of intolerance as about the most intolerable kind of intolerance, primarily because it's about gutless conformity."
Very well said, in fact, that entire post was a jewel. The best post you've ever made here, I think. So many people agreeing with you in one thread - you'd better retire (I'd put a smiley face here but you don't like them ...)
|By Marc on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 09:58 pm: Edit|
crossdressers are men who want to be women.
drag queens are men who want to be fabulous.
|By Marc on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 09:46 pm: Edit|
your post reminds me of a song by drag rocker
Jayne County called " Man Enough To Be A Woman".
You are absolutely right. Drag queens are the front rank of the lavender revolution. They literally put their bodies on the line. I stand by any individual or group that has the courage to
"let their freak flag fly".
Many of my heroes and teachers/influences have been gay or bisexual.
A partial list:
Rimbaud, Artaud, Burroughs, Ginsberg,Walt Whitman,
Murnau, Von Sternberg, James Dean, John Lennon,
Lou Reed, Diane Di Prima, Kenneth Anger, Leslie Gore, Kerouac , ...
The bottom line : there ain't that much difference between sucking cock or pussy. It's all meat/flesh. The important things are being honest, loving and comfortable in your own skin.
Guilt and shame are a loser's game. I've always considered myself a latent bisexual with heterosexual guilt feelings.
|By Don_walsh on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 09:18 pm: Edit|
Warning: Off Topic
Let me say I am speaking to this from expertise as proprietor of a House that caters to maybe 20% crossdressers. I am not myself a CD, as I look like Tugboat Annie in a skirt, it does little for me or (thank God) anyone else. However I know something of the CD psychology having dealt with so many of them.
Robert, this is not a rebuttal, just a comment. While some gays are crossdressers the vast majority of crossdressing males are heterosexual and most Female Dominants would say, VERY VERY heterosexual. The tragedy I have observed is that het CD's are among the most alienated and isolated of fetish subgroups, as they long for a female partner who will accept them, while women almost always assume incorrectly that crossdressing is a matter of sexual orientation (i.e., gay or bi). Het CDs worship women to the point that they want to share in the experience, but ONLY with women, they are almost all so virulently homophobic that no discussion is possible.
You can image the recipe for disaster, as these poor guys can't bring themselves to risk rejection by female partners. They tend to a binge/purge pattern (bolemia-like) about their CD behavior, accumulating large wardrobes and collections of accessories then trashing them or giving them away when depression/revulsion sinks in. Then starting over.
Many Dommes tend to find CD sessions distasteful, simply because the CDs often fail to launder their wardrobes, out of fear of compromise. The result is a very smelly ladyboy indeed.
Asian societies tend to be kinder to the transgender communities.
Mainstream society in the West tends to assume that crossdressing implies homosexuality, this is grossly untrue. And in the gay community, such as I as an outsider have any insight, CDs are a minority, just as SMers are a minority. The gay world celebrates masculinity more than female-mimicry.
|By Midas on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 08:47 pm: Edit|
First of all, I'm gay. No biggie. Always have been , always will be. Never had a problem with homophobia (well, not in the extreme. I grew up in a very tolerant area), and am perfectly at ease with my sexual "preference". My sister is a lesbian, my aunt is a lesbian, and my cousin is gay. I have lavender blood.
In the past few years, there has been a strange about face in the gay community, especially in Sydney, regarding drag and camp/femme behaviour in general, and I think it does come down to the "we're like everyone else" argument. Drag and camp are seen as old school gay behaviour, and are either seen as frivolous entertainment (as drag can sometimes be), or simply tolerated. They are being shunned, and are not seen to have a relevant place in the modern gay movement. this is a shame, as it's simply not true. The drag queens were some of the most militant people at the Stonewall riot. Oscar Wilde is the patron saint of feminine yet strongly driven men. Julian Clary managed to make a anti-gay extreme right politician scream like a girl and walk off set on national australian television.
Who cares how you dress, how you act, or if you are into lilac window treatments, just be you, and don't make allowances or excuses for living to your own ideals and standards.
My two pink cents.
How can you tell if a gay man has broken into your house?
There are new curtains and a quiche in the fridge.
|By Don_walsh on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 08:30 pm: Edit|
You misunderstand, I hate pc.
However in my Scene, ultratolerance is just a matter of not tossing brickbats around in a glass house.
It does seem to me that absinthe people (who constitute a misunderstood small group) might just benefit from the same attitude; the fact that it ACCIDENTALLY is also pc is just that -- an accident. No one ever accused ME of beign pc.
|By Tavis on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 08:19 pm: Edit|
Baa Baa Green Sheep....
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 08:16 pm: Edit|
For once I too have to admit that I agree with Anatomist.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 08:14 pm: Edit|
Making a joke about people who differ from you is not a sign of intolerance. PC has got it all wrong and PC ends up making people defensive and twisted. PC does not allow a sense of humour.
|By Hersaint on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 08:12 pm: Edit|
Do you Know Anatomist1
For once I Agree with you
|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 04:25 pm: Edit|
As I live in the epicenter of the PC universe, I have come to regard intolerance of intolerance as about the most intolerable kind of intolerance, primarily because it's about gutless conformity. Homophobia is a gross misnomer. The people who get pasted with this label aren't afraid of members of their own sex, they aren't even afraid of homosexuals. Usually, they express a personal dislike for people who cluster together and express a certain style, like leathermen. The same thing goes for "racism". Very few people are actually legitimate racists: it's too much work. I think most of this could be better classified as a sort of new tribalism.
The notion that one should be required to like every group of people no matter how goofy and distasteful they seem to them is an insupportable, bald assumption that deserves no allegiance whatsoever.
Personally, I'm not afraid of men; I'm not afraid of gay men, and I'm not afraid of lesbians... in fact, I've been in love with at least one lesbian. But, I am not waxing hyperbolic when I say that I'd rather remove my own eyeballs with a soup spoon than attend a Melissa Etheridge concert. That whole melodramatic tough-guy lesbo aesthetic turns my stomach: it's a self-selected, contemporary tribe that I can't stand.
Likewise, Martin would rather hang out with knife-wielding ex-cons in the Denny's than go near a gay leatherman. So what? It's his choice, and he wasn't expressing anything more than a personal preference. I see nothing in it that warrants censure.
|By Marc on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 03:03 pm: Edit|
and those cops love their leather.
|By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 02:43 pm: Edit|
there are no horses in Greenwich Village.
|By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 02:41 pm: Edit|
It's really funny, actually, to see mainstream (often Republican!) gays who seem to have more hatred for drag queens and fetishists and such than most striaght people. They think the weirdos are "spoiling" the argument that they are just like everyone else.
Fuck that. The whole point of the gay rights (and women's rights, and civil rights) movement, for my money, is that it's OK to be whatever you want, as long as you aren't hurting anybody else (in a way that they don't like...)
I have a pal who was going to run for congress on the slogan: I Draw the Line at Kids and Animals.
|By Marc on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 02:37 pm: Edit|
there are no horses in Greenwich Village. That's why those damn chaps make no goddamned sense.
What about the notion that political correctness
is ruining everybody's sex life? Before I got hooked up with Jennifer, I was a poonhound of major proportions. But, I got slapped as much as I got laid because I couldn't get with the p.c. program. After a few shots of Jack Black and a few snorts of Peruvian flake, I was a walking billboard for political incorrectness. Chicks would see me coming from miles away and their feminist antennae would start vibrating like dildoes with fresh batteries. I never did find a delicate way of saying: "I want to fuck you till your eyes roll back in your head and you mutter the ten thousand names of Jesus and all his children!"
Why do gay men wear moustaches?
To hide the stretch marks.
|By Don_walsh on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 02:23 pm: Edit|
My barb was not intended for Marc. Marc needs no lectures on tolerance from me. As for the gay community there is still some friction in the Scene between the gay BDSM crowd and the het (heterosexual) BDSM crowd, my affiliation is with the latter. But it's just about politics and stupidity. There's a famous cartoon showing two guys in drag walking down the street, and two gay leathermen walking down the other side of the street, and both pairs are pointing at the other shouting 'PERVERT!' which is of course the sort of stupid provinciality we want to avoid. It's all about diversity and choices. As G.B.Shaw's mistress used to say (in the midst of the Oscar Wilde scandal) "I don't care WHAT people do to each other -- as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses."
|By Marc on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 02:11 pm: Edit|
By the way...
My best friend and business partner for 10 years,
J.C. Lewis, was gay. He died 5 years ago of aids.
I was with him to the bitter end. He was a beautiful soul. I love him and miss him. He was a faggot and proud of it.
Where I live, the gay community is strong and proud. Most of the council members for my district are gay. Everybody accepts everybody else. It's okay to kid each other. The gay/straight thing ain't a big deal anymore.
There's more tension and misunderstaning between straight men and women. That's the real battleground. I'm more comfortable around my gay friends than some straight women I know. Talk about watching your tongue. Sheesh. Political correctness is killing our sex life!
|By Marc on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 01:59 pm: Edit|
I fully support anybody's right to dress anyway they want. I've had the shit kicked outta me for being a longhair (back in the 60's). I get a lotta double takes out here in Vegas for having hair down to my ass, a Fu Manchu and rock and roll threads. I don't mind. In fact, I like the attention. The leatherboys like the attention too. That's why they get all dressed up and role play. I just think they look goofy. Mainly because so many of them are terribly out of shape and yet insist on wearing really tight clothes.
I stopped that shit years ago. I now conceal my gut with oversized black shirts that I don't tuck in. Trust me, watching one of these guys parading down Christopher Street with a beer-gut hangin' down to his knees and a pair of cowboy chaps on is quite a hoot. As for faggots in general, I prefer em to straight people. They got better taste.
|By _blackjack_ on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 01:40 pm: Edit|
OK, make fun of them because they look funny, but not for being gay. The difference: there has not been a history institutionalized, socially legitimized bias against people just for dressing funny.
Also, there is a difference between joking from within and without. I suspect Marc knows tons of queer folk (hard not to in the Village) and he is in a position to laugh at the idiosyncrasies of the community. Martin, I don't know... You'll note, I asked him what he thought was wrong with scary leather boys. I didn't accuse him of anything.
Similarly, when I make fun of hippies, it is from the position of another member of the counterculture. I know darn well that the hippies, the ravers, the BDSM folk, and I are all on the same side of the line. It's kinda like who is allowed to say "nigger" and who isn't...
|By Don_walsh on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 01:00 pm: Edit|
They probably think you look funny too, Marc. The first think we learn in the Scene is NOT to judge others, be tolerant, to each his own, it takes all kinds to make a world and similar cliches.
Too bad such tolerance is not at home here.
|By Marc on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 12:36 pm: Edit|
don't mock the homos, but hippies are open game.
leathermen, in their biker boots, chaps, chains, trucker wallets, leather vests over bare torsos,
and little leather caps on their heads, deserve all of our compassion and understanding. Comeon. They're just plain goofy. I see these dudes walking in Manhattan in 100 degree weather covered head to foot in leather and chains. Their hairy potbellies are usually exposed and hanging over their belt buckles. And they're wearing chaps. In the city! Ain't a horse nowhere. Gay or not, they look ridiculous. It's like watching a Village People reunion choreographed by Tom Of Finland.
|By Marc on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 12:23 pm: Edit|
I live in Greenwich Village. There's big, gay leathermen everywhere. But, they're not scary.
In fact, they're kind of funny. Sexual Walter Mittys. Meek and mild interior decorators by day,
lubed-up, whip-snappin' leather boys at night.
It's like dressin' up and playin' cowboy.
|By Head_prosthesis on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 10:42 am: Edit|
So how about that Serpis? Yummmmmmmmm!!!
|By Pikkle on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 08:13 am: Edit|
Whether it be pc or not, I don't think such a
forum as this is a place to preach intolerance.
I'm sure just about everyone here can agree
on that, especially since there seems to be
more of a drive to keep the discussions
absinthe related. If Martin wants to insinuate
his dislike of homosexuals, there are other
places than here to do it.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 04:43 am: Edit|
Potentially homophobic remarks, be careful Martin, you don't want the forum's politicaly-correct gestapo to attack you ;-)
|By Head_prosthesis on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 01:22 am: Edit|
Gay Leatherman! Is that a multi-tool for Interior Decorators?
|By Don_walsh on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 11:38 pm: Edit|
What's wrong with big scary het leathermen, for that matter?
|By Head_prosthesis on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 11:34 am: Edit|
So anyway. Has anyone else tried it? I would be curious to hear others feedback on the Powerade angle. Or any other pet recipes.
|By Head_prosthesis on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 11:30 am: Edit|
I'm sure Martin has love for people of all chromatic tones, hormonal dependencies, genetic differences and belt sizes.
|By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 07:15 am: Edit|
What Martin, are you a homo-phobe too?
|By Daedelus on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 06:13 am: Edit|
and for the record the only reason I even know that info is bc I got sucked into a "Behind the Music" episode re: The Village People.
not that there is anything wrong with that!
|By Daedelus on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 06:11 am: Edit|
they have been known to sing backup vocals on some really hideous songs by the village people.
And on a similar note, the lead singer of the village people was married to Felecia Rashad of Cosby Show fame. How's that for wierdness?
|By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 06:06 am: Edit|
What's wrong with big scary gay leathermen?
|By Head_prosthesis on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 01:10 am: Edit|
No leather, but he could have you deported.
|By Martin on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 06:20 pm: Edit|
Couldn't hang, eh? Is he a big scary gay leatherman? I certainly can't hang with them... anyone else I would be fine with... but those leathermen... yikes!
|By Head_prosthesis on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 04:28 pm: Edit|
The mixture would probably go well at a 4th of July barbecue.
|By Head_prosthesis on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 04:26 pm: Edit|
I don't think so. Martin couldn't hang with my friend.
|By Grimbergen on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 01:23 pm: Edit|
Did he get the recipe from Martin?
|By Pikkle on Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 07:50 am: Edit|
Oh yeah, I was just gonna say that.
|By Midas on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 04:54 pm: Edit|
Absinthe and Powerade... would you call that a "Green Machine"?
|By Head_prosthesis on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 04:40 pm: Edit|
I was gonna say.
|By Pikkle on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:53 pm: Edit|
You could mix Lemon Powerade with Lasala
and never taste the difference!
|By Head_prosthesis on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:34 pm: Edit|
He'd probably drink La Bleue with the clear POWERADE. He couldn't scrounge up the money at the time for the La Bleue.
|By Head_prosthesis on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:32 pm: Edit|
He used ice but it all just poured in together like regular home made drink. It may have lended itself better to drinking during a barbecue. Maybe on a Fourth of July holiday. As of now possibly 5 or more people know of this.
|By Pikkle on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:30 pm: Edit|
What flavor Powerade do you think you could
drink with La Bleue?
|By Pikkle on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:29 pm: Edit|
Did he use ice or was it just cold water? How
many other people know about this?
|By Thegreenimp on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:28 pm: Edit|
I want to see the first brave person mix Powerade with Absinthe King.......talk about frightening, it could kill you and embalm you at the same time.
|By Head_prosthesis on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:26 pm: Edit|
Your eagerness in this concoction is disturbing.
No! There was no Gatorade involved.
|By Pikkle on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:24 pm: Edit|
How about Gatorade? Did you try that too?
I'm thinking about getting a case.
|By Head_prosthesis on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:22 pm: Edit|
The green powerade, of course. When I had it the Mari Mayans was desecrated. No sugar. It made me uncomfortable, like a ruffie might.
|By Pikkle on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:19 pm: Edit|
What flavor powerade? Did you put sugar in
it? What did it do to you?
|By Head_prosthesis on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:13 pm: Edit|
He also quipped...
"It's got everything you need"
|By Head_prosthesis on Monday, January 08, 2001 - 03:08 pm: Edit|
I have a friend who took a shining to the Green Fairy. I ordered him some Deva, Serpis and Mari Mayans. I was horrified to find him drinking it mixed with POWERADE. I tried it with great hesitation. Rightly so. It wasn't that it tasted bad it just didn't feel right.
Everybody has their own poison I guess, but I never saw this combination coming.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation