# Pink? Must be gay!



## justonemore

Although we live in enlightened times, I was wondering if anybody let the Pink/gay stigma bother them? I think this is most likely an American thing as I've never heard it in Europe but growing up in Chicago it was normal and I heard it mentioned twice last time I was there (I wasn't wearing pink at the time). Although I myself don't much care what others think of my choices, it could perhaps be a dangerous misconception in certain U.S. neighborhoods


----------



## DocD

justonemore said:


> Although we live in enlightened times, I was wondering if anybody let the Pink/gay stigma bother them? I think this is most likely an American thing as I've never heard it in Europe but growing up in Chicago it was normal and I heard it mentioned twice last time I was there (I wasn't wearing pink at the time). Although I myself don't much care what others think of my choices, it could perhaps be a dangerous misconception in certain U.S. neighborhoods


I'm confident enough in my sexuality (hetero) that what other people think really has no impact on my decisions. That being stated, I'm not sure if wearing a pink shirt would be any different than wearing a high end suit, khakis and an OCBD, etc., if deciding to take a stroll through the "wrong" neighborhood. None of those clothing choices would probably be the choice or norm for these areas or as you state "certain neighborhoods".


----------



## Flanderian

I don't think there is any longer an association in most peoples' minds between wearing pink and being gay, if there ever was. And so what if there were? I love pink, wear it all the time. My personal experience is that it's rather difficult to determine someone's sexual preference by their manner of dress.


----------



## JerseyJohn

I've never let it bother me. (a) I couldn't care less if someone besides my wife (who knows better by now) thought I was gay and (b) nobody but a moron whose opinion I really don't care about thinks the color of one's shirt indicates their sexual preference. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever actually seen a pink shirt on any gay guy I've known. Besides, as I understand it, pink only became a "female" color in the latter half of the 20th century. In art, the Virgin Mary is almost always shown in blue - the traditional color of virginity. Does wearing blue mean you're a virgin?


----------



## Oldsarge

I am not a great fan of pink in my own wardrobe, preferring peach with its slight edge toward the orange. However, I have read that if one is taking a new lady out to eat, especially in some atmospherically lit restaurant, a pink shirt greatly increases your appeal.


----------



## Flanderian

justonemore said:


> it could perhaps be a dangerous misconception in certain U.S. neighborhoods


All the better reason to stay out of those neighborhoods. In the neighborhood in which I grew up, the only danger was being there!


----------



## Starch

There's a thread on the subject somewhere not too far back.

Generally, in my experience, as long as you:
- don't hang out in truckstops or biker bars,
- don't go nuts with the pink (_e.g._ wearing pink head to toe, or driving a pink car),

nobody thinks it means much of anything.

If we're talking about pink dress or polo shirts, I think the only reaction you might get is that it looks "preppy." Of course, in truckstops and biker bars, that might be regarded as approximately the same thing as gay.

Just as an aside, as it's not quite what you were asking: in the vast majority of neighborhoods, appearing to be gay (whether or not that's a misconception) is not dangerous anyway.


----------



## Oldsarge

In college I had a friend who grew up in Birmingham, AL. In his opinion the term "bad side of Birmingham" was a redundancy. It's why he left at the ripe old age of seventeen (on a freight train!) and came to California. Today he is a prominent attorney . . . in California!


----------



## sbdivemaster

The only thing pink I wear is the classic BB pink OCBD - the older, pale pink. Love them. No, it's not gay.

However, I think the gay/pink association may come from, or at least be perpetuated by, the pink triangle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle#Gay_rights_symbol

I really don't care if someone thinks I'm gay if I wear a pink shirt, and as Flanderian said, I don't think you can really tell if someone is gay/straight by the manner of dress anymore.


----------



## FJW

I have a pink BB OCBD and Seersucker and a pink polo from Bills. And I too don't really care.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

I hate threads like this. No offense to the OP, but this type of discourse is just ignorant.


----------



## cdavant

I have a lot of shirts, and the only shirts attractive, much younger women ever say "I love that shirt on you" about are pinks and grays. Sadly, that's never followed up with "I'd love that shirt off you..."


----------



## Georgetown08

The necktie that gets me the most female compliments, by far, is pink.


----------



## Tilton

In high school and college all the guys wore pink. Pink ocbd, pink ties, pink pants, pink belts... but I think it's a regional thing... It was far more preppy than "gay" where I was.


----------



## justonemore

Ah. Mr. Kabbaz. Like it or not it does come down to image. My post was to draw a comparison between non-sensical American biases snd the ideas I find in my new home here in Europe. As we are all fasionistas of sorts on this site our oppinion is different from the main stream. I started the post after reading a question by a newbie who had just discoved pink and acted as if it was a forbidden pleasure.If a bias keeps us from accomplishing what we desire, we should discuss it and not shelve it out of our desire to avoid the uncomfortable. We also discuss other ideas considered taboo but I myself look at it as a way to educate the ignorant even when that person is me. As posted originally it's from Americans I hear this type of thing.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

justonemore said:


> Ah. Mr. Kabbaz. Like it or not it does come down to image. My post was to draw a comparison between non-sensical American biases snd the ideas I find in my new home here in Europe. As we are all fasionistas of sorts on this site our oppinion is different from the main stream. I started the post after reading a question by a newbie who had just discoved pink and acted as if it was a forbidden pleasure.If a bias keeps us from accomplishing what we desire, we should discuss it and not shelve it out of our desire to avoid the uncomfortable. We also discuss other ideas considered taboo but I myself look at it as a way to educate the ignorant even when that person is me. As posted originally it's from Americans I hear this type of thing.


Problem with your theory is that you're tarring an entire nation with your brush using a very antiquated stereotype.


----------



## Starch

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> ... using a very antiquated stereotype.


Perhaps even a non-sensical bias.


----------



## Matt S

I don't think wearing pink, or any other colour, makes someone look like they have a certain sexual orientation. I don't have any pink shirts at the moment, but I'd like to get some. They're classic menswear. One of my gay friends is a big fan of bright yellow. That's not something I could ever consider wearing, but that's for other reasons. The colour more associated with gay people, at least in my younger generation, is purple. I occasionally wear lilac, which is more like a pale purple and I really like the colour, and nobody has ever given me any problems. Of course, I don't know what others think of me, but I don't care. I know plenty more straight men than gay men who wear pink and purple. *Only the ignorant judge others by the colours they wear.*


----------



## justonemore

Ok. I'll avoid such topics if they offend our senior members. Antiquated perhaps but I just heard this in Chicago which is hardly the conservative deep south. and if I'm asking for peoples oppinions it's more to get an idea as to the current thought nationwide vetsus painting the whole country with the same brush.


----------



## Brio1

Starch said:


> There's a thread on the subject somewhere not too far back.
> 
> Generally, in my experience, as long as you:
> - don't hang out in truckstops or biker bars,
> - don't go nuts with the pink (_e.g._ wearing pink head to toe, or driving a pink car),
> 
> nobody thinks it means much of anything.
> 
> If we're talking about pink dress or polo shirts, I think the only reaction you might get is that it looks "preppy." Of course, in truckstops and biker bars, that might be regarded as approximately the same thing as gay.
> 
> Just as an aside, as it's not quite what you were asking: in the vast majority of neighborhoods, appearing to be gay (whether or not that's a misconception) is not dangerous anyway.


What if the wearer of the said pink shirt found himself in a gay truck stop or gay biker bar by mistake? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## P Hudson

I live in one of the gayest areas in the world. Let me assure you that while many of the people here are activists, politically engaged, etc., they wear no more pink than anyone else. In fact, I'm sure I wear more pink than the average person on the street, because it is more closely associated with Brooks Brothers and traditional American clothes than with anything else. I hear comments about it all the time, but they are consistently snide remarks from friends who know that I'm not gay. I suppose if you live in an area where there is virulent gay-bashing, and for some reason the association between color and life-style has been made, then I would advise caution, but I can't imagine this is a common issue.


----------



## smmrfld

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I hate threads like this. No offense to the OP, but this type of discourse is just ignorant.


+1. Agree completely...one of the more moronic threads in this forum.


----------



## gregneedham

The entire question assumes that "looking gay" is a negative. How sad....


----------



## Flanderian

I know a gay couple who are professionals, and gosh darn it, wouldn't you know it! Those guys dress *just like *professionals! :icon_saint7kg:


----------



## P Hudson

Flanderian said:


> I know a gay couple who are professionals, and gosh darn it, wouldn't you know it! Those guys dress *just like *professionals! :icon_saint7kg:


That sums it up.

One question though, if you can't ask a dumb question about clothes on this forum, where can you? Should we just rule out all dumb questions? What if the OP had asked if people in Wisconsin don't wear navy and orange at the same time because it is often associated with the Bears, and wondered if that association bothered them? I understand that the actual question is more charged than that, but I'm not sure why we can't have a conversation. Personally, I wear pink a lot but would never wear orange, except on St Patrick's day. There, I said it--sectarian, political and sporting, all in one offensive statement.


----------



## IvanD

Just mentioned this thread to a gay work colleague.
We got on to the subject of pink clothing, and it turns out I have more than he doe's.
On a serious note though, myself and my colleague agreed that this type of stereotyping really should have no place in todays society.
Live and let live.


----------



## justonemore

Thank you hudson. at least a few people can have an open and honest conversation on topics that may be out of the ordinary and perhaps considered offensive. I find it funny that thise quick to critique the topic are also quick to respond yet on all my serious non society related questions refering to clothing get an average of 3 responses mostly by newer members. I've had benefit if mr. kabbaz's experience only once on serious topics.


----------



## Shaver

The implicit assumption of this post, being that homosexuality is a negative and something to be avoided, is distasteful. 

The assertion elsewhere that pink is 'for little girls' is also offensive. 

I presume that members appreciate that many of their esteemed associates on this forum will enjoy a multitudinous range of sexual preferances?


----------



## cdavant

We must be careful not to let an irrational prejudice against prejudice color our perceptions. Sometimes a color choice does signify membership in a group of somewhat questionable character.

Here in the South, for example, the color orange is worn almost exclusively by fans, attendees, and the (rare) graduate of Tennessee and Clemson. For this group the color provides a certain utility. It can be worn to the game on Saturday. It is worn hunting on Sunday. It is worn the rest of the week picking up trash along the highway while out on work release...

Pink is not a problem, but orange will bring out the slurs. It often gets ugly once the season starts.


----------



## Haffman

Not sure why this question has attracted such hostility. Its a perfectly reasonable question and was phrased in a non-judgemental and conversational way. If its not interesting to individuals they can just read another post. We can see by the number of replies its interesting to others.

For the record I was told by a colleague only last week that pink shirts were "gay". I work in London. Like other forum members I just thought it was a dumb thing to say.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

P Hudson said:


> That sums it up.
> 
> One question though, if you can't ask a dumb question about clothes on this forum, where can you?


 Of course you can. Actually, we see more dumb questions than any other kind. 

This thread was not a question about clothes by any stretch of the imagination.



justonemore said:


> At least a few people can have an open and honest conversation on topics that may be out of the ordinary and perhaps considered offensive. I find it funny that thise quick to critique the topic are also quick to respond yet on all my serious non society related questions refering to clothing get an average of 3 responses mostly by newer members. I've had benefit if mr. kabbaz's experience only once on serious topics.


Of your roughly 100 posts, only 3 have been on the topic of shirts which is my forte. The vast majority have discussed shoes. I generally don't speak about shoes. Not that defense is necessary ... but neither was your comment.

On topic: Back in the 1970's, those of us old enough to remember watched friends die ... and nobody knew why. I all-too-vividly remember the first funeral of one of my fellow DJ's. And the second. And the third. It was the time before HIV/AIDS was known for what it is. Your question speaks about a very sad era in the U.S. - one in which wearing pink might have been thought a sign of being gay by the ignorant and predjudiced.

Thankfully, society has advanced. HIV is now a known factor and efforts at eradication/control/cure are universal. And pink is now considered exactly for what it is - a very soft, beautiful color in which most men look spectacular.


----------



## CuffDaddy

I thought it might be of interest to the members to read this article, which claims that the pink-is-for-girls-blue-is-for-boys was a marketing-driven decision made in the 1940's, and that prior to that, the "standards" were often reversed. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html

Regarding the other concepts floating about in this thread, I say: Thank God/goodness/force-larger-than-yourself-of-your-choice that attitudes are changing towards homosexuality, such that "not looking gay" need no longer be a preoccupation of straight men. For many previous centuries, that fear of not being (mis)identified as gay was a serious factor in men's clothing choices, and a brake on flamboyance*. I tend to think that a number of things currently in fashion would not have been so readily adopted if the taboo against "looking gay" was still in place. Even where I dislike the thing embraced (pointy shoes, crotch-hugging clothing), I find it encouraging that the fear of being thought homosexual no longer deters straight men from dressing as they please - not so much because I want men to be able to dress as they like, but because it suggests that being incorrectly though homosexual is no longer horrifying.

*In the literal, non-euphemistic sense.


----------



## FJW

...no more than a tartan plaid shirt from LL Bean makes you straight!


----------



## CuffDaddy

FJW said:


> ...no more than a tartan plaid shirt from LL Bean makes you straight!


Nor, for that matter, a lesbian! Hey, who said that!?!


----------



## justonemore

Thanks everyone for the lively conversation. It appears that the distasteful draws heated debate and passion no matter how we think. I do wonder if there'd be such an outcry here if I mentioned wearing a full hajab/burqa to the airport while speaking loudly in Arabic. We speak of portraying a message with our clothes. Even if it is unfair we have come to the conclusion that we must dress a certain way for employers (who may be biased), dates, and other events. Try wearing a cross and american flag in certain places you're asking for trouble whether you feel you have the right to do so or not. I myself don't care if you're sporting a mini skirt and high heels but it's not going to stop the hillbillies behind me from stringing you up. fair or not it's the danger in any society when we allow norms to become rules (even when speaking of other dress)

We all seem to be interested in color and the way it works. Could the simple answer of been that pink may indeed make certain men look effeminate just like other colors will wash out certain people's faces? I've been told this when I wear pink (and with 2 daughters it's one of my staples, and no I don't push pink on them because they're female, I believe male and female eyes are attracted to different colors usually).

Instead we're all upset that someone might mention something we'd all like to imagine is in the past when in fact these posts show that it is still very much on the tip of everyone's brain. We may have done away with polio and smallpox but should we avoid discussing because of the millions who died? 

Mr. Kabbaz. I'm sorry to have singled you out. What you stated is correct; I'm more into the shoe stage and you're into shirts, socks and Swiss underwear. Please understand that I highly appreciate the time you (and others) take to answer people's questions(even mine) and that I have adored following the site these past 3 years. I felt that as moderator you pretty much set the "disgusting" tone for the post instead of making it an educational opportunity for those who are new or may disagree with certain viewpoints.. You may have noticed that this is my first "controversial" post and that I come here for advice and to offer what little I know on the topic in a respectful manner versus to start fights. I simply wanted to get an idea of people's thoughts and nowhere did I use derogatory language or advocate violence against any race, sex, or preference (sexual or not). Perhaps the end of your last post was the best of your answers. Yet indeed my original post was about clothing and the message it portrays. 

Either way, I'm done with this thread. Onto a new pair of shoes (or perhaps some Zimmerli). Best to all who participated in a patient manner and understood the difference between a discussion and strait out bias.


----------



## eagle2250

FJW said:


> ...no more than a tartan plaid shirt from LL Bean makes you straight!


Yes, but regardless of ones "orientation" and depending on the Tartan design being worn, if you run into the wrong Scotts man, fueled by some testosterone induced maniacal rage, you are going to get your a** beat, absent the proper ancestral authority to be wearing said tartan.

Good golly, it seems unpleasant sterotyping exists on both sides of the pond and is distasteful regardless of wich side of the pond on which it takes place! :icon_scratch:

PS: I wear pink because the gals seem to think it looks good on me!


----------



## CuffDaddy

justonemore said:


> I believe male and female eyes are attracted to different colors usually).


To the extent that is true, I think it's culturally dictated. In many cultures - indeed, our own before the post-war period - pink was considered a perfectly masculine color.


----------



## Joseph Peter

I am a practicing attorney in Chicago for 24 years and have been married 22 years. I have pink shirts and ties in my rotation and have never worried about any such issues. My work sometimes takes me to, shall we say, less than upper class areas of the city, and I have never perceived any unusual looks or threats. Further, the only responses I've received about them has been positive. A non-issue as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

justonemore said:


> Mr. Kabbaz. I felt that as moderator you pretty much set the "disgusting" tone for the post instead of making it an educational opportunity for those who are new or may disagree with certain viewpoints.


I'm sorry to keep coming back to your replies but this topic is one of import and specificity reigns.

1] I am fully aware that you had no malicious intent in starting this thread and never implied such. Had you I would have answered as a moderator and not a member.

2] I beg to differ with your characterization. I did not term your postulation as disgusting. I used the very specific "ignorant" ... for to ascribe the predjudices of yesteryear to this time is exactly that.

My statement that this thread is not about clothes stands. It is about societal stereotypes. We may presume the man driving the Bentley to be a wealthy Wall Street honcho. Instead, he may well be the auto mechanic or a car thief. That's not about cars; it is about stereotypes.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

I've always worn pink shirts, usually with a light grey or navy jacket, never had a problem with it.


----------



## lalaland

Blah blah blah. Blah. Yackety yack. icture of dead horse being beaten:


----------



## Tiger

cdavant said:


> Here in the South, for example, the color orange is worn almost exclusively by fans, attendees, and the (rare) graduate of Tennessee and Clemson. For this group the color provides a certain utility. It can be worn to the game on Saturday. It is worn hunting on Sunday. It is worn the rest of the week picking up trash along the highway while out on work release...


Incredibly funny!


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Indeed. However, cdavant left Syracuse entirely out of his consideration...and that verges on being inexcusable! There are more than a few "Orange men" running around out there, sporting the orange as the mood strikes.


----------



## Georgetown08

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Indeed. However, cdavant left Syracuse entirely out of his consideration...and that verges on being inexcusable! There are more than a few "Orange men" running around out there, sporting the orange as the mood strikes.


And those are the worst of them all.


----------



## cdavant

Sorry, but I was speaking only of local schools. Didn't mean to be offensive. Does Syracuse play football...?


----------



## Chris Liu

Sorry even if Pink is not gay its too much of a statement. Thats a color a man just should not wear, and if you do then your pretty much telling everyone that your too out of the box. Far out enough to perhaps experiment with homosexuality, not that you wont, but your open to it. Atleast thats what Pink says to me.


----------



## Epaminondas

Shaver said:


> The implicit assumption of this post, being that homosexuality is a negative and something to be avoided, is distasteful.


You've got to be kidding. I'll go back to the pre-1972 DSM.

Yes, my son rooting around the lower intestine of another man is perfectly natural?????? I have some negative attitudes about that.

That being said: pink shirts are fine: kiltie loafers are gay.


----------



## Flanderian

Chris Liu said:


> Thats a color a man just should not wear, and if you do then your pretty much telling everyone that your too out of the box. Far out enough to perhaps experiment with homosexuality, not that you wont, *but your open to it*.


Love it! Love it! Love it! This is hilarious! :icon_hailthee:


----------



## Pliny

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I'm sorry to keep coming back to your replies but this topic is one of import and specificity reigns.
> 
> 1] I am fully aware that you had no malicious intent in starting this thread and never implied such. Had you I would have answered as a moderator and not a member.
> 
> 2] I beg to differ with your characterization. I did not term your postulation as disgusting. I used the very specific "ignorant" ... for to ascribe the predjudices of yesteryear to this time is exactly that.
> 
> My statement that this thread is not about clothes stands. It is about societal stereotypes. We may presume the man driving the Bentley to be a wealthy Wall Street honcho. Instead, he may well be the auto mechanic or a car thief. That's not about cars; it is about stereotypes.





Tiger said:


> Incredibly funny!





justonemore said:


> Although we live in enlightened times, *I was wondering if anybody let the Pink/gay stigma bother them?* I think this is most likely an American thing as I've never heard it in Europe but growing up in Chicago it was normal and I heard it mentioned twice last time I was there (I wasn't wearing pink at the time). Although I myself don't much care what others think of my choices, it could perhaps be a dangerous misconception in certain U.S. neighborhoods





Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Of course you can. Actually, we see more dumb questions than any other kind.
> 
> This thread was not a question about clothes by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thankfully, society has advanced. HIV is now a known factor and efforts at eradication/control/cure are universal. And pink is now considered exactly for what it is - a very soft, beautiful color in which most men look spectacular.


C'mon- I beg to differ with the notion that pink's a broadly accepted color in American menswear (and here) - based on my observations of men's clothing forums.

I tune in to the "What Are You Wearing Right Now III" thread on SF pretty much every day, and if there're any consistent 'don't go there' colors they're 1. Black 2. Orange 3. Pink.

Have a look- you'll be hard pressed to find a pink shirt, jacket, tie etc in any of the 2000 + pages of that massive thread.

Fact is, pink is an absolute taboo there.

And just to be clear, I like the color a lot and about 15% of of my shirts are shades of pink.

I dunno why pink's taboo on SF, but it's gonna be a combo of 'ghey' phobia and group-think, or perhaps pink is just not such a stylish color after all. The black and orange taboos are definitely about style IMO, but who knows, Justonemore?

re: social stereotypes.. Maybe there are WAYWRN posters who would like to post fits with the occasional pink bengal stripe, or tie with pink highlights, but they just don't want to stick their necks out?

thoughts?


----------



## Flanderian

Chris Liu said:


> Thats a color a man just should not wear, and if you do then your pretty much telling everyone that your too out of the box. Far out enough to perhaps experiment with homosexuality, not that you wont, but your open to it.


Dr. Andre L. Chruchwell MD- cardiologist, Harvard Alumnus, and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. Quick, tell him! He's lived all these years and doesn't even know he may be gay!


----------



## cdavant

I have several pink shirts in my rotation. In my 66 years I can never remember another man--straight, gay, unknown-- commenting on my choice of shirt. Ties and pocket squares are sometimes complemented by my straight friends (and probably not by those of another persuasion concerned that it might be seen as hitting on me to mention clothes) but never shirts and rarely shoes. But let me put on a pink shirt and I'm sure to hear "I love that shirt" from one or two cute, buff, and much too young nurses or physical therapists. Hell, I start wearing pink silk undershorts if I thought they'd show me their's.


----------



## Olifter

I wear whatever my wife likes (she has great clothes sense, women copy her and I got plenty of compliments whenever I wear what she puts together) and after 30+ years of marriage I've had enough training to pick out most of my own stuff.

I wear pink shirts and when I do, I hear plenty about it. Guys comment in a joking manner and women comment positively. I tell the guys I'm comfortable with my masculinity and I tell the women my wife encourages me to wear something other than white shirts. I suppose, both are true.


----------



## Wales

I wore a pink ginham shirt tonight. Crap! I better tell my wife that this isn't going to work.


----------



## Tooch

I remember a brief moment in American culture (late '70s, early '80s) when a lot of men seemed fixated on the idea of avoiding pink for fear of seeming "gay." I also remember that I lived in Greenwich, Connecticut, at the time, where pink polo shirts were almost mandatory. American culture is too fragmented for any broad statement to be applicable everywhere (and that's a good thing). Even better, we're at a more tolerant point in our history where being perceived as gay is less likely to have dire consequences than in the past. I own two pink OCBDs. Love 'em.


----------



## iamogfan

I feel like ten years ago this was heard more frequently but not so much anymore.


----------



## Flanderian

cdavant said:


> cute, buff, and much too young


Hmmm . . . . ? Aren't some of these adjectives mutually exclusive? :devil:


----------



## smmrfld

Chris Liu said:


> Sorry even if Pink is not gay its too much of a statement. Thats a color a man just should not wear, and if you do then your pretty much telling everyone that your too out of the box. Far out enough to perhaps experiment with homosexuality, not that you wont, but your open to it. Atleast thats what Pink says to me.


Congratulations...you've managed to top (no pun intended) all the other posts here that showcase idiocy and homophobia. Well done.


----------



## smmrfld

Epaminondas said:


> You've got to be kidding. I'll go back to the pre-1972 DSM.
> 
> Yes, my son rooting around the lower intestine of another man is perfectly natural?????? I have some negative attitudes about that.
> 
> That being said: pink shirts are fine: kiltie loafers are gay.


And this is a close second. Well...might be a tossup between two hopelessly ignorant posters.


----------



## Matt S

What we really need here are some perspectives from women or openly gay men. Their approval or disapproval is the only thing that will satisfy those where who are afraid to wear pink. If they just didn't like pink, we'd be having a different conversation.


----------



## cdavant

I just remembered No Green on Thursday

https://www.osireion.com/AlwaysWearGreen.html


----------



## Shaver

Shaver said:


> The implicit assumption of this post, being that homosexuality is a negative and something to be avoided, is distasteful.
> 
> The assertion elsewhere that pink is 'for little girls' is also offensive.
> 
> I presume that members appreciate that many of their esteemed associates on this forum will enjoy a multitudinous range of sexual preferances?





Epaminondas said:


> You've got to be kidding. I'll go back to the pre-1972 DSM.
> 
> Yes, my son rooting around the lower intestine of another man is perfectly natural?????? I have some negative attitudes about that.


I am not kidding, allow me to assure you. Further and in respect of your reference to the pre 1972 edition of the DSM, such outmoded and ludicrous beliefs are no longer granted scientific status and thus not to be found in modern editions. (A lot of other fallacious nonsense is contained within the latest edition, but that is another matter entirely). Characterising a sexual act in such a base manner is simply facile and can equally be applied to heterosexual intercourse; 'rooting around in the vagina'.

I consider that you have taken this argument beyond the already dubious territory from which it commenced and are fast approaching an area which I trust will not be tolerated by the moderators. A passionate debate is one thing, unsubstantiated and hateful commentary quite another.


----------



## Haffman

smmrfld said:


> And this is a close second. Well...might be a tossup between two hopelessly ignorant posters.


In my opinion the first poster was ignorant, the second poster quite offensive. I am embarrassed for both of them.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> I consider that you have taken this argument beyond the already dubious territory from which it commenced and are fast approaching an area which I trust will not be tolerated by the moderators. A passionate debate is one thing, unsubstantiated and hateful commentary quite another.


I am in full agreement with you Shaver. I swore I'd not get sucked into this thread but the bigoted statement above provokes me to ask an open question on tolerance and the tolerances of such language on AAAC....

"Gays out?"


----------



## CuffDaddy

cdavant said:


> I just remembered No Green on Thursday
> 
> https://www.osireion.com/AlwaysWearGreen.html


Another "coded" message I'll ignore. Besides, that website makes very little sense:

"Wearing green on Thursdays is not like wearing an AIDS or Breast Cancer ribbon, for *others need not know what the green stands for or why we wear it*. By intentionally wearing green on Thursdays, *we walk as a silent testimony and bring into the world consciousness*, a coming world without persecution, without hunger and poverty and disease and crime."​
What? So the point is that nobody else knows what they're doing, and what they're doing amounts to testimony and raises consciousness? Seems mutually contradictory to me!

At any rate, I simple refuse to concede any portion of the color wheel to someone else. I wonder if this attitude kept me from gaining admittance to The Crips? ;P


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> Characterising a sexual act in such a base manner is simply facile and can equally be applied to heterosexual intercourse; 'rooting around in the vagina'.


Good point, Shaver. One need only recall the horror and/or revulsion that many children experience when they first learn "the facts of life" to understand that, out of context, almost any sexual act is objectively grotesque. There's a reason that a popular euphemism for heterosexual intercourse is "bumping uglies."

Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with the other sentiments. I am very happy that we are rapidly approaching the time when unambiguous animosity towards homosexuality is seen as no more rational or socially-acceptable than overt racism. Attitudes on this point are highly correlated with age, and a few more years will resolve the point.


----------



## L-feld

CuffDaddy said:


> Another "coded" message I'll ignore. Besides, that website makes very little sense:
> "Wearing green on Thursdays is not like wearing an AIDS or Breast Cancer ribbon, for *others need not know what the green stands for or why we wear it*. By intentionally wearing green on Thursdays, *we walk as a silent testimony and bring into the world consciousness*, a coming world without persecution, without hunger and poverty and disease and crime."​


You know what's funny is that a bunch of lawyers at my firm (myself included) do that. Except instead of wearing green, we wear seersucker. :biggrin2:


----------



## eagle2250

For Sunday services this AM I'll be pairing my BB pink OCBD with a blue/white seersucker suit, all in combination with my brown and white AE McLain Spectators. Last time I did something like this no one questioned my sexual orientation, but one of my fellow congregants addressed me as Colonel Sanders!


----------



## StephenRG

Why straight men shouldn't wear pink shirts: women like men in pink shirts so if all other straight men don't wear pink shirts, I'll have an advantage.


----------



## Tiger

Chris Liu said:


> Sorry even if Pink is not gay its too much of a statement. Thats a color a man just should not wear, and if you do then your pretty much telling everyone that your too out of the box. Far out enough to perhaps experiment with homosexuality, not that you wont, but your open to it. Atleast thats what Pink says to me.


Gosh, I need to overhaul my wardrobe. Had no idea my pink OCBD shirts were telling the world that I was open to "experimenting with homosexuality." What about my lavender shirts - could that be a signal of openness to bisexuality? Need to dump the light green shirts, too - clearly a solicitation for polygamy. For future reference, what's the color associated with beastiality? One can never be too careful in the sartorial jungle...

A while back, my wife and I were visiting family in another state. We were discussing entertainment options for the next day, and we suggested going to a local (world-class) museum. My brother-in-law (a nearly sixty-year old devotee of the trucker's cap, enormous waist and "short shorts," t-shirts, and ill-fitting jeans with dangerously high-caliber button enclosure due to inordinate cheeseburger consumption) immediately scoffed at the notion, because after all, "only gays go to museums." Did Leonardo and Vermeer wear pink?

But back to Chris Liu's post above - is he aware that in some circles, chronic absence of the apostrophe in contractions is an "out of the box" statement that indicates one is open to "sexual experimentation"?

Bottom line, fellow heterosexuals: avoid poor punctuation and pink shirts at all costs!


----------



## L-feld

Tiger said:


> Gosh, I need to overhaul my wardrobe. Had no idea my pink OCBD shirts were telling the world that I was open to "experimenting with homosexuality." What about my lavender shirts - could that be a signal of openness to bisexuality? Need to dump the light green shirts, too - clearly a solicitation for polygamy. For future reference, what's the color associated with beastiality? One can never be too careful in the sartorial jungle...


Here is your answer...


----------



## Tiger

As disgusting and vile a post as I've ever seen, L-feld. How could you possibly think this is forum-appropriate?


----------



## cdavant

Agree this is not appropriate for this forum, but Tiger did sort of ask the question and L-feld did sort of answer it. I try to post links so those who are offended don't have to stare at things as they watch things unfold. And while parts are certainly not appropriate here, some of it is pretty damn funny. I took the liberty of forwarding it to friends of mine, a gay couple, who not only were not offended but loved it--and I've already seen it back as they forward it to various social networks that send it on to those who are not easily offended.

You guys don't think I actually come up with all my odd humerous comments unassisted?


----------



## Tiger

cdavant said:


> Agree this is not appropriate for this forum, but Tiger did sort of ask the question and L-feld did sort of answer it.


Did I really "ask the question"? Wasn't it clear that I was being tongue-in-cheek, caustic, and mocking some of the ludicrous points made by a handful of posters?

When did AAAC become _Plato's Retreat_?


----------



## Mox

Just shout, "It's man-salmon, dammit!" whenever someone calls it pink. Problem solved.

The only "color" I know of that's used consistently within the gay community itself is rainbow.

I don't have a concern about being mistaken for gay unless it's a potential lady-friend, and generally that's pretty easy to sort out. I do see style as a form of communication, however, so taking your audience into consideration is part of its nature.

I no longer use the phrase "to beg a question" unless I'm absolutely sure the receiver will understand the phrase. The original meaning was to avoid the question, not to ask for one, as in to beg off.

"Honey, did you take the trash out?"
"We need new trashcans."
"Yes dear, but that begs the question."

For the most part, we are only going to be concerned with the reception of those within our circle or target audience. Style is a broadcast, so I see the original post as asking the larger question if we are concerned about how this broadcast is received by bystanders. I think we can even take "gay" out of the equation.


----------



## Flanderian

eagle2250 said:


> For Sunday services this AM I'll be pairing my BB pink OCBD with a blue/white seersucker suit, all in combination with my brown and white AE McLain Spectators. Last time I did something like this no one questioned my sexual orientation, but one of my fellow congregants addressed me as Colonel Sanders!


*Snazzy! :icon_cheers:









*I've got my eye on you!

But should I wear something similar, I have no doubt all the lovely young women would flock to me and think, "What a nice *old* man!" :icon_peaceplease:


----------



## sbdivemaster

Tiger said:


> When did AAAC become _Plato's Retreat_?


LOL Old-school "Midnight Blue" reference!


----------



## L-feld

Tiger said:


> As disgusting and vile a post as I've ever seen, L-feld. How could you possibly think this is forum-appropriate?


Surely I'm not the only person on this forum for whom an interest in clothing overlaps with an interest in semiotics.

Hanky code is one of the most academically scrutinized parts of gay culture, in addition to being one of the most amusing.

And besides, this entire thread is inappropriate.


----------



## Tiger

L-feld said:


> Surely I'm not the only person on this forum for whom an interest in clothing overlaps with an interest in semiotics. Hanky code is one of the most academically scrutinized parts of gay culture, in addition to being one of the most amusing. And besides, this entire thread is inappropriate.


Your "semiotic chart" was packed with pornographic references, L-feld. Why not make use of subtlety, nuance, or veiled remarks? Can't believe those of us with wives (not to mention children) would feel comfortable having them read that post...

Agreed; much of this thread bordered on the inappropriate. That's a poor excuse to ratchet up the disgust factor exponentially.


----------



## blue suede shoes

This thread sure has evolved! Kiltie loafers are gay? I've worn them for years. Next someone will say that saddle shoes are gay. I have several pairs. How about those Belgian Shoes? Are they gay? I guess I should stay away from them as a precaution so that people won't fantasize and gossip about my sexual practices.

Getting back to the original question and post, which I think is very appropriate for this forum as it discusses acceptable colors for the business world, I will have to agree with the original poster's assessment of a man wearing pink in the US. Simply put, pink is not appropriate for men's business attire in the US, and there is a much wider range of acceptable colors, including pink, for men's dress shirts in the UK and continental Europe. 

About 20 years ago I was sitting in an attorney's waiting room waiting for a real estate settlement. I was wearing a pink OCBD shirt. One of the principals (buyer or seller) in the transaction who was sitting close to me in the small waiting room got on the phone and said to someone in a very condescending tone, "I'm here with one of those", while staring and gesturing at my pink shirt. I never asked as I don't intrude into people's conversations, but I assume that the comment had to do with the discussion we are having in this thread. I would have expected such a comment from trailer trash, or a skinhead, but the man who made the comment has three degrees, including a PhD, from ivy league universities.

The lack of social and business ettiquete, and the rudeness of supposedly well educated people in America never ceases to amaze me, even though I was born and raised in the USA.

I've only had one pink shirt in my entire life, and I just happened to be wearing it that day. I won't be buying any more unless I turn gay.

Not too long after that Kodak moment, a girl who I had dated for a short time took the liberty to go through my closet and tell me what was appropriate for me to wear. As she held the pink OCBD on a hangar, she said, "don't ever wear a pink shirt". I told her that the shirt was white when I bought it, but it had been laundered with a cheap red t-shirt. She simply rolled her eyes and said "men don't wear pink shirts".


----------



## eagle2250

^^
I hope we can all agree that Bigots are distasteful in whatever form they may appear and wherever they may be found! Should any of you gentlemen wish to argue the point, do so through PM. Otherwise, move on.


----------



## SocraticLove

Chris Liu said:


> Sorry even if Pink is not gay its too much of a statement. Thats a color a man just should not wear, and if you do then your pretty much telling everyone that your too out of the box. Far out enough to perhaps experiment with homosexuality, not that you wont, but your open to it. Atleast thats what Pink says to me.


Right...and the subtext of your post is that it's _bad _to project any ethos of homosexuality, especially around other heterosexuals. Gosh, those homosexuals should stay in the margins of society where they belong, where they can make "too much of a statement" only in their own little part of the universe without disturbing the sensibilities of those in the "mainstream", right?

As a gay man, I found this post shockingly offensive.

EDIT: ^The interpretation of Mr. Liu's post that I offered here was a bit knee-jerk on my part but I still stand by it. His post is a good example of how some people (stupidly) equate heterosexuality with masculinity and homosexuality with feminity. We can see this in his reference to what color a man should not wear, unless he wishes to give up his "man card" as it were, by projecting an image as someone who likes to experiment like _one of those people_. And, if one wishes to hold onto that (heterosexual) man card and not forfeit the privileges of living in the mainstream, one must be careful to not make "too much of a statement".



Matt S said:


> What we really need here are some perspectives from women or openly gay men. Their approval or disapproval is the only thing that will satisfy those where who are afraid to wear pink. If they just didn't like pink, we'd be having a different conversation.


I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. No segment of the population has a monopoly on color matching/contrasting sensibilities or the wearing of certain colors. Sartorial excellence does not discriminate among morally neutral characteristics like being gay or lesbian.



L-feld said:


> Surely I'm not the only person on this forum for whom an interest in clothing overlaps with an interest in semiotics.
> 
> Hanky code is one of the most academically scrutinized parts of gay culture, in addition to being one of the most amusing.
> 
> And besides, this entire thread is inappropriate.


Actually, hanky code accounts for a vanishingly small subset of research into gay culture or queer studies more generally.

If you are going to debase a group of people, please be attuned to the realities of the academic literature you draw reference to.


----------



## Orsini

L-feld said:


> Surely I'm not the only person on this forum for whom an interest in clothing overlaps with an interest in semiotics.
> 
> Hanky code is one of the most academically scrutinized parts of gay culture, in addition to being one of the most amusing.
> 
> And besides, this entire thread is inappropriate.


Have you ever heard anything about certain cars being "gay"?


----------



## phyrpowr

Orsini said:


> Have you ever heard anything about certain cars being "gay"?


Yeah, but I can't recall which. Funny that when I was in high school, in a small southern town, in the mid-60s, when almost *anything *out of the mainstream might be considered gay, pink OCBDs were worn quite a lot.


----------



## roman totale XVII

Orsini said:


> Have you ever heard anything about certain cars being "gay"?


Other than to say I have more pink shirts than any other color and wear one at least twice a week, I'm staying out of this thread. However, I couldn't help be reminded of this slice of brilliance...


----------



## Orsini

phyrpowr said:


> Yeah, but I can't recall which. Funny that when I was in high school, in a small southern town, in the mid-60s, when almost *anything *out of the mainstream might be considered gay, pink OCBDs were worn quite a lot.


I read in one of the car magazines once about the sexuality associated with various cars. I remember that the Subaru Forrester was a lesbian car but I don't recall what it said the reason was.

A friend of mine was up on the latest trends and he insisted that the Miata was a gay car. I don't know why either.


----------



## CuffDaddy

LOL! I have to say, I have only known two types of guys who own Miatas as adults: gay guys and guys who race them competitively in Miata-leauge racing. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those things.


----------



## Flanderian

SocraticLove said:


> Right...and the subtext of your post is that it's _bad _to project any ethos of homosexuality, especially around other heterosexuals. Gosh, those homosexuals should stay in the margins of society where they belong, where they can make "too much of a statement" only in their own little part of the universe without disturbing the sensibilities of those in the "mainstream", right?
> 
> As a gay man, I found this post shockingly offensive.
> 
> EDIT: ^The interpretation of Mr. Liu's post that I offered here was a bit knee-jerk on my part but I still stand by it. His post is a good example of how some people (stupidly) equate heterosexuality with masculinity and homosexuality with feminity. We can see this in his reference to what color a man should not wear, unless he wishes to give up his "man card" as it were, by projecting an image as someone who likes to experiment like _one of those people_. And, if one wishes to hold onto that (heterosexual) man card and not forfeit the privileges of living in the mainstream, one must be careful to not make "too much of a statement".


Thank you for your perspective on some of what has been posted in this thread. And for your courage in being willing to deal directly with a personal libel and elucidate some of the intricacies of how it is offensive from one individual's perspective.

I think that contained in Mr. Liu's post there is an outrageous level of ignorance that I suspect is bred from youth and a very narrow cultural perspective. And it is so blatant, I at first wondered if it was parody. This ignorance, combined with a smug assurance based on that ignorance as to how others should dress and behave is just too good a target not to lampoon. I hope subsequent years enrich his view of both humainity and attire.


----------



## L-feld

SocraticLove said:


> Actually, hanky code accounts for a vanishingly small subset of research into gay culture or queer studies more generally.
> 
> If you are going to debase a group of people, please be attuned to the realities of the academic literature you draw reference to.


I don't know about that. Pretty much every English professor I know is obsessed with leather culture of the 70's and 80's. I assume Gayle Rubin's influence has something to do with that. That said, I can't argue that these topics haven't fallen out of fashion since the golden age of Literary Theory in the 80's.

And who am I debasing? Stuffy homophobes whose tender ears burn at the mention of oral sex?


----------



## Orsini

CuffDaddy said:


> LOL! I have to say, I have only known two types of guys who own Miatas as adults: gay guys and guys who race them competitively in Miata-leauge racing. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those things.


The Miata is a real driver's car. I think I might get one when I retire.

But how did it get to be a "gay" car? Do gays buy it to flirt with the ragged edge of control, because it is a fad, or both, or neither? If it is style, how did it happen?

Now if I ever get one, I am always going to think about this at turn-in&#8230;


----------



## Racer

The Miata is not a "gay" car (I don't know what a "gay" car is), but the latest iteration, with automatic transmission, Starbucks Grande-sized cupholders, Bluetooth, and push-button retractable hardtop, is a "chick" car.

If you want a true hard-edged roadster, pick up a Honda S2000.


----------



## Starch

blue suede shoes said:


> ... very appropriate for this forum as it discusses acceptable colors for the business world, I will have to agree with the original poster's assessment of a man wearing pink in the US. Simply put, pink is not appropriate for men's business attire in the US


Since this is actually on-subject for the forum, I'll throw in my two cents by disagreeing.

Pink shirts were often worn in the '80s among Wall Street lawyers and investment bankers. Not nearly as often as the go-tos of white and light blue, but they weren't considered business-inappropriate.

At the risk of swerving off-subject: there's an unstated underlying assumption by a bunch of posters, I think, that there's some connection between business-appropriateness and sexual orientation. I think this is entirely off-base, at least in the relevant circles (I can't speak for circles that are foreign to me). Just a few observations, based on my mid-'80s-early-'90s experience in Wall Street law firms (based on scores of people, not one):

There were openly gay lawyers. Nobody considered that business-inappropriate.

The (limited) downside to pink shirts was that they came off a bit "preppy" or - for want of a better word - playful. There are pluses and minuses to that impression. Which way the balance falls depends on the firm and the person. At the firm I was at, a bit of insouciance was better than coming off like a nerdy wonk. I think wearing pink shirts (or grosgrain watchbands, or tassle loafers) was, on balance, a positive. Bottom line, I suppose, is that pink shirts (in the circles I'm familar with) are not regarded as an indication of sexual preference at all, but are read (if only slightly) as a social-class indicator. Such an indicator (whichever way the indication runs) can cut two ways.

My initial reaction, when people discuss pink in terms of sexual orientation, is to assume they're joking around. From this thread, I'm given to understand that my assumption isn't as well-based as a I thought.


----------



## Matt S

And what about the similar lilac shirt? Do you guys lump that in with pink (whatever your opinion of pink is), or do you see it differently? I have a pale lilac shirt that I love and wear about twice a month. It goes well with a lot of colours. People either say they like it or they don't say anything at all. Nobody has ever said it looks gay, but I've only worn it to work and almost half the men in my office are gay.


----------



## Tilton

I don't know whether to giggle to myself about "navel worshippers" and "armpit suckers" or be grossly offended. My best friend from high school (now openly gay) says I should laugh and he knows none of this stuff. 

I'm pretty conservative but all of this is just ridiculous. I'm certainly not bigoted and I pass no judgements on what one likes to do in one's private life... I mean, I spend my free time talking about clothes on the internet and drooling over shoes.

Also, I've been to Nellie's more times than I might care to admit. Almost all of my girlfriend's guy friends from college are now openly gay and live in DC. I was admittedly apprehensive at first, but it's one of the most fun scenes in town.


----------



## SocraticLove

Flanderian said:


> Thank you for your perspective on some of what has been posted in this thread. And for your courage in being willing to deal directly with a personal libel and elucidate some of the intricacies of how it is offensive from one individual's perspective.
> 
> I think that contained in Mr. Liu's post there is an outrageous level of ignorance that I suspect is bred from youth and a very narrow cultural perspective. And it is so blatant, I at first wondered if it was parody. This ignorance, combined with a smug assurance based on that ignorance as to how others should dress and behave is just too good a target not to lampoon. I hope subsequent years enrich his view of both humainity and attire.


Thank you for your insight, Flanderian. I appreciate your show of support. I was actually wondering whether my own post was maybe a bit too abrasive or not but under the circumstances, I think it falls within the realm of an acceptable response.

I see this kind of nonsense being articulated all the time on the internet and usually, for me, it is like water off a duck's back. This time, however, it got to me and I just felt compelled to respond.



L-feld said:


> I don't know about that. Pretty much every English professor I know is obsessed with leather culture of the 70's and 80's. I assume Gayle Rubin's influence has something to do with that. That said, I can't argue that these topics haven't fallen out of fashion since the golden age of Literary Theory in the 80's.
> 
> And who am I debasing? Stuffy homophobes whose tender ears burn at the mention of oral sex?


I think an apology on my part may be in order here. See, I confused you with Epaminondas (see his post below). I should have looked over this thread a bit more carefully; I only skimmed it a bit. So, sorry for both the confusion and, more importantly, my charge that you debased anyone because I don't think you did (not that I can see, anyways).

I appreciate your insight into the literary aspect of queer studies but the discipline is actually quite multi-disclipinary, spanning sociology, philosophy, literary studies, women's studies, and other areas as well. Theorists and academics in these areas have gone on to study more substantive aspects of LGBT life like the structural conditions in which LGBT people find themselves in or the socially constructed aspects of LGBT experiences. So, when viewed from this angle, I would say that, all things considered, this whole hanky business really does comprise only a very small subset of the available research on LGBT related topics and issues.

And just on a personal level, I'm not that immersed in "gay culture", whatever that means, but I'm fairly certain that from a contemporary perspective most LGBT folks have moved on from hanky codes given that there are now easier, safer, and more inconspicuous ways of communicating one's sexual preferences.



Epaminondas said:


> You've got to be kidding. I'll go back to the pre-1972 DSM.
> 
> Yes, my son rooting around the lower intestine of another man is perfectly natural?????? I have some negative attitudes about that.
> 
> That being said: pink shirts are fine: kiltie loafers are gay.


I'm not sure it's the rooting around in the intestines that you're worried about, quite frankly. It's the rooting around, as it were, with another _man _that has you saying things like this. I trust you wouldn't have any major objections to your son rooting around with a _woman_, however they wish, as mutually consenting adults, to do this.

So let's set aside the smoke and mirrors and just call a spade a spade. And for the sake of accuracy, while a higher proportion of gay couples than heterosexual couples engage in anal intercourse, it should be noted that many gay couples do not engage in it _at all_, opting instead for other forms of intimacy. In fact, in absolute numbers, as Dan Savage puts it rather nicely rhetorically speaking, there are more heterosexual couples than gay couples engaging in anal intercourse on any given night.

So if we want to go down this road of condemning "unsavoury" sexual practices, I'm afraid, again in absolute terms, that it's actually heterosexuals who would bear the greater burden here when it comes to that condemnation.

On a side note: I think kilties are awesome. Not alone, however, but paired with at least some tassels.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate

SocraticLove said:


> On a side note: I think kilties are awesome. Not alone, however, but paired with at least some tassels.


You came so close to writing a post where I could support everything you said. :icon_smile:


----------



## SocraticLove

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> You came so close to writing a post where I could support everything you said. :icon_smile:


Dang, well, one can't win them all, I suppose, LOL!


----------



## Orsini

Racer said:


> The Miata is not a "gay" car (I don't know what a "gay" car is), but the latest iteration, with automatic transmission, Starbucks Grande-sized cupholders, Bluetooth, and push-button retractable hardtop, is a "chick" car.
> 
> If you want a true hard-edged roadster, pick up a Honda S2000.


Sounds like they've made it into a T-Bird. Too bad.

I'll have to check the prices on that S2000.


----------



## Miket61

A high school classmate is very active in the "leather scene." I asked him many years ago about the "hanky code." His response was that the sort of place one would wear them is usually so dimly lit that the range of colors and shades and stripes would lead to all sorts of miscommunication.

On the original topic - I don't wear pink shirts because I sometimes get mild rosacea and they highlight the splotchiness. My one pink shirt has a white collar and cuffs and I wear it with a blue suit and a red tie.

Living in Atlanta, one encounters a lot of gay people. If I find myself making assumptions about people's orientations, it's due to mannerisms and speech patterns more than what color they're wearing. My rule about guessing the orientation of celebrities applies to all people, really - if you're not hoping to sleep with them, what does it matter?


----------



## Brio1

:icon_study:


Tilton said:


> I don't know whether to giggle to myself about "navel worshippers" and "armpit suckers" or be grossly offended. My best friend from high school (now openly gay) says I should laugh and he knows none of this stuff.
> 
> I'm pretty conservative but all of this is just ridiculous. I'm certainly not bigoted and I pass no judgements on what one likes to do in one's private life... I mean, I spend my free time talking about clothes on the internet and drooling over shoes.
> 
> Also, I've been to Nellie's more times than I might care to admit. Almost all of my girlfriend's guy friends from college are now openly gay and live in DC. I was admittedly apprehensive at first, but it's one of the most fun scenes in town.


I happened to be in the District (Dupont Circle) on Saturday while the Capital Pride parade was taking place. (I was browsing :icon_study: inside Second Story bookshop.) Thank goodness I did not wear one of several pink shirts from my wardrobe lest I suffered an attack on my person. I also chatted with a gay acquaintance, and yet no harm came of it.

I concur with Mr. Bantista: "Do what thou wilt"


----------



## SocraticLove

Brio1 said:


> :icon_study:
> 
> I happened to be in the District (Dupont Circle) on Saturday while the Capital Pride parade was taking place. (I was browsing :icon_study: inside Second Story bookshop.) Thank goodness I did not wear one of several pink shirts from my wardrobe lest I suffered an attack on my person. I also chatted with a gay acquaintance, and yet no harm came of it.
> 
> I concur with Mr. Bantista: "Do what thou wilt"


Oh, Brio, you would only be so lucky to have suffered such an "attack" on your person. Let's not flatter ourselves now. :biggrin::icon_smile_big:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

L-feld said:


> And besides, this entire thread is inappropriate.


How so?


----------



## VictorRomeo

Earl of Ormonde said:


> How so?


Because this thread is laden with offensive generalisations and insults aimed at an already much maligned group of people in society.

It equates to;

Catholic Priest = Chlild Molestor
Irish = Terrorist. Muslim = Terrorist for that matter too.
American = morbidly obese 
British = Alf Garnett racist

All fallacious and unreasonable generalisations.

Pink = Gay "therefore if you wear pink you must be gay and if you are gay, you are unnatural because all know where you root around."

In fairness, I believe(i think) the OP meant no harm but some of the follow on posts are truly dreadful and I'm personally amazed that they're tolerated.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Well, I find homophobia inappropriate. 

I also think legislation against homosexuals is totally wrong.

However, not the open discussion of homosexuality, be it serious or lighthearted. 

There is unfortunately due to a number of factors a growing number of subjects that various minority lobbies want to stop the general public from discussing or even joking about.

Homosexuality is one of them. 

One fact needs to be stated again though, it is only in some western countries that sodomy is allowed. In some Eastern countries you can't even be a celibate homosexual without being prosecuted.

And the fact is that many in those countires where homosexual sex is permitted seem to think they are part of the majority mindset both in their own country and globally. 

Third and final fact: They aren't, most peole globally still find sodomy unnatural and repulsive. 

In a few countries speaking out for homosexuality is acceptable and in those countries if you speak out against it you're considered a freak or simply in the wrong.

However, in many more countries speaking out for homosexuality is unacceptable and even illegal and if you speak out for it you're considered a freak or simply in the wrong.

The minority (who believe thmeselves to be a moral majority) who think homosexual sex is acceptable, are exactly that, a minority but also a powerful lobby that have succeeded in preventing many people from expressing their distaste of the act of homosexual sex.

That is not homophobia.


----------



## VictorRomeo

I beg to differ, Earl. Almost all you've described most certainly is homophobia. 

But that's not my point.

AAAC is not other countries, cultures or religions. 

AAAC is a place for the likeminded to enjoy a common interest in all things sartorial. There is also of course the facility to discuss other topics - some robustly - as they arise in other areas of the forum. 

I have no objection to the discussion of homosexuality in general; be it serious or lighthearted. 

I do however object when that conversation turns to one of prejudice, antipathy and contempt. Further, when humour is used as subterfuge to convey same prejudice, antipathy and contempt, it is just as bad. The 'back pocket hankie' post did nothing more to plant the suggestion that gay men are sexual deviants. Gay men are no more or less deviant than hetrosexual men. But stigma sticks.

Again, and maybe it's just me, I simply did not expect that sort of thing here to be tolerated. It's good to find this out though.


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I hope we can all agree that Bigots are distasteful in whatever form they may appear and wherever they may be found! Should any of you gentlemen wish to argue the point, do so through PM. Otherwise, move on.




I construed the above post, from a moderator, as a clear instruction to cease and desist. 

Rule 2 of the forum, excerpt 'We want people from all nations and backgrounds and political persuasions to feel welcome to share their interest in clothing here.' 

I will not dignify this thread by posting again but that this mean-spirited twaddle is permissible on this forum disturbs me enormously.

Homophobia is defined as antipathy towards homosexuals, neither alleged humour, general obliviousness nor unreconstructed irony can disguise it.


----------



## Kingstonian

Earl of Ormonde said:


> In a few countries speaking out for homosexuality is acceptable and in those countries if you speak out against it you're considered a freak or simply in the wrong.


Or in some politically correct tyrannies in Europe you get prosecuted.

Sweden ? Sermon lands you in jail https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147084,00.html

Loony Britain? Firemen get prosecuted and fined for interrupting gays who are at it in a public park
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564959/Firemen-reprimanded-for-disturbing-gay-sex-act.html

or

elderly couple get targetted by vindictive gay busybodies who insist on staying in a double bed at their Christian B&B
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

Only Russia left - gay mischief maker Peter Tatchell got what Tony Hancock used to call 'a punch up the bracket' when he tried to start stirring things up over there. Bet he would not chance it in Iran or Uganda.

'Anarcho tyranny' Real crime goes unpunished while new Thought Crimes are invented to punish the law abiding majority.


----------



## cdavant

This did get off track. But parts of it were instructive. There are ad nauseum debates about the appropriateness of a black suit for an interview. Why not one about a pink shirt? I would have to believe there are some interviewers who would find a candidate presenting in a pink shirt a less desirable hire than one in white or blue, as evidenced by comments in this thread. The same could be said about a salesman trying to close a deal or an attorney in front of a jury. A pink shirt would not be as safe a choice in those situations, and the fact that a prejudice is irrational doesn't change that. Sometimes you play to your audience and cover up your tattoos.

I'm wearing a BB OCBD to work today. It's the pink one the nurses always seem to like. Oh, and it's non-iron. Might as well spread a little formaldehyde around the wards today--might kill the MRSA and C. Diff.


----------



## mrp

I'm going to be purchasing at least 2 pink/rose/salmon shirts on my next order (one solid the other striped or checked). Goes well with so much why would one not use it.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I hate threads like this. No offense to the OP, but this type of discourse is just ignorant.


Sigh. Now you see why I hate threads like this.

Oh, well. Off to the Interchange.


----------



## Haffman

I cant help feeling that the sort of meatheads who would judge a man "gay", and use it as an insult, just because he wears a pink shirt would reach the same moronic conclusion about other forms of behaviour...such as spending hours posting about and reading about the finer points of tailored mens clothing 

I guess thats why the lack of tolerance and apparent bigotedness revealed in some quarters in this thread is such a genuine shock...


----------



## Howard

wearing pink doesn't make you gay I see a lot of guys today wearing pink shirts and or pink ties but wearing pink pants or pink shoes that's a different story.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> I do however object when that conversation turns to one of prejudice, antipathy and contempt. Further, when humour is used as subterfuge to convey same prejudice, antipathy and contempt, it is just as bad.


I totally agree.

I totally disagree though that discussing homosexuality or having an opinion opposed to homosexuality is homophobia.

Homophobia is a phobia about homosexual individuals in general.

Thinking that anal sex is unnatural is not homophobia.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Thinking that anal sex is unnatural is not homophobia.


In general, agreed. However reducing or equating homosexuality to anal sex is homophobic.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> In general, agreed. However reducing or equating homosexuality to anal sex is homophobic.


But you see I'm not. It isn't just homosexuals who practice anal sex. 
Also homosexuals will tell you they are the same as straight people in all but one area, sex. Therefore it is homosexuals themselves that define themselves by their sexual acts.
And defining homosexuals by anal sex is not homophobic at all, it is a fact. What else differentiates a homosexual from a heterosexual apart from the form of sex act?


----------



## Mox

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What else differentiates a homosexual from a heterosexual apart from the form of sex act?


Sex acts are wide and varied, and don't require one to be either heterosexual or homosexual. I would put forth that sexual orientation is based on sexual attraction: is one drawn to men, women, both, or none?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Kingstonian said:


> Or in some politically correct tyrannies in Europe you get prosecuted.
> 
> Sweden ? Sermon lands you in jail https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147084,00.html
> 
> Loony Britain? Firemen get prosecuted and fined for interrupting gays who are at it in a public park
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564959/Firemen-reprimanded-for-disturbing-gay-sex-act.html
> 
> or
> 
> elderly couple get targetted by vindictive gay busybodies who insist on staying in a double bed at their Christian B&B
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368
> 
> Only Russia left - gay mischief maker Peter Tatchell got what Tony Hancock used to call 'a punch up the bracket' when he tried to start stirring things up over there. Bet he would not chance it in Iran or Uganda.
> 
> 'Anarcho tyranny' Real crime goes unpunished while new Thought Crimes are invented to punish the law abiding majority.


I fully agree. Absolutely outrageous all incidents. In my police days, if we found anyone at it in public, straight or homosexual, they were arrested.

I'm just waiting for the day, when it becomes illegal to be a Catholic, a Muslim, a Jew or a Rastafarian because of the religious objection to sodomy.

That said, I've never had a problem with homosexuals as people. I just think anal sex is unnatual and wrong. I also think it is wrong that I should be made to feel wrong for having that view.

Celibacy works for heterosexuals it can also work for homosexuals. The view of the Roman Catholic church is that homosexuals are welcome to church and to take communion as long as they are celibate. Again, it isn't the homosexual person being objected to but the act of sodomy.

Perhaps we should move this thread to the Interchange.


----------



## CuffDaddy

+1 to Mox's comment. I was a heterosexual before I actually had sex, so one's sexual identity as either ****- or heterosexual is obviously not contingent on any particular sexual act. Similarly, there have historically been a goodly number of homosexual men who have rarely or never acted upon their desires; but being closeted (or even in denial to themselves) did not make them straight. 

One final note: As a straight man, I have always been bewildered by why other straight men would be bothered by homosexuality. Indeed, if I were not happily and monogamously married, it would be my fervent wish for every other male on the planet to be gay - less competition means more for me, you know.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Mox said:


> Sex acts are wide and varied, and don't require one to be either heterosexual or homosexual. I would put forth that sexual orientation is based on sexual attraction: is one drawn to men, women, both, or none?


I fully agree, however it is the discussion of sexual attraction that often leads to the argument that homosexuals aren't born as homosexuals, I don't know either way, and I'm not informed enough to make a decision. 
Also I think the learned jury of medicos is still out on that issue.

Most experts are of the opinion that homosexuals are born that way and having met some very young (10,11,12) homosexuals in my youth in London among our friends I'm inclined to agree.

The nurture over nature argument that says homosexuals develop, they aren't born, is also very dangerous because it gives paedophiles a foothold, which ever argument is used.

The two paedo arguments go something like this: "well, if homosexual sex and attraction is accepted by society because they're born like that, why then can I not be accepted? I was born like this.

"Well, if they developed into homosexuals & are accepted by society, why can't I be accepted because I developed into a paedophile"

Both disgusting of course, but you can never win an argument with a paedophile.


----------



## Jake Genezen

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I just think anal sex is *unnatual and wrong*.


Naturalistic Fallacy.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> Homophobia is defined as antipathy towards homosexuals, neither alleged humour, general obliviousness nor unreconstructed irony can disguise it.


Well said.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Jake Genezen said:


> Naturalistic Fallacy.


The word natural is similar to the words normal and truth in that they can only ever be subjective and each person will have their own definition. That what people consider natural or not can be called a fallacy is in itself incorrect simply because of the subjective nature or our relationship to the world around us.

As Morrissey correctly sang "There is no such thing as normal" Correct because normal is defined by each individual for themselves based on many factors. There is no benchmark for normal, just as there is no benchmark for natural or truth, and as such anyone using the word natural uses it from their own perspective applying their own definition.

That said, the word "natural" usually implies what is common in any given setting i.e. it is not natural to see snakes on the streets of London. However, in some Indian towns it is.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> +1 to Mox's comment. I was a heterosexual before I actually had sex, so one's sexual identity as either ****- or heterosexual is obviously not contingent on any particular sexual act.


Exactly, which is what I said ealrier. There was a 13 year old boy in our gang in London who was openly homosexual, and sex was still a long way off in the future, he made no secret of the fact that he was attracted to other boys, usually much older than we were.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> I construed the above post, from a moderator, as a clear instruction to cease and desist.


You're right. I apologise Eagle, I missed your comment that Shaver quoted.


----------



## Brio1

Howard said:


> wearing pink doesn't make you gay I see a lot of guys today wearing pink shirts and or pink ties but wearing pink pants or pink shoes that's a different story.


And what is the story of my wearing *pink pants*, Howard? The ladies really appear to be fond of them. :icon_smile_kisses:


----------



## Jake Genezen

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The word natural is similar to the words normal and truth in that they can only ever be subjective and each person will have their own definition. That what people consider natural or not can be called a fallacy is in itself incorrect simply because of the subjective nature or our relationship to the world around us.
> 
> As Morrissey correctly sang "There is no such thing as normal" Correct because normal is defined by each individual for themselves based on many factors. There is no benchmark for normal, just as there is no benchmark for natural or truth, and as such anyone using the word natural uses it from their own perspective applying their own definition.
> 
> That said, the word "natural" usually implies what is common in any given setting i.e. it is not natural to see snakes on the streets of London. However, in some Indian towns it is.


You are missing the point about the fallacy, which is about the spurious 'logic' employed.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Jake Genezen said:


> You are missing the point about the fallacy, which is about the spurious 'logic' employed.


No, I am not missing the point at all nor do I think there is any spurious logical employed, because I'm not saying that that which is "found in nature" is necessarily always good, but I am saying that I think anal sex is bad and wrong in my opinion, regardless of how good and right it is for others.

As I said, natural has many definitions as does normal; what is normal or natural for me may not be normal or natural for the next man and vice versa.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And defining homosexuals by anal sex is not homophobic at all, it is a fact. What else differentiates a homosexual from a heterosexual apart from the form of sex act?


As a logical argument, yes, assuming all homosexuals partake in anal sex. Therein lies the fallacy. They don't. For the sake of argument, I'm excluding female homosexual relations for obvious reasons.

But you see, the problem I have with that argument is it condenses a persons sexual persuasion to a single sexual activity. Whereas it's an awful lot more complex than that. It isolates all other aspects of a same sex (I'll use this instead of homosexual from now on) relationship and when that happens bias and biased attitudes are formed. That leads to stigmatism, prejudice and all the other injustices that follow.

You asked why some people are really uncomfortable and or offended about the direction this thread took.

It is simply because of this notion. Pink shirts = gay = anal sex = perverted and wrong. That's all.


----------



## Tilton

I stay away from that sort of thing. Nellie's is a mostly-gay sports bar between Shaw and Columbia Heights. I'm far from the only straight male in there, but I would guess I'm one of very few conservative straight males, though there is a Log Cabin presence.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Both disgusting of course, but you can never win an argument with a paedophile.


Yes, Yes you can. But why even bring up the topic of paedophila in a conversation on homosexuality? It's an age old, and frankly offensive mechanism constantly thrown out to somehow equate some sort of relationship.

Homosexual relations are are always between consenting adults. If not and just like hetrosexuals, it's rape. Even when two consenting minors are involved. The State usually defines that.

Paedophilia is not - obviously - between two consenting adults. That's the difference. Hence the illegality.

And hey, guess which group have been the largest perpetrators of acts of paedophilia on minors in my country? Of course, I didn't need to bring that up but seeing as we're dealing with stigma.....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> Yes, Yes you can. But why even bring up the topic of paedophila in a conversation on homosexuality? It's an age old, and frankly offensive mechanism constantly thrown out to somehow equate some sort of relationship.


Actually, I brought that up to defend homosexuality, not attack it. I was defending it against the dangeorus idea that homosexuality is simply a case of sexual attraction of the moment rather than the fact that homosexuals are born homosexual. Honestly, I wasn't making that cynical connection.

And to say that Catholic priests are the greatest paedos in Ireland is simply not true. There have been organised rings of criminal paedos in Ireland as long as there have been in the UK, Belgium, Sweden, the US and elsewhere.

What I meant by not being able to win the argument is that paedos seem to have an answer for everything to always justify in some way what they do.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> But you see, the problem I have with that argument is it condenses a persons sexual persuasion to a single sexual activity. Whereas it's an awful lot more complex than that. It isolates all other aspects of a same sex (I'll use this instead of homosexual from now on) relationship.


Of course it does, and so it should because all those other aspects are the same for heterosexuals, loving,caring,eating,sleeping,drinking,working,playing and so on.

It is homosexuals themselves that always bring the
one major difference to everone's attention ever year when they have Pride parades all over the world.

Admittedly, and this supports your argument, I know some homosexual find the Pride parades distasteful because they are always extremely camp, leather and latex affairs, which only seem to focus on that one major difference i.e. sex.

And as you say a relationship is about so much more than that, but as I said, so are all relationships, so surely there is no difference other than sex i.e. between 2 people of the same sex, whether it includes anal sex or not.


----------



## Mox

Earl of Ormonde said:


> As I said, natural has many definitions as does normal; what is normal or natural for me may not be normal or natural for the next man and vice versa.


I believe there is a difference between the two: what is normal to you may be different than for someone else, but there is a danger in being lax with the definition of normal itself. I can start using the term "balmoral" in the same manner that Oxford is used here in the States-to mean any lace-up shoe with a formal leaning-but that then dilutes my communication and makes conversation difficult.

I personally find that the "normal distribution" definition from probability theory works rather well when speaking of what a person considers "normal". If we look at a set of days and tally the methods I use to hold up my pants, we find that using a belt is normal for me, while suspenders are not. For another person, suspenders will be normal, and for another, drawstrings. The meaning of normal is the same in all cases, while what is normal is not.

Then there is the issue of equating normal with natural. Belts are normal for me, but does that make suspenders unnatural? "Natural" itself is a tricky one. It is a word that is so diluted that it has almost no meaning. If we must explain the definition we intend after we use the word, then my stance is that a more useful word can be found to express our thoughts.


----------



## Haffman

As has been said, "sodomy" is fairly prevalent in the heterosexual population. 

On the other hand, there are many heterosexuals who think the use of condoms is "unnatural" and anything other than the missionary position is "deviant" 

I guess it takes all sorts...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Haffman said:


> As has been said, "sodomy" is fairly prevalent in the heterosexual population.


I've often wondered why that is. Either I'm naive or stupid but I've never understood why men want to have anal sex with women. Are there any medical or psychological explanations available anywhere?


----------



## Haffman

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I've often wondered why that is. Either I'm naive or stupid but I've never understood why men want to have anal sex with women. Are there any medical or psychological explanations available anywhere?


I dont think it means you are naive or stupid, just reinforces the point that there are no universal "right" answers for sexual orientation and preferences, although there are some fairly universal "wrong" answers that usually have to do with lack of consent

I suppose the best medical explanation would be that the areas involved are well innervated with nerves that can give rise to pleasurable sensations, whatever their disparate evolutionary origins

As to psychological explanations, although I can imagine some for both the people who like it and people who dont, I am sure they are myraid without hard and fast,( if you dont mind the expression),rules...


----------



## dba

Howard said:


> wearing pink doesn't make you gay I see a lot of guys today wearing pink shirts and or pink ties but wearing pink pants or pink shoes that's a different story.


Are you and the OP really that ignorant?







Pro Golfer Jesper Parnevik


----------



## L-feld

So would everyone be happy with good, old-fashioned intercrural? Or is that too fogeyish for everyone?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Jake Genezen said:


> Naturalistic Fallacy.


Of course a stated fallacy can be a fallacy.


----------



## Mike Petrik

dba said:


> Are you and the OP really that ignorant?
> View attachment 4517
> 
> Pro Golfer Jesper Parnevik


What an ugly outfit! Yikes.


----------



## Jake Genezen

Mike Petrik said:


> Of course a stated fallacy can be a fallacy.


Indeed! The fallacist's fallacy, if I recall.


----------



## SocraticLove

*An explication of naturalness*

As a student of philosophy, let me try to break this down for y'all.

Jake Genezen's charge that the Earl's comment reeks of the naturalistic fallacy is rather acceptable, given that the latter seemed to invoke the term "natural" in the sense in which natural law theorists of morality tend to use it. That is, equating that which is natural to that which is morally good (i.e. morally permissible or required), and conversely, equating that which is not natural with that which is morally bad, (i.e. morally impermissible). It is _this_ sense of natural with which we are concerned.

We're not talking about semantic definitions of naturalness or what natural means within any given linguistic or socio-cultural context. This is to confuse and muddy the philosophical waters, as it were.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> The word natural is similar to the words normal and truth in that they can only ever be subjective and each person will have their own definition. That what people consider natural or not can be called a fallacy is in itself incorrect simply because of the subjective nature or our relationship to the world around us.
> 
> As Morrissey correctly sang "There is no such thing as normal" Correct because normal is defined by each individual for themselves based on many factors. There is no benchmark for normal, just as there is no benchmark for natural or truth, and as such anyone using the word natural uses it from their own perspective applying their own definition.
> 
> That said, the word "natural" usually implies what is common in any given setting i.e. it is not natural to see snakes on the streets of London. However, in some Indian towns it is.


I doubt this is the sense in which you invoked the term "unnatural" when describing anal sex. See below for the reason why.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, I am not missing the point at all nor do I think there is any spurious logical employed, because I'm not saying that that which is "found in nature" is necessarily always good, but I am saying that I think anal sex is bad and wrong in my opinion, regardless of how good and right it is for others.
> 
> As I said, natural has many definitions as does normal; what is normal or natural for me may not be normal or natural for the next man and vice versa.


This is interesting. Either you are something of a natural law theorist about morality (without knowing it) or you (as seems to be the case here) are invoking some kind of relativism about normality. If the former, you certainly fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy in which case you need to provide something of a rebuttal against that charge. Or, you weaken your entire argument if you are taking the latter route, because if the charge that anal sex is wrong is correct, it would only be correct relative to an individual or society's moral sensibilities. In which case, it would be morally wrong in some societies but not in others. And this, of course, makes no sense. But then again, moral relativism makes no sense.

--------

EDIT: I would just add that, with all due respect Earl, you have not given an argument for why we should think anal sex is wrong. Calling it sodomy is rhetorically convenient but it does not the forward the discussion. If one makes such an assertion about anal sex, one must draw reference to what one finds morally questionable about the sexual practice in question and then be prepared to defend it. We've yet to see anything like this, at this point. It's a mistake for those who think anal sex is NOT wrong, to think that they somehow need to respond to the other side in a nuanced manner when the other side hasn't even advanced any arguments.

So, with that said, I'm interested in hearing about why anal sex between two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own home, is morally problematic, regardless of whether the couple in question is heterosexual or gay (although I should remind everyone of what I said earlier which is that although a higher proportion of homosexual folks engage in anal sex than is the case for heterosexuals, in absolute numbers there are actually more heterosexuals engaging in the act on any given night than is the case for their homosexual counterparts).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Your username reveals a lot. 

As for "morally problematic" I never claimed it was. And if you read what I wrote you will realise that.

My opinion stands, regardless of all your philosophical meanderings.

I simply say that it is physically wrong and unnatural, regardless of how you want to philosophise over the definition of the term. The anus is not intended for sodomy or buggery, it is a one-way channel. 

Sodomy and buggery by the way are perfectly acceptable terms, however I realise you may prefer the term anal sex. Do you refer to fellatio and cunnilingus as mouth sex? Or masturbation as hand sex? 

Morality is the domain of each individual, and as such each individual must live by their own morality. So I impose none of my moral or ethical rules on others.

I simply stand by my belief that anal sex is physically wrong, physically damaging to the anus, and naturally wrong. 

Discuss with me on what I am claiming not on what you think I am claiming.


----------



## Howard

Brio1 said:


> And what is the story of my wearing *pink pants*, Howard? The ladies really appear to be fond of them. :icon_smile_kisses:


I don't know I just thought it was a tad bit effeminate.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Howard said:


> I don't know I just thought it was a tad bit effeminate


I've seen this here a few times, "a tad" means the same thing as "a bit" 
So it is either "a tad effeminate" or "a bit effeminate". Not both.

On the subject of pink trousers though, I agree, I think they should only be worn by women. A pink shirt or tie or pair of socks is one thing, but pink jumpers, trousers, jackets and coats (in other words the top layer of clothing) belong in a woman's wardrobe.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Mike Petrik said:


> What an ugly outfit! Yikes.


I agree. He looks like a woman in those.


----------



## efdll

I found this thread by chance and was surprised at the enthusiastic participation. Since I read it all rather fast, I apologize for anything I missed and therefore got wrong, but I do have some comments.
Though I found some posts disturbing and distasteful I'm a fool for freedom of speech. Too many countries, including the one where I was born, don't have it. So, go at it!
I may have missed this, but though many men said they were straight, married, etc. I didn't see anyone come out and say they were gay. I would have liked to read some insight on this issue from inside gay culture and experience. I conclude that either homosexuality is still problematic to admit or, and this is what I'm inclined to believe, that only straight guys are fascinated by this and gay men reading the thread -- if they even bother to -- find the topic and the posts naive.
A number of posts went off point to discuss sexuality, including its mechanics. However, the topic itself is on point. As the semioticians in the forum know, clothing is language and language is predicated on convention. Therefore, to wear this or that is saying something, sometimes following convention, other times defying or ignoring it. The recently deceased Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes pointed out how bullfighters wear tight pink pants and wear a pony tail, both signifiers of femininity, because they were, in a way, men enough to do so. That is, they represented manhood in the bullring, pitted against animal masculinity, and they were risking their life to do so. In such an extreme display of the masculine they could afford to wear what in any other context would be considered effeminate. Take into account that this in no way is saying that pink or pony tails or tight clothing are intrinsically feminine, but that such a display is made in the context of a culture of machismo -- after all, we use a Spanish word in English for it.
In our own American culture of bull wrangling, I recently saw an ad for a brand of clothing at a Western gear store that showed a famous burly bull rider in a pink shirt and the copy read, man enough to wear pink. Just because these color associations are conventions, it doesn't mean they don't carry powerful meanings.
That said, there are some color associations that are outside convention. People with different hues and shades of skin and hair and eyes look different wearing different colors. Art directors for fashion shoots and shows know this. Just like everyone who's done TV knows that a blue shirt works better than a white one.
Pink and yellow OCBDs, introduced by BB I believe, are bolder statements -- within the narrow confines of Trad style -- than white or blue. Thus, they are attention getters and I believe anyone who wears them is flirting with dandyism (a rich topic itself). Many here have observed that a pink shirt says "preppy", and that certainly is a statement, one that says preppy (or Trad) and proud.
A final comment on the convergence of clothes color as language and as pure aesthetics. Coming from the tropics, I am naturally drawn to the pastels of the preppy/Trad palette. But I realized that they look inappropriate in a different climate/context. For one, what looks terrific under a blazing sun may look lurid and stupid under a gray cloud cover or constant fog. For another, one doesn't always want to stand out like a sore thumb. New Yorkers wear black, have done so even before "downtown black." And since for many of us who live or have lived there the subway is the fastest and only affordable form of transportation, one learns to survive that underground (in every sense of the word) experience. A friend who was far from a bad-ass, a gentle filmmaker, in fact, explained to me once that everyday he wore black sneakers, black jeans, black t-shirt, black zip jacket and black wool cap because that way he looked like everyone else and there was less chance of being singled out by anyone wanting to rip him off or simply rip him up. Thus, the New York subway is full of people who look like hoodlums but are, in fact, decent working folk trying to stay our of harm's way. That too is clothing color as language.


----------



## Mox

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I simply say that it is physically wrong and unnatural, regardless of how you want to philosophise over the definition of the term. The anus is not intended for sodomy or buggery, it is a one-way channel.


But intended by whom? How is something "physically wrong"? In my own mind, if it can happen, it is supported by nature: there are no laws of physics being broken. Anal intercourse happens "in nature" with other species, not just humans. If someone uses a wrench to hammer in a nail, is that physically wrong? It is not the intended use by the designer or maker, but are they the arbitrator of what is right or wrong for the person purchasing the tool? How about a rock?

I believe this is why there appears to be a layer of morality associated with your use of the term unnatural. Perhaps "correctness" might be a more appropriate word than morality; but I think the fallacy then still applies. It assumes that there is still something right and wrong in nature, just of a different sort.

If you support the basis of Intelligent Design, then I can see where there will be conflict with the view that random chance and evolution resulted in the design and use of the digestive tract. The former allows for a designer/maker of this tool used at cross-purposes of the (supposed) intent. It also allows for an arbitrator as to the morality of said usage.


----------



## Mike Petrik

This is next.


----------



## CuffDaddy

efdll said:


> I may have missed this, but though many men said they were straight, married, etc. I didn't see anyone come out and say they were gay. I would have liked to read some insight on this issue from inside gay culture and experience. I conclude that either homosexuality is still problematic to admit or, and this is what I'm inclined to believe, that only straight guys are fascinated by this and gay men reading the thread -- if they even bother to -- find the topic and the posts naive.


I expect that reading this thread caused the brains of any gay men to explode, rendering them incapable of participation.


----------



## efdll

BTW, anyone wanting to look elegant in pink should check out the AAAC Trad Thrift Exchange, where TweedyDon has two great pink blazers at a discounted price and open to offers. I'd grab them myself if they were my size. Go pink in style!


----------



## VictorRomeo

CuffDaddy said:


> I expect that reading this thread caused the brains of any gay men to explode, rendering them incapable of participation.


Actually, I would imagine it's quite the opposite. I reckon gay folks are so used to the the same old homophobic rhetoric and accusations of the 'sin of Sodom, it's of no consequence what a few fusty old conservatives think of them.

It's those same fusty old conservatives that usually whip themselves up into an apopaleptic fit when this topic arises.


----------



## Mox

It's easy for small notes to get lost in a thread that moves this quick. From an earlier post:


SocraticLove said:


> As a gay man, I found this post shockingly offensive.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Mike Petrik said:


> This is next.


Well you kill them, skin them, slice them, dice them, mechanically reclaim and reshape them, grill them, fry them, roast them, eat them, digest them, wear them, walk around in them.... so why not fu.....? No, i'll leave it there


----------



## CuffDaddy

VictorRomeo said:


> Actually, I would imagine it's quite the opposite. I reckon gay folks are so used to the the same old homophobic rhetoric and accusations of the 'sin of Sodom, it's of no consequence what a few fusty old conservatives think of them.
> 
> It's those same fusty old conservatives that usually whip themselves up into an apopaleptic fit when this topic arises.


True enough. I am often impressed by the equanimity with which many of my gay friends can bear the rhetoric and animosity directed towards them. I know I would not do as well.


----------



## SocraticLove

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Your username reveals a lot.
> 
> As for "morally problematic" I never claimed it was. And if you read what I wrote you will realise that.
> 
> My opinion stands, regardless of all your philosophical meanderings.
> 
> I simply say that it is physically wrong and unnatural, regardless of how you want to philosophise over the definition of the term. The anus is not intended for sodomy or buggery, it is a one-way channel.
> 
> Sodomy and buggery by the way are perfectly acceptable terms, however I realise you may prefer the term anal sex. Do you refer to fellatio and cunnilingus as mouth sex? Or masturbation as hand sex?
> 
> Morality is the domain of each individual, and as such each individual must live by their own morality. So I impose none of my moral or ethical rules on others.
> 
> I simply stand by my belief that anal sex is physically wrong, physically damaging to the anus, and naturally wrong.
> 
> Discuss with me on what I am claiming not on what you think I am claiming.


OK, so are you just claiming that you personally have some affective/emotional distaste or aversion towards anal sex but don't think it's objectively wrong, morally speaking?

Because if that's it, there's not much for us to discuss. That is your affective stance towards the act in question and it's not going to be of much use trying to convince you otherwise. It's like trying to convince a chocolate lover that chocolate does not taste good.

The relevant difference, of course, is that your affective stance or attitudinal orientation is potentially morally pernicious, whereas the chocolate lover's is not.

I'm still just a bit perplexed though, because I don't think you are merely offering up an opinion, even though you claim to be doing just that and only that - for example, as shown below in one of your earlier posts:



Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, I am not missing the point at all nor do I think there is any spurious logical employed, because I'm not saying that that which is "found in nature" is necessarily always good, but I am saying that *I think anal sex is bad and wrong in my opinion*, regardless of how good and right it is for others.
> 
> As I said, natural has many definitions as does normal; what is normal or natural for me may not be normal or natural for the next man and vice versa.


That's my bolding, of course. How can statements about the unnaturalness or goodness or badness of anal sex be relativised to individual sentiments? Either something is natural or unnatural. Similarly, something is either good or bad, morally speaking or however you want to construe those two value-laden terms.

I think this is part of the confusion. I understand what you are saying (at least, as of now) but am still perplexed as to whether it's what you really _mean_. That is, are you sure you're not offering up something like a moral condemnation of anal sex? It sure sounds like that and so I tend to agree with Mox's earlier statement that there is something of a moral character to your usage of terms like "unnatural" and "bad".

At any rate, perhaps I ought not to take this discussion about anal sex as seriously as I have been doing. For me personally, the connection between anal sex and my sexual orientation are not so tight so as to cause me to lose sleep over a debate about the naturalness or unnaturalness of the sexual act in question. Anal sex is potentially one dimension of a fulfilling relationship between two gay men but it need not be, and to the extent that it is, there are other (more important) factors at play in defining that love that exists there.


----------



## cdavant

Mike Petrik said:


> This is next.


The old joke about West Virginia having found a new use for sheep---wool. Would they describe a "Perfect 10" as a "super 160?"


----------



## VictorRomeo

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Do you refer to fellatio and cunnilingus as mouth sex?


Actually, given its Biblical origins, Sodomy is also a term for the aformentioned acts.


----------



## CuffDaddy

And "oral sex" is a lot more commonly used in America than "fellatio" or "cunnilingus."


----------



## VictorRomeo

CuffDaddy said:


> And "oral sex" is a lot more commonly used in America than "fellatio" or "cunnilingus."


Reminds me of a naughty joke;

What do you call nuts on a wall? Walnuts obviously.

Nuts on a chest? Chestnuts.

Nuts on a chin?..... Anyone?


----------



## cdavant

Now we are totally off track, not that there's anything wrong with that.

How is oral sex like eggs Benedict?
You seldom get either one at home.

Not even if you're wearing a pink shirt.

I think we've covered everything here. Anyone have strong feelings about hair shirts?


----------



## Miket61

cdavant said:


> How is oral sex like eggs Benedict?
> You seldom get either one at home.


If we're going to go in that direction...

Man walks into a bar and orders seven shots of whiskey.

Bartender asks, "what's the occasion?"

Man says, "I just had my first [colloquial term for oral sex]."

Bartender: "Well, congratulations! Let me buy you a drink."

Man: "Oh, no thanks. If seven won't get the taste out of my mouth, forget it."


----------



## Epaminondas

smmrfld said:


> And this is a close second. Well...might be a tossup between two hopelessly ignorant posters.


Yes, I'm sure you're quite the intellect. This is the great game of the ******** left. I don't wish to be enlightened as to how an attraction to the lower intestine of another man is perfectly natural. Drinking soda in NY City nust be banned becasue of publich health - but, gay sex, hey that's perfectly natural and without consequence to one's health. Please.

Compulsive spending: mental disorder. Compulsive eating : mental disorder. Compulsive gambling: mental disorder. Addiction to the internet: mental disorder. Homosexuality: perfectly normal and no idicia of mental disorder? Again, please.


----------



## Epaminondas

Shaver said:


> Further and in respect of your reference to the pre 1972 edition of the DSM, such outmoded and ludicrous beliefs are no longer granted scientific status and thus not to be found in modern editions. (


Anyone who thinks that the modern DSM has anything to do with "science" is delusional. It reflects the social viewpoints of a small cadre of western "mental health" care professionals. I'm not aware of much "science" that is culturally relative, decided by a vote, and is subject to the influene of lobbying and protetsters - and if you'll take the time to research the conditions under which the DSM was amended, you'll get my point.


----------



## Miket61

Your logic falls off a cliff. Homosexual behavior is neither an addiction or a compulsion. A sexual addiction, whether it manifests itself as straight, gay, or lusting after furniture, is indeed a mental illness and no one would disagree.

Homophobia is not a fear of homosexuals. It's a fear of being or being perceived as homosexual yourself. People who are vocally anti-gay are really carrying around great big signs saying "oh, no, not gay. Everyone look at how not gay I am."


----------



## Epaminondas

SocraticLove said:


> It's the rooting around, as it were, with another _man _that has you saying things like this. I trust you wouldn't have any major objections to your son rooting around with a _woman_, however they wish, as mutually consenting adults, to do this.


You'd be wrong. It's morally and physically damaging to bother partners; but since, I doubt, you're responsive to conventional moral rationales, suffice it to say, the physical risks are many, not the least of which is incontinence increased rates of anal cancer.


----------



## Epaminondas

Miket61 said:


> People who are vocally anti-gay are really carrying around great big signs saying "oh, no, not gay. Everyone look at how not gay I am."


 That's a silly reverse psychology canard and it's the most feeble argument. People are always insisting, if you disagree with the current agy zeitgeist, you're just closeted. Stupid.


----------



## Miket61

Epaminondas said:


> That's a silly reverse psychology canard and it's the most feeble argument. People are always insisting, if you disagree with the current agy zeitgeist, you're just closeted. Stupid.


Disagree with what? That gay people exist? Regardless of what you think of it, it's really none of our business what other people find sexually appealing provided it causes us no harm. You're inserting yourself into a topic in which you claim to have no personal interest.


----------



## Shaver

Epaminondas said:


> . This is the great game of the ******** left .


Drat it! I promised I would make no further comment in this thread. However, despite this my weakness, I manage to restrain myself and ignore the futility of your other selective responses, to fragments from other member's posts.

This comment above though, this *ahem* 'great game' to which you allude will doubtless reveal to each clear thinking man not only your motivations but also the rich tapestry of paranoid fantasies which inform them.

Would you mind awfully if I respectfully asked you (on this subject at least) to perhaps consider please keeping quiet, old sport?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

So, regardless of sexual inclination all but about 4 or 5 responders to this thread, both homosexual and heterosexual think that anal sex is perfectly okay and as such totally dismiss both the physical and psychological damage it causes. 

BTW: 
Anal sex causes physical damage - Medical FACT! 
Anal sex also causes pyschological damage, because even people who do it and like it, feel, perhaps only on a deep sub-conscious level, that is is wrong in some way, be it moral, physical or social.

The human anus is a one-way valve.

For the hetero-men here, if you feel like answering, why do you think anal sex is okay? And if you engage in it with your wife/gf, why do you?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Epaminondas said:


> I don't wish to be enlightened as to how an attraction to the lower intestine of another man is perfectly natural. Drinking soda in NY City nust be banned becasue of publich health - but, gay sex, hey that's perfectly natural and without consequence to one's health. Please.
> 
> Compulsive spending: mental disorder. Compulsive eating : mental disorder. Compulsive gambling: mental disorder. Addiction to the internet: mental disorder. Homosexuality: perfectly normal and no idicia of mental disorder? Again, please.


Well said sir. However, arguing it here is a losing battle, not only does one have to argue the case with homosexual men but also with heterosexual men, which I find extremely odd.


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> So, regardless of sexual inclination all but about 4 or 5 responders to this thread, both **** and heterosexual think that anal sex is perfectly okay and as such totally dismiss both the physical and psychological damage it causes.
> 
> BTW:
> Anal sex causes physical damage - Medical FACT! Even people who do it and like it feel, perhaps only on a deep sub-conscious level, that is is wrong in some way, be it moral, physica or social.
> 
> The human anus is a one-way valve.
> 
> For the hetero-men here, if you feel like answering, why do you think anal sex is okay? And if you engage in it with your wife/gf, why do you?


Psychological damage? Really? Perhaps you would care to illuminate us with some further examples of your 'FACTS'? I am presuming that these capitalised certainties are rather more substantial than the mere 'facts' with which I am forced to content myself.

Also the benefit of your expertise in the matter of the deep subconscious self loathing you imagine exists within others could be, at least, entertaining. Can I respectfully encourage you to elaborate upon this theme?

You will of course forgive me that I am disinclined to discuss the intimate details of my relationship with my partner. I am rather shocked that you would expect your fellow members to answer such a sordid question.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> I am rather shocked that you would expect your fellow members to answer such a sordid question.


Interesting choice of adjective, "sordid"? That is surely sub-conscious evidence in itself, that you find anal-sex sordid.

That anal-sex causes physical damage IS medical fact. Look it up yourself.
That anal-sex causes physcological damage is not something I said is medical fact, it has however been discussed at length by experts for centuries. Again, if you don't know these things yourself then look them up. I am not your teacher.


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Interesting choice of adjective, "sordid"? That is surely sub-conscious evidence in itself, that you find anal-sex sordid.
> 
> That anal-sex causes physical damage IS medical fact. Look it up yourself.


Not at all, it is the notion of discussing the intricacies of my intimate relationship with my partner that I consider sordid. Shame on you for asking in the first instance. There are many other internet forums devoted to that manner of conversation, you may consider joining one.

Where would you recommend I commence research of your medical facts; Grey's bigotry perhaps? 

Edited to respond to the Earl's edit: oh, but surely you *are* a teacher, Earl. You seem so determined to lecture us as to the validity of your opinion, to impart the benefit of your all encompassing (and what's more; righteous) knowledge of this subject.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Another angle:

Just because something is legal and becoming more and more accepted by western secular society doesn't make it morally or ethically or biologically right to everyone.

In Saudi Arabia thieves have their hands chopped off, that is the law and that is accepted as the norm by the Saudi people. However, it isn't the norm outside Saudi Arabia.

BUT it is illegal to be a homosexual in Saudi Arabia.

It is NOT illegal in many European countries to have sex with animals. Now just because it ISN'T illegal that doesn't make it right! 

Many countries don't have a legal lower age limit for sex, so girls as young as 10 or 11 can legally have sex. Again that doesn't make it right. 

Just because it is illegal to hunt whales in most of the world doesn't make that ban legal all over the world, nor does it make the ban right for all people. 

So no matter how much the western secular world - and lets be clear here, it is
only the western secular world invovled - continues to accept the anal sex act of homosexuals it still won't make it right. 

And the FACT of the matter is that MOST people round the world outside the secular west think it is WRONG.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

No, all I want to do is be allowed to express my opinion free of the persecution of the secular liberal left, who are free to express their opnion all the time all over the place in support of sodomy, and who shout down anyone who doesn't agree with them.

As for asking the questions I asked, there is nothing sordid in their asking. 

If you and others think that anal-sex is so natural then there should be no problem is responding. 
However, the more objections that are raised by the supporters of anal-sex on the discussion of the subject on this thread, the clearer it becomes to me that said individuals are uncomfortable discussing it and perhaps on a sub-conscious level do think there is something wrong with anal-sex.

Bottom line: all I want is for my opinion to be as valid as those who support anal-sex.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> Where would you recommend I commence research of your medical facts


Do you not know how to use Google?


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Do you not know how to use Google?


Are you aware that responding merely to your own highly selective editing of other members posts serves to buttress the conjecture that you are incapable of formulating a rational and coherent response?


----------



## VictorRomeo

Let it go fellas. Homosexuallity has been around as long as hetrosexuality. And unless we end up in some dystopian future where we visit Woody Allen's 'Orgasmatron', it will continue to be around as long as we are. It can't be prayed away, wished away, banned away or 'gay bashed' away. Regardless of the health implications or the damage it may cause, if two consenting adults want to go at it, it's neither my business nor yours.

Oh, how I wish I never got involved with this thread....


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> Let it go fellas. Homosexuallity has been around as long as hetrosexuality. And unless we end up in some dystopian future where we visit Woody Allen's 'Orgasmatron', it will continue to be around as long as we are. It can't be prayed away, wished away, banned away or 'gay bashed' away. Regardless of the health implications or the damage it may cause, if two consenting adults want to go at it, it's neither my business nor yours.
> 
> Oh, how I wish I never got involved with this thread....


+1 you are, if I may say so, a sensible fellow.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Fair enough, I'll let it go.


----------



## eagle2250

Indeed, recall if you will that old pearl of wisdom; "Opinions are like a**holes and we all have one and are entitled to each!" However, it is frequently distasteful when we find it necessary to force either of ours on others!


----------



## Balfour

eagle2250 said:


> "Opinions are like a**holes and we all have one and are entitled to each!"


I'm pleased that my one and only contribution to this thread is to say that I hadn't heard that expression before, but it did make me chuckle!


----------



## Miket61

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, recall if you will that old pearl of wisdom; "Opinions are like a**holes and we all have one and are entitled to each!" However, it is frequently distasteful when we find it necessary to force either of ours on others!


What one does with one's opinion in the privacy of their home is of no interest to me whatsoever.


----------



## cdavant

My philosophy has always been "I'll stay out of your bedroom and leave your reproductive rights alone if you'll keep your hands off my wallet." Sounds fair to me.


----------



## RedBluff

https://www.toughenoughtowearpink.com/

The stands and chutes of the Red Bluff Rodeo are a sea of Pink for 1 day every year.
It's kinda cool to see.


----------



## blue suede shoes

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, recall if you will that old pearl of wisdom; "Opinions are like a**holes and we all have one and are entitled to each!" However, it is frequently distasteful when we find it necessary to force either of ours on others!


I heard that same pearl of wisdom long ago, but the way I heard it was "Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one and everyone else's stinks."


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays

Good to know that others know of this pink=gay thing.

Personally, I'd never heard of it until a few months ago. 
I was on an evening stroll through a public park when a man approached me and informed me that my pink shirt made me "gay". 
Seemed odd, but I didn't want to be rude, or violate a sacred sartorial "rule" so I let him have sex with me.

So, it's good to have this confirmed by the forum, that I was in error by wearing pink and he wasn't just pulling a fast one on me. I'll have my wife clear my wardrobe of the color tonight.


----------



## Orsini

I saw a young fellow on a pink Vespa-type scooter the other day. It looked pretty stupid, particularly for a gentleman, but I don't know if he was gay or not...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Orsini said:


> I saw a young fellow on a pink Vespa-type scooter the other day. It looked pretty stupid, particularly for a gentleman, but I don't know if he was gay or not...


Probably!

I think there is a big difference between wearing a pink shirt and having pink accessories, transport etc.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
LOL. Be careful not to jump to ill-advised conclusions. A pink Vespa scooter might merely indicate that the chap is a quite successful Italian sales rep for "Mary Kay Cosmetics"...and third party observers are simply witnessing the spoils of his/her sales success! ROFALOL!


----------



## JerseyJohn

cdavant said:


> My philosophy has always been "I'll stay out of your bedroom and leave your reproductive rights alone if you'll keep your hands off my wallet." Sounds fair to me.


I'm missing the connection between the two.


----------



## Orsini

Don't think it was actually a Vespa. They are good sized and have decent power. This one looked small and didn't get of the line very well.


----------



## Miket61

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> LOL. Be careful not to jump to ill-advised conclusions. A pink Vespa scooter might merely indicate that the chap is a quite successful Italian sales rep for "Mary Kay Cosmetics"...and third party observers are simply witnessing the spoils of his/her sales success! ROFALOL!


Two thoughts:

First, while Springsteen meant a "pink Cadillac" to represent feminine wiles (and certain body parts), the image first entered rock music when Elvis Presley drove one while on tour. Elvis may have been many things, but all of them were manly and heterosexual.

Second, at church today I counted ten men in pink shirts. I probably missed some. The only one that had any sort of a "gay vibe" was a short man, as physically perfect as a J C Leyendecker painting. The trim-cut polo had no gathering at the waist, and his khaki shorts were hemmed at exactly the right point above the knee. He was also wearing a wedding ring and there with his son, who inherited some but not all of his father's style.


----------



## Big T

I wear the color my wife directs me to (when we go out together). If the shirt happens to be pink and the jacket happens to be rainbow, so be it. I don't worry about being hit on, as us slightly corpulent, balding, soon to be 60 men, are not high on the list of hetero desirability, let alone **** desirability. Makes much easier to engage in conversations with others without worry about orientation, eh?


----------



## Epaminondas

CuffDaddy said:


> One final note: As a straight man, I have always been bewildered by why other straight men would be bothered by homosexuality. Indeed, if I were not happily and monogamously married, it would be my fervent wish for every other male on the planet to be gay - less competition means more for me, you know.


You, obviously, view sexuality as divorced from cultural or familial health. You might as well say the same thing of bestiality. The fact is that, regardless of time or religion, cultures have recognized the importance of children raised by a mother and a father and have constructed cultures to enourage that - ranging from pagan (and ostensibly, gay friendly) ancient Sparta through Christendom to commmunist/atheist Stalinist/Maoist Soviet Union/China. Open homosexuality does not lead to healthy cultures. Glad you're not my attorney if that's the depth of your thought processses or knowledge.


----------



## Epaminondas

VictorRomeo said:


> Yes, Yes you can. But why even bring up the topic of paedophila in a conversation on homosexuality? It's an age old, and frankly offensive mechanism constantly thrown out to somehow equate some sort of relationship.


https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-gay-rights-advocate-arrested-over-child-porn-3662138.php

And since animals are property and need not provide consent - that's OK? Consent is the litmus for normality?


----------



## Epaminondas

Shaver said:


> This comment above though, this *ahem* 'great game' to which you allude will doubtless reveal to each clear thinking man not only your motivations but also the rich tapestry of paranoid fantasies which inform them.


Again the bogus reverse psychology. As if, if someone were to oppose murder, for all its obvious harms, one must be a covert murderer. Grow up. Homosexuality is a mental illness - decreed not so by what? a 55% to 45% majority vote of the only "profession" that is required, in itself to seek tha counselling of other menatl health professionals? The craziest woman I ever datde was a psychologist. The "profession" is a joke. As I've mentioned - go read about the vote to modify the DSM, the margin of the vote, and the vociferousiness of the proponents or "normality."


----------



## Epaminondas

VictorRomeo said:


> Actually, given its Biblical origins, Sodomy is also a term for the aformentioned acts.


No, it's not. Biblical sodomy has pretty much, to my knowledge, only applied to male on male sexaul acts.

That being said - again - pink shirts are OK. Kiltie Loafers are gay.


----------



## drlivingston

My wife likes it when I wear pink. So, I do it frequently. Ties, PRL tees, PRL seersucker suit, etc. etc.


----------



## Shaver

Epaminondas said:


> Again the bogus reverse psychology. As if, if someone were to oppose murder, for all its obvious harms, one must be a covert murderer. Grow up. Homosexuality is a mental illness - decreed not so by what? a 55% to 45% majority vote of the only "profession" that is required, in itself to seek tha counselling of other menatl health professionals? The craziest woman I ever datde was a psychologist. The "profession" is a joke. As I've mentioned - go read about the vote to modify the DSM, the margin of the vote, and the vociferousiness of the proponents or "normality."


Epaminondas, your reply makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in context of my comment from which you have chosen to extract and respond. I assure you no reverse psychology was intended nor employed. My statement was bald and precise, requiring no unravelling nor analysis of subtext. I feel rather that your perspective is so occluded that we might as well be speaking different languages. Thanks for the advice re growing up, though. I will try and 'take that on board'. :icon_smile_wink:

Finally, I am rather confused as to why you believe me to be a supporter of psychology. I recall that I have made it clear, within this thread, that I loathe the profession. I am also perfectly well aware of the various modifications to the DSM over the years and the devious interests of the forces that have driven this change. Again your conclusions leave me pondering your seemingly inchoate thought processes.

Forgive me my frivolity but, I am rather glad that you are an opponent of homosexuality; I do not believe that you would be much benefit if advocating from the other side. :biggrin:


----------



## VictorRomeo

Epaminondas said:


> No, it's not. Biblical sodomy has pretty much, to my knowledge, only applied to male on male sexaul acts.


Yes it is. You blind bigoted ignorant fool.


----------



## arkirshner

This was a response to a post by Cuff Daddy:



Epaminondas said:


> ....Glad you're not my attorney if that's the depth of your thought processses or knowledge.


I do not have the desire to get involved in the merits of your up and back with Cuff, but if I were in trouble I would want an attorney like Cuff because his job is put aside his personal opinion and to argue his client's case, as John Adams did when he represented the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre case. Whether you agree with him or not on merits of this thread makes no difference. Cuff is a very clear writer who gets his point across. On many occasions I have read his explanation of a sartorial point and thought he said it better than I could. This is what I would want from my lawyer. Similarly I also don't care about my doctor's opinions and I doubt if you care about yours. In any event, I hope neither of us gets into trouble.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## Mike Petrik

Epaminondas said:


> You, obviously, view sexuality as divorced from cultural or familial health. You might as well say the same thing of bestiality. The fact is that, regardless of time or religion, cultures have recognized the importance of children raised by a mother and a father and have constructed cultures to enourage that - ranging from pagan (and ostensibly, gay friendly) ancient Sparta through Christendom to commmunist/atheist Stalinist/Maoist Soviet Union/China. Open homosexuality does not lead to healthy cultures. Glad you're not my attorney if that's the depth of your thought processses or knowledge.


Alan is correct, of course. 
While I agree with you on the merits, you could not be more wrong about Cuff. He's a terrific lawyer who would do a splendid job defending your (i.e., our) point of view if engaged to do so.
And I'm wearing a pink tie with my seersucker suit today. Only question is whether it should be the knit one or not. Hmmmm.....


----------



## eagle2250

Not to take the present conversation off track, but are we not all pleased that the elimination of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and open acceptance of homosexual members by the US military services has taken place so seamlessly and has apparently proceeded much more smoothly than predicted (by even myself!)? Why, the Pentagon just recently endorsed a series of gay pride activities! Although, while I acknowledged in an earlier post to this thread that I do wear the occasional pink knit polo or OCBD shirts, should the USAF ever go to pink uniforms, I would certainly continue to gratefully accept those monthly retirement checks, but might be forced to deny any former affiliation with the Service! There is just no 'F-in' way that pink uniforms would ever strike fear into the hearts of current or future enemies! LOL.


----------



## SocraticLove

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Another angle:
> 
> Just because something is legal and becoming more and more accepted by western secular society doesn't make it morally or ethically or biologically right to everyone.
> 
> In Saudi Arabia thieves have their hands chopped off, that is the law and that is accepted as the norm by the Saudi people. However, it isn't the norm outside Saudi Arabia.
> 
> BUT it is illegal to be a homosexual in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> It is NOT illegal in many European countries to have sex with animals. Now just because it ISN'T illegal that doesn't make it right!
> 
> Many countries don't have a legal lower age limit for sex, so girls as young as 10 or 11 can legally have sex. Again that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Just because it is illegal to hunt whales in most of the world doesn't make that ban legal all over the world, nor does it make the ban right for all people.
> 
> So no matter how much the western secular world - and lets be clear here, it is
> only the western secular world invovled - continues to accept the anal sex act of homosexuals it still won't make it right.
> 
> And the FACT of the matter is that MOST people round the world outside the secular west think it is WRONG.


So you begin your post here with an explication of why broad consensus doesn't rise to the level of moral correctness, and then you end your post by relying on the same spurious logic which it was your task to rally against in the first place.

Brilliant. :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## SocraticLove

Epaminondas said:


> Yes, I'm sure you're quite the intellect. This is the great game of the ******** left. I don't wish to be enlightened as to how an attraction to the lower intestine of another man is perfectly natural. Drinking soda in NY City nust be banned becasue of publich health - but, gay sex, hey that's perfectly natural and without consequence to one's health. Please.
> 
> Compulsive spending: mental disorder. Compulsive eating : mental disorder. Compulsive gambling: mental disorder. Addiction to the internet: mental disorder. Homosexuality: perfectly normal and no idicia of mental disorder? Again, please.


I'm curious as to why you think the connection between anal sex and homosexuality is so tight, such that they can't be untangled? Because they certainly can be untangled - conceptually, practically, and so on. This betrays something of a bias on your part that you can't make fine-grained discriminations of the sort that are rather useful, and indeed necessary, in a discussion like this.

I'm also extremely curious as to why you don't condemn anal sex amongst heterosexual couples and continue to see, in light of competing evidence, anal sex as the exclusive domain of homosexual couples?

If your moral quibble is with anal sex, there's no morally tenable way to sustain your attacks against homosexuality while simultaneously maintaining indifference to the act of anal sex between opposite sex partners. What's the morally salient difference between same sex couples and opposite sex couples, both of whom can and do engage in anal sex? It's not the act of anal sex itself; it must be something else. What is that _something else_? Or can you not articulate what it is, in light of your blind bias?



Epaminondas said:


> You'd be wrong. It's morally and physically damaging to bother partners; but since, I doubt, you're responsive to conventional moral rationales, suffice it to say, the physical risks are many, not the least of which is incontinence increased rates of anal cancer.


You, not unlike the Earl, seem to constantly conflate moral consequences with physical consequences. If you're deliberately invoking some kind of natural law position, say so. If not, let's discuss the moral dimension to your claims and leave the independent question of physical damage to the medical professionals.

Either way, lay bare your claims so we can all assess their cogency or lack thereof. You need to stop hiding behind the charged rhetoric.

And please, do not pretend to know anything about me. I'm not sure what you mean when you say how you doubt that I'm responsive to moral rationales. Yes, I'm gay, and so unlike you my sexual preference is for members of my own sex. But other than that, we're not really that different. We're both human. So of course I'm responsive to moral rationales. To insinuate or imply otherwise is just nastiness, and is a sign of some larger background issues on your part.

At any rate, as a student of philosophy who happens to specialize in moral philosophy, I'm open to discussing morality with you anytime _if that's what you really want to do_. I doubt that, though. You seem much more like a propagandist at this point, than someone who's truly interested in perspicuous and open communication, aimed at arriving at the truth.


----------



## VictorRomeo

eagle2250 said:


> Not to take the present conversation off track, but are we not all pleased that the elimination of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and open acceptance of homosexual members by the US military services has taken place so seamlessly and has apparently proceeded much more smoothly than predicted (by even myself!)? Why, the Pentagon just recently endorsed a series of gay pride activities.


A conference taking place in Dublin this week....

Some of the delegates meeting with our President and his Wife... (Squee is a nickname we have for our President (We love him))

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/28/squee-force/


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mike Petrik said:


> While I agree with you on the merits, you could not be more wrong about Cuff. He's a terrific lawyer who would do a splendid job defending your (i.e., our) point of view if engaged to do so.


Mike, thanks _very _much for the kind words. They mean a great deal coming from a lawyer of your caliber.

As for Epam's remarks, I guess I've been on the losing end of retention/hiring decisions for worse reasons, though I can't recall an example at the moment. One can't take these things personally.


----------



## CuffDaddy

eagle2250 said:


> There is just no 'F-in' way that pink uniforms would ever strike fear into the hearts of current or future enemies! LOL.


I dunno. The man willing to wear a hot-pink outfit into combat is probably pretty dangerous!


----------



## Howard

CuffDaddy said:


> I dunno. The man willing to wear a hot-pink outfit into combat is probably pretty dangerous!


I've never seen a pink army uniform before.


----------



## Shaver

Howard said:


> I've never seen a pink army uniform before.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Howard said:


> I've never seen a pink army uniform before.


That was kind of my point. Much like the man willing to go to war naked or dressed in some other way that affirmatively calls attention to himself, the man willing to wear pink into combat is probably a bit unhinged. And therefore dangerous.

In all seriousness, though, the SAS* in North Africa and other theaters often painted their vehicles a shade called "desert pink." I don't think any of us would like to tell the men driving this thing that their vehicle is unmanly:


----------



## eagle2250

^^I probably would have had my clock cleaned, but could see myself telling the gentleman, "my gawd man, you're driving a pink jeep!" :crazy:

LOL. As a child, all I ever dreamed of doing as an adult was serving in the military service of my Country...and I was allowed the good fortune to live that dream. But alas, a uniform such as the one pictured above (in post #211), would almost certainly have killed that dream! 

PS: and if the fellow I'm talking to is Woody, the fellow sitting next to the Rover in the picture, I'll set a swarm of termites on his a** and make short work of that toothpick!  ROFALOL!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Must be a Fireman's uniform because he is Hot Hot Hot!!


----------



## Howard

Ok Now I've seen the proof.


----------



## Kingstonian

VictorRomeo said:


> A conference taking place in Dublin this week....
> 
> Some of the delegates meeting with our President and his Wife... (Squee is a nickname we have for our President (We love him))
> 
> https://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/28/squee-force/


https://www.templegate.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=207'Goodbye to Catholic Ireland _ How the Irish lost the civilisation they created_'


----------



## dks202

Miket61 said:


> ....at church today I counted ten men in pink shirts....
> 
> The trim-cut polo had no gathering at the waist, and his khaki shorts were hemmed at exactly the right point above the knee....


He wore this to church???


----------



## drlivingston

I know that I am relatively new here, but.... Let me preface this statement with a "no offense intended" disclaimer. This thread has negative connotations. It seems to have served its purpose and is, now, slowly going to devolve into the abyss of forum negativity.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Kingstonian said:


> https://www.templegate.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=207'Goodbye to Catholic Ireland _ How the Irish lost the civilisation they created_'


And effing good riddance to it.....


----------



## Balfour

VictorRomeo said:


> And effing good riddance to it.....


I've tried to restrain myself from posting on this thread, as I regard it as somewhat unseemly. But is it really necessary to start besmirching religious faith? I appreciate that this is the Interchange, but this seems fairly far removed from the locus of these fora.


----------



## Miket61

dks202 said:


> He wore this to church???


In Augusta, Georgia, one dresses for church as one would for an audience with Billy Payne. Which is to say, immaculate golf attire. I always wear at least a sportcoat and it's fairly common that I'm grabbed by the arm to be a last-minute replacement usher.


----------



## drlivingston

Hey, the pink uniform isn't that bad. On a recent trip to Rome, I was aghast at the uniforms worn by the Vatican's Swiss guard.
https://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2072068280101800887tgJzlA


----------



## VictorRomeo

Balfour said:


> I've tried to restrain myself from posting on this thread, as I regard it as somewhat unseemly. But is it really necessary to start besmirching religious faith? I appreciate that this is the Interchange, but this seems fairly far removed from the locus of these fora.


Whoa there horsey! First of all, now you chime in? When all manner of 'besmirches' directed towards homosexual men and some of the shocking commentry on supposed sexual practices? You must be made of stronger stuff than me.

Secondly, get your head around this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland#Ferns_Report

There are also other reports like it from other diocese. The Catholic Church(note I did not say faith) as you are all probably aware has had a massive amound of power in the running of this state since ins inception. That power is almost - I stress almost - gone. The crimes commited by those in positions of trust down the years are astonishing and still they continue to cover up - all the way to Rome. So the sooner this little island eradicates the control of the Church over the State the better.

I have no issue what people believe in. Jesus, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. Just like I have no issue what two consenting adults get up to. Live and let live. But when one group attempts to force - by whatever means - others to live their lives the way they think they should(in a way that contravenes the UDHR), then I have an issue.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> Whoa there horsey! First of all, now you chime in? When all manner of 'besmirches' directed towards homosexual men and some of the shocking commentry on supposed sexual practices? You must be made of stronger stuff than me.
> 
> Secondly, get your head around this.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland#Ferns_Report
> 
> There are also other reports like it from other diocese. The Catholic Church(note I did not say faith) as you are all probably aware has had a massive amound of power in the running of this state since ins inception. That power is almost - I stress almost - gone. The crimes commited by those in positions of trust down the years are astonishing and still they continue to cover up - all the way to Rome. So the sooner this little island eradicates the control of the Church over the State the better.
> 
> I have no issue what people believe in. Jesus, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. Just like I have no issue what two consenting adults get up to. Live and let live. But when one group attempts to force - by whatever means - others to live their lives the way they think they should(in a way that contravenes the UDHR), then I have an issue.


Hello VictorRomeo, I believe that Balfour was excercising gentlemanly restraint in refusing to dignify this thread with his presence, an admirable choice and one for him to design at his preference. That he has elected to contribute at whatever spell is in accord with that indulgence of choice and should not be construed as an indifference to the crass opining vis a vis homosexual males.

I do very much appreciate, however, your belief that we must 'live and let live' and not enforce our values upon others* and may I _flippantly_ suggest that this could be generously extended to all posters regardless of any supposed perception that they may be more willing to defend one lifestyle than another?

*unless, of course, they have possess questionable tastes in menswear. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Balfour

VictorRomeo said:


> Whoa there horsey! First of all, now you chime in? When all manner of 'besmirches' directed towards homosexual men and some of the shocking commentry on supposed sexual practices? You must be made of stronger stuff than me.
> 
> Secondly, get your head around this.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland#Ferns_Report
> 
> There are also other reports like it from other diocese. The Catholic Church(note I did not say faith) as you are all probably aware has had a massive amound of power in the running of this state since ins inception. That power is almost - I stress almost - gone. The crimes commited by those in positions of trust down the years are astonishing and still they continue to cover up - all the way to Rome. So the sooner this little island eradicates the control of the Church over the State the better.
> 
> I have no issue what people believe in. Jesus, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. Just like I have no issue what two consenting adults get up to. Live and let live. But when one group attempts to force - by whatever means - others to live their lives the way they think they should(in a way that contravenes the UDHR), then I have an issue.


Even as I posted, I knew it was a mistake ...

I thought it entirely unnecessary to start besmirching religion in this thread.(*) This is just as offensive to some people as the comments made by other posters are to others. You are obviously free to do so if you wish (just as deciding what posts I respond to is entirely a matter for me, despite your comments above). Indeed, you do again en passant with the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" quip. You clearly have your views and I have mine. I just do not think it is particularly helpful to ventilate them here and breathe new life into this dreadful thread.

Perhaps we can both agree that the thread would be better off left to die a death as undignified as its (entirely too long) life?!

(*): Then again, it is altogether possible I just need to lighten up!


----------



## Balfour

^ P.S. I am not posting again on this thread, even in response to comments directed at my post. This should not be taken to signal acquiescence.

Life is much too short ...


----------



## VictorRomeo

Balfour said:


> Even as I posted, I knew it was a mistake ...
> 
> Indeed, you do again en passant with the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" quip. You clearly have your views and I have mine.


Flying Spaghetti Monster = Pastafarian

A perfect example of how a parody, satirical religious movement - and I'll quote the wiki entry - is used as a contemporary version of Russell's Teapot - an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them.

So, I will continue to post for as long as the bigotry continues on this thread - and remember, it was not me who injected religion into this despicable thread.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> So, I will continue to post for as long as the bigotry continues on this thread


And in this endeavour I commit to you my enduring admiration VR. I have attempted to still my tongue against this thread but the level of breathtakingly disturbing hatred which has been indulged by certain of our fellows shames me of my membership.


----------



## Kingstonian

VictorRomeo said:


> And effing good riddance to it.....


''The ideal Ireland that we would have, the Ireland that we dreamed of, would be the home of a people who valued material wealth only as a basis for right living, of a people who, satisfied with frugal comfort, devoted their leisure to the things of the spirit - a land whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose fields and villages would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contest of athletic youths and the laughter of happy maidens, whose firesides would be forums for the wisdom of serene old age. The home, in short, of a people living the life that God desires that men should live. With the tidings that make such an Ireland possible, St. Patrick came to our ancestors fifteen hundred years ago promising happiness here no less than happiness hereafter. It was the pursuit of such an Ireland that later made our country worthy to be called the island of saints and scholars. It was the idea of such an Ireland - happy, vigorous, spiritual - that fired the imagination of our poets; that made successive generations of patriotic men give their lives to win religious and political liberty; and that will urge men in our own and future generations to die, if need be, so that these liberties may be preserved. One hundred years ago, the Young Irelanders, by holding up the vision of such an Ireland before the people, inspired and moved them spiritually as our people had hardly been moved since the Golden Age of Irish civilisation. Fifty years later, the founders of the Gaelic League similarly inspired and moved the people of their day. So, later, did the leaders of the Irish Volunteers. We of this time, if we have the will and active enthusiasm, have the opportunity to inspire and move our generation in like manner. We can do so by keeping this thought of a noble future for our country constantly before our eyes, ever seeking in action to bring that future into being, and ever remembering that it is for our nation as a whole that future must be sought.''

Eamon de Valera St Patrick's Day 1943

An idealised politician's view maybe - but one subscribed to most of his citizens and huge numbers of the Irish overseas.

Now? The Celtic Tiger - an economically and spiritually bankrupt nation; victim of the gombeen men and the cultural ,marxists in the media. Corrupt clergy is only one symptom,


----------



## Kingstonian

VictorRomeo said:


> A conference taking place in Dublin this week....
> 
> Some of the delegates meeting with our President and his Wife... (Squee is a nickname we have for our President (We love him))
> 
> https://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/28/squee-force/


Irish police taking their cues from the Dutch?


----------



## Dhaller

CuffDaddy said:


> That was kind of my point. Much like the man willing to go to war naked or dressed in some other way that affirmatively calls attention to himself, the man willing to wear pink into combat is probably a bit unhinged. And therefore dangerous.
> 
> In all seriousness, though, the SAS* in North Africa and other theaters often painted their vehicles a shade called "desert pink." I don't think any of us would like to tell the men driving this thing that their vehicle is unmanly:


I never knew this!... When I was little (late 60s), I had a toy army jeep which was pink - it was my favorite toy (and the perfect size to accommodate the old, articulated G.I. Joes (with the fuzzy heads!)) - and I didn't think anything of the color at the time, but when I've reflected back on it it's always puzzled me that the jeep was _pink_. Now I know (well, I assume) that it was in fact _desert pink_ . Mystery solved.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

An update:

I've had lots of PMs regarding this thread, ALL of them thanking me for my words and supporting my stance, some are from members who haven't dared to write on this thread, 2 days ago I got a long PM from such a member, which contained the following:

"...I resist the insistency that the defective is correct; that the immoral is moral; that the non-normal is normal. I don't liked to feel angry and I don't like to feel aggressively malevolent, but I can't stomach being quietly still while some insist that the aberrational is normal and that those who have "traditional" views are the tyrants." 


I couldn't have put it better myself. I will not be made to feel bad for my views, which are shared by the majority of people, most of whom are too afraid to express them.

While the minority continue to support the unnatural act of homosexual sex they should be aware of one thing & one thing only and it is this: they are in the minority both in the US the UK and globally and they will NEVER be in the majority.


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> An update:
> 
> I've had lots of PMs regarding this thread, ALL of them thanking me for my words and supporting my stance, some are from members who haven't dared to write on this thread, 2 days ago I got a long PM from such a member, which contained the following:
> 
> "...I resist the insistency that the defective is correct; that the immoral is moral; that the non-normal is normal. I don't liked to feel angry and I don't like to feel aggressively malevolent, but I can't stomach being quietly still while some insist that the aberrational is normal and that those who have "traditional" views are the tyrants."
> 
> I couldn't have put it better myself. I will not be made to feel bad for my views, which are shared by the majority of people, most of whom are too afraid to express them.
> 
> While the minority continue to support the unnatural act of homosexual sex they should be aware of one thing & one thing only and it is this: they are in the minority both in the US the UK and globally and they will NEVER be in the majority.


Balderdash. Piffle. Drivel.

These words, are so riddled by a surfeit of inconsistency and dialectical flaw that they become transparent.

Anyhoo, now that we have been made aware of the 'one thing and one thing only' required perhaps this exceedingly unchivalrous thread can be allowed to expire?


----------



## Miket61

Shaver said:


> Anyhoo, now that we have been made aware of the 'one thing and one thing only' required perhaps this exceedingly unchivalrous thread can be allowed to expire?


I'm confused as to what exactly is meant by "the minority [who] continue to support" and "they are in the minority in both the US the UK and globally."

I don't think anyone here or elsewhere has suggested that homosexuals are anything but a small minority of the general population.

Neither do I believe that anyone here or elsewhere believes that a majority of people encourage homosexual behavior, even among people known to be homosexuals.

If by "support," he means "mind your own damned business and leave people be," then his statement is increasingly false.


----------



## Shaver

Miket61 said:


> I'm confused as to what exactly is meant by "the minority [who] continue to support" and "they are in the minority in both the US the UK and globally."
> 
> I don't think anyone here or elsewhere has suggested that homosexuals are anything but a small minority of the general population.
> 
> Neither do I believe that anyone here or elsewhere believes that a majority of people encourage homosexual behavior, even among people known to be homosexuals.
> 
> If by "support," he means "mind your own damned business and leave people be," then his statement is increasingly false.


Thank you Miket61.

If I may I shall embellish your incisive unravelling of this proclaimed ultimate summation of the malignant position, thusly; who _cares _about being in the majority, anyway?


----------



## VictorRomeo

NOTE: The word blanked out was blanked out automatically by the site. I reckon you will all know the "F" word I'm refering to as you read.

******. An interesting word. I was watching a TV show recently where they discussed the meaning of the word ******.

A ****** as we probably know is very old word for small bits of wood used as kindling for a fire. When a someone was condemned as a witch, they were burned at the stake. The fire at the stake produced a lot of high intense heat, so while death was no doubt agony, it was over with quite quickly.

However, when someone was deemed a homosexual, they were to be 'burned with the *******' (of wood). Their death was a lot slower and infinitly more painful. They were not worth the better quality wood used for witches, and their lingering death was more appealing to their accusors and executioners.

Certainly and predominantly in the developed world is is no longer a criminal offense to be homosexual and more and more countries are 'allowing' Civil Parnerships and State Marriage. I suppose in the light of all this, we do live in enlightend times.

But when I continue to read words like "_aberrational_", "_immoral_" and "_non-normal_", I wonder in their heart of hearts, would they wish those times back upon us?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> These words, are so riddled by a surfeit of inconsistency and dialectical flaw that they become transparent.


On the other hand, these words are just plain riddled.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> On the other hand, these words are just plain riddled.


big picture Mike, we need to concentrate on the big picture.....


----------



## imabsolutelyunique

Can't agree more. In this case, being gay means being stylish, and not much men can be stylish as not much are gay.


gregneedham said:


> The entire question assumes that "looking gay" is a negative. How sad....


----------



## jackmccullough

Epaminondas said:


> You've got to be kidding. I'll go back to the pre-1972 DSM.
> 
> Yes, my son rooting around the lower intestine of another man is perfectly natural?????? I have some negative attitudes about that.
> 
> That being said: pink shirts are fine: kiltie loafers are gay.


I haven't read through the entire thread, so this point may have already been made, but the positions set forth in your post are offensive and contemptible in the extreme. They have no place in civilized discourse.

By the way, I used to spend a lot of time in the Interchange, despite friends suggesting to me that I didn't need to be devoting my energy to such unpleasant interactions, and I haven't been back here much in the last couple of years. If this thread is any indication, it's gotten pretty ugly. I am very pleased, though, to see so many of my fellow members standing up to oppose the bigotry and ignorance that have been so much on display here.


----------



## jackmccullough

Matt S said:


> What we really need here are some perspectives from women or openly gay men. Their approval or disapproval is the only thing that will satisfy those where who are afraid to wear pink. If they just didn't like pink, we'd be having a different conversation.


A comment from women?

I universally get positive comments from women when I wear a pink shirt, and especially from my wife. (Sadly for her, I won't wear my pink shrt with the pink tie she bought it with, although I wear both of them separately.)


----------



## joyfulbunny

there is a saying, "tough guys wear pink"


----------



## Belfaborac

Epaminondas said:


> You've got to be kidding. I'll go back to the pre-1972 DSM.
> 
> Yes, my son rooting around the lower intestine of another man is perfectly natural?????? I have some negative attitudes about that.
> 
> That being said: pink shirts are fine: kiltie loafers are gay.





jackmccullough said:


> I haven't read through the entire thread, so this point may have already been made, but the positions set forth in your post are offensive and contemptible in the extreme. They have no place in civilized discourse.


They're also more than a little amusing given that he's taken on the name of a man who, as well as being the greatest (known) general and statesman of his day, himself had two male lovers.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

This thread HAD died in August last year. Please let it Rest In Peace!


----------



## Acme

Earl of Ormonde said:


> This thread HAD died in August last year. Please let it Rest In Peace!


Just petition a mod to close it! That will do the trick. Where's Alex Kabbaz when you need him?


----------



## Acme

joyfulbunny said:


> there is a saying, "tough guys wear pink"


----------



## Beresford

Haven't been on AAF for quite a while, but I come on and I find this thread. Rather silly. I personally like to wear pink, either BB OCBDs or madras shirt designs that have pink in them, and I find I get more compliments and approaches from women when I am wearing pink than anything else I would wear. Now I've been off the market for quite a long while (28 years happily married), and I probably now come across more as a older father-figure type (and therefore less threatening?) but I would definitely advise any young man who's looking to make inroads with the opposite sex to wear pink. I would say it works almost as well as walking a puppy.


----------



## Langham

Beresford said:


> Haven't been on AAF for quite a while, but I come on and I find this thread. Rather silly. I personally like to wear pink, either BB OCBDs or madras shirt designs that have pink in them, and I find I get more compliments and approaches from women when I am wearing pink than anything else I would wear. Now I've been off the market for quite a long while (28 years happily married), and I probably now come across more as a older father-figure type (and therefore less threatening?) but I would definitely advise any young man who's looking to make inroads with the opposite sex to wear pink. I would say it works almost as well as walking a puppy.


I agree with you Beresford but was planning to keep the information to myself - for purely selfish reasons, too. A pink shirt can be extremely flattering.


----------

