Pink? Must be gay!

SocraticLove

New Member
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".

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Orsini

Honors Member
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

Honors Member
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.
 

Orsini

Honors Member
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

Connoisseur
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

Connoisseur
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

Elite Member
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

Honors Member
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…
 
Last edited:

Racer

Senior Member
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

Super Member
... 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.
 
Last edited:

Matt S

Connoisseur
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

Elite Member
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

New Member
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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Orsini

Honors Member
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

Elite Member
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

Super Member
:icon_study:
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

New Member
: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:
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.