Pink? Must be gay!

VictorRomeo

Super Member

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

Connoisseur
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

Super Member
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

Suspended
^^
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.
 
Last edited:

Kingstonian

Super Member
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

L
oony 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

o
r

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

O
nly 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

Elite Member
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

Senior Member
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.
 

Haffman

Super Member
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

Connoisseur
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

Connoisseur
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.
 

Earl of Ormonde

Connoisseur
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

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
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

Connoisseur
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

L
oony 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

o
r

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

O
nly 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

Connoisseur
+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

Connoisseur
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.
 
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.