They just design better clothes and the men these women want to attract, not only find these clothes aesthetically pleasing, but they wear clothes designed by gay men too.

Last summer my son went on the road with a band. Three of the other band members were siblings and had done this before and run into some serious issues with intolerance—just your basic KKK type thugs who figured because they dressed like Bostonian college kids, they must be “[censored]”. So last summer the parents of the three-sibling-band-members registered their vehicle and trailer with out-of-state plates. The boy got themselves some straight-legged jeans and cowboy boots to travel in and left their allegedly "gay" hipster clothes in their suitcases until they got to where they were going.

These parents are real estate people and own property all over the country. The kids, however were raised in Massachusetts (Cape Cod). Rather than spending money on dormitory expenses the parents bought a house for them to live in—a way to get their housing investment back when the boys finished school attending university in Boston. The boys turned the house into a place for the college crowd to come and hear some music, especially their music—sort of an underground music scene with a web site and a reputation that spread to college towns all over the country.

See, the thing is kids who attend University are assimilated with kids from all over the country--most for the first time in their lives...that is were the tolerance is learned, that is where the divergent thinking is hatched.

I've heard so many women say that the best men are gay.


Believing that being gay is a sin and believing that associating with gay people is a sign of weakness of character are two different things.

But the above quote is what I think some posters are getting at. I am in a business that attracts numerous gay people, so I 've come to know many, many in my working career. Like any other group there are certain similarities between them. But, like other groups of people they come in all shapes, sizes and tempermant.
But I have also come into contact with woman who REALLY believe that exact quote . ANd basically they seem to fall into one or two groups. Women who really believe the above statement are either embittered people who HATE men. Just like some men who hate woman, they've gotten burned in the past and not put ALL men in that "men suck" drawer. OR they hang out with just gay men to show everyone that they are COOL, or HIP, openminded, none judgemental, etc. ect. ect. Having gay friends is currently supposed to be very very hip.......... But in fact, they are insecure and need to find validation. TO me, the first group is a lot easier to get along with, believe it or not, because at least its honest. And the gay men i know ALL realize that they are being used in a way. They have a name for these types of women, kind of crude.

But most women in my business hang out with gay and straight. They like and dislike both individuals. Having friends that belong to ANY common group says something about you, sometimes its bad and sometimes its good.

Perhaps as a Canadian, being liberal has a different meaning but I disagree with this completely.

To me it's not so much about being "open" to new things but rather not judging others who do things differently than you. I suppose that is a part of openness in itself in a way, but the way you've written it implies that I might want to try being gay as part of trying new things. I have no interest in being gay at all. But I certainly wouldn't judge someone else because they are.


Again, it's not about WANTING change. It's about accepting that the way you do things and the way your parents did things is not necessarily the way everyone in the world does things. In many cultures, children are raised by grandparents while the parents work - and often all will live in the same house but not necessarily. Many of those people come here to Canada and find us strange that we have daycare or even that some mothers stay home. We see their arrangement as strange, but as a liberal, you can accept that it works for them.

In the true sense of the word, I agree with this. In the political world, it means eliminating the middle class so the poor can support the rich. The politicians are wrong but unfortunately their actions affect us far more than correct use of language.

Again, old fashioned for who? Me perhaps and others like me who were born here to parents who were born here whose heritage traces back to somewhere in western Europe. But there are other "old fashioned" guidelines from other cultures - many of which have become established here - that are radically different from ours.

Mine too.

Absolutely. Fortunately I've never had this problem with my gay friends. I don't know anyone who has - even those I've only met casually are very accepting of other POVs.

Again, I've never seen it. Now, the number of gay people I actually know (that I know are gay) is small. But this was a big issue here a couple of years ago when they were legalizing gay marriages. Churches, in particular the catholic church, was venemantly opposed to it. But they weren't asking to be married in their church, just for the civil right to be married. They never once accused the church of anything at all and even respected the churches view on the matter. In fact, it was this issue that really put me off religion - especially catholicism - since around the same time there were a bunch of priests caught molesting children and all the church did was relocate them. Meanwhile, our politicians were getting regular hate mail from the Pope over gay marriages. Clearly homosexuality is viewed as a far bigger crime than child rape - even same sex child rape. That just churned my stomach.

True again!

And that's your right as a parent to raise your children with your values.

You know, the gay men that I know are not your "stereotypical" hairdresser/dog groomer/fashion designer gays. But for whatever reason, some of the best designers seem to be gay. Perhaps their homosexuality increases their noteriety? In any event, the very best haircut I ever, EVER got in my life was by a gay italian. Unfortunately I was out of town and never go past there. As for gay ment competing with us for other men - they aren't competing for the same men anyway. But maybe the do have some insight as to what men see? I have no idea to be honest.

Gay men don't have families and children, so they tend to have more wealth than someone in the same line of work. Also, because there is NEVER sexual tension between a gay man and a woman, they feel safer to be around. They will never flirt with you inappropriately. They will never make a pass at you. They will never show you anything other than respect - so they come across as great guys.

Again, you aren't fishing in the same pool, so no there's no competition. That's probably another reason they feel safer to be around. No threat and no competition.

I read too fast...I only just noticed you were swerving...

Therefore...On a funnier note...

Can you picture what fashion would look like if we let straight men design the clothes? Geeze Louise! What a train-wreck that would be! I can picture myself in a tight mini-skirt with a low cut, midriff-bearing top with tassels on the breast plate and high heels. Of course there would have to be something for the larger-size crowd and WWs…Islamic Wear complete with head coverings!

I'm going on the definition provided by pieta:


The thing is this seems to say traditional ideas are bad, regressive, etc, and new ideas are superior.

I'm simply saying that not all new ideas are superior or well suited for progress. Neither are all established ideas bad. I believe some things ARE established, orthodox, and ARE superior to other views.

I tend to believe there is an authority higher than myself, and I'm accountable to that authority.

I don't think that accurately describes liberalism. To me, it's more about what our parents did was wrong, and we have to do it differently.

Besides, to say conservatives don't accept that others do things differently would be an inaccurate stereotype, and for someone to perpetuate this stereotype, they would not be acting in accordance with the definition of liberal. To falsely characterize has to run counter to the definition provided.


Wow, you drank the kool-ade, LOL. Conservative is about people being responsible for their own success and held responsible for the outcome, for their decisions. It's not about wealth re-distribution in any direction. Politically, it's about folks being given an opportunity, but no guaranteed outcomes. Society is responsible for folks who suffer tragedy, but for folks who make decisions that are hurtful, such as choosing to skip school, get pregnant as a teen, destroy their minds with drugs, etc, are not entitled to coddling by the federal government. In fact, the federal government is NOT the one with the responsibility to address those issues. Conservatives believe the issues are best addressed at the root of the issue, starting with the person making those choices and his/her family, community, etc.

Conservative is not about the nanny state, that coddles folks who make choices.

Most conservatives are not against others making choices. They are against using the resources of society at large to benefit such choices.

If someone wants to choose to be gay, they are free to do so, there is no Constitutional basis to make being gay illegal.

However, conservatives are against giving the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Folks are free to be gay, live together, etc. Just don't ask society to call that a marriage. I personally am not against calling it a civil union.

To redefine marriage is to twist a sacred thing into something hardly recognizable from the original.

So why does this have to change, when there is a solution that gives gays the rights they want, without changing how we define marriage?

Now I would also argue that the church has done enough damage to marriage, so to say those lobbying for same-sex marriage are destroying marriage are missing the boat in many ways.

However, I don't see anything that will make marriages and families stronger by allowing same-sex marriage.

Well, I actually see that having the government try to take care of all of these things as far more dangerous to the middle class. The middle class is being taxed into poverty. And before one says the US has an insanely large military, as a percentage of GNP it is not in the top 10 as far as military spending. I think it's less than 1/3rd of our total federal budget. Which make sense since the Federal Government really only has 3 defined roles:

1. National Defense
2. Foreign Policy
3. Defense of the Constitution.

Of which, the largest would likely be National Defense. But it's the expansion of the Federal Government beyond what the framers of the Constitution desired, into the everyday life of the citizen, as well as taking on things such as medical care for society, retirement savings, etc, has grown government far beyond how it was designed.

So I don't think it's conservatives that want to destroy the middle class. I don't think liberals do either. However, the current level of government is not sustainable, especially as baby boomers retire and start expecting their social security checks and medicare from the government.

The burden to pay for these programs will be squarely on the shoulders of the middle class.

It was not conservatives who designed these programs, and most conservatives were against them at the time, and are against such transfers of wealth now.


But I don't think even those nations say the government should take care of folks. Like you said, families may be closer, and responsible for taking care of one another.

I don't believe this is the job of the government. Just because someone comes from somewhere else and lived that way, I don't hold against them. If they want to spend their money to support others, they are free to do so.

However, when they want to tell me that it's my role to support others is where I tend to become disturbed. And this is where I see many liberals. They want to help others. I have no problem with that. But they want to use my money, not theirs. I do have a big problem with that.

Really? When words such as, "religious zealots," "ignorant," "fanatics," "know-nothings," "narrow-minded," "pushy ideologues," "irrational," "gullible," "smug" are used to describe those against same-sex marriage, I don't see that as an accepting attitude towards other POV's.

Frankly, it's just a DIFFERENT orthodoxy. It's the secular orthodoxy, instead of a religious one.

Once again, leading me to believe there are really no liberals that can live up to the definition pieta provided. There may be, I just haven't met them yet.
I agree. The church has much work to do internally. When I went through my divorce, it seemed my church was so focused on the same-sex-marriage issue, and didn't have the time or desire to deal with a member having an affair with another married man. Instead, they wanted to blame the betrayed husband and/or gather signatures from the membership for the latest anti-SSM petition.

It just shows that churches are full of people too. I try to separate God's word, from what God's people do. The word is against sin, but never calls for anyone to be hateful towards sinners. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Hate the sin of the priests, but love the priests, hate the sin of homosexuality, but love the homosexual. (Frankly, that's a pretty liberal way of thinking, right?)
Just like CEO's serve on the boards of other companies and it becomes a mutual admiration society, I have the impression that the same is true in fashion. So these "guys" tend to hype other guys like them and the notion is perpetuated that the best designers are gay men.

Who defines this? The fashion industry? How is that any different from a carmaker saying they make the best cars.

I'm not saying they don't do good work, and I'm not saying it's unique to this industry. I'm just asking you do question the basis for that opinion.

Best for me are clothes I can buy, last me a good while, and don't cost much.

So for me, fashion speaking, the $20 Khakis and $10 shirts I can buy that last me a year or two ARE the best fashions. FOR ME! If someone wants to pay 10's of thousands for a dress designed by some famous name, they are free to do so. But don't tell me the folks in this industry are not dogmatic or driven by an orthodoxy. They would most certainly look down on me for wearing less than $100 worth of clothes daily, including shoes, underwear and belt.

I've seen the designer shows, and to say these folks are not judgmental and accepting of others hasn't watched closely. Just look at how they treat one another. The name calling, the superior attitudes.

And you expect me to believe that they are open-minded and accepting?

Sorry, not buying it. Been name called enough personally, was spat upon wearing a US Army uniform on campus when I was an ROTC cadet to even begin to accept the fantasy view that liberals are open, accepting and non-judgmental, nor mean spirited.

That was humor, I know you are not fishing in the same pond. Not unless someone's gaydar is out of calibration.
But even that's an offensive, judgmental view. Judging gay men as safer means that straight men must be less safe. Isn't that just a sexist orthodoxy? The orthodoxy that men are unable to control themselves, are dangerous, and must be controlled, enlightened, feminized, or whatever.

It's not safe to be around straight men...

It's a rather offensive POV.

The true liberal, by pieta's definition above would not paint all men as either safe or unsafe based on experiences with a few. They are not bound by such dogmatic notions.

My point is, self-professed liberals are fooling themselves if they think they are more enlightened, less bigoted, judgmental, etc than the conservatives they try to paint with such labels.

When you hear, read or see a self-professed liberal doing this, ask them why they are not calling out themselves for doing the very sorts of things they say they are against.

So when you some self-professed liberal calls an opponent narrow-minded, I ask if they are talking about themselves, as what I see them doing by labeling another is the epitome of being narrow-minded.

I have NEVER met a woman that has more than 1 gay friend (and that one being distant) that doesn't have BIG issues with men. They identify readily with these "men" and develop emotional affairs with them very often. They don't view these relationships as inappropriate...well, because he is gay...please.

These women are most likely bitter having had no luck with heterosexual relationships and find themselves drawn to the non-threatening "chicks with sticks."

Never in my life have I met a woman that has her act together and is able to maintain close intimate relationships with a partner that also has close gay male friends.

Top off this issue with the rampant promiscuity of that community....and I know everybody says...but not my friends...and I am left with the impression that those that keep these "friends" close in their lives send up a huge red flag (or should I say a rainbow flag).

The Gay Report

Karla Jay and Allen Young (both gay activists by the way!)

Now, that is behavior a rational person would look for in a friend!

http://www.narth.com/docs/reporton.html

LOL!!!!! I swear, I'm pretty darn hip for a broad my age, but I have NEVER heard that one before - made my stomach hurt from laughter...........

THANKS - OK - continue with the Liberal/conservative discussion - I'm finding it very interesting!

Laura

The operative words here are not limited to. The definition doesn't so much as even "imply" that any ideas are bad, simply that one does not limit ones self to them simply because the ideas are established. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...but if it is broken then one of tolerant of change and the newer ideas that might work better.

**Offers Laura some freshly popped popcorn**

Glad I could bring you a chuckle!

MEDC, I usually hold you in high regard and respect your posts but I find this highly offensive. I suppose I'm just bitter with no luck at heterosexual relationships because I have 2 gay friends. It doesn't matter that they are a monogomous couple that have been together for over 15 years. I find that very impressive considering they live in a society that loathes homosexuality (the US) and their families offer them no support. Just look how well our traditional heterosexual marriages do with both religious and family support do? So are you accusing me of having an EA with one or both of them? Sorry, but I am offended by this - personally because I am not an adulteress of any sort and conceptually because believe it or not some people can exist in the world without fantasizing everyone of the opposite sex as a possible f!@#. I realize the people on the BB have had the one they loved and trusted most show that this happens, but there really are people who have rock solid personal boundaries who DON'T CHEAT, even emotionally.

you find MY experience highly offensive.

okay.

YOUR experience is not close to the norm....nor is the "monogamous" (whatever that means in the gay male community) nature of their relationship.

As for America loathing gays, I suggest that you are VERY wrong about that. Despite their despicable behaviors (outlined above) gay men are celebrated in many parts of this country. I find the ignorance and tolerance of this community perplexing. IF any other group behaved in such deplorable ways they would be shunned by society.

I could speak to other issues (sex with minors...not pedophilia...just sex with teenage minors, spreading of disease, rampant drug use, etc) but what is the point.

As for ME accusing YOU of something...I don't know you. I can only speak to my experience (and those that are close to me).

It's not your experience I find offensive but your post. Maybe my friends are the exception - I can't say as I really haven't met many out-of-the-closet gays. These are the only 2 that I could actually count among my friends and to be honest, I'm proud to do that as they are truly decent people. What they do behind closed doors is not my business.

As for my opinion on American views, I lived there for 3 years and it was one of the major differences I noticed. Just like racism is way worse down there than here, Americans are also far more concerned with any type of sexual "deviance" (as in, nontraditional sexual behavior of any kind) than Canadians are. On the flip side, Americans are far more tolerant of violence than Canadians. I was used to prohibiting my DS from watching violent cartoons but he really was the only kid in his class that wasn't watching Power Rangers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (which I loathed to the core and I despised the way the kids imitated them with sword fighting and ninja chopping - they were actually banned at my DS's Canadian school at the time we moved). But Americans buy their kids toy guns and swords and let them watch this horror - then get worried about shows that have a sexual topic. I can remember the episode of Friends where the lesbians got married was banned in my region at the time. I found it odd because my idea of the worst thing to expose a kid to was completely different. Not saying you guys are wrong, it's just completely and entirely different from me.

Sorry to have strayed a little, but this is one of the things that's influenced my POV of Americans.

Edited to add it just occured to me that it's odd how the Americans were so tolerant of violence with their children compared to Canadians, but we raise our kids on hockey. Hmmm.

Well, the views expressed in my post are based on my experience.

As the father of a soon to be 13 year old boy, I can say he never had a toy gun and doesn't watch violent TV.

Just because the US might not be as tolerant as Canada does not mean that the country is not tolerant...just that they are LESS so than Canada.

So, what brings you here to the US?

I was there for a postdoctoral fellowship back in the mid-90's. I'm back in Canada now. It was very interesting and I enjoyed it quite a bit. I grew up on American television and figured we were pretty much the same. So the differences were always a surprise to me.

OK, just for fun... (never have been and never will be the 'on a man hunt sort of female LOL)

1. Believes all men are jerks, except for you. At some point she will find out you are a mortal man like all the rest. Then where are you?

Hmmm part of the reason I chose the posting name meremortal.
My WXH was attracted to the polished facade of OW, naivley assumed they had no flaws (unlike the imperfections he could observe in me because we were married). I think he maybe watched at tad too much 60's tv... June Cleaver is some fierce competition LOL.

2. Never married. If she took vows as a nun and recently left them, that may be a valid reason, but otherwise this is usually not good. Often these women are overly picky and have the 'no compromises' attitude. Alas, marriage is about making many compromises.

I feel the same way about men who've never married, only the worry is more about them possible being a a momma's boy, or homosexual.

3. No children. Again, if she was a nun until recently, one can make an exception. Otherwise, it is likely she has lived most of her life putting herself first. This is easy to do without small kids to care for. Often these women are not bad people, they just have a different way of looking at things. They don't understand that your life has been limited.

This is a surprise to me actually, as I assumed that men would prefer a woman who did not have children. I actually would prefer a man who does have children. I think that's partly because this is my last year of homeschooling my youngest daughter and I will miss that.

4. To many divorces. I used to think three was to many divorces but, I am thinking of lowering it to two. Divorce scares the [censored] out of me! I don't want to go through it again so I am going to be mighty careful. A woman who is divorced many times is obviously not being very careful. If she doesn't fear divorce, she may leave a marriage to easily.

Plus I've heard that 2nd, 3rd, 4th... marriages have decreasing odds of success. It would matter a lot to me who wanted the divorce and why. I wouldn't want to marry somebody who dumped their former spouse withut first REALLY workign hard at saving their marriage.

5. Instability. This can be reflected in may ways: frequent job changes, frequent change of locations, etc. Often they brag about how they can go anywhere and do anything they want. But, in reality, they have no base. Their life is built on a foundation of mud.

Now this is where a future husband might be suspicious in my case I guess. Because my father was in the Air Force I moved a LOT growing up and am used to that. I've been where I live now for some time now and like it here... but might have to move because of the lack of job opportunities. I'm thinking now that I probably should have married a military man LOL.

5. Debt. I don't mean she has a mortgage or owes on her car. I mean the woman who has $32,000 in credit card bills and can't figure out how she will ever pay them off.

I want to make sure my future husband knows how to manage money well and doesn't have a lot of credit card debt. I haven't even had a credit card since 1984 when I needed one for work travel. I have a debit card instead. WXH filed bankruptcy tbecause he financed his midlife crisis/adultery/new bachelor lifestyle on credit cards.

6. Wants to live together. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of living together outside of marriage. Either take the relationship seriously and work up to marriage (which may not be worth the paper it's printed on), or stay in separate homes and enjoy each other's company as visitors.

I see more people finally getting it that living together before marriage does not increase the chance that the relationship or marriage will succeed. But too many people are still stuck in that 'renting' mentality - trying on partners for a while then replacing them with somebody new. No thanx.

Also agree about the preening sort too (mentioned by another poster). Just as some women are extremely high maintenance, spend a LOT of time and money on their appearance, some males do that too. It translates as midlife crisis to me. Clean, in healthy shape, and not a slob is good enough IMHO. It sort of amazes me how many males are attracted to the fake fingernails, tons of make-up, obviously spends way too much time shopping at the mall look LOL. I mean what makes them think they can afford the upkeep on that and when would one of those women have time to invest in a real relatonship, let alone have time for nurturing children?

I don't go for the whole going out to nightclubs to see if you can find somebody to date thing. It's all so artificial, everbody putting all that effort into trying to look way better than they do in everyday life. (Besides I hate the smell of booze and cigarettes.) Sure I dress up sometimes and wear a little make-up on occassion... but once you get married your spouse is going to see the real you anyway so it's dishonest to put on a fake show before marriage IMHO.

I also don't really believe in dating the way it's become in our society. I prefer to get to know somebody more gradually and in normal and/or group settings. I'm not opposed to going on a 'date', or going someplace romantic, and dressing up for it even... just think that should be more for after becoming engaged and married than before. Too often that is done ONLY before marriage...

When people have sex before marriage, get to know each other only or primarily by dating before marriage, and put a lot of ultimately unsustainable effort into looking good before marriage... then drop most of that after marriage, then of course marriage will seem boring compared to being single (or adulterous).

I sometimes am tempted to doll myself up more before going to pick up something at the grocery store... thinking what if I meet somebody in the produce aisle LOL... but then I remind myself that I look fine and my future husband is going to sometimes see me without make-up and high heels anyway.

there's NOTHING more attractive than a natural woman. Heels...nah!


The more the merrier.

Heels? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Oh yeah.



I think America is VERY supportive of gays right now. Or at least the American media. ANd the more progressive areas of the country. But just like parts of American that don't like gays present a picture of gay life as WORSE as it really is, the pro gay part of America present a white washed version.

For example, in a situation very close to my heart, the Catholic priest scandle. Why was is always presented as a Priest molestation case, but never, or as far as I have seen, not a Priest HOMOSEXUAL molestation? That description would be MUCH more accurate, yet, it was never, ever presented that way. THe molestation of girl alter boys was ALMOST non existant, though it happened on a very limited basis.

It would be nice just to present things the way they REALLY are, not based on an agenda.

EXACTLY right on the priest scandal...and it is VERY much a part of my life. It is a HUGELY homosexual issue.