Laundry Day

[Departed Member]

Hey, Merlin and Skip...

Lighten up Don't take it so seriously - it's only a bit of fun! The lads are so obviously in drag. Think of it as being in the same class as an up-tech pantomime dame thing.

Mmnn, well that's how we are likely to be regarded (by the average Joe)unless we establish some sort of 'line' !!!!!!!! Yes, I'm fully aware it's all in fun, nowt wrong with that, it's just that they are rather good at it! :badlaugh:

[Sasquatch]

Mmnn, well that's how we are likely to be regarded (by the average Joe)unless we establish some sort of 'line' !!!!!!!! Yes, I'm fully aware it's all in fun, nowt wrong with that, it's just that they are rather good at it! :badlaugh:

It's not how "we are likely to be regarded"; as a point of fact, it IS how we are regarded! Until we number more than 1 skirted/kilted man for every 10,000 trousered men (or for every 500,000 trousered men in my corner of the world) that point of view is our destiny. I agree with Steve. Lighten up! We don't have the right to be exclusive just because the rest of society is that way. Acceptance begins within our own consciousness; let's make it a big enough space for everyone. :goodvibes:

My :twocents: ,

Sasq

[Departed Member]

Lighten up! We don't have the right to be exclusive just because the rest of society is that way. Acceptance begins within our own consciousness; let's make it a big enough space for everyone. :goodvibes:

My :twocents: , Sasq

Sorry, I'm not following this line of thought - at all! You say "Lighten up!" and then head off down "Serious Road"? If you mean we (or anyone else for that matter!) don't have the right to choose not to accept folk we don't like/disagree with, then I would have to tell you - We do! This smacks of 'PC liberalism', which is more interested in telling folk who they must like, what (views/religion, etc.) they must accept, and, err, even how they must dress - in case they may just 'offend' someone, somewhere, sometime! We tend (those of us still free thinkers) to form our opinions based on 'gut instinct', personal experiences and the like. If Skip & I don't particularly like folk (yet again) re-inforcing stereotype concepts of 'cross dressing', then we have the 'right' to say so, albeit in a jocular manner (I thought that's what the smilies were meant to convey! ). I suspect we have already 'seen the light'!

[Departed Member]

It's not how "we are likely to be regarded"; as a point of fact, it IS how we are regarded! Until we number more than 1 skirted/kilted man for every 10,000 trousered men (or for every 500,000 trousered men in my corner of the world) that point of view is our destiny. Sasq

I've been thinking about the "skirted/kilted" bit all day. Whereas I can see there may well be those who might assume a 'Bloke in a Skirt' to be a TV, I can't see why anyone would make that assumption about a 'Bloke in a Kilt' (talking pleated, apronned garment here). Kilts are universally recognised as 'man-wear' (even if worn by a female!) - aren't they? Even the folk around here, in 'Middle England', barely notice a 'Bloke is in a Kilt'. I've never (to date) heard anyone in the UK express a "TV" comment about a Kilt-wearing man. Very, very many complimentary remarks, certainly. Even (so-called) ethnic minorities seem just as appreciative. The fact that it might not be such a common sight (esp. Mon - Fri!), doesn't alter their acceptance (not just tolerance!) of Kilts as being very definitely 'masculine' attire, whether they're worn by 0.01% of blokes or nay!

[Sasquatch]

Forgive my moralizing. I would not presume to tell you whom you MUST like or not like. You're clearly a big boy and can hold your prejudices as you see fit. I just think that it should be obvious to people who live in glass houses that it is not in their best interest to throw stones. I simply find it incomprehensible and a bit comical that a member of a group whose social acceptance is so marginal would point a finger at some other group, any other group, and say "Unacceptable!" Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle 'black'? Perhaps it would be both wiser and more ethical to regard others as we would wish to be regarded ourselves. But there I go, moralizing again. Have a day. :irked:

Sasq

[Departed Member]

Forgive my moralizing. I would not presume to tell you whom you MUST like or not like. You're clearly a big boy and can hold your prejudices as you see fit. I just think that it should be obvious to people who live in glass houses that it is not in their best interest to throw stones. I simply find it incomprehensible and a bit comical that a member of a group whose social acceptance is so marginal would point a finger at some other group, any other group, and say "Unacceptable!" Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle 'black'? Perhaps it would be both wiser and more ethical to regard others as we would wish to be regarded ourselves. But there I go, moralizing again. Have a day. :irked:

Sasq

Well, for a start I, like most others here, am not a member of any definable 'group' as such! In particular, I don't regard my wearing of a Kilt, for instance, as having any comparison with a TV outfit! Looking from a (relatively) local perspective, Nottingham, of an evening, has quite a high "TV" population. It's actually not that unusual to find other (i.e., non-TV) lads wearing 'clubbing skirts', either. Not that it's particularly relevant here, but there happens to be a substantial homosexual community, too. The thing is, the only real 'friction' that exists is between (admittedly, a small number of) the TVs and, err, those aforementioned 'groups'! One way traffic! However, are not their (TV) histrionics liable to get anyone else skirted, a bad name? :shake: "Unacceptable?" Err, too darn right!

As for ''black kettles/pots", I don't/won't wear make-up, wigs, falsies, high heels, etc., 'cos I don't want to! :shake: It's not what the majority of contributers here are about, either. As others have found out, act like a bloke and you'll get treated like a bloke. Not by absolutely everyone, but life ain't perfect! Just as with the question of 'religious freedom', if it doesn't affect those around you, fine. However, if it does, I reserve the RIGHT to object! :ninjajig:

[Sasquatch]

I guess the point of view as to "skirted/kilted" depends on which side of the Atlantic you're on. I don't know how many kilted men are wandering the streets of the UK but there are damn few in the American Southland! The "average Joe" around here isn't likely to draw a distinction between a skirt or a kilt - if a man is wearing either then he must be queer. No one would regard a man wearing a skirt (or kilt) as "acting like a bloke." So I wouldn't place any bets on kilts being "universally recognized as man-wear" unless you live in a really small universe! Around here, if it isn't Halloween or the Highland Games there is a high probability that any unbifurcated garment will, at the least, elicit stares and scowls, and possibly earn its wearer an ass-kicking. To the "average Joe" in much of the US, the difference between a man in a kilt and a TV in a dress, wig and make-up is a fine distinction at best.

Merlin, my friend, you may not consider yourself part of a "definable group" but that's probably not how most others see you. On this side of the "universe", at least, one would have to be delusional to think that others aren't defining a group and putting us in it - lumped together with the TV and homosexual "elements" with which you would prefer not to be associated. So, speaking as a hetero, non-TV skirt-wearing "Southern Man", I still think it unwise to segregate ourselves too widely from gay or TV comrades. If it's right, or even alright, for us to do that, then we ought not to hope for any improvement in acceptance of our own unique proclivities from the larger (and largely unaccepting) populace. And, Merlin, TVs give us a "bad name" only if you think that being a TV is something bad. I don't happen to see them that way.

I'm sure you'll now regard American southerners as ignorant hicks (if you didn't already), but social/religious conservatism is the reality of life in the South and over much of the US beyond the progressive metropolitan areas. I sometimes regard my own homeland as the Afghanistan of the First World. As a southerner, I'm a bit envious of the casual acceptance of men's unbifurcated clothing that you boast of. I am curious though, about one thing: if there are so many skirted/kilted men about in the UK, and if being kilted/skirted in the UK is so widely and graciously accepted, why does it seem that so many skirted/kilted Englishmen are still taking comfort from the support of the community on this website?

Sasq

[ChrisM]

I recently wore a kilt skirt to a banquet in Charleston South Carolina.

Yes, it engendered lots of staring, and a few such stares I took to be disapproving. (Just reading their body language - nobody actually SAID anything.)

What I found humorous was to look at the dress of the other diners: The men of course wore black dress trousers. The women wore exactly the same.

One friend came up to me and friendly twitted me for my skirt, and then got a contemplative look on his face when I pointed out that it was HE, and not I, who was dressed like all the women in the room.

Best regards to all,

Chris

[Departed Member]

I guess the point of view as to "skirted/kilted" depends on which side of the Atlantic you're on. .................The "average Joe" around here isn't likely to draw a distinction between a skirt or a kilt - if a man is wearing either then he must be queer. No one would regard a man wearing a skirt (or kilt) as "acting like a bloke." ................To the "average Joe" in much of the US, the difference between a man in a kilt and a TV in a dress, wig and make-up is a fine distinction at best.

You really do surprise me! Honest! The impression I get, from reading the various comments, here and on other sites (esp. Kilt-related ones), is that the USA is at the forefront of 'where it's all at' in developing un-bifurcated wear for the male gender. Is it a North v South thing? (Or Coastal v Interior?) It's difficult from a European perspective, to get a picture of what it's like in the USA, other than from films, television, news reports, etc. All of which serve to put me off from ever considering visiting (well, there are now no Tomcats operating to watch either! ). I don't understand the skirt/kilt = queer 'logic'! Is it possible to establish why anyone would make this association? It 'flies in the face' of what those who choose the homosexual lifestyle are about, as far as I can see!

............... So, speaking as a hetero, non-TV skirt-wearing "Southern Man", I still think it unwise to segregate ourselves too widely from gay or TV comrades. ..................

They're not my comrades. Period! We have friends who 'happen to be' homosexual. We've discussed the 'skirt thing' (as opposed to Kilts, which they acknowledge as extremely 'macho') at some length. It's just 'not for them'! There are certainly aware that some on their 'scene', do 'drag-up'. To p*ss off women, or TVs? Who knows! It's possible that their "TV Tales", however, may have helped re-inforce opinions that the behaviour of a small, but significant, number of TVs is not 'helpful' to general acceptance/tolerance of un-bifurcated individuals!

I'm sure you'll now regard American southerners as ignorant hicks (if you didn't already), but social/religious conservatism is the reality of life in the South and over much of the US beyond the progressive metropolitan areas. I sometimes regard my own homeland as the Afghanistan of the First World.

Sorry! I take people as I find them! That can actually mean 'disliking' in extreme cases! More often, though, it's about trying to understand their viewpoint, however odd, obscure or illogical, it might at first appear to be. Closed communities, everywhere, are always cause for concern. Poor governments thrive on 'feeding' (& creating) these artificial divisions.

As a southerner, I'm a bit envious of the casual acceptance of men's unbifurcated clothing that you boast of. I am curious though, about one thing: if there are so many skirted/kilted men about in the UK, and if being kilted/skirted in the UK is so widely and graciously accepted, why does it seem that so many skirted/kilted Englishmen are still taking comfort from the support of the community on this website? Sasq

I'm concerned by your need(?) to 'link' skirts with Kilts, all the time. By definition, a Kilt is a skirt (regardless as to some Kilt-zealots protestations otherwise!), yet still epitomises 'masculinity', here in the UK. After a decline in popularity during the '80s & '90s, Kilts are making, not just a steady come-back, but with wider-reaching appeal! I'm not aware there are many (any?) UK folk here, looking for support in relation to wearing Kilts as such. As for the wider picture (non-trad Kilts, denim, etc.), then certainly there is growing interest. I've been as surprised as any to the general level of ambivalence towards, say, being 'seen' in a denim skirt. Sure, you're gonna get the odd double-take (&, let's face it, the odd remark from some troubled teen, unsure in their sexuality!), but that's bound to happen! As for 'taking comfort', it's always re-assuring to know you're not alone, of course!

[crfriend]

I guess the point of view as to "skirted/kilted" depends on which side of the Atlantic you're on. I don't know how many kilted men are wandering the streets of the UK but there are damn few in the American Southland! The "average Joe" around here isn't likely to draw a distinction between a skirt or a kilt - if a man is wearing either then he must be queer.

That's just the voice of ignorance being shouted from the tree-tops. The mode of attire an individual chooses has precisely nothing to do with his sexual preferences. The numbers seem to bear this out in other forms of outward appearance as well, like long hair on guys. If we take the usually-accepted incidence of homosexuality in the population as between 3 and 4 percent and the number of long-haired males at about 1 in 500 (0.2%) one comes up with a number of about 0.007% of long-haired men will be homosexual. (This explains the occasional lament on various Internet groups for long-haired men that homosexuals are under-represented -- they're just rare by nature.) That the number of blokes who assert the right to wear unbirfucated garments in Western society is vastly lower than the previously postulated number of 1 in 500 it becomes apparent that a (male) homosexual in a skirt would be blazingly rare.

Now, to use the word "queer" correctly, then, yes, a bloke in a skirt would appear rather queer because one doesn't see it that often. (There's another word the English language has lost.)

No one would regard a man wearing a skirt (or kilt) as "acting like a bloke."

Behaviour is behaviour -- i.e. the way an individual carries and comports himself whilst interacting with society around him; it's his mannerisms and character -- it's not about the clothing. Imagine the confusion that would ensue if clothing were the only cue we had as far as the "mating game" goes what with everybody wearing tr*users! It doesn't work that way, of course; there are many more "markers" in play than what one wears below the belt.

Merlin, my friend, you may not consider yourself part of a "definable group" but that's probably not how most others see you.

Ah, but he is! He's part of a defineable group that consists of males who wear unbifucated garments on their lower bodies. The odds are, most of us here are part of that defineable group. That said, I'll bet that there isn't a whole lot of correlation of other groups we belong to other than those of random chance.

So, speaking as a hetero, non-TV skirt-wearing "Southern Man", I still think it unwise to segregate ourselves too widely from gay or TV comrades.

What Merlin's driving at, I believe, is that the TV community is vastly different from our community -- even more-so than male homosexuals-in-skirts -- and the desires and aims of the two groups are different. Mostly, the TV community seems to have a desperate desire to "pass" -- something we do not; we just want to be ourselves. TVs get seen as oddities because of the (usual) sexual overtones involved -- something usually lacking with "MIS". That there seems to be friction between the two communities is sad, because there's usually not any intersection betwen the two.

I'm sure you'll now regard American southerners as ignorant hicks (if you didn't already), but social/religious conservatism is the reality of life in the South and over much of the US beyond the progressive metropolitan areas.

That's an awfully broad brush there, sir, and there's a lot of tar flying about that's sticking to things it shouldn't. Ignorance exists in all cultures -- and it's cureable in most cases. One should not write off large swathes of the population without very diligent research. I think you'll find the average bloke a bit smarter and open-minded than you believe; where you will encounter problems is where group-think of mob mentality is in action, and that's definitely something to beware of. Convincing an individual that wearing a skirted garment is actually beneficial in many ways is surprisingly easy; doing the same with an angry mob, on the other hand, is not, and mobs get nastier far more easily than individuals.

[Departed Member]

The mode of attire an individual chooses has precisely nothing to do with his sexual preferences. ........ Behaviour is behaviour -- i.e. the way an individual carries and comports himself whilst interacting with society around him; it's his mannerisms and character -- it's not about the clothing.

Hear, hear!

Ah, but he is! He's part of a defineable group that consists of males who wear unbifucated garments on their lower bodies. The odds are, most of us here are part of that defineable group.

Thats a darn big 'group' worldwide, then! Far too large to quantify! Like the "Beard Group", or the "Long Hair Group", it doesn't exist as a formal entity - it's just a convenient 'pigeon hole'! On that basis, I 'fit into' a category rather than a group, on the basis that to have a group, you must have a (formal?) structure and defineable purpose, on the lines of, say, "The Short Denim Skirt Wearers of Colorado"! :cheer:

That said, I'll bet that there isn't a whole lot of correlation of other groups we belong to other than those of random chance.

Too true! Hence why we, on this forum, tend to see things from totally different angles. Long may that diversity continue!

What Merlin's driving at, I believe, is that the TV community is vastly different from our community -- even more-so than male homosexuals-in-skirts -- and the desires and aims of the two groups are different. ........ That there seems to be friction between the two communities is sad, because there's usually not any intersection betwen the two.

Exactly! I was worried that I might not have made it clear enough. Thanks!

[Since1982]

I never said that there was anything wrong with being a transvestite. I simply said that there are thousands of sites catering to transvestites, cross dressers and others trying to pass as female. As far as I know, this site has never been one, I, personally, like it that way and hope it continues to be that way.

IF there is anything in my picture up above that resembles anything but a bloke in a skirt please tell me.

[Sasquatch]

I seem to have managed to offend several of you with my comments and opinions. The responses were too lengthy for me to rebut every point so I'll try to clarify my thoughts.

The main point is that pushing away other groups (transvestite/crossdresser) isn't necessarily in the interest of this community of mostly heterosexual, mostly non-TV men represented in this forum. I question the ethics and wisdom of denigrating the flagrantly sexual or gender dysphoric motives of tranvestites because you feel that an association with them impedes broader acceptance of our "group's" interest, presumably non-sexual (or, at most, discreetly sexual). Merlin expressed concern over the effect of an association on social acceptance of our community is in his initial responses to the Laundry Day clip, if I correctly understood his statements.

I gave my opinion that the casual observer - not disposed to our enlightened understanding - isn't likely to make a meaningful distinction between our motives and the motives of the TV community regarding preference in mode of dress, at least in much of the US. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Merlin, but, even though everyone here knows that Scots and others traditionally wore kilts, I don't think there exists the historical perspective in much of the US that would automatically attach any image of manliness or virility to the garment. But I digress - I'll say a bit more about social attitudes later.

The debate about the association between our community and aforementioned others brings to mind a condition of the Ante-bellum South, in the time of slavery. On large plantations, there sometimes existed a class distinction among the slaves. There were fieldhands and there were house servants. The house servants were often clothed and housed better due to their proximity to their white masters. They occupied a caste above the fieldhands, and often wished not to be associated with their more soiled and toiled brothers. The tragic aspect to this was that, in the eyes of the 'Massah', they were all African slaves, and their relative status within the greater group "slaves", while important to them, was little more than amusing to the whites.

To what end did self-segregation profit the slaves?

I don't want our community to regard ourselves in the manner of the house servants. More importantly, I believe that what goes around, comes around. An ethical case for building enlightened acceptance, in my thinking, (and Merlin's comments implied that he, too, values acceptance), suggests that if you want acceptance, you should give acceptance. It's certainly your individual right to reject those whose motivation for dressing is apparently sexual or gender dysphoric or whatever displeases you. But I think that is the wrong tack for us as a community.

As for my misunderstood and poorly stated comments on social acceptance in the US, I did not intend to "tar broad swathes with the same brush," as I believe the response was put. In the US you can find people who are enlightened and accepting wherever you go, but broad social acceptance does, unfortunately, have much to do with region (North vs South) and much more to do with urban/metropolitan vs. rural/small town, much like the rest of our politics. The US is very homogeneous in many ways, but I would not count social attitude among them. As much as I would like to think of my country as a paragon of tolerance and progressive thought, we just aren't there yet. In fact, we probably look to Europe for that. But we aren't as hostile as our foreign policy may make us seem, either!

I've lived in Massachusetts and in several parts of my home state, North Carolina. Here, one could walk the streets in Chapel Hill or Durham in a kilt or not-too-feminine skirt without receiving a second glance, but that would not be the case in towns just forty miles away. In Blacksburg,VA, a kilted man might even encounter another kilted man, but just down the mountain in Roanoke, he would be more likely to encounter someone who would quote him some Holy Scripture and warn him about Hell! In San Luis Obispo, you would fit right in - but probably not in Bakersfield! Seattle is probably the kilt capital of the country. And in San Francisco (and Key West, Skip) anything goes. But Merlin, in our cities and tourist areas you have nothing to worry about in a kilt - they'll hear your British accent!:) No, seriously, by all means come to visit if you can. The exchange rates are favorable for travelling here. Bring all your credit cards and we'll make sure you enjoy your stay!

The point was also raised that a person's mode of dress has nothing to do with his sexual orientation. I didn't say, or intend to imply that there was. Defending that point in this forum is a bit like preaching to the choir. We aren't the audience you need to reach with that message - there are many people who don't understand that fact, and don't make the valid distinctions that we understand. A lot of people simply have a fixed point of view that is not easily changed. It's clear that, short of some overnight phenomenon, ours is a fashion choice that is likely to remain on the margin for some time to come.

Sasq

[Departed Member]

Ah, Sasquatch, thanks for the wider clarification! I'm not aware you've offended anyone. We are used to 'open debate' here (hence the occasional use of 'conversational style' - responding to points in question). It sets this forum on a different road to the unseemly squabbling oft noted elsewhere!

It seems (from what you say) we do have some parallels with the USA after all, in respect of 'area attitudes!!! There are times/places in the UK to be avoided - regardless of apparel!

Couple of points, if one may? You refer to "denigrating the flagrantly sexual or gender dysphoric motives (of TVs?)". To me, 'gender dysphoria' is only applicable to TS folk. I don't include them in/associate them with, the 'TV' category and have never denigrated them here (or anywhere else, for that matter). They, as far as I am concerned, are not a 'topic' discussed on this forum. There have been some relatively high-profile TS characters on (European) television shows in recent years, and they seem to be genuinely accepted (if you wish to use that word) by the majority of 'Joe Public', at least in Europe! I've worked with, and had enlightened conversation with, such folk (yet another group apparently affected by TV 'negative behaviour').

From what you say about the USA though, the country looks to be a virtual 'minefield' for anyone even vaguely non-conformist. I recently rejected the offer of a free week's holiday in New York (& I wouldn't have been skirted there!), because it just looks far too dangerous (& because the US Government no longer wants/encourages visitors from these shores) to walk the streets. I've 'knocked back' free accomodation in Madison & Los Angeles, too - it's not worth the risk.

As for your final paragraph - you've hit 'the problem' fair and square in the solar plexus! Solution? I think your speculation that an 'overnight phenomenon' is required is, very definitely, the catalyst that's required! It's evident that skirts are slowly spreading (again!) into the 'music scene'. High(er) profile musicians/actors are probably the only ones likely to influence the masses (certainly not Beckham skulking around with a sarong, worn over his jeans!).

To answer one of your questions, which I'll summarise as: "Why the wariness with TVs?" It boils down to (& it's been a common theme in forums such as this) 'domestic acceptance'. One's spouse's (perceived) fear that 'wearing a skirt' will/may lead to high heels, make-up, pierced ears, etc (& their potential rejection). And, what will the neighbours say/think? There are several threads here which reflect that, already!

[Sasquatch]

Couple of points, if one may? You refer to "denigrating the flagrantly sexual or gender dysphoric motives (of TVs?)". To me, 'gender dysphoria' is only applicable to TS folk. I don't include them in/associate them with, the 'TV' category and have never denigrated them here (or anywhere else, for that matter). They, as far as I am concerned, are not a 'topic' discussed on this forum. There have been some relatively high-profile TS characters on (European) television shows in recent years, and they seem to be genuinely accepted (if you wish to use that word) by the majority of 'Joe Public', at least in Europe! I've worked with, and had enlightened conversation with, such folk (yet another group apparently affected by TV 'negative behaviour').

I'm just a simple redneck, Merlin, trying my best to understand all the semantics involved in these discussions. I understand the differences, just don't bother too much with getting the labels right.

From what you say about the USA though, the country looks to be a virtual 'minefield' for anyone even vaguely non-conformist. I recently rejected the offer of a free week's holiday in New York (& I wouldn't have been skirted there!), because it just looks far too dangerous (& because the US Government no longer wants/encourages visitors from these shores) to walk the streets. I've 'knocked back' free accomodation in Madison & Los Angeles, too - it's not worth the risk.

I may have overstated the issue. It's sort of a minefield for someone who lives and works in a conservative community, as I do, but I would note that Tripp49 lives in a place equally rural in character, yet he has been wearing kilts and skirts with impunity for years. From my personal perspective, it would exceed my comfort level. I couldn't function in my job wearing a skirt.

I regret the level of difficulty our bureaucrats have imposed on travellers to the US. The obsession with security has reached an absurd level. You have to remember, we have a President who had never travelled outside the US before he was elected! We have a million Mexicans a year running back and forth across our southern border that the Feds won't do anything about, but let someone try to enter legally and they have to grab their ankles and beg not to have it stuck in too deep!

You would have no problems kilted in either LA or Madison. Madison is the most liberal place in the country, but you'll freeze your 'nads off if you wear a kilt there in the winter.

As for your final paragraph - you've hit 'the problem' fair and square in the solar plexus! Solution? I think your speculation that an 'overnight phenomenon' is required is, very definitely, the catalyst that's required! It's evident that skirts are slowly spreading (again!) into the 'music scene'. High(er) profile musicians/actors are probably the only ones likely to influence the masses (certainly not Beckham skulking around with a sarong, worn over his jeans!).

We need another "British invasion"; a Fab Four in kilts! Look what they did for hair length! Maybe Iain and his groupies?

To answer one of your questions, which I'll summarise as: "Why the wariness with TVs?" It boils down to (& it's been a common theme in forums such as this) 'domestic acceptance'. One's spouse's (perceived) fear that 'wearing a skirt' will/may lead to high heels, make-up, pierced ears, etc (& their potential rejection). And, what will the neighbours say/think? There are several threads here which reflect that, already!

I guess I see the two groups as fellow travelers struggling against the same repressive social attitude without much discernment on the part of those who despise us. Maybe that's an exaggerated mental picture. I guess what I'm fruitlessly, vainly, hoping for is basic enlightenment throughout society. After all, a rising tide lifts all boats. If greater society will try not to be judgemental about my motives, I'll try not to judge others.

Sasq