Do we really want women's "fashion freedom"?

[Since1982]

One of the posters said he believed the way to tell a "gay" man was all the pink clothes and bandanas, girly actions and overall "look". I think he's wrong on that. What he was looking at was probably a crossdresser that was not in full kit. Crossdressers are probably 90% not gay. Anyone that would like a comprehensive look at the gay % of crossdressers, need just go to AOL and enter a crossdresser chat room. ASK them. You'll find out very quickly that nearly all CD's are not gay. Actually, CD's or "girly man" percentage that is not gay is probably the same as the percentage of straight men who are not gay.

Just looking "girly" or acting "girlish" is no parameter of "acting gay". The entire "gay" act has nothing to do with "girly" just is not in line with the "straight" way of doing things. Probably 10% of straight guys are overly "girly" and that's probably where the CD's, TV's and other Transgendered men come from.

I was an AOL Host for 9 years and part of our job was overseeing what was going on in ALL chat rooms. I enjoyed watching over the CD rooms because they were a target of homophobes and they had as much a right to enjoy their AOL membership as anyone else did. I too, thought all CD's and "Girlish/Girly" men were gay, I found out very quickly and harshly in CAPS that I was incorrect in that assumption.

[tooslowprius]

I guess u would had been there to see the guy. It wasn't his clothing thay said hay look I'm gay. It was the way he acted that said that. I knpw that most cd's are straight I have talked to a lot of them in my surch to undertstand the reason why I like to wear skirts. This guy was gay in my mind and there's no doubt about that.

[AMM]

(Stickin' my head up over the rim of my trash can.)

Who cares whether the guy was gay? I mean, if he's not hitting on you, and you're not interested in hitting on him, what difference does it make, other than as an excuse for idle gossip? And if you don't like what he was wearing, well, don't dress like him. After all, it's his problem (and People magazine's, of course ), not yours.

I don't know about anybody else, but I've got way too much to do in my life (like sorting the trash in my trash can) to worry about how consenting adults choose to couple up or which (consenting) clothes they choose to wear, as long as I'm not forced to spend a lot of time hearing (or reading) about it.

Why not spend the time you're worring about this guy's taste in partners or clothes making some really spiffy skirts instead? And posting photos of them?

(Pullin' my head back inside my trash can, having re-convinced myself that the only reason the world hasn't gone to the dogs is because the dogs turned their noses up at it.)

[Kris]

I guess u would had been there to see the guy. It wasn't his clothing thay said hay look I'm gay. It was the way he acted that said that. I knpw that most cd's are straight I have talked to a lot of them in my surch to undertstand the reason why I like to wear skirts. This guy was gay in my mind and there's no doubt about that.

Obviously I don't know if your conclusion was correct or not, but I always think it's good to exercise caution in making judgements about people based on limited observations. That's especially so if those observations are of traits only indirectly related to the judgement you are making.

For example, reading the paragraph quoted above (and your original post), I might make the judgement that the person writing them is either marginally literate in the English language, or is very careless about his writing and doesn't care how badly it reflects upon him.
In addition to the many things I observed in the original post, in this post I see:
"u would had been there"
"hay" (in place of hey)
"knpw"
"surch"
"undertstand"
Now I'm not trying to be the spelling and grammar police, or to start a flame war, I'm just using this as an analogy to point out how making judgements about people based on our limited observations may be wrong. The judgement that I made that the poster was "marginally literate" or "careless" could be entirely wrong. Some other possibilities:
The poster could suffer from dyslexia or a learning disability.
The poster may not be a native English speaker, and be doing the best he can with English as a second language.
The poster could suffer from limited vision and may not see the errors on his screen.
The poster could have limited hand mobility and find typing very difficult.

So I will refrain from making any judgement based on my limited observation and knowledge.

Kris

[SkirtedViking]

No woman is labelled a lessbian, crossdresser and etc. for the way she dresses or the way she behaves or what interests she has. At least in my country. It's males that are put in the stereotype box and that makes us the big losers.

[tooslowprius]

I guess u would had been there to see the guy. It wasn't his clothing thay said hay look I'm gay. It was the way he acted that said that. I knpw that most cd's are straight I have talked to a lot of them in my surch to undertstand the reason why I like to wear skirts. This guy was gay in my mind and there's no doubt about that.

Obviously I don't know if your conclusion was correct or not, but I always think it's good to exercise caution in making judgements about people based on limited observations. That's especially so if those observations are of traits only indirectly related to the judgement you are making.

For example, reading the paragraph quoted above (and your original post), I might make the judgement that the person writing them is either marginally literate in the English language, or is very careless about his writing and doesn't care how badly it reflects upon him.
In addition to the many things I observed in the original post, in this post I see:
"u would had been there"
"hay" (in place of hey)
"knpw"
"surch"
"undertstand"
Now I'm not trying to be the spelling and grammar police, or to start a flame war, I'm just using this as an analogy to point out how making judgements about people based on our limited observations may be wrong. The judgement that I made that the poster was "marginally literate" or "careless" could be entirely wrong. Some other possibilities:
The poster could suffer from dyslexia or a learning disability.
The poster may not be a native English speaker, and be doing the best he can with English as a second language.
The poster could suffer from limited vision and may not see the errors on his screen.
The poster could have limited hand mobility and find typing very difficult.

So I will refrain from making any judgement based on my limited observation and knowledge.

Kris

No I'm not any of that I'm responding to these messages from a black berry storm not my pc.
First of all I'm not any of the above.

[crfriend]

[...]I might make the judgement that the person writing them is either marginally literate in the English language, or is very careless about his writing and doesn't care how badly it reflects upon him.

[Mod hat on]

OK, we already have a pretty decent thread where we can castigate folks for blunders in the use of the English language over in the "Off Topic" area. I don't see any percentage in laying into folks everywhere else. Most of the allegations made center around obvious typographical errors -- and we all make those from time to time, especially if we're trying to use a keyboard the size of a stick of gum. Two words here on typos: "climb down". Please.

If the intent is to challenge the original poster's thesis, please challenge the idea not the poster's character or typing skills.

Too, the adage of, "Let he without guilt cast the first stone", should resonate well. If I decided to go back through the archives I'm absolutely certain that I could assign enough guilt to each and every community member to ensure that no right to "cast the first stone" exists, and that includes the author of this missive!

[Mod hat off]

Finally, it's this writer's opinion that whatever "orientation" somebody has that it's that individual's business alone. It has no bearing on anything else -- any more than what we decide to adorn ourselves in. Let it go. Some might recall a seminal quote from the 1960s, and I'll paraphrase it a bit, "[...] that one shall be judged by the character of his deeds [...]" not by what his preferences may be.