Saturday, February 26, 2005
Kelli Davis - The Tuxedo in the Yearbook Lesbian Revolution
(Welcome Pandagon readers! Here's your chance to feel even more self-righteous about how right you are about everything. Even though you cannot answer a single question re this issue, you can call people who do ask questions all kinds of bad names. We are impressed.)
From local6.com. This issue has liberals and pro-homos up in arms, ready to storm the school and shoot down the "asinine" principal (which is the mildest thing they called him). My comment that I left at one of their blogs follows the news excerpt:
Pro-homos have taken up this girl as their latest heroine, and they are all clamoring about how horrible the principal is for holding up the "oppressive" male-female dress code for the yearbook.
Yet I did wonder if Kelli isn't just one big idiot of a kid. Was the photo in the news cropped or is that all of it? Unless her cleavage starts in the middle of her neck, what exactly is the big exposure if she were wearing a dress?
Are the dresses for women in the yearbook pornographic, I mean, so low-cut that taking community standards, they are indecent? Will people now enforce a code that women must cover themselves to the top of their necks or else it means they want to be "exposed" and are being visually "violated?" If 3 inches of one's neck is so problematic, I suggest a full-body veil for Kelli. That way she doesn't expose one fraction of an inch of herself. And she could wear it black, 'cause that´s real tough.
There's another even more important problem here: if one woman showing her neck is a problem, then that's a problem for all women. A neck is a neck. Now you've got me worried. Don't all women need to be protected from having their modesty violated? And what better way than forcing women to wear tuxedos for every party and yearbook in the future? Then we can all be smart like Kelli. We can't be women, but we can be man-imitators and cross-dressers. What wonderful progress brought about by you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people.
And this Kelli doesn't go to the beach, I suppose, or does she wear a tux to the beach as well? Because God forbid if anyone should see 3 inches of her neck at the beach... her whole orientation might suffer a seizure... her steady psycho health would be at extreme risk.
But she's big, she's tough! She's a lesssbian, and she don't wear no dresses! Aren't we impressed? Carry on with the cheering, folks... you people need to show us the way... It's so effin rebellious! What you've been waiting all your lives... the tuxedo revolution. You're not going to take no dresses in the yearbook anymore! Cross-dressing is the solution. It's black, it's powerful, and it has a bow-tie, for Christ's sake! It's the smart lesbo against the asinine principal contest!
BTW, is her homosexuality a result of how many psychological problems she has with the standards and roles society has for women?
Oh, I forget, pro-homos can't ask those questions.
And then, when I looked at the blouse of the woman clad with a low-cut blouse, lying across the banner of Rox Populi, the pro-homo blog where I saw the above, I commented:
And you know what I just noticed!!! The irony of it...
Just where exactly is the cleavage of the banner photo on this blog??? That amount of flesh represents a what? An immodest woman? An exposed woman? It's barely covering the nipples, for crying outloud! Kelli must have gotten sick when she looked at it... or didn't she?
You people have me confused... I thought we were up in arms about women having to wear such horrible immodest, or, in street slang, slutty clothing for the yearbook! I thought the principal was a horrible man because he forces young women to expose their freaking necks, which is way less than the banner photo on this Rox Populi blog... you people are so coherent, it makes it difficult for the rest of us to follow...
I also read another article which said Kelli's mother does not understand what Kelli is going through (her homosexuality problems), but that she thinks she needs to be supportive. Being a supportive parent and clapping at everything your kid does is not the same thing. A parent should help a kid to discern. Kelli's mom stopped doing that, apparently thanks to activists. This is how a homo-obsessive culture can really hurt a kid. An (op-ed) pro-homo activism article disguised as "news" says:
Pro-homos just love the homo gene theory, don't they? Never try to dig deep at Kelli's own psychology and see what happened from the time she was born until today. Just slap on the homo gene and voilà the "everything I am is justified and legitimate" conclusion. And it came from nowhere, just some inexistent gene.
Update:
I think this case also relates to the Australian PC free speech hypocrisy, where I wrote:
The very great majority of pro-homosexuals, including the ones that are clamoring about how horrible this yearbook female dress code is, don't give a whit about modesty for women. Generally, they are all very happy with women showing themselves as pieces of meat, of women swearing, of women engaging in all kinds of crude behaviors. So these are major hypocrites that now raise up the "Oh, deliver us from the immodest dress oppression or we are going to faint" banner.
This is not about sexually objectifying women through attire (which is an important issue). This is about shoving homosexuality down everyone's throats without thinking about where this homosexual behavior is coming from. The most hypocritical statement in all of this, aside from the "dresses are all pornographic," is that this is not about homo activism.
It is exactly what this conflict is about.
Update feb 28-2005:
Kelli Davis - This is a human rights issue!
Update mar 1 2005:
This is another very important human rights issue, being fought in California.
Update mar 2 2005:
Someone left this comment:
I didn't say the stupid lesbiunnn couldn't wear a tuxedo. Actually the dress code was voted by the all the students (it was not instituted by me, in case you didn't notice). And the student-voted dress code was upheld by the principal. But that's another detail.
I was just asking all you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people, why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire? Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress?
Why does she have to put on a tuxedo and make a battle of it, and when everyone doesn't bow to her discomfort with being a woman, she gets mommy dear to hire an attorney to force it down the yearbook?
Aside from James Bond, I didn't think we had other people who could not live outside a tuxedo.
I haven't seen you people answer that simple question. In case you didn't notice, the "modesty" reason stated by Kelli sounds like a circus act from a little hypocritical twit. Buy it if it makes you feel better, but for reasons explained in my posts, I found it a tad unconvincing.
.
From local6.com. This issue has liberals and pro-homos up in arms, ready to storm the school and shoot down the "asinine" principal (which is the mildest thing they called him). My comment that I left at one of their blogs follows the news excerpt:
GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. -- After a spirited discussion over a photo of a girl wearing a tuxedo at Thursday's Clay County School Board meeting, the principal's decision to ban the picture from the Fleming Island High School yearbook stands.
Kelli Davis, 18, had her senior class photo taken in a tuxedo top and bow-tie outfit provided for boys rather than the gown-like drape and pearls provided for girls. The school's principal decided it could not appear in the yearbook because she didn't follow the dress code.
Kelli, a straight-A student with no discipline problems, is a self-proclaimed lesbian. She said she was uncomfortable to have her chest exposed in the photo.
"Because that's me, you know. That represents me. The drape does not," Davis said. "They're not accepting me, that's the whole reason we're here."
Davis denies it's about her sexual orientation, just about a student not following the rules.
"There's a dress code to follow -- a dress code expected for senior pictures in the yearbook, and she chose not to follow them. It's just that simple," Clay School Superintendent David Owens said.
Pro-homos have taken up this girl as their latest heroine, and they are all clamoring about how horrible the principal is for holding up the "oppressive" male-female dress code for the yearbook.
Yet I did wonder if Kelli isn't just one big idiot of a kid. Was the photo in the news cropped or is that all of it? Unless her cleavage starts in the middle of her neck, what exactly is the big exposure if she were wearing a dress?
Are the dresses for women in the yearbook pornographic, I mean, so low-cut that taking community standards, they are indecent? Will people now enforce a code that women must cover themselves to the top of their necks or else it means they want to be "exposed" and are being visually "violated?" If 3 inches of one's neck is so problematic, I suggest a full-body veil for Kelli. That way she doesn't expose one fraction of an inch of herself. And she could wear it black, 'cause that´s real tough.
There's another even more important problem here: if one woman showing her neck is a problem, then that's a problem for all women. A neck is a neck. Now you've got me worried. Don't all women need to be protected from having their modesty violated? And what better way than forcing women to wear tuxedos for every party and yearbook in the future? Then we can all be smart like Kelli. We can't be women, but we can be man-imitators and cross-dressers. What wonderful progress brought about by you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people.
And this Kelli doesn't go to the beach, I suppose, or does she wear a tux to the beach as well? Because God forbid if anyone should see 3 inches of her neck at the beach... her whole orientation might suffer a seizure... her steady psycho health would be at extreme risk.
But she's big, she's tough! She's a lesssbian, and she don't wear no dresses! Aren't we impressed? Carry on with the cheering, folks... you people need to show us the way... It's so effin rebellious! What you've been waiting all your lives... the tuxedo revolution. You're not going to take no dresses in the yearbook anymore! Cross-dressing is the solution. It's black, it's powerful, and it has a bow-tie, for Christ's sake! It's the smart lesbo against the asinine principal contest!
BTW, is her homosexuality a result of how many psychological problems she has with the standards and roles society has for women?
Oh, I forget, pro-homos can't ask those questions.
And then, when I looked at the blouse of the woman clad with a low-cut blouse, lying across the banner of Rox Populi, the pro-homo blog where I saw the above, I commented:
And you know what I just noticed!!! The irony of it...
Just where exactly is the cleavage of the banner photo on this blog??? That amount of flesh represents a what? An immodest woman? An exposed woman? It's barely covering the nipples, for crying outloud! Kelli must have gotten sick when she looked at it... or didn't she?
You people have me confused... I thought we were up in arms about women having to wear such horrible immodest, or, in street slang, slutty clothing for the yearbook! I thought the principal was a horrible man because he forces young women to expose their freaking necks, which is way less than the banner photo on this Rox Populi blog... you people are so coherent, it makes it difficult for the rest of us to follow...
I also read another article which said Kelli's mother does not understand what Kelli is going through (her homosexuality problems), but that she thinks she needs to be supportive. Being a supportive parent and clapping at everything your kid does is not the same thing. A parent should help a kid to discern. Kelli's mom stopped doing that, apparently thanks to activists. This is how a homo-obsessive culture can really hurt a kid. An (op-ed) pro-homo activism article disguised as "news" says:
"I didn't and still don't understand what she's going through," says Cindi Davis, a registered nurse. "But my job as Kelli's mother is simply to love and support my child unconditionally, and I do." For her part, Kelli says her announcement wasn't about advertising her status or seeking a relationship. It was about coming to terms with her identity. "I didn't just choose one day to be a lesbian," she says. "That's how I was born. My mom taught me my entire life to be honest and true to myself. I just couldn't keep living the lie."
Pro-homos just love the homo gene theory, don't they? Never try to dig deep at Kelli's own psychology and see what happened from the time she was born until today. Just slap on the homo gene and voilà the "everything I am is justified and legitimate" conclusion. And it came from nowhere, just some inexistent gene.
Update:
I think this case also relates to the Australian PC free speech hypocrisy, where I wrote:
The only way pro-homosexuals can dictate homosexuality as legitimate in society is by suppressing every single form of questioning or criticism regarding human sexuality and how dysfunctional it can get. And pro-homos have been very active in that respect legally, under the banner of "anti-discrimination."
The very great majority of pro-homosexuals, including the ones that are clamoring about how horrible this yearbook female dress code is, don't give a whit about modesty for women. Generally, they are all very happy with women showing themselves as pieces of meat, of women swearing, of women engaging in all kinds of crude behaviors. So these are major hypocrites that now raise up the "Oh, deliver us from the immodest dress oppression or we are going to faint" banner.
This is not about sexually objectifying women through attire (which is an important issue). This is about shoving homosexuality down everyone's throats without thinking about where this homosexual behavior is coming from. The most hypocritical statement in all of this, aside from the "dresses are all pornographic," is that this is not about homo activism.
It is exactly what this conflict is about.
Update feb 28-2005:
Kelli Davis - This is a human rights issue!
Update mar 1 2005:
This is another very important human rights issue, being fought in California.
Update mar 2 2005:
Someone left this comment:
Who gives a crap! Let her wear what she feels more comfortable in, the world won't come to an end.
I didn't say the stupid lesbiunnn couldn't wear a tuxedo. Actually the dress code was voted by the all the students (it was not instituted by me, in case you didn't notice). And the student-voted dress code was upheld by the principal. But that's another detail.
I was just asking all you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people, why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire? Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress?
Why does she have to put on a tuxedo and make a battle of it, and when everyone doesn't bow to her discomfort with being a woman, she gets mommy dear to hire an attorney to force it down the yearbook?
Aside from James Bond, I didn't think we had other people who could not live outside a tuxedo.
I haven't seen you people answer that simple question. In case you didn't notice, the "modesty" reason stated by Kelli sounds like a circus act from a little hypocritical twit. Buy it if it makes you feel better, but for reasons explained in my posts, I found it a tad unconvincing.
.
Comments:
Who gives a crap! Let her wear what she feels more comfortable in, the world won't come to an end.
# posted by 
: 9:46 AM
: 9:46 AM
You are a horrible person.
You speak of the 'lefties' trying to eliminate any form of speach or opinion opposing their view when you are the one guilty of such vile acts. You try to blame the parents, you try to blame her upbringing, you try to blame anything you can to ignore the fact that some people are just gay. And then you throw ridicule and hyperbole to shut down any opposition before hearing them out.
I'll concede that it is possible to cause someone to form any number of unusual sexual apetites or preferences due to abuse, neglect, or a myriad of unfortunate childhood experiences. But, people who you would term as 'normal' come from those same circumstances and people you might term as 'queer' come from perfectly normal backgrounds too.
Helpless to argue with any facts or statistics, because, coincidentally, most modern, unbiased research opposes your view, you instantly turn to hyperbole to muddy the facts and ridicule your opposition. You claim that a girl choosing to wear a tuxedo in a high school year book picture will inevitably lead to the freedom-hating lefties legislating that all women wear burkas. Give me a break. Listening to you harp on the left promoting all women to dress like "man-imitators and cross-dressers" begs me to ask: Would you prefer all women be required to wear skirts? We certainly can't have women wearing pants; someone might mistake them for a man. Maybe we should put it into law? Maybe we should legislate that all women remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen just to avoid any confusion?
Of course not. That's a ridiculous arguement, just like your claiming the left's arguement is "if one women showing her neck is a problem, than that's a problem for all women."
Some people are more comfortable with their bodies than others, i.e. the lady in the banner add. You claim hypocrisy where non exists. Neither the add, showing a womans chest and cleavage, nor the high schoolers desire to cover hers is indecent. They are choices, choices we should be free to make.
Choices you would try to take away from us. So what if someone wants to wear something a little too flamboyant, or, is it possible, a little too conservative for your tastes? How does that hurt you? Men used to wear tights and codpieces? Why? To get a reaction. The bigger the codpiece the bigger the scandal.
Why must everyone look and think just like you. What a boring world that would be. I prefer this one. I may not agree with everything everyone says or does, but I firmly believe that everyone has the right to be happy, however they wish to be so. And I deplore those of you who would take that away from us.
You speak of the 'lefties' trying to eliminate any form of speach or opinion opposing their view when you are the one guilty of such vile acts. You try to blame the parents, you try to blame her upbringing, you try to blame anything you can to ignore the fact that some people are just gay. And then you throw ridicule and hyperbole to shut down any opposition before hearing them out.
I'll concede that it is possible to cause someone to form any number of unusual sexual apetites or preferences due to abuse, neglect, or a myriad of unfortunate childhood experiences. But, people who you would term as 'normal' come from those same circumstances and people you might term as 'queer' come from perfectly normal backgrounds too.
Helpless to argue with any facts or statistics, because, coincidentally, most modern, unbiased research opposes your view, you instantly turn to hyperbole to muddy the facts and ridicule your opposition. You claim that a girl choosing to wear a tuxedo in a high school year book picture will inevitably lead to the freedom-hating lefties legislating that all women wear burkas. Give me a break. Listening to you harp on the left promoting all women to dress like "man-imitators and cross-dressers" begs me to ask: Would you prefer all women be required to wear skirts? We certainly can't have women wearing pants; someone might mistake them for a man. Maybe we should put it into law? Maybe we should legislate that all women remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen just to avoid any confusion?
Of course not. That's a ridiculous arguement, just like your claiming the left's arguement is "if one women showing her neck is a problem, than that's a problem for all women."
Some people are more comfortable with their bodies than others, i.e. the lady in the banner add. You claim hypocrisy where non exists. Neither the add, showing a womans chest and cleavage, nor the high schoolers desire to cover hers is indecent. They are choices, choices we should be free to make.
Choices you would try to take away from us. So what if someone wants to wear something a little too flamboyant, or, is it possible, a little too conservative for your tastes? How does that hurt you? Men used to wear tights and codpieces? Why? To get a reaction. The bigger the codpiece the bigger the scandal.
Why must everyone look and think just like you. What a boring world that would be. I prefer this one. I may not agree with everything everyone says or does, but I firmly believe that everyone has the right to be happy, however they wish to be so. And I deplore those of you who would take that away from us.
# posted by : 12:06 PM
: 12:06 PM
Who gives a crap! Let her wear what she feels more comfortable in, the world won't come to an end.
==========================
I didn't say the stupid lesbiunnn couldn't wear a tuxedo. Actually the dress code was voted by the all the students (it was not instituted by me, in case you didn't notice). And the student-voted dress code was upheld by the principal. But that's another detail.
I was just asking all you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people, why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire? Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress?
Why does she have to put on a tuxedo and make a battle of it, and when everyone doesn't bow to her discomfort with being a woman, she gets mommy dear to hire an attorney to force it down the yearbook?
I haven't seen you people address that simple question.
==========================
I didn't say the stupid lesbiunnn couldn't wear a tuxedo. Actually the dress code was voted by the all the students (it was not instituted by me, in case you didn't notice). And the student-voted dress code was upheld by the principal. But that's another detail.
I was just asking all you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people, why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire? Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress?
Why does she have to put on a tuxedo and make a battle of it, and when everyone doesn't bow to her discomfort with being a woman, she gets mommy dear to hire an attorney to force it down the yearbook?
I haven't seen you people address that simple question.
The great corageous anonymous said:
You are a horrible person.
==============================
Personal ad hominem attacks are not allowed in comments.
You have your views and you are welcome to write them out here as long as you leave out your shoddy personal attack behavior. Because you see things differently, it does not give you the right to call me names or other insults in this manner.
You are an evil stupid person - is something I could say to you, but this type of direct personal aggression is not allowed here. I can write back a reply to your arguments without directly insulting you with profanity or other heavy worded personal insults, and I do require that you do the same.
Saying something like "liberals are idiots or conservatives are idiots because of reasons A,B,C," although not the most ideal, is not the same as personally attacking someone in a crude fashion. It refers to criticizing views. Using satire and ridicule is not the same as an ad hominem attack. The first is based on arguments, the latter on lack of them. Words that range in the "cabbage head," "feather brain" tone category are different than the "you are a "swear word/evil/horrible/monstrous" person. Again, if it were just a stupid verbal aggression, even a "you are a cabbage head" would get deleted, but on rare occasions, it may be allowed.
I'll reply to how inconsistent your views are when I have a little time.
You are a horrible person.
==============================
Personal ad hominem attacks are not allowed in comments.
You have your views and you are welcome to write them out here as long as you leave out your shoddy personal attack behavior. Because you see things differently, it does not give you the right to call me names or other insults in this manner.
You are an evil stupid person - is something I could say to you, but this type of direct personal aggression is not allowed here. I can write back a reply to your arguments without directly insulting you with profanity or other heavy worded personal insults, and I do require that you do the same.
Saying something like "liberals are idiots or conservatives are idiots because of reasons A,B,C," although not the most ideal, is not the same as personally attacking someone in a crude fashion. It refers to criticizing views. Using satire and ridicule is not the same as an ad hominem attack. The first is based on arguments, the latter on lack of them. Words that range in the "cabbage head," "feather brain" tone category are different than the "you are a "swear word/evil/horrible/monstrous" person. Again, if it were just a stupid verbal aggression, even a "you are a cabbage head" would get deleted, but on rare occasions, it may be allowed.
I'll reply to how inconsistent your views are when I have a little time.
Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress? why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire?Who said she was uncomfortable in a dress? She just chose to wear a tux instead. It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights and it doesn't harm anyone (except perhaps the sensibilities of a few people with a more traditional outlook on things, i.e. the principal). As a conservative libertarian I think as long as it doesn't harm anyone she should be allowed to wear what she likes. It's not like she's wearing a clown suit, it's just a suit and a bow tie. I seriously think there are a lot more important things to worry about than a teenager being rebellious.
# posted by : 3:45 AM
: 3:45 AM
Hi, it's me again, the Anonymous-you-are-a-horrible-person commenter. Don't you feel better now that you know my name? Or wait, what if it's really Bill, or what if I'm really a woman? Darn, whole lotta good that did you. Let's leave it at this: My name really is Tom. Do I get to be courageous now?
First, let me apologize for the length of this post but you asked several questions which expose great flaws in your reasoning and so beg to be addressed. Indeed I could have gone on for any length of time, but in the interest of brevity I answered each issue with a single example. By the way, I'm still waiting on the reply to how inconsistent my views are.
Secondly, allow me to apologize for the vicious ad hominem attack. I so easily forget how very fragile ultra conservative wingnuts are. I ought to have said: "Your views and opinions on the issue of homosexuality are outdated and bigoted." That would express my initial visceral response much more concisely and in much more civilized language.
Besides you would never be guilty of belittling personal attacks "appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason" (dictionary.com). Oh, wait, "lesssbian ... pro-homos ... stupid lesbiunnn ... a little hypocritical twit", etc. OK, so it requires a teensy bit of an argument to connect intentional misspelling and the use of emotionally charged words to imply belittlement and condescension, but the last two were actual personal attacks, regardless of their level of severity, directed towards an individual. (Someone not even participating in this exchange so unable to defend herself, I might add.) But when you set the tone like this, do you really expect us to be able to practice perfect restraint?
Moving on, as for the actual act of defiance/protest/forcing-homosexuality-down-the-throats-of-all-god-fearing-conservatives, I personally might have gone another way. I might have simply boycotted the photo session in protest of the student bodies decision that all women must be pictured in a dress. But her choosing to be photographed in the tuxedo is simply another interpretation of the students' decision. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but she may have reasoned that there were two options for her attire and, while departing from tradition somewhat, she chose the option generally thought of as the male option.
To address a few questions that you're so obviously desperate to get answers to as evidenced by their multiple postings:
"I was just asking all you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people, why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire? Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress?"Oh, another snippy remark? Well, *feigning indignation* if I may address the actual question posited here: What leads you to believe that she must be profoundly uncomfortable in female attire? Why is it so hard to believe that she is simply more comfortable in the tuxedo? And why can't you understand that so much of the things you detest in this case are simply differences of opinion, from the preference for male clothing to the preference for female companionship?
I'll restate what I said in my original post: While mental illness can cause a person to make choices or have feelings which go against the norm, it is also a natural result of our diverse state of being.
Nature encourages differences of all types in the hopes that we may benefit from those differences as a species. And we're not alone, homosexuality occurs in all manner of beings. I certainly hope that you don't think that homosexual penguins are the result of liberal propaganda; or, god forbid, that they are actively recruiting heterosexual penguins to 'join the club.'
Now while this particular variation may not help propagate the species, it's not the penguins’ fault that they're different, and it's most definitely not Kelli's fault.
"Why does she have to put on a tuxedo and make a battle of it, and when everyone doesn't bow to her discomfort with being a woman, she gets mommy dear to hire an attorney to force it down the yearbook('s throat)?"Who says she's uncomfortable being a woman, is she asking for a sex change? And what makes you the expert on what a woman should be or how a woman should act? Why can't women wear what they want and swear if they want to?
I ask because you make it very clear that you equate "women showing themselves as pieces of meat" with "women swearing", claiming both are equally "crude behaviors" unbecoming and unbefitting of proper ladies.
I'd argue that, most of the time, it's inappropriate for anyone to use profanity, as it weakens arguments, makes the speaker appear uneducated and ill informed, and in some cases, makes people 'tune out' and ignore you all together. (I'd also argue that a little cussing is a far cry from the degradation and objectification of women, but we'll leave that topic for another day.)
On the other hand, if someone's being assaulted, I personally wouldn't be offended if they shouted some pretty heinous epithets out of fear and the blind exhilaration experienced when your very survival is at stake.
There's a lot of grey area between rational debate and life-threatening assault, but I'm sure that's an acceptable level of wiggle room that even you would be able to find the line in that spectrum beyond which profanity is acceptable.
By a parallel argument (perhaps spanning from the Miss America Pageant, where wearing male clothing would be inopportune, and servicing the Hubble Space Telescope, where wearing a prim and proper dress would be ludicrous) there exists a vast range of scenarios and clothing options where everyone should be able to freely chose whatever attire they deem appropriate. And, despite the oft quipped 'fashion police', they don't need people like you deciding for them.
"Aside from James Bond, I didn't think we had other people who could not live outside a tuxedo." While I doubt even 007 would suffer actual physical discomfort or illness, let alone death, from formal-wear-withdrawal, I also highly doubt that a woman in a tuxedo, even an openly homosexual person doing any myriad of activities, would directly cause you to suffer from decency-withdrawal; even if they were physically forcing their homosexuality down your throat (although that may cause other adverse effects on your mental and/or physical well being).
"The only way pro-homosexuals can dictate homosexuality as legitimate in society is by suppressing every single form of questioning or criticism regarding human sexuality and how dysfunctional it can get."No one's saying human sexuality can't get extremely dysfunctional, but what is dysfunctional? Anything but puritan 'missionary style' heterosexual coitus? Or is the woman ever allowed to be on top? Is doing it in the shower dirty, because it actually seems that it'd be cleaner, what with the water running and the soap within reach at all times?
I'm confused, is it only what you consider to be proper as handed down by God? (By the way, how is he these days? Tell him to call me. What with life being so busy and all we haven't spoken in ages!) Or maybe, if a person's own sexuality is not dangerous or destructive to themselves or others can they just be allowed to get their rocks off in peace!
I think that's what it all comes down to in the end. Liberals aren't hurting conservatives despite the fact that you all seem to be personally affronted by their very existence. You seem to be the ones who want to eliminate all opposing view points and force everyone to look, act and think just like you.
Liberals celebrate diversity, even when it produces bigots and hateful people. We would like to be given the chance to inform them and possibly change their view, but, if we're not able to, we're not about to force them to wear rainbow colored clothing and cut out their tongue so they can't dissent.
Yet everywhere I look I see conservatives trying to do just that. Families shunning loved ones because they won't fall into lock step with society, people (read: you) trying to oppress those with differing views, and governments moving towards legislation that would treat new minorities as second class citizens.
Haven't we learned our lesson? At the risk of imminent ridicule which I doubt you'll be able to resist, can't we all just get along? I don't hate you per se, but I disagree with your ideas and I shudder to think that you might pass them on to more people who will only learn how to hate and oppress.
First, let me apologize for the length of this post but you asked several questions which expose great flaws in your reasoning and so beg to be addressed. Indeed I could have gone on for any length of time, but in the interest of brevity I answered each issue with a single example. By the way, I'm still waiting on the reply to how inconsistent my views are.
Secondly, allow me to apologize for the vicious ad hominem attack. I so easily forget how very fragile ultra conservative wingnuts are. I ought to have said: "Your views and opinions on the issue of homosexuality are outdated and bigoted." That would express my initial visceral response much more concisely and in much more civilized language.
Besides you would never be guilty of belittling personal attacks "appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason" (dictionary.com). Oh, wait, "lesssbian ... pro-homos ... stupid lesbiunnn ... a little hypocritical twit", etc. OK, so it requires a teensy bit of an argument to connect intentional misspelling and the use of emotionally charged words to imply belittlement and condescension, but the last two were actual personal attacks, regardless of their level of severity, directed towards an individual. (Someone not even participating in this exchange so unable to defend herself, I might add.) But when you set the tone like this, do you really expect us to be able to practice perfect restraint?
Moving on, as for the actual act of defiance/protest/forcing-homosexuality-down-the-throats-of-all-god-fearing-conservatives, I personally might have gone another way. I might have simply boycotted the photo session in protest of the student bodies decision that all women must be pictured in a dress. But her choosing to be photographed in the tuxedo is simply another interpretation of the students' decision. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but she may have reasoned that there were two options for her attire and, while departing from tradition somewhat, she chose the option generally thought of as the male option.
To address a few questions that you're so obviously desperate to get answers to as evidenced by their multiple postings:
"I was just asking all you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people, why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire? Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress?"Oh, another snippy remark? Well, *feigning indignation* if I may address the actual question posited here: What leads you to believe that she must be profoundly uncomfortable in female attire? Why is it so hard to believe that she is simply more comfortable in the tuxedo? And why can't you understand that so much of the things you detest in this case are simply differences of opinion, from the preference for male clothing to the preference for female companionship?
I'll restate what I said in my original post: While mental illness can cause a person to make choices or have feelings which go against the norm, it is also a natural result of our diverse state of being.
Nature encourages differences of all types in the hopes that we may benefit from those differences as a species. And we're not alone, homosexuality occurs in all manner of beings. I certainly hope that you don't think that homosexual penguins are the result of liberal propaganda; or, god forbid, that they are actively recruiting heterosexual penguins to 'join the club.'
Now while this particular variation may not help propagate the species, it's not the penguins’ fault that they're different, and it's most definitely not Kelli's fault.
"Why does she have to put on a tuxedo and make a battle of it, and when everyone doesn't bow to her discomfort with being a woman, she gets mommy dear to hire an attorney to force it down the yearbook('s throat)?"Who says she's uncomfortable being a woman, is she asking for a sex change? And what makes you the expert on what a woman should be or how a woman should act? Why can't women wear what they want and swear if they want to?
I ask because you make it very clear that you equate "women showing themselves as pieces of meat" with "women swearing", claiming both are equally "crude behaviors" unbecoming and unbefitting of proper ladies.
I'd argue that, most of the time, it's inappropriate for anyone to use profanity, as it weakens arguments, makes the speaker appear uneducated and ill informed, and in some cases, makes people 'tune out' and ignore you all together. (I'd also argue that a little cussing is a far cry from the degradation and objectification of women, but we'll leave that topic for another day.)
On the other hand, if someone's being assaulted, I personally wouldn't be offended if they shouted some pretty heinous epithets out of fear and the blind exhilaration experienced when your very survival is at stake.
There's a lot of grey area between rational debate and life-threatening assault, but I'm sure that's an acceptable level of wiggle room that even you would be able to find the line in that spectrum beyond which profanity is acceptable.
By a parallel argument (perhaps spanning from the Miss America Pageant, where wearing male clothing would be inopportune, and servicing the Hubble Space Telescope, where wearing a prim and proper dress would be ludicrous) there exists a vast range of scenarios and clothing options where everyone should be able to freely chose whatever attire they deem appropriate. And, despite the oft quipped 'fashion police', they don't need people like you deciding for them.
"Aside from James Bond, I didn't think we had other people who could not live outside a tuxedo." While I doubt even 007 would suffer actual physical discomfort or illness, let alone death, from formal-wear-withdrawal, I also highly doubt that a woman in a tuxedo, even an openly homosexual person doing any myriad of activities, would directly cause you to suffer from decency-withdrawal; even if they were physically forcing their homosexuality down your throat (although that may cause other adverse effects on your mental and/or physical well being).
"The only way pro-homosexuals can dictate homosexuality as legitimate in society is by suppressing every single form of questioning or criticism regarding human sexuality and how dysfunctional it can get."No one's saying human sexuality can't get extremely dysfunctional, but what is dysfunctional? Anything but puritan 'missionary style' heterosexual coitus? Or is the woman ever allowed to be on top? Is doing it in the shower dirty, because it actually seems that it'd be cleaner, what with the water running and the soap within reach at all times?
I'm confused, is it only what you consider to be proper as handed down by God? (By the way, how is he these days? Tell him to call me. What with life being so busy and all we haven't spoken in ages!) Or maybe, if a person's own sexuality is not dangerous or destructive to themselves or others can they just be allowed to get their rocks off in peace!
I think that's what it all comes down to in the end. Liberals aren't hurting conservatives despite the fact that you all seem to be personally affronted by their very existence. You seem to be the ones who want to eliminate all opposing view points and force everyone to look, act and think just like you.
Liberals celebrate diversity, even when it produces bigots and hateful people. We would like to be given the chance to inform them and possibly change their view, but, if we're not able to, we're not about to force them to wear rainbow colored clothing and cut out their tongue so they can't dissent.
Yet everywhere I look I see conservatives trying to do just that. Families shunning loved ones because they won't fall into lock step with society, people (read: you) trying to oppress those with differing views, and governments moving towards legislation that would treat new minorities as second class citizens.
Haven't we learned our lesson? At the risk of imminent ridicule which I doubt you'll be able to resist, can't we all just get along? I don't hate you per se, but I disagree with your ideas and I shudder to think that you might pass them on to more people who will only learn how to hate and oppress.
# posted by : 4:18 PM
: 4:18 PM
1) you can to ignore the fact that some people are just gay.
There is no homo gene nor is there a homo tuxedo-only chromosome. The reasons you're a homo are multiple, but not genetic.
2)You claim that a girl choosing to wear a tuxedo in a high school year book picture will inevitably lead to the freedom-hating lefties legislating that all women wear burkas.
Apparently you can't discern what ridicule is.
3) You claim hypocrisy where non exists.
Right.
4) "me" said: Who said she was uncomfortable in a dress? She just chose to wear a tux instead.
Read what she said. Read what she stated was her reason. It's different than what you claim above.
5) Oh, wait, "lesssbian ... pro-homos ... stupid lesbiunnn ... a little hypocritical twit"
This all criticizes stupid pro-homo attitudes and concepts. There is a different in tone, and I'm not calling you a %@#$&. If you think other people can't say others are stoopid, you need help.
6) regardless of their level of severity
Nothing in life is regardless of level of intensity/severity, not ever if it refers to aggression.
7) Why is it so hard to believe that she is simply more comfortable in the tuxedo?
Because nobody makes a circus act with lawyers and homo activists and call it a "human rights" issue over a little preference in *clothes* which they care nothing about.
8) Nature encourages differences of all types in the hopes that we may benefit from those differences as a species.
"Nature" means inexistent homo genes. It doesn't exist. Only part of your desperate denial in dealing with how many mental problems and dysfunctions homos like you have.
9)No one's saying human sexuality can't get extremely dysfunctional, but what is dysfunctional?
That which is not a peaceful, healthy, responsible, heterosexual sexuality.
10) liberals celebrate diversity.
I've been posting on your little friends at Nambla, it's very diverse, certainly. And I've also been posting on how this pro-homo liberal culture destroys humans and human relationships. Not that your homo-obsession allows you to care.
For just a few examples, read the issues listed at http://alessandrab.blogspot.com/2005/03/la-shawn-on-media-fawning-over.html
11) can't we all just get along? I don't hate you per se, but I disagree with your ideas and I shudder to think that you might pass them on to more people who will only learn how to hate and oppress.
Just because you're totally irresponsible and egotistical, it doesn't mean other people are like that. You, along with other liberals, do a lot of destruction and harm in society, and that's why we just don't "get along." And I do hate living in such a violent, disgusting, liberal society. I have a right not to live in dehumanized latrine. Speaking of human rights, that is a human right.
There is no homo gene nor is there a homo tuxedo-only chromosome. The reasons you're a homo are multiple, but not genetic.
2)You claim that a girl choosing to wear a tuxedo in a high school year book picture will inevitably lead to the freedom-hating lefties legislating that all women wear burkas.
Apparently you can't discern what ridicule is.
3) You claim hypocrisy where non exists.
Right.
4) "me" said: Who said she was uncomfortable in a dress? She just chose to wear a tux instead.
Read what she said. Read what she stated was her reason. It's different than what you claim above.
5) Oh, wait, "lesssbian ... pro-homos ... stupid lesbiunnn ... a little hypocritical twit"
This all criticizes stupid pro-homo attitudes and concepts. There is a different in tone, and I'm not calling you a %@#$&. If you think other people can't say others are stoopid, you need help.
6) regardless of their level of severity
Nothing in life is regardless of level of intensity/severity, not ever if it refers to aggression.
7) Why is it so hard to believe that she is simply more comfortable in the tuxedo?
Because nobody makes a circus act with lawyers and homo activists and call it a "human rights" issue over a little preference in *clothes* which they care nothing about.
8) Nature encourages differences of all types in the hopes that we may benefit from those differences as a species.
"Nature" means inexistent homo genes. It doesn't exist. Only part of your desperate denial in dealing with how many mental problems and dysfunctions homos like you have.
9)No one's saying human sexuality can't get extremely dysfunctional, but what is dysfunctional?
That which is not a peaceful, healthy, responsible, heterosexual sexuality.
10) liberals celebrate diversity.
I've been posting on your little friends at Nambla, it's very diverse, certainly. And I've also been posting on how this pro-homo liberal culture destroys humans and human relationships. Not that your homo-obsession allows you to care.
For just a few examples, read the issues listed at http://alessandrab.blogspot.com/2005/03/la-shawn-on-media-fawning-over.html
11) can't we all just get along? I don't hate you per se, but I disagree with your ideas and I shudder to think that you might pass them on to more people who will only learn how to hate and oppress.
Just because you're totally irresponsible and egotistical, it doesn't mean other people are like that. You, along with other liberals, do a lot of destruction and harm in society, and that's why we just don't "get along." And I do hate living in such a violent, disgusting, liberal society. I have a right not to live in dehumanized latrine. Speaking of human rights, that is a human right.
Hey i came here searching for asian free porn video as i own a site to about asian free porn video
asian free porn video
Your site looks good you have good ranking for the terms
asian free porn video
Post a Comment
asian free porn video
Your site looks good you have good ranking for the terms
asian free porn video
# posted by : 2:22 AM
: 2:22 AM
