Fetish Fests

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+Jun 14 2005, 03:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ Jun 14 2005, 03:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Lol, no offense? Ah the name-calling, first-refuge of the nimble of mind.

I'd respond... but you added nothing to the debate. I'm reading each post here quite carefully. What is this 'big conservative conspiracy' you speak of? I'm very interested... Are you a part of it?

If you actually read Clarkey's post before spouting off on him, this issue really had nothing to do with Gays at all.[/b][/quote]
So, Clarkey is actually upset at all public displays of nudity and sexuality? Of promiscuity? Homosexuality seriously as _nothing_ to do with this?

Seriously? You believe that?

If that's the case, then I'll gladly concede the point. However, I'm pretty convinced that this topic was started with an undertone of anti-homosexuality. Hmm... probably because it was brought up completely within the context of the GAY PRIDE PARADE.

I mean, it's not like other examples have been brought up, have they? Please.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Clarkey@Jun 13 2005, 08:50 PM

Shriners in nipple clips, ha! Dude, you never cease to break the ice on this site, if your wit is as quick in real life as it is on here you should do stand up.

Fotze grew up dull, but now he's the life of the party.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jun 14 2005, 04:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jun 14 2005, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

If you actually read Clarkey's post before spouting off on him, this issue really had nothing to do with Gays at all.

So, Clarkey is actually upset at all public displays of nudity and sexuality? Of promiscuity? Homosexuality seriously as _nothing_ to do with this?

Seriously? You believe that?

If that's the case, then I'll gladly concede the point. However, I'm pretty convinced that this topic was started with an undertone of anti-homosexuality. Hmm... probably because it was brought up completely within the context of the GAY PRIDE PARADE.

I mean, it's not like other examples have been brought up, have they? Please. [/b][/quote]
I'll let Clarkey field that one, but that is what I got out of it. That and his point about stereotypes.

I don't think Clarkey is anti-homosexual at all.

[Clarkey]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jun 14 2005, 03:55 AM
That's too bad. Clarkey's argument follows the typical right-wing trend of 'they can be gay, just don't be it around me or in public'.

That's actually not how I am, and I didn't mean for you to interpret it that way. I'm cool with dude coming to the Christmas party with his boyfriend, I'm actually glad he felt comfortable enough to do so. I'm cool with Bob who wants to live with his partner Bob. I'm not anti-gay. But you appear to be anti-Albertan.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Jun 14 2005, 04:07 AM
I'll let Clarkey field that one, but that is what I got out of it. That and his point about stereotypes.

I don't think Clarkey is anti-homosexual at all.

Sounds good to me.

I'm surprised that, out of Clarkey's original post, you got 'I'm against public displays of sexuality', with no overt or covert homosexual content. I kind of got pointed in that direction by the use of the Gay Pride Parade as the primary (only) example.

Colour me wrong, I guess. If there's no anti-homosexuality here, then I guess I just like to read myself type

[Winsor_Pilates]

Well, the Red Mile, as pointed out earlier, was rife with topless women. Are they a disgrace to heterosexuality? They came off as overtly sexual and overtly heterosexual to me, I'm not sure about the rest of you. What's the difference?

The difference is the one is organized and representative of a certain group, while to other was personal choices of individual females who only represented themselves. The people in the gay pride parade are intended by their own design to represent homosexuals (not individuals). Personaly, I think they do this poorly.

I think the parades MAY be linked to the lack of acceptance of homosexuality in heterosexual circles. Maybe not.

I agree that they are. That is why i have an issue with them. I think the current style of parades only creates a greater lack of acceptance. I think a different approach would be better to create more acceptance(Which should be the goal).

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

My gay cousin was at the gay pride parade. Not in it. Took his kids.

When he came out he gave me the perspective on gay guys I was missing:

Gay guys might not like girls, but they're still guys.

Some are stand up joes, some are completely anonymous, and some are outrageous ******* who live to get laid.

All that changes is their dance partners.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Clarkey+Jun 14 2005, 04:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Clarkey @ Jun 14 2005, 04:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Jun 14 2005, 03:55 AM
That's too bad. Clarkey's argument follows the typical right-wing trend of 'they can be gay, just don't be it around me or in public'.

That's actually not how I am, and I didn't mean for you to interpret it that way. I'm cool with dude coming to the Christmas party with his boyfriend, I'm actually glad he felt comfortable enough to do so. I'm cool with Bob who wants to live with his partner Bob. I'm not anti-gay. But you appear to be anti-Albertan.[/b][/quote]
Well, then I guess I massively misinterpreted your thread.

I originally believed that the problem you had was that gay people were flaunting their sexuality. Now I see that you have an issue with _every_ public display of sexuality. I don't agree, but at least this is just a matter of opinion, rather than bigotry.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Chaps: They're not for just Rodeo anymore.

[FlamesAddiction]

Heterosexuals display lewd sexuality all the time. On television, in movies, music videos, at the bar, in my bedroom (j/k)...

Seriously though, heterosexuals are free to act overtly sexual practically any time they want too. That is probably why something like a hetero version of the Gay Pride Parade would be silly. Homosexuals often have to hide their sexual expression, or tone it down because of the negative views towards it, and the real possibility of physical harm from haters.

The Gay Pride Parade is an expression of pent up sexuality and a way for them to try and desensitize the public to their sexuality. Maybe one day, if the desensitizing works, we will see "Chistina Aquilera-esque" videos on prime time televsion, but with gay performers. At that time, "Gay Pride" will likely become unnecessary.

If you don't like, don't watch. That's what I've always done when I see something offensive or insulting.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jun 13 2005, 09:03 PM
So, Clarkey is actually upset at all public displays of nudity and sexuality? Of promiscuity? Homosexuality seriously as _nothing_ to do with this?

Seriously? You believe that?

If that's the case, then I'll gladly concede the point. However, I'm pretty convinced that this topic was started with an undertone of anti-homosexuality. Hmm... probably because it was brought up completely within the context of the GAY PRIDE PARADE.

I mean, it's not like other examples have been brought up, have they? Please.

Since I agree with Clarkey's point completely, I'll respond with my own thoughts.

The problem isnt the overt homosexuality itself, but how it is displayed. While I am certian that it is fun to let loose and behave like a freak once a year, and if some members of the gay community want to do it, then more power to them. However, and as has been mentioned, what is the point of these parades then? Are they to simply get attenation, or are they to gain acceptance? The only thing parades like this accomplish is to reinforce negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians.

If the gay community is fine with this, then hey, it's a free country. They can parade all they want. However, these parades are not going to build tolerance or acceptance with the heterosexual community. Again, if the gay community is fine with this, then once again, go nuts.

The message displayed by this parade is not "we're gay" or "we're freaks", it is "we are gay freaks."

[Flames89]

Big deal. Let them party - they are not doing the parade to gain social acceptance, but instead to party and be "out".

I don't find it offensive at all. Weird, yes. But usually they are just really quite funny.

Less violence, more sex (of whosever tastes)

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Jun 14 2005, 04:00 AM
Nothing to do with being homosexual, everything to do with being socially acceptable.

Socially acceptable? You do realize that's completely subjective. While you may have hangups about people walking around in assless chaps, other people won't. I know I really like them at Cowboys during stampede on the beer tub girls. Is there a socially acceptable rulebook that we are all forced to sign off on and adhere to? Are you trying to get everyone to follow some standard that you made up and decided upon? Ever been to a nude beach in Europe? Is that "socially acceptable"? Ever been to the one in Vancouver?

There's laws. That determines what our society has deemed to be not socially acceptable. The rest is all about your hangups and what you are intolerant about.

[Hakan]

But no one is saying don't be gay, in fact that seems to be the opposite of what Clarky is saying. In fact he is saying if you want to be accepted, don't go out and make ways of making yourself visable, for the sake of making yourself different. Now I don't have a problem with someone being homosexual, but really what good does it do to have a man walking down the street in assless chaps or weaking a dog collar. I mean really it just pushes people back into stereotypes, which should be attempted to be broken down. I know people who are gay, and it doesn't change my view of them as people, but at the same time I am sure my view would change of anyone if they decided to walk down the street in assless chaps, with nipple clamps hanging out.

Wow.

Conform to the way we want you to behave and we'll accept you. That's not tolerance, that's social tyranny.

What's wrong with the queer community expressing sexualisty, one of the biggest identifiers of their community, in an empowering and significant way? I'd rather see what the queer community is up to with regards to kinks and fetishses and their sex lives. The more I know about it the less I make faulty assumptions which are quite damaging to my impressions of that community and the people that I spread those assumptions to. If you're going to be tolerant of gays then you have to be tolerant of THEIR self identified lifestyle and choices.

Besides, their fetishes always give me and girlfriend ideas in the bedroom too...

Now where can I get myself some assless chaps?

[Resolute 14]

So are you saying that kinks and fetishes are representative of the "queer community" then Hakan? I'm not certian if you worded it the way you meant to, but you almost seem to be arguing that suggesting the gay community consists of otherwise normal people is a faulty and damaging assumption.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

What is with all the references to "Assless Chaps". Last time I checked, all chaps were assless, that is kinda what makes them chaps. If they had an ass they'd just be pants.

[Hakan]

Didn't say that at all. I said sexuality is one of the biggest identifiers of their community because by entry to the queer community is ultimately through sexual preference.

I then said that I'm interested in what kinks and fetishes they were into. Did I say that every gay person is into those? No.

You're contentions with my posts stretch a good amount of logic. Where at all did you get that I thought that the queer community was not full of normal people? I never said anything that if you were into fetishes or kinks you weren't normal nor did I say that if you were a member of the queer community you are by definition into fetish stuff.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jun 14 2005, 09:31 AM
What is with all the references to "Assless Chaps". Last time I checked, all chaps were assless, that is kinda what makes them chaps. If they had an ass they'd just be pants.

I think it's just fun to say 'assless chaps.'

But yeah your point is well taken. Except that if you had assed chaps they'd still have those side wings which would make them funny looking pants.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Jun 14 2005, 04:27 PM
I'm not certian if you worded it the way you meant to, but you almost seem to be arguing that suggesting the gay community consists of otherwise normal people is a faulty and damaging assumption.

What the hell is a "normal" person? A clone of you?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Hakan+Jun 14 2005, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hakan @ Jun 14 2005, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bring_Back_Shantz@Jun 14 2005, 09:31 AM
What is with all the references to "Assless Chaps". Last time I checked, all chaps were assless, that is kinda what makes them chaps. If they had an ass they'd just be pants.

I think it's just fun to say 'assless chaps.'

But yeah your point is well taken. Except that if you had assed chaps they'd still have those side wings which would make them funny looking pants. [/b][/quote]
Agreed. 'Assless chaps' makes somone think of a bare ass instantly. Just 'chaps', can make you think of cowboys and such... in addition to the bear-bottom aspect.

It's fun to say assless.