Drag Shows

[Jarhyn]

What it seems to me is that it is women who are expected to stand aside and let individuals who grew up with the advantages of being considered make in addition to the burdens of not fitting into that particular box take over whatever spaces women have carved out for themselves

I guess you lose sight of the fact that nobody is stopping anyone of any genital persuasion from dressing up in lingerie and a complex bodice, and dancing in front of people, as does happen at some drag shows.

Many people are not interested in seeing women there, in part because the idea is to NOT objectify in a stereotypical sex-essentialist way, and also because some people like how watching people they know to be born with penises turns them on.

I don't think turning on gay folks was ever a space women owned in any respect, nor have any desert to, penis or no.

Then, some gay folks are pretty penis-centric. I know a few folks without balls who would classify themselves as gay men but wouldn't get any play with a lot of other gay men I know.

Nope. Definitely cognizant of the fact that people want to dress up in lingerie and bodices (and skirts, dresses, push up bras, wigs, false eyelashes, tons of make up, etc.) and some people want to see that and some people want to shut that down completely.

Also have not missed the fact that sometimes and on some levels, it's pretty anti-woman.

It's gay people, almost entirely men, acting gay while putting on a gay show, mostly for gays, also almost entirely men.

The point is that these people just... Aren't interested in a domestic partnership, nor romantic trist, nor cheap sexual fling with anything approaching a woman, though they may be interested in spending time with a "lady".

People are weird.

I guess the question comes in asking where women ever had a place in gay culture in that way? Do lesbians need to be less anti-man?

 

[Toni]

What it seems to me is that it is women who are expected to stand aside and let individuals who grew up with the advantages of being considered make in addition to the burdens of not fitting into that particular box take over whatever spaces women have carved out for themselves

I guess you lose sight of the fact that nobody is stopping anyone of any genital persuasion from dressing up in lingerie and a complex bodice, and dancing in front of people, as does happen at some drag shows.

Many people are not interested in seeing women there, in part because the idea is to NOT objectify in a stereotypical sex-essentialist way, and also because some people like how watching people they know to be born with penises turns them on.

I don't think turning on gay folks was ever a space women owned in any respect, nor have any desert to, penis or no.

Then, some gay folks are pretty penis-centric. I know a few folks without balls who would classify themselves as gay men but wouldn't get any play with a lot of other gay men I know.

Nope. Definitely cognizant of the fact that people want to dress up in lingerie and bodices (and skirts, dresses, push up bras, wigs, false eyelashes, tons of make up, etc.) and some people want to see that and some people want to shut that down completely.

Also have not missed the fact that sometimes and on some levels, it's pretty anti-woman.

It's gay people, almost entirely men, acting gay while putting on a gay show, mostly for gays, also almost entirely men.

The point is that these people just... Aren't interested in a domestic partnership, nor romantic trist, nor cheap sexual fling with anything approaching a woman, though they may be interested in spending time with a "lady".

People are weird.

I guess the question comes in asking where women ever had a place in gay culture in that way? Do lesbians need to be less anti-man?

Do gay men need to be less anti-women?

Do men need to be less anti- women?

Cause it’s weird that you talk about drag shows as being not intended for female audiences (d’oh) and then ask if lesbians need to be less anti-men.

In a thread about how drag shows are appropriate for all, including children.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Allow me to sing the praises of the kilt, a masculine garment of great simplicity and practicality. It is free from the trappings of excess ornamentation and effeminate affectation, and offers numerous advantages over the common trousers. From a physiological standpoint, the kilt is the most rational form of lower garment a man could possibly use for the daily tasks of life, particularly if one is an outdoorsman.

It has struck me as a good lower garment for hiking (although I haven't actually tried it) but apparently not enough agree--the Mountain Hardwear Elkommando kilt was discontinued.

It is an eminently practical piece of attire, well-calculated to preserve the health and promote the comfort of those who wear it, offering protection from the elements, facilitating movement through marshes and rivers, promoting cleanliness with greater ease, and so on.​

I don't think it would be my garment of choice in wet conditions, but admittedly I live in a desert and almost never hike in wet conditions.

In contrast, the common trousers are the source of a mild but perpetual discomfort for all men, save for those with micropenises or nonexistent genitalia (as in the case of castration). The kilt, however, is not prone to such discomforts, & does not hinder the mobility and agility of the wearer.​

Disagree here--it shares the same mobility issues of skirts and dresses: it restricts movements that involve either spreading the legs wide apart or lifting one leg high up. Not an issue for straight hiking but it could become an issue for scrambling. While I usually NOPE! anything that's a scramble there are the occasional spots that are easy enough I'll do them. I can think of a couple I have done in the past where it would be necessary to pull it up a bit and probably flash those nearby. Women have a considerable advantage here as their clothes can rise considerably higher before showing anything and if they do flash they aren't going to be thought a pervert.

Also, there's no way I would wear a kilt for anything that involved unexpected sideways movement--I want a tight-fitting garment to avoid the risk of a testicle getting pinched. (Think sports like tennis.)

From its use in the military, we know that kilt-wearers are not only cleaner & more agile, but also enjoy better health and hygiene. The kilts allow for ease of movement and prevent abdominal problems.​

I do not think that would be relevant these days. There are definite merits to not having cloth against one's skin but there are modern synthetics that are dry enough to normally not be an issue. The last time I was in a hot spring I went in in quick-drying underwear, it dried about as fast as bare skin.

It has even been shown that kilt-wearers have a higher sperm count and testosterone level than those who wear trousers.​

Sperm count--to be expected. Testicles dangle because sperm production works best at a bit lower than body temperature and clothes that press the testicles against the body defeat this thermal regulation. However, this is only relevant if you desire conception. As someone who chose a childfree path in life sperm count is of no value to me whatsoever. An admittedly short search with Google shows no effect on testosterone levels, though.

 

[TomC]

Disagree here--it shares the same mobility issues of skirts and dresses: it restricts movements that involve either spreading the legs wide apart or lifting one leg high up. Not an issue for straight hiking but it could become an issue for scrambling. While I usually NOPE!

Also
Pockets.

One of my favorite articles of clothing is an old pair of camp shorts. Old, they're practically shreds now.
But they fit my waist comfortably. They hang to my knees.
Big thing is pockets. Big pockets and lots of them. I swear to god, I can pack for a weekend in the bottom right leg pocket. Don't think about it again until I'm pulling out the tent, sleeping bag, cooler of beer.
Can't do that in a kilt.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Here's a completely irrational take on the subject.

Clothes that are open from my crotch to the ground are women's clothes. Girlie. I won't wear them. I cannot be comfortable in them. I don't care how manly a kilt is considered in Scotland, it's a skirt. I won't wear a skirt.

Nevertheless, I'll strip down naked without really thinking about it, weather permitting. Open from the top of my head to my feet is OK, but not a piece of fabric wrapped around my middle.

There's nothing rational about my attitudes on the subject.
Tom

 

[Arctish]

Disagree here--it shares the same mobility issues of skirts and dresses: it restricts movements that involve either spreading the legs wide apart or lifting one leg high up. Not an issue for straight hiking but it could become an issue for scrambling. While I usually NOPE!

Also
Pockets.

One of my favorite articles of clothing is an old pair of camp shorts. Old, they're practically shreds now.
But they fit my waist comfortably. They hang to my knees.
Big thing is pockets. Big pockets and lots of them. I swear to god, I can pack for a weekend in the bottom right leg pocket. Don't think about it again until I'm pulling out the tent, sleeping bag, cooler of beer.
Can't do that in a kilt.
Tom

That's what sporrans are for:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporran

I feel a naughty joke about pulling your tentpole out of that furry one coming on, but I'm at work so I'll just go read another thread now.

 

[TomC]

That's what sporrans are for:

Sporrans are purses.
Like fanny packs, only worse.
Tom

ETA ~Make a joke about my pole.
I dare you.~

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disagree here--it shares the same mobility issues of skirts and dresses: it restricts movements that involve either spreading the legs wide apart or lifting one leg high up. Not an issue for straight hiking but it could become an issue for scrambling. While I usually NOPE!

Also
Pockets.

One of my favorite articles of clothing is an old pair of camp shorts. Old, they're practically shreds now.
But they fit my waist comfortably. They hang to my knees.
Big thing is pockets. Big pockets and lots of them. I swear to god, I can pack for a weekend in the bottom right leg pocket. Don't think about it again until I'm pulling out the tent, sleeping bag, cooler of beer.
Can't do that in a kilt.
Tom

I minimize my use of pants pockets while hiking--that's weight you have to move back and forth with every step.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

There's nothing wrong with wearing kilts. There is something slightly insecure about talking about wearing kilts and how manly it is.
​

Insecurity? I am defending men and masculinity, not myself. I hardly consider myself a man; and so I can scarcely be said to be insecure about my masculinity. I have never attempted to be the epitome of manliness. I consider myself more of an androgynous being, in the Greek sense, rather than the epitome of manliness. Nonetheless I praise masculinity and defend the masculine against those who attack it.

The defense of masculinity and the male gender is a noble cause, and one that I, being one of unwavering principles, hold dear. It is not a matter of personal insecurity or a desire to prove oneself, but rather a matter of principle and a belief in the inherent worth and value of masculinity.

I cannot help but admire and defend the strength and fortitude that is embodied in true masculinity. I have no reservations in standing up for men, for I believe it to be under siege by those who seek to diminish its worth and value.

So I stand firm in my defense of the masculine against those who would seek to malign and subvert it.

I shall continue to stand in defense of masculinity, for I know it to be the primary force for good in this world.​

 

[repoman]

What we really need is for this type of performance to be illegal

 

[Jarhyn]

Insecurity? I am defending men and masculinity, not myself.

"Men" don't need any defense. Nor does masculinity.

Defending that which needs no defense is a MAJOR sign of insecurity.

There is nothing noble about it.

It has no more worth or value than "up" or "wet", or "green", and needs as much defense as any of those things, which is none, because the universe is completely ambivalent on the subject.

It's yet another derived property of things, not even a fundamental property, and here you are gushing praises of something you don't even think you have.

Much like defending the "nobility" of how fuckable 13 year olds are, when you gush about masculinity, you don't deliver the message you think you do.

Also, you're going to have a really hard time selling the virtues of "masculinity" to a eunuch.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Insecurity? I am defending men and masculinity, not myself.​

"Men" don't need any defense. Nor does masculinity.​

Permit me to clarify my stance more explicitly:

I am defending the truth about men and masculinity. I am not defending men per se, but advocating for the accuracy of the portrayal of masculinity, and championing veracity surrounding the whole subject matter.

Would you have me utter untruths instead? For that would be the only alternative.​

Defending that which needs no defense is a MAJOR sign of insecurity.​

Do you hold this utterance of yours to be a declaration of veracity? I presume you regard this as a truthful statement.

Then, one might surmise, you are engaged in the defense of your stance's truth. Yet, does Truth require a champion?

Most assuredly not.

Nonetheless, to speak the truth is preferable to the dissemination of untruths.

Yet, if I were to interpret your reasoning, it would seem that you are tormented by a certain measure of psychological insecurity, for you seem to be defending what you perceive as the truth, which likewise "needs no defense".

Might this insecurity, perchance, be a manifestation of the possibility that your beliefs are wrong?​

It has no more worth or value than "up" or "wet", or "green", and needs as much defense as any of those things, which is none, because the universe is completely ambivalent on the subject.​

What male insecurity could I possibly possess in this present discourse, considering that I do not lay claim to the identity of a man? It appears that you have neglected to take into consideration this crucial aspect, which fundamentally undermines the accusation that you are suggesting.
​

It's yet another derived property of things, not even a fundamental property, and here you are gushing praises of something you don't even think you have.​

Naturally. It is called magnaminity. A most commendable quality which I would highly counsel all to cultivate in their hearts and minds. It is a virtue that elevates and ennobles the soul. To cultivate this quality within oneself is to embrace the limitless potential of the human spirit.

Acknowledging and praising that which is good, whether one be in possession of it or not, is a testament to one's character.

The admiration of the superiority of others, without jealousy or envy, is a mark of a noble and refined character.

To deny the superiority of others is a symptom of insecurity and ignobility, and it is this very insecurity that I reject. I only have the right to acknowledge my own superiority because I am able to recognise superiority in others, without jealosy or envy, even when that superiority is an a sphere of activity in which I happen to excel. Such is the nature of nobility.

It is the mark of true high-mindedness to acknowledge the superiority of others, and to admire it, rather than to be envious or dismissive.

This quality of magnanimity is one that I possess in abundant measure, and it is a testament to my own superiority, elevated character, and noble provenience; which, again, I am ale to say without a hint of narcissism, because I am one of the few who is equally quick to acknowledge the superiority of others, even when it exceeds my own. My natural response to superiority in others is love and admiration, not jealosy and dismisiveness.
​

Much like defending the "nobility" of how fuckable 13 year olds are, when you gush about masculinity, you don't deliver the message you think you do.​

I see that you have become ensnared by the base, hypersexualised representations of the world that pervade so much of the popular media and culture.

May I suggest a respite from the unseemly and licentious exhibitions that have so clouded your perceptions of the true nature of things?

For I believe your mind has been warped by watching too many pornographic videos, if you think that traditional marriage is about "fucking".

I assure you, there is a higher realm of existence and experience, where the mind is not sullied by such base considerations, but is elevated to a realm of pure contemplation.

I myself am one who embodies this loftier sphere of existence, being of an epicene, asexual nature, free from the carnal desires that so distort the vision of many.

Indeed, true love and devotion, such as that which is expressed in the bond of marriage, transcends such base considerations and is an expression of the highest and noblest aspects of the human spirit.
​

Also, you're going to have a really hard time selling the virtues of "masculinity" to a eunuch.​

I will always sing the praises of that which is good, and speak that which I regard as the truth. I have no interest in "selling" truth to anyone. ​

There is nothing noble about it.​

To speak the truth is always a noble act. Allow me to enlighten you regarding the provenance of the term "nobility."

It has its roots in the very concept of truth, from which it has derived its meaning and connotations of honour, virtue, and distinction.

The noble man, as one might say, is one who stands tall and steadfast in his adherence to truth, thereby exuding an aura of dignitas, or dignity, that sets the aristocrat apart from the common rabble.

And so, when one speaks the truth, one might be said to be acting nobly, in the full and true sense of the term.

It is the very essence of the word truth that gives it its name, and it is a steadfast principle whereby the virtuous must abide.
​

 

[Jarhyn]

accuracy of the portrayal of masculinity

There is nothing to portray accurately or inaccurately. These concepts are not applicable to "arbitrary" concepts as masculinity.

Masculinity is an arbitrary thing: you declared some set of properties by observing an imaginary thing (a group mode in a bimodal distribution).

Note that while it's a number as a result of a measurement, modes in a bimodal distribution are imaginary points in an imaginary line, a platonic concept created as a projection from real things that has no reality itself beyond the mere idea of it, which itself rests on the population projecting modes through statistical inference. It is not even an invariant platonic based on a fixed equation.

You could select a different sample, or alter the population, and the projection moves ever so slightly.

It may seem really solid because it's a projection off of a massive population, and changing it only changes the mode you see a little...

...But it's kind of like infinity. Even very large numbers are still "finite". Even very small positive numbers not zero are still "greater than zero". And... concepts based on population measurements are still just arbitrary to the selection of the population, even if the population is big, or even "complete".

I think some time ago, before your or my birth, perhaps even before the birth of Toni or TomC, though this is reaching back to very nearly the beginning of time, a person named Plato attributed a discussion to Socrates in which the question was asked "from whence comes piety".

For some reason it has been some time, and still folks extol on their pious virtues without answering that question, what about them actually makes such things "virtuous"?

Spoilers, here, but Plato, or perhaps Socrates, hit a nail on the head insofar as the answer is generally going to boil down to "sophistry" every time. Sophistry does not establish relationships or facts nor phenomenological reality. It just blows hot air and tries to look good.

This is not to say there are no principles, nothing informed by particular requirements to participating in reality as an organic, living thing with an open eye to increasing one's power to act in the world, but those requirements can be derived without even approaching such things as reproductive game concepts. The reproductive game concepts of ethics are just applications of wider general ethics to the concerns of reproduction.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

You are, clearly, confusing the accidental with the essential. A fallacy most common, & born of a failure to discern between that which is contingent, i.e. dependent upon particular circumstances, on the one hand, & what which is inherent in the very nature of things, on the other. To confound these two, to regard that which is fundamental & inherent to the nature of a thing, as if it were ephemerous, arbitrary, & contingent, is to court misapprehension, & to befall oneself with all manner of erroneous conclusions.

Indeed, in the discourse pertaining to masculinity, this fallacy is particularly evident. To decry the notion of masculinity as arbitrary & lacking foundation, to esteem it merely as a transient whim or a capricious predilection, is to betray an abysmally deep paucity of understanding not only of he properties inherent to the very conception of masculinity, but also to the factors which mold it; for masculinity is not a mere happenstance, nor the result of personal choice, but a sophisticated intertwining of biological & societal intricacies. To dismiss it as arbitrary is to ignore the basis which endows it with substance & character, & to conflate fortuities with inherencies.

It is imperative, therefore, that we make an effort to differentiate between that which is accidental & that which is inherent, so as to avoid succumbing to this prevalent fallacy & to attain a more comprehensive & accurate comprehension of the world & its inhabitants; for to err in this manner is to miscontrue the essence of the subject under scrutiny & to forego the opportunity to grasp its true magnitude.​

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are, clearly, confusing the accidental with the inherent. A fallacy most common, & born of a failure to discnern that which is contingent & dependent upon particular circumstances, on the one hand, from what which is inherent in the very nature of things, on the other. To confound these two, to regard that which is fundamental & inherent to the nature of a thing, as if it were ephemerous, arbitrary, & contingent, is to court misapprehension, & to befall oneself with all manner of erroneous conclusions.

Indeed, in the discourse pertaining to masculinity, this fallacy is particularly evident. To decry the notion of masculinity as arbitrary & lacking foundation, to esteem it merely as a transient whim or a capricious predilection, is to betray an abysmally deep paucity of understanding not only of he properties inherent to very concept of masculinity, but also to the factors which mold it; for masculinity is not a mere happenstance, nor the result of personal choice, but a sophisticated intertwining of biological & societal intricacies. To dismiss it as arbitrary is to ignore the basis which endows it with substance & character, & to conflate fortuities with inherencies.

It is imperative, therefore, that we make an effort to differentiate between that which is accidental & that which is inherent, so as to avoid succumbing to this prevalent fallacy & to attain a more comprehensive & accurate comprehension of the world & its inhabitants; for to err in this manner is to miscontrue the essence of the subject under scrutiny & to forego the opportunity to grasp its true magnitude.​

For people that want to save time, I have run this through the deblabulator and here is the post in a more user friendly format.

You misunderstand.

I think masculinity has viable absolute meaning both through biology and sociology.

You need to define it like I do, else you are wrong.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

It appears that you have crafted a strawman argument, rather than engaged with the actual arguments I have put forth.

But to craft a strawman argument is a recourse oft-employed by those who find themselves in the wrong, seeking to obscure the truth and bolster their own failing position.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It appears that you have crafted a strawman argument, rather than engaged with the actual arguments I have put forth.

Actually the honest intent was to simply de-Polonius your post.

I'll note you didn't actually indicate what I misunderstood, you just reached out with an insult.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

You misrepresented my words. You made it appear as though I had spoken something which I would have vehemently opposed.

I chose to phrase my thoughts in a manner different from the one you have so carelessly "paraphrased" because I had no intention of conveying the message that you so inaccurately attribute to me

Had I intended for such a meaning to be conveyed, I would have crafted my words differently.

But, alas, my words were not given the proper consideration, and were instead recklessly misconstrued to suit your own malevolent designs.​

 

[TomC]

I minimize my use of pants pockets while hiking--that's weight you have to move back and forth with every step.

I get that. But hiking and camping are different things.

Truth is, I have a man-purse.

It's an old leather knapsack, about a cubic foot, with pockets across the bottom. I bought it with Camel Cash ~30 years ago.

I used to carry it around almost all the time. I just threw in stuff and carried it around, it is a purse. No make up.
But it's got screwdrivers, duct tape, tissues, cigarettes, a few bucks cash, a Chapstick, pencil size flashlight, scissors, a rosary from M-I-L, spare glasses, spare keys, raincoat made of saran wrap, etc. Room to toss in something unusual that might come in handy that day for some reason. Some days you might need a tube dioxazine purple paint.

But it is a purse. Big and manly, but it's what it is.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Kirk Cameron and Missy Robertson created death threats against a library for fun and (mostly) profit

On Tuesday afternoon, Fox News ran this story about how the staff at a public library in Hendersonville, Tennessee, had been “rude” to former child actor Kirk Cameron and given “pushback” to an event at which Cameron and “Duck Dynasty” cast member Missy Robertson had been out to “share biblical wisdom with kids and families.” By that evening, local broadcaster WKRN was reporting this story:

Hendersonville library facing threats after allegations in national media relating to Christian actor’s story hour … On social media, people from middle Tennessee and across the country were calling for members of the library staff to be fired because of these claims of disrespect and allegations that the librarians suppressed Cameron’s First Amendment rights.

Those threats included a bomb threat, and a call in which a man promised to come to the library and “kill everyone inside.”

The whole affair is a textbook case of how the “Christian” right creates an incident, uses right-wing media to hype the faux outrage that they created, then uses real threats to the jobs and lives and others as a means of bringing even more attention for their lucrative, for-profit project.

Here’s how these assholes operate, and how Fox News assists them.

So, Cameron’s publishing company has scheduled his appearance at a nice public library in a heavily conservative town. The library offers him a room to do a reading. But by a couple of days before the event, it’s clear this isn’t going to be a few dozen people gathered in a small room for an hour to hear about some delightful plagues. The publishing company has been playing this up heavily. They—not the library—have invited “special guests” to attend this event. They have sent materials to local churches. The event has been promoted on local radio.

The library shifts the event to the largest room they have. Both the police department and the mayor’s office are already involved. It’s obviously going to be a big deal.

On the day, people start lining up hours before Cameron is scheduled to talk. The room where the reading has been scheduled is nowhere large enough to handle the crowd the media company has whipped up (though that crowd is unlikely to be anywhere near as large as the media company or Duck Dynasty Robertson would later claim.) But no one from Cameron’s group makes a move do something like give out numbers, or tell folks beyond a certain point that they should go home.

What does Robertson propose as a solution? Just hand over the whole library.

"Not only were they rude to us … they were super rude to their entire community that lived there in Hendersonville, Tennessee, because that is a public library and they could have invited all those people who were standing in the rain to come and form lines inside the library, down the aisles, sit on the ground," Robertson said. "We weren't even reading in the library part, we were down the hall in a conference room. They wouldn't let them in. They made them stand outside in the freezing cold with their children in the rain. Total rudeness to me."

Yes, it was super rude to not allow them to use the entire rest of the library for their event. Because having people standing in the aisles and sitting in the library rooms would surely not bother people who were there to do anything other than listen to Growing Pain’s Mikey give his spin on Bible stories.

Pictures of the event make it clear that the library staff was eventually forced to fold because parts of the reading happened, not just in the scheduled room, but also in at least one main areas of the library. But that was just the start of the ways that the staff was “rude.”

Talk about rude.