Gaffer Tape

You don't know how "foundation" works, do you, Warb?

Aaaand the above post could have been written by me because I agree with every single word of it, and it drives me crazy on a regular basis.  And I hope one day I manage to find a woman who is strong and independent enough that she doesn't feel compelled to shave her legs or wear makeup (especially makeup... the idea that a woman must cover up her own face to be attractive is so depressing to me, and yet it's almost never brought up when discussing the problem of women's low self image).  Like CP3S, I find such individualism and refusal to follow silly conventions very sexy.

I thought it was an Ilia reference as well, especially considering she took over navigating after Chekov was moved somewhere else.

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Warbler said:

you make one error:  you assume that because you can't figure out any good reason for not doing something, that no reason exists.  

And you make one error:  you assume that I assume that. ;-)

but you do, that is why you wear dresses.   You can't figure out a good reason why men shouldn't wear dresses, you assume there isn't one, then you put a dress on. 

No.  I put a dress on because I want to wear a dress.  I like it.  It's comfortable.  I think it's pretty.  And considering those reasons, as far as I'm concerned, it's not an assumption there isn't a good reason.  It's a fact!

And, again, Warb,  learn the difference between a skirt and a dress.  They are not two words to be used interchangeably.  They are two entirely different things, and not in the sense of a skirt and a kilt or jeans and khakis.

Ahem.  Now that that's out of the way.

I seem to have missed quite a bit of this thread while I was at work today.  I was quite pleased to see the topic has continued so passionately, and it's nice that Warb apparently has more people to balance out his side, but I have to say that Hey, It's Me is approaching this topic so aggressively like he has some kind of personal vendetta against it, and I admit it's becoming a bit uncomfortable for me to read his posts.  And that's not in the sense that his expressing a dissenting viewpoint is uncomfortable, but that the way he's expressing it is beginning to feel almost like a personal attack, and it makes me feel uncomfortable.  That's not to say I can't handle it.  If I can handle my mother regularly telling me I'm a disgrace and embarrassment to the family, then I can certainly handle an anonymous person on the Internet implying it.  :-)

One point he did make, though, that I do agree with is the notion of clothes not defining who a person is.  Hell, I agree with that entirely, and it was actually a part of the epiphany I related last night.  Clothing and fashion are an artform and a means of personal expression.  That people routinely and systematically judge others on their clothing choices, that fashion indeed has so many "rules," is asinine and really angers me.  Honestly, I wouldn't mind if we all went starkers, and I love John Lennon's quote from his "bagism" philosophy:  "If everyone went in a bag for a job there'd be no prejudice: you'd have to judge people on their quality within."  I completely agree with that.  To judge and evaluate someone on their clothing choices... well, it ties back into that simplicity argument.  It's much easier to create an outward standard, something you can just look at and assign a value to, rather than having to actually THINK about anything.  As far as I'm concerned, judging someone on a job interview by their clothing is analogous to hiring or not hiring someone based on what their favorite movie is or what kind of paintings they have in their house.  And so part of my reason to not give a crap what arbitrary gender assignment goes with clothing was my realization that the "rules" of fashion are, again, just something somebody made up.  I refuse to be defined by my clothes, or to let my clothes define me.

Also, I don't know if you know this, but it's not always easy to go out in public breaking social norms.  That's why most people, and I'm just going to go ahead and say this, don't have the courage to do so.  And believe me, I'm not just saying that.  I told you I have so many stories about things that have happened to me while engaging in gender nonconformist behavior.  To my surprise, one of the most common reactions I got were from men saying, and I quote, "Man, that's awesome!  I wish I had the balls to do that!"  And just to let that point really sink in, let me inform you that I was in MISSISSIPPI!  But, yes, it takes courage.  There are a lot of positive reactions, but you are usually very aware of the negative ones as well.  You know people are constantly looking at you, and sometimes that's easier to deal with than others.  But here's something about me:  while I was a very extroverted child, when I entered middle school and was hit with the slings and arrows of adolescent behavior, I became very self-conscious, very aware of the possibilities of judgment, and very eager to do everything in my power to not do anything that could possibly get me made fun of by anyone at any time.  And as a result, I didn't take any chances.  I couldn't step out of my comfort zone.  I never got anything done.  I was too afraid of failure.  Too afraid of what other people would think.  So another reason I chose not to conform to gender norms is because it forced me to not be that person anymore.  It forced me to increase my level of my confidence and learn not to give a shit what other people thought of me.  Because you have to.  I have learned from personal experience that if you step outside in a skirt or dress and look ashamed or embarrassed or fidgety, people are going to tear you apart.  But if you do it with your head held high and never let them even think there's anything out of the ordinary, people are going to respect you.

Warbler said:

I would hope a women that refuses to shave her legs would were a dress long enough to cover the legs.   

Hair on a women's legs just doesn't look right.

Well, women weren't put here to appear in a way that you think is right or pleasing... although, sadly, a lot of women seem to think so.

I plan to dive back into this topic in full-force in a little bit, but I just got off work and am really tired.

To respond to Warb's post, though, I believe the latest trough-style bathroom I used was at the New York Giants's MetLife Stadium, which is only three years old.

Laughing at your own jokes, huh...?

Warbler said:

you make one error:  you assume that because you can't figure out any good reason for not doing something, that no reason exists.  

And you make one error:  you assume that I assume that. ;-)  But, and this is addressing a bit of what's quoted below, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd much rather assume there isn't a good reason and work out something new that works for me than assume that someone else's choice for me is valid and just roll with it without ever questioning it.

I look at things this way.   I when I see that have been doing something for years and years and years,  I think maybe there is a good reason for this.   Even if I can't figure out what that reason is, there might still be a good reason.   I also figure, why fix what isn't broken?  Why reinvent the wheel?

I think limiting people, by its very nature, is something that's "broken."  And as to "why reinvent the wheel?"  Well, it's my wheel.  It's the only wheel I'm ever going to have.  I could spend the next several decades doing my best to make sure my wheel is the same as everybody else.  But... why?  There are already millions, if not billions, of people using the same bloody wheel.  Why does the world need me then?  Why does the world need one other person pushing the same wheel?  Maybe my new wheel works better.  Maybe it doesn't.  Maybe it will end up serving some other purpose.  Or maybe it will inspire someone else to invent a new wheel that actually does work better.  Who knows?  But what is me pushing the same wheel going to accomplish?

Warbler said:

He doesn't have to explain to me,  but that doesn't mean I can't ask him.

Sigh.  Another sigh from you.  That wasn't a rhetorical question.  I genuinely wanted you to tell me why not.

But, no, I do intend to answer you, with a fun anecdote, no less.

Picture it.  Sicily, 1908...

Oh, no, wait.  Let me try again.

Back in St. Olaf...

Oh, crap.  Okay, wait, for reals this time.

I've always been "weird" and sought to go against societal norms ever since I was a kid.  And as a little kid, I do remember being occasionally jealous that the girls got to wear cute dresses, and I wasn't allowed to.  But as every other child, I was indoctrinated into the "right" way of thinking, and I can remember, from a very early age, repressing, repressing, repressing.  It even got to the point where I remember being about 6 or 7 or so and always muting the TV or running out of the room whenever a "girl" commercial was on because I didn't want the Barbie jingle stuck in my head because that shit's not for boys.

But it was May of 2006 (so about a year after I joined this forum) when I had an epiphany.  It was one of the last days of finals of my sophomore year of college.  I came into sophomore acting studio for our final in that, and I was chatting with classmates before our professors came in.  One of them in particular was a female classmate, and she happened to be wearing a long, flowing, floral print skirt, and I complimented it.  In return, she joked, "I'll have to let you borrow it some time, Lance."  And we both laughed at the obvious humor in such a ridiculous concept and then went about our lives.

But suddenly it was like a switch flipped in my brain, and I was suddenly capable of thinking in an entirely new way.  The question popped into my head:  "What if I'd said yes?"  And I realized that there are so many things we take for granted.  We're told as children what's right and what's wrong.  What's proper and what's not.  And we're children, so we take it at face value and take it as solid, immutable fact.  Men can't wear skirts.  Why?  Because they can't.  It wasn't solid, immutable fact.  It was just something somebody came up with, and people generally haven't questioned it.  And I decided right then and there that that's not really any good reason for doing anything, not on its own.

And so I started wearing skirts, and it's been an amazing means of expression as well as a fascinating social experiment.  I have so many interesting stories I could tell about my adventures living outside of the social norms.  I have had wonderful conversations with dozens, if not hundreds, of interested people.  But it's affected my entire perception of the world.  It makes me think more.  It makes me not take things at face value but to always ask WHY we do anything that we do.  And if I can't figure out any good reason for not doing something, then I'll do it.  And I want to, for an instant, shake other people out of their comfort zones and cause them to have to think for a second.  Sure, many will just laugh at the freak and never stop to consider it, but I hope others will manage to have a moment like mine where they suddenly find themselves thinking in new ways.  I'm not trying to "convert" a bunch of gender nonconformist disciples, but I just want people to see something out of the ordinary and consider for just a moment that things can or even should be out of the ordinary.

Why not?

Not in space...

Oh, I don't need anyone here to tell me that.  I've been wearing skirts in public for 7 years now.  :D

Haha, I can't help it.  This skirt/dress confusion reminds me of my story of when I was hit on by a 'gangsta.'

/shamelessplug

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:  But I can't for the life of me figure out how the bottom one looks at all silly or even feminine in the slightest

he is wearing a dress.

Actually, he's wearing a skirt.  Or quite possibly a "Utilikilt" or one of the several other brands of skirts marketed towards and created for men, quite like those pantsuit pictures of women you posted.  It's completely analogous.  He's a man wearing "man" clothes, so there has to be something beyond "he is wearing this" that makes it look silly to you.

Warbler said:

ok

none of these are in wedding dresses yet they still look silly to me.

I think the top one looks perfectly fine.  The middle one isn't exactly to my taste, and he's definitely going for a genderbent style.  However, I can see how you would consider them silly-looking.  But I can't for the life of me figure out how the bottom one looks at all silly or even feminine in the slightest (assuming it's the preconceived notions of "femininity" being used outside of their "proper" context that are throwing you).  He looks quite traditionally manly, and I'd half expect him to be on his way to a caber toss.  He might as well just be wearing shorts.  If you squinted, that's probably what he'd look like.

EDIT:  Worth pointing out.  Jesus didn't wear pants.  He wore unbifurcated garments, the category to which a skirt and dress belong.  I certainly hope you wouldn't tell Jesus he looked silly and for him to put on some damn pants because he's offending your traditional sensibilities. =P

Warbler said:

pants somehow don't come off to me at as just male clothing.   But dress somehow do come off to me as female clothing.     I have never seen any skirts designed for men.   I have however seen pants designed for women. 

Only because that's what you're used to.  But there was a time when slacks on women were completely unheard of.  And I assume, had you been alive when women in pants started to become in vogue, you'd be arguing for the simplicity of when women couldn't wear pants.

If one sees a man go into a ladies room,  you know something is wrong.  

Really?  Because this whole thread started with TheBoost going into a "ladies" room.  Was that wrong?

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:

  I, like CP3S, just find it interesting that you are the "bleeding heart liberal" and yet your own personal level of comfort seems at odd with some of your related philosophies.  I'm actually having a lot of fun with this discussion (you know, aside from your harumphing at a very exciting moment I captured in a photograph but even that was only very minor), and I find your views fascinating.  I really have been interested in getting you to elaborate so I can understand better and, hopefully, I can get you to just entertain the idea of thinking in a new way, especially if it's something out of your comfort zone.

good luck, you'll need it.    

Why?  I'm not asking to change your mind necessarily.  Like I said, I just want you to think.  Consider it.  Why does that require so much luck?  Do you really find thinking outside of your comfort zone so impossible?

Gaffer Tape said:

so now you are going after my concern that a gay man might want to try to look at my stuff in the restroom.   Tell me, would there be any complaint made about a woman concerned that in a unisex bathroom,  a straight man might try to look at her stuff? 

Of course that's something to be concerned about... but no more so than it already is in same sex bathrooms,

yes, but by keeping the sexes apart, we solve one part of the problem.     The other part remains, unless you want to add a third bathroom for gays or something like that.

Gaffer Tape said:

no matter how much imagination you expend to believe everyone is straight.  If you don't want people looking at One-Eyed Bob or Foxy Box, you have that right.  And this is nothing new.  That's why bathrooms (or fitting rooms at clothing stores) generally offer a degree of privacy, like stalls or partitions. 

one can still peak in one of those.   I had it happen to me.  

See, those statements are completely contradictory.  Having same sex bathrooms helps solve that problem, except that the same problem has happened to you.  How is this any different?  Do you honestly want a separate bathroom for gay people?

Gaffer Tape said:

If you assume someone is looking at you in a bathroom, you have a right to do something about it.  If you steadfastly assume no one is ever looking at you even as you're already peeing around people who could potentially be attracted to your own gender, I don't necessarily see why your perception need change.

what do you expect me to do in your world of unisex bathrooms?   pretend the women in there are men?

There is also one other problem with unisex bathrooms.   The risk a rape.   If  I were female, I don't know that I'd want to use one of these bathrooms for fear that a rapist might be in there waiting until he alone with one female and . . .      well, you know.

You already pretend gay men are straight!  So... I guess... YES!  Again, what's the difference?!

And I am so glad you brought up the rape issue because I've been waiting for someone to.  Again, how does this increase the likelihood of that?  Men already wait in women's restrooms for the opportunity to rape them.  If someone's going to rape someone, they're probably not going to be deterred by a little blue sign.  Conversely, if it's a mixed gender bathroom, you have a higher chance of other men being in there.  And, at least I like to think, the majority of people are against rape, and they'd be able to do something about it.

Warbler said:

that was not my point at all.   You were arguing against a one size fits all mentality.   But in the case of public restrooms we do have to think in those terms because it would be ridiculous for every place to have a separate restroom for each individual.  

You know what?  You're right.  We should just have one bathroom for everybody.  Thanks for helping me see that!

I do just want you to know, Warb, that I don't think you're a Nazi bigot or whatever.  I, like CP3S, just find it interesting that you are the "bleeding heart liberal" and yet your own personal level of comfort seems at odd with some of your related philosophies.  I'm actually having a lot of fun with this discussion (you know, aside from your harumphing at a very exciting moment I captured in a photograph but even that was only very minor), and I find your views fascinating.  I really have been interested in getting you to elaborate so I can understand better and, hopefully, I can get you to just entertain the idea of thinking in a new way, especially if it's something out of your comfort zone.

so now you are going after my concern that a gay man might want to try to look at my stuff in the restroom.   Tell me, would there be any complaint made about a woman concerned that in a unisex bathroom,  a straight man might try to look at her stuff? 

Of course that's something to be concerned about... but no more so than it already is in same sex bathrooms, no matter how much imagination you expend to believe everyone is straight.  If you don't want people looking at One-Eyed Bob or Foxy Box, you have that right.  And this is nothing new.  That's why bathrooms (or fitting rooms at clothing stores) generally offer a degree of privacy, like stalls or partitions.  If you assume someone is looking at you in a bathroom, you have a right to do something about it.  If you steadfastly assume no one is ever looking at you even as you're already peeing around people who could potentially be attracted to your own gender, I don't necessarily see why your perception need change.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said: To constantly wedge people into a one-size-fits-all mentality, I feel, is to the ultimate detriment of humanity because it immediately and irrevocably limits us for the sake of maintaining an arbitrary classification that someone else created.  For the sake of simplicity.

but it is what he have to do in the case of public restrooms, unless you think each place should have billions of restrooms, 1 for each individual person.

Warbler is brilliantly hilarious at times. I'm not at all being sarcastic, Warbler. The matter-of-fact statement of absurdity is truly great.

Yeah, I admit that is pretty funny.  Still, though, I find it even more interesting that Warbler's immediate response, joking or not, is not a statement of inclusion but rather an assertion that "different people must be separated."

That's the thing, though:  no matter how you slice it, life isn't simple.  We've tried our best to make it seem that way because it's easier to do so than have to think and ascertain the nature of individuals rather than groups.

There are two groups of people, and that determines what their interests are, what clothes they wear, what hairstyles they have, what toys they play with, what jobs they go into, how they interact and how others interact with them, who they should be intimate with, how close a friendship they can forge with certain other people in their group or outside of it, what names they have.  All of these things so that when we see a person walking down the street, we immediately know how to classify them... without having to think about it.

Well, somehow sexuality is a defining factor, so maybe we have 4 different groups of people now, but we can easily classify them by how they talk or dress or act, so we can still find a way to keep people easily definable.

However, I disagree.  To quote a somewhat maligned phrase from an old favorite of mine, "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations."  We're individuals, not male, not female, not gay, not straight.  We are ourselves.  You're the only Warbler there is.  I'm the only Gaffer Tape.  To constantly wedge people into a one-size-fits-all mentality, I feel, is to the ultimate detriment of humanity because it immediately and irrevocably limits us for the sake of maintaining an arbitrary classification that someone else created.  For the sake of simplicity.

Warbler said:

If they are a man before the operation, ok.    If they are a man after the operation, ok.    If they are a woman before the operation, not ok.   If they are a woman after the operation, not ok.    And I mean ok as in I am fine with doing my business at the urinal with them in the room, and not ok as in I am not fine with doing my business at the urinal with them in the room. 

You... um... do realize that that's a completely contradictory statement and either excludes EVERY transgender person from using ANY public restroom ever or allows all of them to use any restroom, right?  Either way, your statement about Chaz Bono also contradicts what you say in this post.

Also, I know what spats are for.  The point is, I found your judgment of me to be hurtful.

Uh-oh.  You've opened that door.  What if it were Chaz Bono?  What bathroom should Chaz go to?

That is to say, Warb, how do you feel about transgendered people in your bathroom?  And by your bathroom, I mean your hypothetical public bathroom.

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:

"Oh good God"?  Would you please care to elaborate?

 I thought it was quite self explanatory. 

Yet again call me a prude and old fashion, but I just don't get the idea of a man dressing like a woman.  Sorry.

Fair enough.  I also don't get the idea of why people ever wore spats, but if you were to post a picture of yourself showing off your new footwear, I'd like to think I wouldn't feel compelled to so strongly invoke the name of a deity over it...

Well, I'm certainly only two Fs, not three. =P

As for Mr. Warbler, I direct you to Leonardo's comment, but now I have one more question I feel compelled to ask since you didn't address it when I indirectly addressed it.

"Oh good God"?  Would you please care to elaborate?