'Don't Judge Children Wearing Pirate Costumes'

Off Topic
201

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
The father wearing a skirt? I think now the kid is going to be bullied for being a fag and for his father also being a fag. His dad almost certainly made it worse for him. You’d never know it from all the squishy happy touchy feely support I saw in the comments to that article when I first read it a couple of weeks earlier, but I live in real people world, where actions actually have consequences.[/quote]

You sound exactly like the father I described in my scenario A. Do you fear homosexuality? Do you fear homosexuals may have a negative influence on your boy? Are you homophobe? Why are you judging that father in the link?

That kid will end up being bullied for being a ‘‘fag’’ only because the other kids’ fathers will allow them to make fun of him or instigate negative ideas in their heads. How on earth a young child know what a ‘‘fag’’ is after all? Oh yeap, he would have heard this from his homophobe dad, and will consequently use this derogatory name to abuse his classmate.

It can be argued that parents with similar thinking as yours, either deliberately or not, instigate negative behaviour in their own children rather than teach them acceptance and tolerance for other children’s weird behaviour. Children with similar train of thoughts as yours will obviously bully other kids their parents deemed ‘‘abnormal’’ and for not conforming to society standards. The same can be said with race.

If children were not taught to make fun of the ‘‘strange’’ ones, and not to despise them, there would certainly not be any bullying, and our society would perhaps be a better place.

Baby boy A dressed in blue doesn’t give a shit about Baby Boy B dressed in pink. However, mother A may judge Mother B, and then teaches her son to be a judgemental son of a bitch and create intolerance in his mind as he grows up. It is a vicious circle. Standards have been set of course, but those standards can be broken. Women weren’t allowed to wear trousers centuries ago. Society’s criteria have changed throughout times, they are still changing, and will continuously evolve. My guess is that, in 50, 100 years from now, no one will give a shit whether a boy wears a dress every day at school once the judgemental mentality, homophobia, I read here will almost be eradicated.

I know, yeah, I sound like John Lenon. Fuck, I can’t help it. I’m a dreamer. Shoot me.[/quote]

Really?

Like cereally?

Children need to be “taught” to play their little dominance games?[/quote]

I would love, just once, for someone to demonstrate just a fiber of evidence that this sort of benevolent egalitarian utopian wonderland of tolerance has ever existed, anywhere, in any society, even for a short period of time.

But that doesn’t stop them from using it as a club to beat you over the head with if you dare suggest otherwise.
[/quote]
Just because it doesn’t exist doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for it and it certainly doesn’t mean that just because it never truly will exist that we should just lay back and take it in the ass from everyone because.

You aren’t that far from saying that since the world is a mean, cruel place and this can’t be changed we should learn to accept it and join the crowd. If you can’t beat the assholes in this world, join them, right?

Yeah, well I don’t accept that. Just because the world isn’t always a nice place where we all treat each other with respect doesn’t mean we should abandon doing so entirely.

202

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Also what makes a man wearing a dress a ‘‘fag’’?

It’s a frigging piece of clothe. A garment. With this kind of thinking shall I also suspect the priests in their robes, the Christian and Buddhist monks in their gown, the Scottish boys in their skirt… no wait, kilt, and some Arabs men in their tunic to be a bunch of homosexuals?

Intriguing.[/quote]

Ah come on. There have been a couple people to say something like this. You guys are just sort of kidding around right?

I mean… If I dressed up like a priest, or a monk, or William Wallace would it look pretty much the same as if I dressed up in a Cinderella outfit?

To me they look pretty different…[/quote]

I haven’t have a chance to read this thread entirely, sorry.

And I was referring to the father in the link that IH posted. What his son and him wear is nowhere near a Cinderella outfit.

So I’m going to ask again, what makes that father or his son, a homosexual?

203

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No, there is no difference. Both parents are negligent to the point of abuse, if you ask me.

It okay to tell your kids no.

No, it’s not okay to wear a dress when you are a boy.

No, it’s not okay to dress as a pirate from November to September.

No, it’s not okay to eat nothing but potato chips and twinkies.

No, it’s not okay to drink nothing but HFCS laden soda all day.

When did the simple parental imperative of telling one’s kids NO become such a hard concept for today’s impotent, libertine parents to follow?

[/quote]

The second when parents actually started to believe kids should have a say in how they’re brought up.

Parents should not abuse, they are there to support, nurture and encourage their offspring.

Some kid half my size does not dictate what I do when it concerns their upbringing. Once they’re 18/21 I wont have a problem.

204

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I just came a cross a study showing that if you stand like a man you will become more like a man, hormonally.

I wonder if dressing like a woman could possibly make you more womanly hormonally as well.

Food for thought [/quote]

I wonder if a guy who deadlifts in a cinderella outfit is any less of a man.

I wonder if the guys in this video used to wear pink dresses at school. They fight like men.

205

306×637 46.7 KB

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I wonder if dressing like a woman could possibly make you more womanly hormonally as well.

Food for thought [/quote]

Believe it or not, this guy’s a cage fighter.

He loved to wear his mum’s make-up and sisters’ dresses when he was little, ehehehe…

206

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I would love, just once, for someone to demonstrate just a fiber of evidence that this sort of benevolent egalitarian utopian wonderland of tolerance has ever existed, anywhere, in any society, even for a short period of time.

But that doesn’t stop them from using it as a club to beat you over the head with if you dare suggest otherwise.
[/quote]

Of course that wonderland has never existed. And it is less likely to happen, I admit it.

If more parents teach their kids intolerance, racism, homophobia, hell yeah, there will be more shitty minded judgemental pricks in this world. There are society rules, criteria and we must adhere to them and, when someone with different idiosyncrasy turns up, we usually ostracize them. That’s how society works unfortunately and that doesn’t mean it shall necessarily be this way forever. Equality and acceptance in different parts of society happen when people start to be more open minded.

Hopefully, in the future, we may have a more tolerant culture of lil’ boys wearing dresses. Hence me saying in my post, I was a fucking dreamer.[/quote]

I think what has never crossed your mind is that if nobody is ostrasized there is literally no society.

There has to be someone “out” so that others can be “in”.

208

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Believe it or not, this guy’s a cage fighter.

He loved to wear his mum’s make-up and sisters’ dresses when he was little, ehehehe…
[/quote]

So that guy dresses like a woman and could kick my ass… Well shit.

210

211

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

…it’s not innate in children to beat down (or ostracize) something or someone that is different than they. It’s a learned behavior, and a learned behavior that is contrary to a child’s nature.
[/quote]

I disagree. I posit that “Lord of the Flies” syndrome is innate. Generally speaking.

I suspect that you are of the persuasion that basically, deep-down-inside man is “good.”

I hold the opposite position. History’s on my side.
[/quote]
For every example you could provide of man’s inherent evil, I could provide you with a damburst of examples that would wash yours away. Want to play?[/quote]

You’d lose quickly and badly so…sure![/quote]
Okay, I’ll start. You name a person or an event or something like that which clarifies the inherent evil of humanity and I will respond with a person, event, etc which is an example of man’s inherent “goodness”.

For starters, I’ll begin with the humanitarian effort following the Indonesian tsunami a few years ago.

212

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Every single defense the pro pink dress crowd made in this thread can be used to justify the Sombrero Six Year Old.[/quote]
No and you’re patently incorrect. It is illegal for a child to go to school exposing his genitals. He would be in violation of codified laws. There is no law that says a child must wear clothing appropriate to the gender role most people of that sex occupy.

It’s not a valid comparison at all and to argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest. You and I both know that allowing a child to wear a dress to school is NOT going to lead to the legalization of child nudity in the classroom. If you really think that that is a distinct possibility, then your level of paranoia about the subject makes it pointless for me to continue this discussion further. We simply come from two points of view so diametrically opposed that there is no point in trying to influence each other’s thinking about this since a complete paradigm shift in our thinking would be necessary for either of us to understand where the other comes from.[/quote]

I can fix that easily. Put his pecker in a Fred Flintstone sock with a rubber band.

Now we’re legal again.

Carry on.[/quote]
No, you aren’t legal. Nowhere in this country is a child allowed to attend school with his dick in a sock and a rubber band around it.

215

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

…it’s not innate in children to beat down (or ostracize) something or someone that is different than they. It’s a learned behavior, and a learned behavior that is contrary to a child’s nature.
[/quote]

I disagree. I posit that “Lord of the Flies” syndrome is innate. Generally speaking.

I suspect that you are of the persuasion that basically, deep-down-inside man is “good.”

I hold the opposite position. History’s on my side.
[/quote]
For every example you could provide of man’s inherent evil, I could provide you with a damburst of examples that would wash yours away. Want to play?[/quote]

You’d lose quickly and badly so…sure![/quote]
Okay, I’ll start. You name a person or an event or something like that which clarifies the inherent evil of humanity and I will respond with a person, event, etc which is an example of man’s inherent “goodness”.

For starters, I’ll begin with the humanitarian effort following the Indonesian tsunami a few years ago.[/quote]

Mao.

Next.[/quote]
Machiavelli. Just kidding.

Jesus Christ.

216

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Every single defense the pro pink dress crowd made in this thread can be used to justify the Sombrero Six Year Old.[/quote]
No and you’re patently incorrect. It is illegal for a child to go to school exposing his genitals. He would be in violation of codified laws. There is no law that says a child must wear clothing appropriate to the gender role most people of that sex occupy.

It’s not a valid comparison at all and to argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest. You and I both know that allowing a child to wear a dress to school is NOT going to lead to the legalization of child nudity in the classroom. If you really think that that is a distinct possibility, then your level of paranoia about the subject makes it pointless for me to continue this discussion further. We simply come from two points of view so diametrically opposed that there is no point in trying to influence each other’s thinking about this since a complete paradigm shift in our thinking would be necessary for either of us to understand where the other comes from.[/quote]

I can fix that easily. Put his pecker in a Fred Flintstone sock with a rubber band.

Now we’re legal again.

Carry on.[/quote]
No, you aren’t legal. Nowhere in this country is a child allowed to attend school with his dick in a sock and a rubber band around it.[/quote]

And many, many, many places would not allow a boy in a pink dress either.

So no, you are incorrect about the legality. Cite me a state code article and paragraph that prohibits what amounts to a bikini.

The fact of the matter is societal mores ARE enforced without resorting to legislation each and every time. Schools do have the regulatory authority to prohibit male bikinis, female bikinis, Fred Flintstone pecker bags and pink dresses.

I could, say, open a cigar store tomorrow in Two Dot, Montana and prohibit six year old boys in pink dresses or 22 year old sexy babes in white mesh thong bathing suits (God forbid I ever do that but it felt good typing it) and the state of MT will not fine me or throw me in jail. I strongly suspect it would be no different in CA or CO.[/quote]
It does not amount to a bikini, first of all. Secondly, nowhere is it illegal for a boy to wear a dress to school. it isn’t a matter of legality at a school with a strict dress code.

Yes, schools have the capacity to set dress codes. However, they do NOT have the ability to say that men cannot wear something that women can and vice versa. Otherwise that might lead to the banning of girls wearing pants or men’s-style shoes. THAT is a legitimate slippery slope. The one you’re on is pure fantasy.

217

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Every single defense the pro pink dress crowd made in this thread can be used to justify the Sombrero Six Year Old.[/quote]
No and you’re patently incorrect. It is illegal for a child to go to school exposing his genitals. He would be in violation of codified laws. There is no law that says a child must wear clothing appropriate to the gender role most people of that sex occupy.

It’s not a valid comparison at all and to argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest. You and I both know that allowing a child to wear a dress to school is NOT going to lead to the legalization of child nudity in the classroom. If you really think that that is a distinct possibility, then your level of paranoia about the subject makes it pointless for me to continue this discussion further. We simply come from two points of view so diametrically opposed that there is no point in trying to influence each other’s thinking about this since a complete paradigm shift in our thinking would be necessary for either of us to understand where the other comes from.[/quote]

I can fix that easily. Put his pecker in a Fred Flintstone sock with a rubber band.

Now we’re legal again.

Carry on.[/quote]
No, you aren’t legal. Nowhere in this country is a child allowed to attend school with his dick in a sock and a rubber band around it.[/quote]

And many, many, many places would not allow a boy in a pink dress either.

So no, you are incorrect about the legality. Cite me a state code article and paragraph that prohibits what amounts to a bikini.

The fact of the matter is societal mores ARE enforced without resorting to legislation each and every time. Schools do have the regulatory authority to prohibit male bikinis, female bikinis, Fred Flintstone pecker bags and pink dresses.

I could, say, open a cigar store tomorrow in Two Dot, Montana and prohibit six year old boys in pink dresses or 22 year old sexy babes in white mesh thong bathing suits (God forbid I ever do that but it felt good typing it) and the state of MT will not fine me or throw me in jail. I strongly suspect it would be no different in CA or CO.[/quote]
Your place of business is not a publicly-funded school and bears no comparison to one.

You cannot prohibit people from entering your store based on their sexuality or gender if the store is open to the general public. You CAN do so based on their dress, but again, that point is immaterial to this discussion.

218

What about Ted Williams? Not only was he one of the greatest hitters of all-time, he was also a highly-decorated, highly-skilled fighter pilot who graduated at the top of his Naval training class and fought in WWII AND the Korean War. He also had the highest scores ever at his aerial training school when testing the pilots’ reflexes, coordination and visual recognition.

In the Korean War Williams flew almost 40 missions, won the Air Medal and was the wingman for none other than John Glenn, the future astronaut.

On top of that, while fishing requires absolutely ZERO athleticism whatsoever, he was also a world-class deep see fisher.

Fuck John Wayne. He was just a Ted Williams wannabe.

edit: whoops, wrong thread.

220

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

…Otherwise that might lead to the banning of girls wearing pants or men’s-style shoes. THAT is a legitimate slippery slope. The one you’re on is pure fantasy.

[/quote]

Plenty of schools already do this. I went to one of ‘em.[/quote]
Well, that’s alright by me. The point is that there should not a be double standard in place where it’s okay for women to dress in a pretty masculine way but it isn’t alright for a man to dress effeminately. At a school where girls can wear boys’ clothing, it should follow that a boy can then wear girls’ clothing. But if NEITHER sex is allowed to cross dress at school, I don’t have a problem with that.

But that typically isn’t how it is. I went to a private school for a long time so I was in a similar boat as you. But in the public school system things are usually much different.

But at a public school there has to be a compelling interest at stake to even begin curtailing a child’s rights to expression. I simply don’t see any compelling interest that should only apply to boys who want to wear a dress. And don’t forget that our rights are inalienable and that the court system recognizes that this applies to children as well. We are BORN with our rights simply by virtue of being a human being, hence inalienability. The right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been interpreted pretty liberally over the years, as you and I would both agree, but I am not aware of any court case that states that the clothing one wears, as long as it does not find itself in contradiction with a state’s compelling interest, is NOT part of liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

If what one wears is an extension of who that person is, and that clothing does not cause any harm to those around him/her, how can that not be a part of one’s right to liberty? In a world as materialistic as ours, clothing is a very integral part of someone’s identity, especially the gender role that those clothes imply. Since society does not get to choose what our gender role actually is, how can society have any right to determine which clothing someone wears? If someone was born transgendered, or even if they “chose” to be transgendered at some later point (be it at age 5 or 25) no one has the right to tell that person how to play out that gender role as long as how they play it out doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.