Burgle, burgle...

I'll be there celebrating my move across Grand!

Speaking of Pridefest, there was a photo in Sunday's Post-Dispatch of two women lying on the grass rubbing noses, one black and one white. The white gal appeared more to be a man. Her hair was cut in a male's cut with sideburns (only men can really grow sideburns because whiskers or a beard are required). She also wore a top that looked like a man's undershirt.

If it is truly same-sex attraction, why does one assume the appearance of the opposite sex? Why does one assume the role of the opposite sex? And there are other questions.

"(only men can really grow sideburns because whiskers or a beard are required)."

The collapse of the Soviet Union and exportation of electrolysis overseas (though sadly not all the rage yet in Italy and certain former Soviet satellites) are to blame for some men believing all women are hair-free.

"She also wore a top that looked like a man's undershirt."

My wife wears my undershirts and shorts. Come to think of it, she might have been the first to wear a pants suit to Ladies Sodality. Is she a lesbian or a man trapped in a woman's body?

Sorry, Howard, she really did look like a man. Is there a difference between a Lesbian and a man trapped in a woman's body who needs a different and further set of protections? Do we need another category? Is a man trapped in a woman's body and a woman trapped in a man's body genuinely homosexual? You raise an interesting topic.

All but a rare exception of women are facial hair free. And though your wife may wear your shorts and undershirts, doesn't she still retain the appearance of a woman? Most women will tell you there is a big difference between ladies slacks or pant suits and men's trousers.

Good points, Kevin and Howard.

First of all, as a seeker of freedom above all else--I salute the Children of the Rainbow for their organizational skills and their right to free public expression.

Is homosexuality a condition that occurs at birth? Is it a choice? Is it a result of cruel and unusual acts during childhood or some other time where one had no control over the situation?

Nia would like to know.

"Sorry, Howard, she really did look like a man." So does my sister-in-law. She was quite a looker, though, when younger. As for the lesbian v. man trapped in a woman's body, I see some diversity training in your future which includes transgender matters.

"All but a rare exception of women are facial hair free." Not according to the variety of products hawked on TV and in magazines.

"And though your wife may wear your shorts and undershirts, doesn't she still retain the appearance of a woman?" I've seen a number of drag queens with better legs than my wife. She was quite a looker, though, when she was younger. I was, myself, a fit handsome devil in my youth but if I don't start laying off the junk food will end up with man boobies. I have old photos of some family when they came over here. To be honest, except for the dresses, some of those women don't look too feminine.

You're really hung up about appearances. Appearances are deceiving. Who among us of a certain age didn't date or hear of a girl with tissue stuffed in her brassiere? Sexual congress may often be about looks or fantasy about looks but we love and want to grow old with someone because of what's inside them not outside.

"Most women will tell you there is a big difference between ladies slacks or pant suits and men's trousers." I make it a habit not to discuss clothing, accessories, or fabrics with women or men. It's just not appropriate conversation for heterosexual men of a certain age and cultural background. As a public service, however, perhaps you could enlighten me on the difference between ladies and men's pants. I will, however, take a wild guess that the difference is price.

Nia, homosexuals are born with the condition of homosexuality just like heterosexuals are born with the condition of heterosexuality.

Howard, you may be right about being born with a certain condition (the world would be alot nicer if this were proven), but you may be wrong too. No one knows--are there any real scientists out there? Or just wishful thinkers one way or the other? And is there any middle ground, i.e. combo of birth and environment?

Also--sensitivity training is for Orwellian fans; I prefer to let dumbasses and enlightened people say whatever they want without coercion.

There are studies that have shown that certain parts of the brain (biology was several years ago for me) in homosexual men (I don't believe homosexual women were in the study) were closer in size and/or structure to heterosexual women. My guess on this is that it all ties back to hormones during gestation, but that is my unscientific guess based on nothing but the various things I've heard and read. (Thankfully there is "Science Fridays" on "All Things Considered" on NPR.)

As for the comment about looking like a man, I suspect that the currently accepted gender-roles and stereo-types will be undergoing major revision over the next couple decades.

But, back to the original post. I was disappointed to see a well stocked, but otherwise empty ACC booth at Pride this past Saturday. I was there early, and did not return, so I suppose I could have just missed you all.

Thanks, Howard.

Nia loves to know!

According to G.I. Joe, "Knowing is half the battle!"

t.r.

Sorry, no cartoon characters here (Pridefest), real people, real choices, real lives.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!
The more we know; the better off we are and the people around us with whom we communicate.

After all...Niaknows