What's offensive? What's not?

[Rick336]

Last year when the Mars Corporation showed a commercial during the Super Bowl of two men eating a candy bar, some saw it as offensive to the LGBT community. I saw the commercial but wasn't particularly offended. But several LGBT organizations were and demanded that Mars remove the ad. Eventually they did.

This year Nike was forced to pull print ads that many LGBT people found offensive. Here's the link from the Advocate:

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid58452.asp

I haven't seen these ads so I don't know whether or not they were offensive or homophobic.

Today I came across an alert from The American Family Association that was linked to the Boycott McDonalds website which showed a few photos they claim are from the 2008 San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade.

Here's the link: http://boycottmcdonalds.com/detail.aspx?id=106

I don't know for sure if these photos actually came from the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade. But if they did, I think we as a community might be sending out some very confusing messages about what we find offensive. It seems like we're telling America that a candy bar commercial is way out of line but people parading their gentles in public is perfectly ok.

I wonder if any of the same people who complained about the Nike ads also attended San Francisco Gay Pride and were offended at the open displays of sexuality and nudity? If they did, the story somehow didn't make it into the gay press.

If these photos are indeed from the 2008 San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade, how do we explain this? How can we say that what we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms is nobody's business and then turn around and parade our sex down the middle of the street? There's absolutely no logic to that argument.

I know that these are only a handful of photos. And the photo of the two men kissing I don't find offensive at all. But what about the photo of the man completely nude? Are we really telling America that this is what we are about? Do we really want to live in a world where it's ok for people to walk down the street naked?

I am not siding with the Boycott McDonalds campaign here and I believe that American Family Association is nothing more than a hate group. But I think until we admit that we might have a double standard here about what's offensive and what's not, many people outside our community are going to think we're nothing but a bunch of spoiled crybabies.

Are we?

Rick

[Daniel]

I went to Gay Pride here in NYC with Keltic, his hubby to be Scott, and Andy and his beloved Jenna. And something Andy said afterward struck me. It was his first big gay pride event and he noticed that there was plenty of all kinds of folks, but there wasn't anything that could be considered offensive, that is, there wasn't any nudity etc. And you know what? He was right.

In that sense, at least here in NYC, there is a mainstreaming of the event that is taking place. At least, that's how is seems as I reflect on past events and Andy's observation.

Now we have corporate floats and people marching for marriage.

Don't know if the pics in the link you've posted are from SF or not, but I wonder if the criticism is valid anymore.

On a personal level, I don't feel like 'we' have any explaining to do. Do straight people 'explain' their behavior during Marti Gras? No. I don't think so. So why should we be explaining what some gay people do? It doesn't make sense to me. There are people who are never going to like 'us' no matter what we do or don't do. And I am really over living my life to please other people.

It's my observation that trying to please others is simply an avenue for unhappiness, and has little to do with the practice of compassion, either for one's self or others.

[u-dog]

Is it possible that "outrageous" behavior on the part of an oppressed population is proportional to the intensity of the oppression? I too have noticed that the shape and texture of gay community and culture has been shifting and evolving rapidly over the thirty years that I have been aware enough to be paying attention. Is walking down the street naked at least partially a way of saying "f*** you" to mainstream culture? and as the need to say "f*** you" lessens, so do the number of people saying it?

Just a thought.

[Matt Algren]

Is it possible that "outrageous" behavior on the part of an oppressed population is proportional to the intensity of the oppression? I too have noticed that the shape and texture of gay community and culture has been shifting and evolving rapidly over the thirty years that I have been aware enough to be paying attention. Is walking down the street naked at least partially a way of saying "f*** you" to mainstream culture? and as the need to say "f*** you" lessens, so do the number of people saying it?

Just a thought.
I think that's a good theory. Someone else noticed how the language has changed in the last several years. They aren't gay pride MARCHES, they're gay pride PARADES.

[Alecto]

The latest commercial to get pulled was another ad shown in the UK that U.S. folks complained about. Now, having seen it, I agree it's offensive, but the truth is, i thought it was really friggin' deliberate. They're appearantly owned by the same parent company, so it was like instead of putting the heinz mayo ad back up, they made another offensive ad that they could take down to say "See? We're responding to criticism from both sides!". ::is cynical::


As for pride parades: I don't live in a huge urban center. Buffalo is the second largest city in New York State, but, well, it's a very distant second. That disclaimer out of the way, I get really grumpy when folks (especially around here) get down on pride because it's so offensive and showy, but they've never even been. Because it's NOT offensive here.
That said, in general, I wouldn't classify pride parades as family friendly, and I think that's a shame. I think it's disgraceful that we have precious few friendly and affirming queer spaces for kids who aren't 21 yet, and even fewer that are appropriate for folks even younger than that. I totally understand why gay men especially see a political message in being very open about their sexuality, and I also get that for a lot of folks, the nudity thing isn't even sexual.
I guess I'd be happy if everywhere did like Toronto and had a family area where you don't need to worry about it so much, and then the rest of it is out there too.


Also: anyone's expression of sexuality is a lot less offensive to me than violence against someone because of their percieved orientation. I don't see that as a double standard at all.

[Nyshana]

I think this is all a bit... defensive. Maybe even contradictory.

What we're fighting for is for gay people to have the same rights as straight people - essentially, to be considered "just people".
Not all LGBTs would condone going out on the streets naked, just as not all straight people would. Some LGBTs do go out on the streets naked... just like some straight people do. It shouldn't matter whether they're at a gay pride or, as Daniel says, at mardi gras. What people think of naked people on the streets isn't really an issue; as long as they think the same of naked gay people as they do of naked straight people, be that good or bad.

[Rick336]

If we're going to cry "homophobia" at everything we find offensive and demand to be treated with respect but refuse to give that same respect back, then how do we ever expect to be taken seriously?

And the idea that some people are never going to like us no matter what we do does not mean we have to give the world the finger.

If we're going to demand that the rest of the world clean up their act, maybe it's time we clean up our own act. It's a simple matter of mutual respect.

Self-respect and respect for others is a great reason for a pride parade.

Rick

[Alecto]

If we're going to cry "homophobia" at everything we find offensive and demand to be treated with respect but refuse to give that same respect back, then how do we ever expect to be taken seriously?

And the idea that some people are never going to like us no matter what we do does not mean we have to give the world the finger.

If we're going to demand that the rest of the world clean up their act, maybe it's time we clean up our own act. It's a simple matter of mutual respect.

Self-respect and respect for others is a great reason for a pride parade.

Rick

Here's a place to start: we're not beaming our issues into the homes of thousands of people. Like...I do have a slight problem with what pride has become because I'm sad it got away from it's political roots. But all the parades I've been to haven't been NEARLY so bad as people would have had me think. I've often thought that, at any parade, illegal behavior should still be illegal. To that end, if nudity is illegal, it should still be illegal. I'm ok with that. But for anything that's not illegal, I understand that the point of pride parades, as they exist today, is to demonstrate the diversity of queer folks, as well as the diversity of what resources are available to them in any given city.

Pretty much all of those pictures that weren't full on nudity were DEFINITELY no worse than, say, swimwear, which is not so very inappropriate. I guess my problem is that I don't see our "act" as "dirty" to be cleaned up. I understand the nudists, and like I said, think they should follow the laws, but one of the things I like best about being queer is the fact that because I've had to question so much of the expectations that society just thrusts onto me, I'm a lot more willing to question others of those expectations, both about my role in society as well as the morality of a given action.

[wmanion]

My opinion comes from having 3 kids and soon to be seven grandchildren. I would not like my grandkids exposed to nudity in any parade whether it be gay or straight in its origin. I have no problem with nudity, however, I think everything has its time and place. Unless, it is a nude beach or a nudist camp, or the privacy of your own home then why display nudity? The gay parades are a chance to show the world our diversity and how we are in all aspects "just as human" as the straight world is, but we do have to establish as a public forum what is acceptable and what is not. If straight folks aren't allowed to parade nakedly down the street then why should we? The right wing plays on the fear of these things to keep people away from the parades and to disapprove of them. If nudity did not exist in the parades, would more people be curious enough to come and watch for themselves to see what we are about? I want equal rights and if straight people aren't allowed to parade publicly in the nude why should we be allowed? Holding hands in public, hugging in public, and being able to display our love...just like our counterparts is what I would like to see.

Bill

[Alecto]

Straight people totally parade publicly in various states of undress at events such as Mardi Gras and Carnivale and probably others I'm leaving out.

[wmanion]

I am sure they do. However, since I have never been to those events it is something to which I have not been exposed. Various forms of undress is different than total nudity. Are they totally nude at these events? I am just curious (sometimes, I feel I have lived a very sheltered life). Again, I have no problem with nudity as long as the same standards apply to gay and straight.

Bill

[Daniel]

If we're going to cry "homophobia" at everything we find offensive and demand to be treated with respect but refuse to give that same respect back, then how do we ever expect to be taken seriously?

And the idea that some people are never going to like us no matter what we do does not mean we have to give the world the finger.

If we're going to demand that the rest of the world clean up their act, maybe it's time we clean up our own act. It's a simple matter of mutual respect.

Self-respect and respect for others is a great reason for a pride parade.

Rick

Rick- you've put my words in your post, but I don't believe I said anything about giving the world the 'finger'. That was not my intent then or now.

How about this? How about let's demand that straight people put an end to Marti Gras, public displays of affection in movies, as well as on the street? Isn't that offensive to a great many gay people? Aren't we pretty tired of having straight people's sexuality shoved in our faces? How about we encourage them to show us how 'mutual respect' is be achieved, since we obviously don't know what that means. ;)

But you know what? My view is that making such demands- whether the party is straight or gay- amounts to a great deal of moralizing. And I can't for the life of me figure out who that really serves.

[Alecto]

I am sure they do. However, since I have never been to those events it is something to which I have not been exposed. Various forms of undress is different than total nudity. Are they totally nude at these events? I am just curious (sometimes, I feel I have lived a very sheltered life). Again, I have no problem with nudity as long as the same standards apply to gay and straight.

Bill

I'll admit to not having been to either event either; I only know what the idiot box tells me. But there are also naked bike rides and other public naturist events held fairly frequently, and appearantly Burning Man has a fair amount of naked folks, though most are clothed (which sounds a little more like what we're talking about).

Also...I do think it's worth revisiting: we don't see any difference in "offensiveness" between portraying violence against gender-non-conformist folks (Or, y'know, ANYONE) and nonsexualized nudity?

[Rick336]

Straight people totally parade publicly in various states of undress at events such as Mardi Gras and Carnivale and probably others I'm leaving out.

But they aren't five percent of the population struggling for equality.

For the sake of argument, let's say my idea of mutual respect is totally absurd. Let’s forget about respect.

Next year will be the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. Forty years after the beginning of the gay rights movement and we still don't have basic human rights. In 2008 in most of the US, LGBT people can still be legally fired from their jobs, kicked out of their apartments, denied adoption rights, marriage rights or the right to serve openly in the military. Four decades after Stonewall and most LGBT Americans still do not have legal protection against discrimination.

Focus on the Family, The American Family Association, The Family Research Council, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, Exodus, The Traditional Values Coalition, The Southern Baptist Convention and a score of other organizations are pounding into the heads of people all across America that homosexuality is not only a metal disorder but that homosexuals are promiscuous sex crazed deviants. And as proof they have photos of gay men parading their naked gentiles down main street in front of children.

Now obviously the vast majority of gay men do not parade naked in gay pride parades. Most gay men don’t even attend gay pride. On Gay Pride day the vast majority of gay men are at home working in the yard or cleaning house or washing the car or shopping for food or other everyday things. But that doesn’t matter, because Americans have seen the photographs, and a photograph is worth a thousand words.

So let’s look at the logic of gay men annually parading naked down main street. When they do this, you can guarantee photos are going to be taken. Those photos are probably going to make it onto the internet and sent to hundreds of thousands of people. Many of those people will be outraged and with a little encouragement from Focus on the Family or the American Family Association they will contact their legislator or congressman who can either vote to “normalize a sexual perversion” or “stand up for America’s children.” Scared of not being re-elected, the congressman will vote against gay rights.

So my argument now is, if we want to live in a world where we are free to work, or rent a home, or adopt a child, or get married, or serve openly in the military without fear of being fired or kicked out or denied military service or fair treatment….. how logical is it to parade naked in front of children so the photos can be shown to those who make the laws?

The real question is; is parading naked down main street so important that it outweighs the happiness of millions of LGBT Americans?

Rick

[Zerbie]

Now Rick, you (we?) have a problem with this statement. You've already alluded to it in your post above. Most gay folk are NOT parading around naked on Main Street on Pride Day. So the problem is, telling US that parading naked might not be a great idea isn't going to solve anything, and if you told those who *are* doing so, they probably wouldn't listen to you.

If we're going to address this problem from the pov of logically arguing for equality, we're going to have to point out that finding - or fabricating - any evidence whatsoever for portraying an entire group of people as sexual deviants is a tactic that has long been used by those who oppose human rights. They did it to the European Jews under Hitler, they did it to african americans in the 20th century, and they're doing it to gays now.

Of course it doesn't help if a gay person obliges with public nudity, but I don't see how to solve that. There are always a few individuals who are going to follow their own drummer, for good or for ill. I don't think we can change the behavior of others. We are going to have to go for real education of the mainstream. We're never going to get every LGBT person to agree on what is right behavior and then all stick to it 100%. So we may as well work on what we CAN achieve. I think we can educate the vast majority of people as to what's really going on.

[Alecto]

I call shennanigans.


I'll ask one question for now, and go from there:

Are we really saying that people who promote nudism, or who are leather enthusiasts, or, hey, maybe even those scary attention-loving drag queens: are we really saying that these people don't deserve equal rights because they're not "normal" enough? More importantly, are we allowing others to get away with saying it?

[scott snedeker]

I call shennanigans.


I'll ask one question for now, and go from there:

Are we really saying that people who promote nudism, or who are leather enthusiasts, or, hey, maybe even those scary attention-loving drag queens: are we really saying that these people don't deserve equal rights because they're not "normal" enough? More importantly, are we allowing others to get away with saying it?

I second shennanigans

Nudism, polyamory, gender expression, in short, Radical change for freedom to express and live should be the the focus. We need leaders and not copycats. Robert Heinlein wrote about it 30 years ago in I Will Fear No Evil and 36 years ago in Stranger in a Strange Land

Thank the Goddess for the Radical Faeries

[antiochian]

Nudity? Hell, glbt folks in my neck of the woods are still scared to death of showing any signs of public affection, be it kissing, hand holding, whatever. I can't imagine these people getting naked for a parade. I'm not an advocate of prancing about naked. I do however firmly believe that we should feel free and SAFE to kiss our dates, cuddle with our lovers, and hold hands in public, whether in South Dakota or NYC. But homophobes can't stand to see even that--if we kiss on the street, we're "flaunting." If we dress somewhat outlandishly, we're "flaunting." As far as they're concerned, it's no better than trotting buck naked down Main Street, and I resent that we have been controlled this way for so long.

I'm proud to announce that my local city of SIoux Falls, SD, is having it's first gay pride event ever this month... A city of 125,000 in the backwards waters of the Midwest. How awesome is that?

[tdogg]

I believe one of the problems is that the general population of the USA are too freaked out about sex and nudity. First issue.

Next. Others have said it right, the vast majority of GLBT folks aren't going to run around naked in a gay pride parade. And for those that do choose to do so, it's going to do no good to advise them otherwise. We can't have freedom of expression and then censor that freedom especially if it's in a situation where one has a choice of whether or not to observe. Just because some right winger fundamentalists may be observing, doesn't mean we should impose restrictions in order to clean up our image. If the right wingers are shocked, well realize they have chosen to be observers (and I'm sure they are enjoying themselves much more than they will ever let on...).

And finally, I appreciate all our community members (ok, I'm NOT talking about outright criminals here) and personally enjoy those who feel confident and free enough to express themselves, even if that expression is in a way I would not particularly choose. I think drag queens are fabulous. I think bears are great. And chicks on motorcycles are my fave. I love it all. I have yet to see anything offensive (but then I wasn't at SF Pride either).

I think the real issue here is that people should learn to worry about themselves and cleaning up their own act (talking about those right wingers, not any of you here). Tolerance, acceptance, peace and co-existence is what is needed, not censoring of free expression. But, if you want to make sure your children attend a 'clean' pride parade, come on over to Sacramento next June. There was nothing even close to questionable - other than the 1/2 dozen protesters. :love:

[Zerbie]

And finally, I appreciate all our community members (ok, I'm NOT talking about outright criminals here) and personally enjoy those who feel confident and free enough to express themselves, even if that expression is in a way I would not particularly choose. I think drag queens are fabulous.

:DMe too. Especially drag queens. I love drag queens! :love::award:



I think the real issue here is that people should learn to worry about themselves and cleaning up their own act (talking about those right wingers, not any of you here). Tolerance, acceptance, peace and co-existence is what is needed, not censoring of free expression.

You got it, T Goddess!!
That is the right way. That is the way to a peaceful coexistence as brothers and sisters.
:love:

[Rick336]

And for those that do choose to do so, it's going to do no good to advise them otherwise. We can't have freedom of expression and then censor that freedom especially if it's in a situation where one has a choice of whether or not to observe.

But, if you want to make sure your children attend a 'clean' pride parade, come on over to Sacramento next June. There was nothing even close to questionable - other than the 1/2 dozen protesters. :love:

That's because the Sacramento gay pride parade probably has restrictions on inappropriate behavior just as an increasing number of other gay pride events are now doing. So, yes we can clean up our act. And yes we can ask the naked dude to either cover up his gentiles or leave. Just because we're an oppressed minority does not mean we can't have agreed upon standards for our community events.

Some LGBT people have the idea that if we don't want others imposing their standards on us, then we had better not impose our standards on other people. This was the attitude many years ago when the North American Man Boy Love Association was allowed to march in the New York City Gay Pride parade. But NAMBLA has disappeared from the parade. Why? Because sensible people with the pride committee agreed that NAMBLA, an organization that promotes sex with underage children, was not appropriate for the New York City Gay pride parade and did not meet the parade standards.

We impose our standards on others all the time. We demand that the media have standards that reflect fair and accurate information that is not homophobic or bias. Glaad consults news groups as to what words are appropriate to use; "gay, lesbian, trangender," and which are not appropriate; "homosexual, sodomite, fag". And if a news story reflects a homophobic attitude Glaad informs it's members of an action alert and requests they contact the news source and demand an apology or correction.

So the idea that we can never have agreed upon standards about inappropriate behavior is wrong. We do it all the time.

Rick

[Alecto]

Ok, so...this sounds bitchier than I want it to, but...why should we all agree on your standards? Because, yeah. There are some things that would seriously offend me to see in a Pride parade: advocating wanton violence, or rape, or child abuse are all on there. And, I think, most folks agree on that.

So I guess I'm legitimately asking: how do we come to an agreement on what those standards should be? I'm not a hardcore nudist, and I wouldn't miss it if it were gone, but I do have some concerns about the motivations of those who want it gone; I think it's ridiculous for us to let "them" frame all the arguments. They're going to pick the worst of the worst, or even flat-out invent bad incidents (couldn't find the link, but some ex-gay activists faked a harassment incident) no matter what we do. If there's a reason to censor our community, it should be because of us, not other folks.

Also, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHU7e-HYBkc) comes to mind.

[Zerbie]

Alecto: She's beautiful! :love::dove:

Rick: Ultimately, the problem goes beyond what could be solved cosmetically -- by appearances' sake alone. Even if no one in the gay community ever went over the top at pride events (which I kinda think is partly what they're FOR), those who are dead set against equality will STILL be against it, not because of how they see anyone behaving, but because they are against equality. Period.

It is NOT about us. It's about them, and about some picture they have in their own heads. No one 'cleaning up their act' is going to influence that picture in someone's head, because WE are not who put it there. If we did institute some kind of no-skimpy clothing/no drag rule (god, no drag would SUCK!, but anyway I digress,) it would not change a perception in someone else's mind. Think to the Log Cabin Republicans who all along the way are fighting for inclusion in a group which tends to look only at the happenstance that they are gay, and therefore to push those folks aside in favor of straighter company. Because it's not about behavior or appearance. It's about the fact that they're gay. That's all it is for those who oppose equality. They're gay? They're beyond the pale, no further questions.

Their perceptions are not based on a logical look at reality -- they are picking and choosing what to see, what to focus on. Nothing we do is going to change that. Only they can decide to start looking with the intent to really see and understand.
That is the real problem.

[Rick336]

Also, this comes to mind.

Alecto, That's a great little story and funny. I love the piano in the background. But I haven't mentioned drag here anywhere. My problem is not with drag queens. Milton Berle, Jack Benny, Tom Hanks, and Johnny Carson all dressed in drag for television in the 50s,60s, and 70s. America loved it.

As far as poking fun at religion, the world has been doing that for centuries.

My beef is with dragging our sexual fetishes through the street or wagging our gentiles in public. It's irresponsible, immature, and offensive.

It is NOT about us. It's about them, and about some picture they have in their own heads. No one 'cleaning up their act' is going to influence that picture in someone's head, because WE are not who put it there.

Zerbie. I agree that some people already have a negative picture of LGBT people in their heads and no matter what we do, it won't change that image. But I firmly believe that our annual public relations spectacle does play a major part of how we are seen by the majority of Americans.

Here's an opinion from Hollywood publicist Michael Levine who wrote an article for The Advocate that was posted in this forum two years ago. I'm re-posting it for this discussion. I don't agree with this man's opinion on this issue 100% because I think public protest demonstrations are very effective in changing the hearts and minds of the people. The anti-war demonstrations of the Sixties ultimately lead to the end of the Vietnam war and the civil rights protests of the same period helped bring equality to millions of African Americans.

And I'm not against gay pride parades that don't shove somebody's bedroom fetish in my face.

Still, the man makes a good point about our image to the masses. Here's the article originally posted in the Advocate June 6, 2006:



Is Pride Good PR?

A-List Hollywood publicist Michael Levine assesses the public relations impact of pride festivals and parades.

It is undeniably true that it is difficult to be gay in our society. Cultural, religious, and in some cases governmental disapproval of homosexuality by the majority infects the daily lives of gay men and lesbians, and it can seem that the pressure from all sides to deny one's identity is overwhelming and unrelenting.

The need for release, for freedom, is unmistakable. But gay pride festivals in cities around the country can sometimes do more harm than good.

I say this as a sympathetic heterosexual who makes a living in public relations and has done so for more than 20 years. When I discuss the impact of gay pride demonstrations and parades, it is not from a standpoint of moral disapproval or even political ideology. I'm assessing the impact made on society as a whole - the good or damage done to the cause of gay identity and rights in the United States - by the spectacle that gay pride demonstrations can make.

From where I'm standing it's not doing a lot of good.

Believe me, I understand that it must feel wonderful to take to the streets with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people who, finally, agree with you and understand your life. I realize that even in today's less closeted society it has to be a joyful moment to stop trying to play by the majority's rules and simply aknowledge one's own identity: to be you.

But it comes with a cost. Society's mind-set in the 21st century is determined by the media, in particular television. And in a 24-hour news cycle, when entire networks have to fill a full day, every day, with current happenings, the impact of gay pride festivals will be reduced to a 20-second piece of videotape that will be played and replayed multiple times during the day until something new, something else that makes "good television" replaces it.

And if you think that a 20-second clip is going to be a reasoned assessment of the plight of an oppressed minority, a sound bite from a gay man or lesbian who makes a thoughtful point about demanding an equal place in our country, you are living in a very different society than I am.

What's going to be shown on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and for all I know Aljazeera, is a montage of drag queens, leather enthusiasts, and floats in the shape of a penis - all parading down Main Streets in major cities with the implied message to the red states in Middle America that this is on its way to an avenue near you.

We can debate for years whether this is an accurate or appropriate depiction of most gay men or lesbians. But I can tell you from a strict public relations viewpoint that it will not - ever - help the cause of gay equality in the United States.

When Muslims in this country argue that the media ( in news or fictional television and film ) depict only the most radical of their religion and thereby distort the view that most Americans have of all Muslims, they have a point. Such portrayals make for vivid images, something that will cause a viewer to stop channel surfing and take a look - and that's what television networks are trying to do. But it doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture or provide comprehensive information about complex issues.

You'd think that a 24-hour news cycle would offer more depth, as news organizations would have much more time than they once did - 30 minutes a night until the 1980s - to delve into complex issues. But what has happened is that the news has become polarized, and the extra time is generally given to loud political debate (if one cares to use the most polite term for the screaming that goes on). Discussion of issues is left by the wayside.

I don't argue for one second that gay people should not be proud of who they are, nor that they should deny their true identities for the sake of society. But I don't think that wild gay pride celebrations and demonstrations in public serve well the cause they claim to support.

They make good television, but they certainly don't make for better public policy.

Levine is founder of the prominent Los Angeles public relations firm Levine Communications Office. He is the author of 17 books, the latest of which is Broken Windows, Broken Business (Warner). Find out more at BrokenWindows.com

The Advocate website is http://www.Advocate.com


Rick

[Daniel]

Rick- from what I have read of your argument, it might be summed up thus:

If only those nudist's would cover themselves up the rest of us would have our rights.

I simply question whether there is any truth to that perception. First and foremost is the notion that what other people do and not do is going to make us personally happy. It is possible that we have to make ourselves happy? I would answer in the affirmative to that.

In sum, I question whether not having 4 nudists in a parade is going to win us our rights. If it amounted to that we would have our rights already, for the truth is that- as several posters- including myself have noted- the gay prides parades that we have been to haven't had anything that even your would find offensive.

So I wonder if you are getting upset about something that really isn't a problem.

[Rick336]

Rick- from what I have read of your argument, it might be summed up thus:

If only those nudist's would cover themselves up the rest of us would have our rights.

I simply question whether there is any truth to that perception. First and foremost is the notion that what other people do and not do is going to make us personally happy. It is possible that we have to make ourselves happy? I would answer in the affirmative to that.

In sum, I question whether not having 4 nudists in a parade is going to win us our rights. If it amounted to that we would have our rights already, for the truth is that- as several posters- including myself have noted- the gay prides parades that we have been to haven't had anything that even your would find offensive.

So I wonder if you are getting upset about something that really isn't a problem.

Daniel,

Yes. I absolutely do believe it is a problem and sabotages our fight for equality.

Rick

[Daniel]

Daniel,

Yes. I absolutely do believe it is a problem and sabotages our fight for equality.

Rick

4 or so many people from some unnamed year (1982?) are screwing things up for everyone. Just know that this kind of thinking isn't doing the same thing for me - and many other people- as it's doing for you.

Say we get everyone cleaned up (and yes- you again haven't acknowledge my point in my previous post about most- if not all parades in recent history- aren't exhibiting the behavior you are so concerned about), then what? Do you really think the skies are going to open? That our civil rights are doing to rain down on us? That all we have to do is get rid of a few bad apples?

Well. That doesn't strike me as either a charitable thought or a rational one. Sounds very moralistic. Just like fundies who moralize about other people. If only they......

And guess what? I could do the same. I could say that if only those fundamentalists would stop preaching bad things about gay people I would have my rights. And I really don't think my future as an Amercian is actually in the hands of Dobson. He doesn't get to vote in my stead.

I really thought that having full equality was also about extending those rights to everyone, even those we disagree with.

Just like the nature of Love itself: no one left out.

I get that you are offended. What I don't get is why. What does this matter so much to you?

[Rick336]

4 or so many people from some unnamed year (1982?) are screwing things up for everyone. Ok. You are more than welcome to run that tape in your head as much as you want to. Go for it. Just know that it's not doing the same thing for me - and many other people- as it's doing for you.

If you are suggesting that the photos in question could be from the year 1982 or somewhere in the past and that fewer pride events in 2008 allow this kind of behavior, then you are proving my point that this type of behavior is no longer acceptable among many LGBT people.

Say we get everyone cleaned up (and yes- you again haven't acknowledge my point in my previous post about most- if not all parades in recent history- not including the behavior you mention), then what? Do you really think the skies are going to open? That our civil rights are doing to rain down on us? That all we have to do is get rid of a few bad apples?

Those LGBT Pride celebrations that don't allow open sexuality and nudity in the streets, I don't have a problem with. I thought I was clear on this.

Do I think the skies will open up and our civil rights will rain down on us if we get rid of a few bad apples? No. It takes work to achieve equality.

To me, this seems like a no-brainer. If a minority of people who are struggling for equality and freedom want to win the hearts and minds of the majority who make the laws, that minority shouldn't take their clothes off and parade naked in front of their children. It's a matter of common sense.

I don't mean to suggest that offensive behavior at Gay Pride events is to blame for all the problems in the struggle for equality. Religious intolerance certainly plays an even bigger part. The number one problem for the lack of success is that the vast majority of LGBT people are still in the closet. If more people would only come out, the majority would see we're not to be feared.

Well. That doesn't strike me as either a charitable thought or a rational one. Sounds very moralistic. Just like fundies who moralize about other people. If only they......

I really thought that having full equality was also about extending those rights to everyone, even those we disagree with.

So then it would be perfectly ok for a group of gay Nazis to join in on the pride parade?


Rick

[Daniel]

So then it would be perfectly ok for a group of gay Nazis to join in on the pride parade?


I write a post which has a message on inclusion and you turn my thought on it's head. Very nice of you.

I don't appreciate that.

I stand by by thought and post about everyone having all their civil rights. And yes, that would mean- in our democracy- that even the 'gay nazi's' (do you really know of any? Hmmmm?) get to have their speech protected. If they couldn't be in the parade, they could protest that same parade just like the 'Christians' do who think the world is going to hell because of a few gay people in their underwear- or lack of it.

Would you please explain to me the compassionate and nonvioent view you have regarding this situation? Or do are you simply interested in casting more stones?

My point about the photos you are in a snit about is simply this: you haven't done the leg work of finding out anything about them. All I see you doing is REACTING to them. Just the fundies are reacting. Why is this important? Because, for all we know, the photos in question may be dated and not relevant. But have you looked into this? I bet not. And why not? Aren't you the least bit curious as to their history?

If people in gay pride parades are self-censoring themselves- for whatever reason- so what? It says nothing more than the simple fact that gay people may not need to be so confrontational to get their message across as they once did. And there's nothing wrong with that I suppose. That said, I remember when ACT-UP carried coffins in the streets. Boy. Did that get people's attention. And rightly so.

Guess what? Nudity doesn't offend me as much as those who moralize about it. As has been said- and I paraphrase: It's not what you put in your mouth than defiles you, but what comes out of it.


And there's the rub of the whole matter I suppose.

It's so damn easy to be offended.

[Rick336]

I write a post which has a message on inclusion and you turn my thought on it's head. Very nice of you.

I don't appreciate that.

Daniel,

I thought it was a legitimate question. But I can see how it may not have been a fair question. I apologize.

Rick

[Rick336]

I stand by by thought and post about everyone having all their civil rights. And yes, that would mean- in our democracy- that even the 'gay nazi's' (do you really know of any? Hmmmm?) get to have their speech protected. If they couldn't be in the parade, they could protest that same parade just like the 'Christians' do who think the world is going to hell because of a few gay people in their underwear- or lack of it.

Yes. I believe in civil rights of all people, including gay Nazis. My point was that gay Nazis would probably not be allowed to march in the pride parade because a line would be drawn on what's appropriate and what's not. Don't you agree?

Would you please explain to me the compassionate and nonvioent view you have regarding this situation? Or do are you simply interested in casting more stones?

I'm not clear what you're asking here.

My point about the photos you are in a snit about is simply this: you haven't done the leg work of finding out anything about them. All I see you doing is REACTING to them. Just the fundies are reacting. Why is this important? Because, for all we know, the photos in question may be dated and not relevant. But have you looked into this? I bet not. And why not? Aren't you the least bit curious as to their history?

In my original post I said that I didn't know if the photos were from 2008. However, the Boycott McDonalds website made it seem as if they did, and that was probably the perception by those who viewed the website.

However, they could indeed be from 1982 or another year. If this is the case and the offensive behavior is no longer a problem in 2008, then this entire thread is moot and there's no longer a need to debate.

But my guess is, that's not the case.


Guess what? Nudity doesn't offend me as much as those who moralize about it. As has been said- and I paraphrase: It's not what you put in your mouth than defiles you, but what comes out of it.

I also don't have a problem with nudity. I like the looks of a muscular, naked man. But in any workable society there has to be standards. Do we really want a world where anybody can walk around in public naked? Think about what that would look like. Would you really want to see James Dobson walking down the street naked?

No offense James. But I'm trying to make a point here.

Rick

[Daniel]

I also don't have a problem with nudity. I like the looks of a muscular, naked man. But in any workable society there has to be standards. Do we really want a world where anybody can walk around in public naked? Think about what that would look like. Would you really want to see James Dobson walking down the street naked?

No offense James. But I'm trying to make a point here.


How about let's keep things really simple instead of wandering off into rhetorical notions, ok?

For instance. Do you know any gay nazi's? I bet not. So the question is not 'fair'. It's designed to score points and get the reader all riled up.

And as to the notion of standards. Well. That's the interesting thing. As I see you, you are judging the actions of others based on YOUR standards which you take to be universal. If you want to impose YOUR standards on the rest of society, that must be very nice for you.

Know what? I was present about 8 years ago when I saw a few radical faeries walking around in Central Park during gay pride. They were hardly wearing anything. And a cop tried to make much of that. Guess what? The men in question did something I hardly expected. They laid down in the grass and covered themselves with it. It was pretty funny. And the people watching and even the cop himself started laughing.

You know what Rick? You could lighten up. Your rights don't depend on a couple naked guys marching in a parade.

Again- it's too damn easy to get upset about things. It's too damn easy to get offended. And what has nonviolence to do with this? A lot as I see it. Getting pissed off about things you can't control does precious little for you or anyone else. There's no heart in that. Just a lot of frustration and anger. Admittedly, sometimes anger is a very necessary thing, especially when one is depressed. It can pull one right up out of the gutter. But I don't think that's the situation here.

Oh...I really don't have an issue with James Dobson parading himself in public. I don't have to hate him. In fact, I don't see why I should give what he does a moment's thought. I don't get up in the morning thinking about him. And he doesn't make or break my day.

Me? I won't be participating in this thread any longer. Why? I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of getting your dander up. I'd rather think about how silly the whole situation is.

[Alecto]

Regarding the parable: it might have been in the comments (which, ok, I don't normally recommend reading the comments on ANY youtube link, but hers are usually pretty decent), but Sister Unity very deliberately points out at some point that she's not just talkinng about the Sisters, nor is she just talking about drag. "Every member of the community has something to contribute, for the benefit of the whole community". The comments section does mention leather enthusiasts specifically.

And, really, at the heart of this whole thread, is the Big Question which (I know in a thread there's a lot going on) I'd like to come back to. How do "we" as a queer community agree on what our standards are? Because once the naturalists are out (and I think it's worth mentioning that the nudity that I have seen WAS, in fact, nonsexualized, and that these folks, when they have kids, probably would not in fact see anything wrong with their kids being exposed to it as such), what else goes? This is the problem with arguing based on the opposition's framework: Drag queens, who you have no problem with, are SCARY AS HELL to straight people. (That's one of the reasons it's fun to do :P). So clearly they need to go. Motorcycles are kinda scary too, that whole Hell's Angels image gets conjured, so no more dykes on bikes. And we're left with a parade of people in suits and dresses, which isn't terrible, but isn't particularly representative or diverse either.

I'm asking you what morally offends YOU in parades? Not what offends other people, not what's "holding us back" from getting a church and new shoes, but what offends YOU?

One of my favorite things about being queer is that, having already been forced to question some of society's standards and mores in order for me to come out relatively healthy, I'm not more willing and able to question others of society's standards and mores. I don't think nudity is evil, I don't think that children seeing nonsexualized nudity is automatically evil; that said, the ONLY city I went to that was big enough to have that kind of stuff was also big enough to have a seperate area for family-friendly-um,-ness.

**Regarding Nudity and James Dobson
The fact that you're ok with attractive and muscular men being nude, but wouldnt' be ok with James Dobson or everyone walking around nude demonstrates that you're not fully grasping what the point of the nudity really is. No, I wouldn't go out of my way to see Mr. Dobson nude, but at the parade I was at anyway, these guys weren't exactly the main attraction (for me) either. That's sort of what it's about though, is that they don't need my approval to be comfortable with their bodies. I'm not a nudist or a naturalist, but I can totally get where they're coming from. And I'm not saying they should definitely always be in parades, but it's gonna take more than "But those other people, y'know, the ones that don't want us to be respected as equal humans? They don't like it" to convince me that they should be kept out.

[Zerbie]

Regarding the parable: it might have been in the comments (which, ok, I don't normally recommend reading the comments on ANY youtube link, but hers are usually pretty decent), but Sister Unity very deliberately points out at some point that she's not just talkinng about the Sisters, nor is she just talking about drag. "Every member of the community has something to contribute, for the benefit of the whole community". The comments section does mention leather enthusiasts specifically.


I took it as yet more universal than that. I don't know if she meant it this way, but Lady Unity really was speaking to the entire human condition, not just the straight vs queer communities. I would enjoy spending a few hours chatting with her about this subject. She is speaking a universal message. Maybe I need to pay more attention to this person. . . is she supposed to be one of those "drag nuns" that people get so offended about? If so, why be offended? She was being the real thing, there. Possibly more so than some of the "real" ones. I would like to give her flowers.


RE nudity: when did the human body become a horrifying thing?

Okay, I'm quick to admit I rarely actually *want* to see other people naked, but y'know, what could be more natural than the body? We all have one, otherwise we wouldn't even be here. American society has too many hang-ups about the body.

I was in Eastern Europe recently. The whole family went to the baths together there, and I was so pleasantly surprised to note as we left after hours of fun, that not even ONCE had I experienced a moment of self-consciousness regarding my body. Not once did I worry about the tiny belly roll, whether or not my arms looked muscular, or whether, god forbid my thighs were too large or I might have left a follicle of hair visible someplace. I remarked on this lack of discomfort, and the other women with me immediately agreed that they too hadn't thought about it, and what a wonderful change. There simply wasn't that energy of self-conscious body hyper-attention that we have in the US. There were all types, children, young hotties, and older folks, skinny, athletic, big and very big, and ya know what? No one cared. We in the US need to get back to a healthy relationship with bodies.

And with that, I hand back the thread to its original topic of discussion. Just felt the need to hijack it momentarily. ;)

[Alecto]

Sister Unity is a "drag nun" with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (previously mentioned, and debated some, in a thread by Progo) of Los Angelas. People who don't get it (which is to say, usually, uptight straight folks) think that the Sisters are mocking nuns. To which the sisters have multiple replies. First, they are in fact emulating the best aspects of religious women, and they do take vows which they take very seriously. Second, they are totally mocking Catholics because they're also mocking everyone else. Their role is to mock society, and by standing outside taboos, question them (a lot like what I said I like about being queer, in fact). Now, a lot of GLBT folks don't like the Sisters because they are 1)Big, flamboyant drag characters and 2)Directly questioning said taboos (usually not in a "quiet" way, either). Sister Unity's convent (from which we do have one registered member, though I don't know if he's still around) can be found at lasisters.org, where I"m sure you could find an email address if you did wish to communicate with her. ;)

[Rick336]

Everybody has a right to their opinions and I certainly respect that. But my opinion is that public nudity and open sexuality in the streets on Gay Pride Day is harmful to the progress of LGBT equality.

RE nudity: when did the human body become a horrifying thing?

The human body is not a horrifying thing. But the overwhelming majority of Americans have long ago agreed that public nudity is not acceptable for obvious reasons.

And, really, at the heart of this whole thread, is the Big Question which (I know in a thread there's a lot going on) I'd like to come back to. How do "we" as a queer community agree on what our standards are?

As I've stated before, we agree on standards all the time. Some Gay Pride committees have set standards for their parades that they enforce. The whole point I was trying to make about gay Nazis was that no Gay Pride Parade would ever allow a group of gay Nazis to march, and for good reason. It's a simple matter of standards.

I'm asking you what morally offends YOU in parades? Not what offends other people, not what's "holding us back" from getting a church and new shoes, but what offends YOU?

Anything that would be inappropriate for children would probably also offend me. An example would be a parade float made to look like a giant penis or a naked man walking in the street.

You know what Rick? You could lighten up. Your rights don't depend on a couple naked guys marching in a parade.

No. I'm not going to "lighten up." In an open forum, whenever I see a need to voice my opinion about a particular issue, I will probably speak up.



Gay author Bruce Bawer wrote a great book 15 years ago titled, "A Place at the Table; The Gay Individual in American Society." The book was a top seller in the LGBT community at the time. In his book he addresses what he considers "exhibitionism" in Gay Pride parades.

"These days, 'openess' - that is, the willingness to bare your heart at the drop of a hat to strangers, whether on the street, in the pages of Vanity Fair, or on the Oprah Winfrey show - is celebrated as a paramount virtue. But civilization relies on a certain degree of restraint, of discretion.

This is not to suggest that it is wrong for gays to be every bit as open about their relationships as straight people are about theirs; it is simply to point out that the gay sub-culture's cult of openness, as manifested in outing and in some of the more unseemly displays on Gay Pride Day, is often little more than an excuse for exhibitionism reflecting a lamentable antagonism toward the value of privacy, toward the idea of propriety, and toward the notion that life should be divided into private and public realms.

In short, coming out is a vital and moral act; but it should not be confused with narcissistic display."

He goes on to say.....

"The marchers who make the Gay Pride Day march embarrassing to many homosexuals and disgusting to people like my mother's friend represent the same small but vocal minority of the gay population that has, for a generation, played no small part in shaping and sustaining most heterosexuals' notions of what we mean to be homosexual.

They had been provided here with an extraordinary opportunity to educate the heterosexual population about homosexuality, to destroy the backward myths, to win friends and supporters for the cause of gay equality; instead much of the march simply served to reinforce myths, to confirm prejudices, and make new enemies for homosexuals. If Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson had wanted to orchestrate an annual spectacle designed to increase hostility towards gays, I reflect, they could hardly have done a better job than this.

It seemed to me, indeed, that the sort of pride on display in the Gay Pride Day march was, in many cases, not so much pride in the sense of 'self-respect' or 'dignity' than pride in the sense of 'arrogance,' 'conceit,' hubris."



As I've stated before, I think it's important to weigh our priorities here. Do these public displays of sexuality and nudity outweigh our need for equality in jobs, housing, accommodations, the military, adoption, and marriage?

Can we demand that laws be kept out of our bedrooms and that our sexuality is nobody's business and yet take our sex and nakedness into the streets for everyone to see? Isn't this a very confusing message?

Is it reasonable to parade every sexual stereotype that America has about homosexuality in front of television cameras and then wonder why so many continue to fear us?

It may not be reflected on this forum, but I believe the majority of LGBT people agree that Gay Pride celebrations should be an opportunity to show the world that we are a people of pride and high self-esteem and that we are not a people obsessed with sex and exhibitionism.

One of my favorite lines about LGBT rights is from Lesbian Activist Robin Tyler who was a speaker at the 1979 March on Washington. In her famous speech she said, "They've got to understand something. This is not a movement from the waste down. We're talking about our right to love, and to choose, and to live."

She makes an excellent point. Our movement is not about sex. It's about our right be treated with fairness, respect and dignity and that what we do behind closed doors is nobody's business. If our goal is that America understands that message, I think with Gay Pride we have miserably failed.

Rick



* A Place at the Table by Bruce Bawer can be found on amazon.com

[Zerbie]

Sister Unity is a "drag nun" with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (previously mentioned, and debated some, in a thread by Progo) of Los Angelas. People who don't get it (which is to say, usually, uptight straight folks) think that the Sisters are mocking nuns. To which the sisters have multiple replies. First, they are in fact emulating the best aspects of religious women, and they do take vows which they take very seriously. Second, they are totally mocking Catholics because they're also mocking everyone else. Their role is to mock society, and by standing outside taboos, question them (a lot like what I said I like about being queer, in fact). Now, a lot of GLBT folks don't like the Sisters because they are 1)Big, flamboyant drag characters and 2)Directly questioning said taboos (usually not in a "quiet" way, either). Sister Unity's convent (from which we do have one registered member, though I don't know if he's still around) can be found at lasisters.org, where I"m sure you could find an email address if you did wish to communicate with her. ;)

Thanks, Alecto. :):)

They take vows? Really? What are these vows?

I did visit the lasisters website and perhaps I missed that part. Saw some pics and links. No email for Unity, though. I was genuinely inspired by her, so if there had been an address, I would have sent a short note.
Since that's not possible, I will, without her knowledge, offer some flowers for her:
:flower2::flower2::flower::flower::flower2:
:flower::flower2::flower2::flower:
:flower2::flower::flower2:
:flower::flower:
:flower2:

[Alecto]

Zerbie: They take vows to, if I remember correctly, "Expiate stigmatic guilt and propogate joy". It's been awhile since I've been to the site, but... no contact page? :( ::shrug:: I know she's got a myspace n stuff, and you could also always leave a youtube comment. Or plant flowers, that's cool too. :)

And Rick, you've demonstrated that there are some things that yes, we generally all agree on. But the point is that there isn't nearly as much agreement on this aspect. Nazis? They demonstrate the same behaviors towards others that we are fighting when they are displayed towards us. That's a reason to not be ok with them in our events. Naked people? They break a cultural taboo (which we do, also). The reason for that taboo is a little less clear. The question at hand isn't "We agree on some things so why can't we agree on this too", it's "how do we come to an agreement on the things we don't already have pretty much unanimous feelings about?".

As for "parading stereotypes", that strikes a nerve. You say you have no problem with drag queens. They are a stereotype, and this argument is FREQUENTLY leveled agains them. If it's not a good argument against drag queens, why is it a good / logical argument against other folks?

And as for sending a conflicting message: YES! That's the point! We aren't a monolithic group that all thinks the same way! There are plenty of folks who are perfectly fine with "stay out of my bedroom". Y'know what? I'm not one of them, hence this conflict. Sexuality impacts a WHOLE lot more of my life than just those moments when I'm actually dating or sleeping with someone. And some of the things I think we desperately need are not limited to marriage; REAL sex education that doesn't ignore and condemn queer kids, for instance. I'm not saying you wouldn't be for that (I don't know cause I haven't asked), but you'd be hard pressed to call that "keeping my private life private".

When I asked what offends you, I think I actually meant to put a lot more emphasis on WHY it does. I agree with you, actually, that some parts of pride are a little oversexual. The pictures you showed, however, and were upset by, I don't think were necessarily sexual at all. We have some REALLY bizarre hangups in our culture about our bodies, and I don't fault anyone, especially with the unique perspective of already being on the fringes, of questioning that. I think there's an alliance there worth having.

I disapprove with telling anyone to EVER "Lighten up". Because especially when I'm offended by something, there is no surer way to further enrage me than by telling me to "lighten up". Some things are worth getting angry over (though if one is able and wanting to take the educational route, that anger needs some temperence), and definitely worth bringing up, calling out, and discussing. That said, my biggest issue here is that I think you're blaming the wrong folks. Like it or not, yeah, there's big Q Queer (as in odd) people in our community.

I guess the other HUGE question that needs asking is: "Who is pride for?". Is this an occasion that is (or should be?) an event to educate straight folks? Or is this an event that is for us?

[Zerbie]

Zerbie: They take vows to, if I remember correctly, "Expiate stigmatic guilt and propogate joy". It's been awhile since I've been to the site, but... no contact page? :( ::shrug:: I know she's got a myspace n stuff, and you could also always leave a youtube comment. Or plant flowers, that's cool too. :)

:)
Ooh, maybe I'll actually PLANT flowers. What a great idea!! :tup:

Oh gosh, I'm on some kinduva silliness roll today but, how about we plant Unity Gardens? :eek::weee::good: :lol::p


I guess the other HUGE question that needs asking is: "Who is pride for?". Is this an occasion that is (or should be?) an event to educate straight folks? Or is this an event that is for us?

Thank You!
I have always believed that pride events are social activities for the LGBT community and their friends, distinctly NOT educational/advocacy tools. I have never understood why they are even discussed as if they are a PR tool. :confused:
It's my belief that part of what pride events are FOR is for those who are young, and/or newly out, and/or only able to be out once in a while when closeted during the workweek, etc., to let loose in a safe-ish group situation and experiment with boundaries, go a little crazy. That's part of why I don't usually stay very long. Two, three hours max.

[Daniel]

I disapprove with telling anyone to EVER "Lighten up". Because especially when I'm offended by something, there is no surer way to further enrage me than by telling me to "lighten up". Some things are worth getting angry over (though if one is able and wanting to take the educational route, that anger needs some temperence), and definitely worth bringing up, calling out, and discussing. That said, my biggest issue here is that I think you're blaming the wrong folks. Like it or not, yeah, there's big Q Queer (as in odd) people in our community.


Thank you.

[tdogg]

Part of determining whether or not a situation effects something or not, is measuring the materiality of the situation. So, if 1,000 (I'm sure it's much more, but for the benefit of a doubt, I'll stick with that) are marching in the SF Pride parade, and 4 of those 1,000 are marching around with their equipment hanging out for all to see, that accounts for less than 1% of the population (in this case 1,000). In my world, that isn't even enough to bother mentioning (I'm an auditor). Now, 4 in a 100, maybe I'll say something.

But, I'll grant you that a person's perception is their reality. So perhaps, it bothers someone so much that all they can see is the 4 naked guys, and they can't even notice the other 996 participants. Their world consists of 4 naked marchers. Well, that would be bothersome if that person was bothered by naked bodies in a pride parade. I give you that. Again, I have to go back to my original thought - people in this country are way too obsessed with sex and nudity in a negative way (maybe in big part to religion?). I'm mainly interested in colors, pagentry, individual expression, making that eye to eye connection, being in the moment of the parade, being pride, and yes being out. So the 4 naked people wouldn't bother me at all. I would actually be seeing mainly the 996 others (unless the nudists had tattoos or body paint!). But that's just me.

I must agree with Daniel, those 4 naked people aren't really contributing that much to inequality. The James Dobson sheep of the world would find something else to protest if there was no nudity. The major contributors to inequality are fear, hate, self-righteousness and religion (not soley but I believe mainly). Those things would continue to exist even if no one went around naked in Pride parades. Personally, it's probably not a bad thing that only 4 out of 1,000 choose to march naked. It might be a different story if it were 996 marching naked and 4 in costumes. But that would probably mean it's a nudist parade, not Pride.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if Mr. Dobson marched naked in parades. Although I would not want to look at his naked body, I would probably cheer him on. And as Zerbie said, people in many other countries do not have the same hangups we do with sex and bodies in the USA.