Fashion for Lesbians? The new market .....

I think its just a way that people describe a certain fashion. Minimal female fashion may be reffered to a lesbian fashion like someone mentioned jil sanders fashion whereas flamboyant men's fashion may also go the other way...thats my opinion
 
Originally posted by softgrey@Mar 22nd, 2004 - 3:24 pm
do we have any lesbians at tfs?...it would be great to get that kind of perspective on this...
Right here- I had no idea this thread would have went on for so long. There are lesbians who are into fashion. Everyday more and more lesbians choose to dress how they like- and not conform to the 'butch' standard. (Although butches aren't going anywhere...there are always women- straight or gay who don't feel comfortable in a dress).

It's a fact that everyday it will get harder to label others by how they dress. I am sure that designers would like to break into a 'lesbian market'. Will it mean loads of more dollars for them? I doubt it. Even though the community is so small- we are very different from each other.
 
i absolutely agree with onehotgrrl
and yes, the market wants the lesbian money, cause there are quite a lot of those 'untargeted' lesbian women out there.. big companies are out to get them and the harder it seems, the most it makes the market interested...
they see this as somekind of ...'challenge' :rolleyes:

as a fashion consultant, i need to follow rising fashion trends and developements for proffesional reasons, well, suprise-surprise, wwd is dedicating a quite huge, three-part research 'targeting the gay and lesbian market'.. there should be some reason right?
as i said before in this thread, fashion industry finds lesbians are much more hard to pin point (for commercial or other reasons) than the average gay man.
lesbians are less 'obvious' much more those of the 'young generation' so if they are hard to define how in the world one can have a 'fashion' point on them?

my personal view on this:
generalisations linking fashion styles with sexual behavour, make me mad.

segmentation of social groups according to their class, race or sexual prefferences,
is all wrong. I dont think there is somekind of 'special' lesbian fashion.
Lesbians and gays are like everybody else, -see: diverse fashion choices-
i hope they always stay this way.

the old stereotype of the butch/femme lesbian is becoming a thing of the past,
the rise of 'lipstick lesbianism' proved old statifications of
'what a lesbian looks like' wrong.

gays and lesbians are like everybody else guys,
sexual prefference does not nessecarily dictate what we were ,
much more in the 21rst century :wink:

long gone the days of the 'screaming queens' or the 'butch dykes' :flower:
 
Originally posted by Lena@Mar 24th, 2004 - 3:36 am
i absolutely agree with onehotgrrl
and yes, the market wants the lesbian money, cause there are quite a lot of those 'untargeted' lesbian women out there.. big companies are out to get them and the harder it seems, the most it makes the market interested...
they see this as somekind of ...'challenge' :rolleyes:

as a fashion consultant, i need to follow rising fashion trends and developements for proffesional reasons, well, suprise-surprise, wwd is dedicating a quite huge, three-part research 'targeting the gay and lesbian market'.. there should be some reason right?
as i said before in this thread, fashion industry finds lesbians are much more hard to pin point (for commercial or other reasons) than the average gay man.
lesbians are less 'obvious' much more those of the 'young generation' so if they are hard to define how in the world one can have a 'fashion' point on them?

my personal view on this:
generalisations linking fashion styles with sexual behavour, make me mad.

segmentation of social groups according to their class, race or sexual prefferences,
is all wrong. I dont think there is somekind of 'special' lesbian fashion.
Lesbians and gays are like everybody else, -see: diverse fashion choices-
i hope they always stay this way.

the old stereotype of the butch/femme lesbian is becoming a thing of the past,
the rise of 'lipstick lesbianism' proved old statifications of
'what a lesbian looks like' wrong.

gays and lesbians are like everybody else guys,
sexual prefference does not nessecarily dictate what we were ,
much more in the 21rst century :wink:

long gone the days of the 'screaming queens' or the 'butch dykes' :flower:
LENA :heart:

speaks ABSOLUTE sense again . B)

I remember an article in a newspaper , when ARMANI did lots of trouser suits ( when did he ever NOT do so ) which were shown on models with slicked back hair .

The writer talked about ' lesbian chic ' and mentioned that as a lesbian , she did not have the choice of dress that her ' hetero ' friends had .

She said the designers who catered for this ' market ' , apart from Armani , were CALVIN KLEIN , HELMUT LANG and JIL SANDER .

I thought I could see what she was getting at , as these designers have a minimalistic style that encompasses both the feminine and the faintly masculine .

Perhaps this is the secret . :rolleyes:

BUT can the ' lesbian market ' afford the ' high - end ' prices of such designers ? :unsure:

Perhaps WWD will enlighten us . :wink:

I cannot wait to go into dear old Marks and Sparks , to be confronted by a ' Lesbian ' section , next to ' Autograph ' and ' Per Una ' !!!!!!! :o

KIT :innocent:
 
Originally posted by Lena@Mar 24th, 2004 - 3:36 am
generalisations linking fashion styles with sexual behavour, make me mad.
ditto

and forget the article, i'm more shocked by some of the generalizations coming from fellow fashionspotters :doh:
 
Originally posted by CaptainJackSparrow+Mar 24th, 2004 - 10:18 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CaptainJackSparrow @ Mar 24th, 2004 - 10:18 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lena@Mar 24th, 2004 - 3:36 am
generalisations linking fashion styles with sexual behavour, make me mad.
ditto

and forget the article, i'm more shocked by some of the generalizations coming from fellow fashionspotters :doh: [/b][/quote]
:ninja: moi aussi :cry:
 
Originally posted by Lena@Mar 24th, 2004 - 3:36 am

my personal view on this:
generalisations linking fashion styles with sexual behavour, make me mad.




long gone the days of the 'screaming queens' or the 'butch dykes' :flower:
sorry to disagree, but i have a couple of issues...

first, i find that second statment to be discriminatory and false...there are plenty of both who are proud and happy to be so...and i don't think there's anything wrong with it...freedom of choice...plenty of people i know fall into one of those categories...some are very close friends... i see it everyday and i don't think it's going away...

what i do see...is that society is becoming more tolerant (the 'L' word, queer eye, will and grace, ellen, etc...) so, more and more people are identifying themselves publicly as gay...whereas...they may have chosen to keep that private in the past...as a result...we get a broader...and probably more accurate picture of the entire gay community... not just the old stereotypes...which is healthy...but those types still exist within the bigger picture...and i think that's great!

ALSO_i think fashion is dramatically linked to sexual behaviour...most people want to be sexy...or at least attractive...having said that...most people will have their own personal idea of what is sexy...for some is may be showing every curve and for some it may be covering up...etc...but fashion is vanity and vanity is undeniably linked to sexuality-both gay and straight...

i think you can tell what kind of sex a person is into by looking at how they present themselves-wardrobe-hair-posture-etc...unless they are purposely trying to hide it...
and i don't mean gay or straight, but much more specific-like bondage or traditional or role playing...etc...

it's no different to me than saying teenagers buy a certain type of style
these are marketing strategies, not value judgements...that's all...
they are just trying to sell a much stuff as possible to whoever will buy it...
marketing relies on generalizations...

and there are already very many menswear companies that really cater to the gay male...
shall i name them all?...
why not the gay female...if there's a market for it, you better believe it will happen...
(personally, i don't think it's very big and i don't think gay women dress so differently from straight women-so what's the point really...that's probably why they're having such a hard time researching it)

that's all


:flower: :P
 
i used the terms in "_" it was just figurative talking softgrey
of course there is freedom of expression, homosexuals (and their supporters, hello i'm here) have been fighting for decades in order to achive this.
sure 'screaming queens' and 'butch dykes' are proud to be who they are and they are free to do what they like but also there is a newfound freedom of ridiculed stereotypes, much more in the younger generation who feel normal and balanced and gay without making a bit show of their sexual preferences via dress coding. Lots of lesbians used to hate being 'forced' to dress in checked shirts and 'masculine' jeans, but until some years ago they had no choice..

there is always a possible difference in our cultural bgs :unsure:
in europe its absolutely no big deal is someone is straight or gay
as for judging sexual prefferences by the way people dress
in their everyday life.. hm i certainly not think so..

no need to go into sexual preferences and casual dressing here,
but from what i know fetichists (or others..) dont wear their fantasies
casually, on the contrary, the more 'extreme' the less it comes obvious
with the way people dress in everyday life.
Sometimes, the more 'twisted' the less it shows in dress.
Its only the 'innocent' that will wear an s&m accesorie for laughs
in a nightclub (see the recent handcuffs trend.. says a lot)

anyway, absolutely no need to argue
when discussing sociologically on fashion & sexuality.
this are very deep waters ... :wink:

i'm only posting my personal opinions ,
no universal truths from me guys.

:flower:
 
Originally posted by CaptainJackSparrow@Mar 24th, 2004 - 5:18 am
and forget the article, i'm more shocked by some of the generalizations coming from fellow fashionspotters :doh:
Amen. :shock:
 
lena i think we actually agree then on the fact that society is opening up and loosening up in terms of gay sterotypes (yay)...i confess...i did not realize you were speaking figuratively...sorry if i misunderstood you...

what i meant about being able to tell what kind of sex someone is into by the clothes they wear and how they wear them is not that one literally wears handcuffs every day for example, so they must be into s&m...but much more subtle things that you have to look for closely...for example...leaving the cuffs of your shirt unbuttoned...tucking your shirt in or leaving it out...what kind of shoes you wear-boots or lace up...comfortable or extreme...is your hair smooth and shiny or short and spikey...i notice these things all the time and the choices people make give you a lot of insight into their personalities...that's what i have found anyway...unless of course, as i said, they are purposely trying to hide it...which some people do...i guess that's why a lot of people dress to 'blend or fit in'...they don't want people to know so much about them...as you mentioned there is a whole psychoogy to the way people dress and then there are the whole sociological issues...i find that kind of stuff fascinating...but maybe off topic

hope that clears it up

:wink: :flower:
 
"pay no attention of barkin' dogs" thats a local proverb regarding appearances softgrey :lol:

honestly i believe 'niche' sexuality stays hidden under a very safe 'cover'
the handcuffs example was based on the idea that people who buy them
(or give them away as presents) most likely never use them.
anyway, once again.. sexuality and dress codes is a very deep discussion,
fit for a university thesis..

on "lipstick lesbians" banana, i think they are taking a laugh.
i really want to read a book on them, they are quite a new lesbian tribe
a whole world of their own

straight girls making out infront of their boyfriends? :unsure:
well, they dont over here and if they do i believe its plain teasing,
after all guys are 'supposed' to get 'exited' when seing girls 'together'
and some girls might be too quick to 'please' well promoted fantasies
much more since their pop stars also do it :sick:

which brings us to.. britney, i believe she could do just about anything to get her picture in the papers, or get gossip columns rolling :innocent:

Madonna is another story, she actually had lesbian relationships
and personally i hold nothing against bisexuality.
 
Informed Opinion ... For those who still like to read...

The LA Times

STYLE & CULTURE
Dressed-up diversity
On 'The L Word,' lesbians go chic, playing against stereotypes but raising issues of identity and acceptance.

February 8, 2004
By Booth Moore, Times Staff Writer

When costume designer Cynthia Summers was first approached about working on Showtime's "The L Word," she wasn't interested. "I wasn't sure how fun it would be to dress a bunch of butch girls," she says. What she didn't know was that she'd be costuming an L world of Gucci stilettos, Marc Jacobs miniskirts and white patent leather vintage Courrèges jackets.

In the show, about a lesbian couple and their clique in Los Angeles, Jennifer Beals and her costars chat about clothes almost as much as Sarah Jessica Parker and hers do on "Sex and the City." Clearly, Showtime hopes designer duds and stylish story lines will attract viewers, but with nary a Birkenstock or buzz cut in sight, "The L Word's" feminized image of lesbians has left some wondering: Where are the dykes?

On the network's online message board, one posting offered a list of things a "real lesbian show" would have, including "bi-level hairdos, hiking boots, baseball hats, polo shirts and at least one character who doesn't shave her legs and armpits. These girls dress way too cute!"

The show's fantasy lesbians are not the prevailing stereotype for heterosexuals either, according to Ann Ciasullo, who teaches gender studies and pop culture at the University of Oregon. Most people envision lesbians as butch dykes in sleeveless flannel shirts and jeans — so how to represent lesbians on TV in a politically correct way becomes a quandary.

"Think about images of African Americans, and someone like Sidney Poitier, who was seen as changing the image of black men in film but by some critics was seen as an Uncle Tom figure," Ciasullo says. "The same thing goes for lesbians. The stereotype is the butch lesbian, and to get away from that, you have the feminine lesbian. But as images get feminized, lesbianism gets subsumed."

Issues of style are pertinent, because historically dress has been part of lesbian identity and used as an identifier, according to Frances Stevens, publisher of Curve magazine in San Francisco. Today lesbians wear anything and everything, though they still rely on "gaydar" to parse the visual clues that might answer the question: Is she or isn't she? And judging from the first few episodes of "The L Word," in which the virtues of tapered jeans with high heels, painted nails and a sundress on the first date are all discussed, the signs aren't always clear. "We're as diverse as the heterosexual community," Stevens says.

Some in the lesbian community worry that "The L Word" and the publicity surrounding it will promulgate a new wave of lesbian chic that will only marginalize dykes. And instead of promoting acceptance, the show could be another case of lesbians being used as a marketing tool, this time to create a successor to "Sex and the City."

L.A. sets the style

"The L Word" is filmed in Vancouver, Canada, where most of the costumes are procured. But the show's creator, Ilene Chaiken, sent Summers to L.A. style meccas Maxfield, Agnès B., Chrome Hearts and the Beverly Center for wardrobe research.

"I think the show is more about L.A. than it is about lesbians," says Heather Findlay, editor in chief of Girlfriends, one of the country's largest lesbian magazines, based in San Francisco, with a monthly circulation of 30,000. Findlay notes that there are regional differences in style, and lesbians in L.A., generally speaking, are more femme, which means lipstick and heels, not Frye boots and flannel shirts.

"These women live in L.A.," Chaiken says. "They approach the day in a looks-conscious way."

Summers envisions Shane (Katherine Moennig) as a cross between Mick Jagger and Warren Beatty in "Shampoo," in tank tops and custom-made leather pants so long that they that drag on the ground. Bette (Jennifer Beals) wears Gucci pinstripe suits with Prada, Pringle and Paul Smith men's dress shirts tailored to fit her. "All the girls were kind of trying to find their inner lesbians," Summers says.

Leisha Hailey, who plays Alice, a magazine editor — and is the one actress on the show who is a lesbian in real life — didn't react kindly to all of the wardrobe suggestions. "I marched in and said, 'Lesbians don't wear purses!' But now I've come to realize that's not true, and I've come to wear one myself."

Like most TV shows, "The L Word" represents only a microcosm of the world it depicts. But as the first show to portray the lesbian lifestyle, its hair, makeup and wardrobe choices carry more weight than usual.

"Masculinity looks really sexy on some women. It's called butch," says Karen Everett, who produced the documentary "Framing Lesbian Fashion" in 1992. "What's missing from 'The L Word' is the 'B word.' That's not to say the show isn't reflective of middle-class lesbian fashions in L.A. But unfortunately, because there's so little lesbian visibility on television, many viewers may think that the cast is reflective of lesbian dress codes and sensibilities nationwide, and that's just not true."

A personal statement

As it has for all women, fashion has at times been a means of political expression for lesbians. In underground gay bars in the early 20th century, wearing at least two articles of women's clothing could spare one from being arrested in a raid, according to LesbianHerstory Archives.org. Lesbians in mid-20th century England and France, including Radclyffe Hall, author of the pathbreaking 1928 novel "The Well of Loneliness," favored upper-class male dress, says fashion historian Valerie Steele. Hall wrote about a butch-femme relationship in her book, but it wasn't until the 1950s, Steele says, that lesbian couples in the United States began adopting the look.

By the late 1960s, with the advent of the feminist movement, lesbians were showing their solidarity by wearing an androgynous uniform of jeans and flannel shirts, according to Everett's film. In the late 1980s, "lipstick lesbians" traded the uniform for an erotic glamour created not for men but for other women, causing a stir among some who saw it as capitulation to the heterosexual hegemony. Steele notes that lipstick lesbianism was also part of a larger fashion movement, as women returned to wearing skirts and dresses, realizing that feminine style was not incompatible with feminism.

Vogue magazine dubbed lesbians the "hula hoops of the 1990s," which to some implied that they were a novelty to be exploited for their sex appeal. Girl-on-girl ads for Banana Republic, Versace, Gucci and Christian Dior competed for the attention of the buying public — both men and women. On a famous Vanity Fair cover in 1993, Cindy Crawford gave k.d. lang a shave.

The late Helmut Newton and other fashion photographers made careers of male fantasies of what lesbians look like (long legs, slicked-back hair, lacquered red lips, black leather corsets). In October, designers Viktor & Rolf, John Galliano for Dior, and Tom Ford for Yves Saint Laurent paid homage to Marlene Dietrich, who perfected the "garçon" look in Paris in the 1930s.

Today, lesbians on TV are no less glamorized.

"It's not that the images are bad," Ciasullo says. "Positive representations are important. But these representations of normal are bound by the expectation of femininity. You wouldn't see a stereotypical butch woman anywhere on TV that would be anything but threatening."

Sara Warn, editor of AfterEllen.com, a website devoted to lesbians and bisexuals on TV, says that "from a marketing perspective, there is no way 'The L Word' could have been accurate and been a success. They have to appeal to a wider audience, which means they had to pick the most conventionally attractive characters. They need more than lesbian and bisexual viewers. This show is subject to the same conventions as all of U.S. television."

Raising the bar

Portraying lesbians at all on television is relatively new. The first lesbian kiss on a network was between C.J. Lamb (Amanda Donohoe) and Abby (Michele Greene) on "L.A. Law" in 1991. They both wore power suits and later said they regretted the scene, which they felt was designed to boost ratings. "Ellen" was the first sitcom to revolve around a lesbian character, although it took her four seasons to come out.

The first lesbian sex scene on a network did not appear until 2003, when Willow (Alyson Hannigan) discovered both her Wiccan powers and her attraction to Tara (Amber Benson) on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Recurring lesbian characters on network TV now include Dr. Kerry Weaver on "ER" (in a lab coat, turtleneck, no makeup and a ponytail) and Bianca Kane on ABC's "All My Children." It's also common to see faux lesbianism used for shock value — as in the Madonna-Britney-Christina kiss.

"Once you get a taste," Warn says, "it's hard not to want more accuracy and representation. Do I expect a few years from now to hold 'The L Word' up to a higher standard and to have a butch lesbian in a recurring role? Yes."

Judging from online postings, "L Word" viewers don't find the characters inaccurate, just incomplete. "Lots of lesbians are clothes hounds," Warn says. "Why wouldn't they be? You are surrounded by women all the time and you are marketing yourself to women."

For Summers, the costume designer, that's encouraging. "I think eventually we do want to make this a fashion show that people tune in to to see what Shane is wearing," she says.

So far, she's been getting mixed reactions from design houses, even though the finale of "Sex and the City" this month will leave viewers starved for fashion and though lesbians have roughly $200 billion in buying clout, according to Women's Wear Daily. Dolce & Gabbana hasn't been that receptive, she says, but others have. "We called a local skateboarding label to ask for some jeans and explained that we were from a show about lesbians in L.A.," Summers says. "They were totally into it. They said, 'Cool!' "



NOTE: AfterEllen.com is not affiliated with Ellen Degeneres or her talk show.
Thoughts? Feedback? [email protected]
Copyright © 2004 AfterEllen.com
 
What is happening on the runway is and will always be subjective - fashion is not a fact it is a view of imagery, and depending on your personal experiences, beliefs and perspectives on its importance or relevance, it will determine what you read into it and see in it - ignorance also always comes into play - stereotypes are images in fashion and media, that are either held onto or somehow transformed, destroyed or validated... the same is true for the images designers choose to present in each collection, the trends come through with relevance to what is going on in popular culture in a UNIQUE space and time, which means it is not always a global effect that is felt simultaneously, but sometimes takes time to spread.

... International Herald Tribune, Suzy Menkes - Articles on FALL 2004/05

After the girly, fluttery and barely-there sexually titillating fashions since the start of the millennium, designers are going back to something much more substantial.
.
"I had been working on menswear, it all came together and I said: 'Let's do it,'" said Christian Lacroix backstage, after the surprise appearance of the tweeds, pinstripes and velvet, interspersed with Fair Isle sweaters or a dash of pattern. This was a beautifully controlled foray into the male closet with the French rugby star Frederick Michalak as a handsome, hunky model.
.
As well as showing that he has more than one string to his lyre, Lacroix gave his women's clothes a masculine touch, contrasting tailored straight-cut jackets with his more familiar snug-style in denim. Winter wear included coats, whimsical in quilting with loose colorful threads and knitwear that included a big cardigan threaded with colored ribbon.


______
Chanel Fall 2004/05

The show was all about the man/woman thing, going back to when Coco Chanel purloined the polo jersey from her aristocratic lover, the Duke of Westminster, and set a century of androgynous dressing in motion. The men - wearing women's tweeds - were just a passing reference, to reinforce the return of the loose-fit jacket and the end of curvy, corseted femininity.
.
"I believe in boys and girls sharing jeans, T-shirts -- and jackets," said Lagerfeld backstage, as Marianne Faithfull, in sugar pink Chanel tweed called the designer "a diva" and French actress Clotilde Courau (newly married to the Prince of Venice) sighed over "pearls worn with black." As Susan Gutfreund put it as she exclaimed with joy: "something for everyone."
.
 
Taken from another paper online - the term metrosexual has been WIDELY accepted, even though it was just as controversial when gay men were stereotyped...it's a matter of breaking down the stereotypical images associated with a particular culture, and in this case, sexuality is a culture and has its visual identity - just as Ellen Degeneres and Rosie Odonnell among others in film and television have in the past substantiated what is seen as "Lesbian" looking....

Binghamton University Paper...

Metrosexuality doesn't help gays
By Ari Naveh
Guest Columnist

The first song on musician Rufus Wainwright's new album Want One is called "Oh What a World." The lyrics in the first verse are: "Men reading fashion magazines, oh what a world it seems we live in... straight men!" The New York Times coined the term "metrosexual" to describe a so-called straight man that is "in touch with his feminine side, appreciates good grooming and good fashion." Two Russian girls in a pop band are lauded for their extremely open lesbianism, which amounts to nothing more than kissing each other on stage, thus calling into question the authenticity of their so called lesbianism in the first place. "Will & Grace," a television show about an overtly gay male and his best female friend (a "*** hag") is consistently ranked in the top 10 of the Nielsen ratings of television viewing.

We gays are at a point right now in our long and oftentimes painful history of finally being not only accepted into hetero society, but being acclaimed and praised for it as well, if not admired completely. But is this really what we as a community should want?

The Bravo cable channel started this trend with their supposedly "groundbreaking" show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which pits an unsuspecting straight guy, who is usually portrayed as a complete boor without any sense of self-worth at all, against five gay males, all of whom have impeccable taste in fashion, gourmet food, design, etc. These five men then proceed to give the straight guy a massive makeover from head to toe, giving fashion, food, interior design, and all around better living tips to the poor unfortunate straight people. This show has become a smash hit, and the "Fab Five," as they are called, have become so- called icons of the gay community to some people. They've even made over Jay Leno on an episode of his late night talk show, giving his usually drab fashion sense a goose.

VH1 recently had a special called "Totally Gay," on which both homosexual and heterosexual celebrities dished about the current society's new acceptance of the gay lifestyle. According to VH1, we as a community have gained a stronghold on society as a whole, and as such society is becoming "gayer" than ever. Television commercials celebrate gay couples; artists who come out are celebrated for their courage and tenacity, and gay characters are popping up all over television. Melissa Etheridge, an open lesbian and advocate for gay rights, celebrated T.A.T.U. (the aforementioned Russian pop group) for specifically not being lesbians, saying that when she came out, it would have been unheard of to even consider homosexuality as a viable lifestyle, let alone pretend to do it for publicity's sake.

While I have to admit that my fashion sense is most certainly impeccable, this is not how I feel I want to be portrayed in my media. I want to be able to walk around unshaven and sloppy, and not be thought of as any "less gay" than I should be. Not to mention the fact that to have the straight community co-opt a culture that we have been cultivating for years and hold fast to both because of and in spite of them diminishes our identity as unique and independent. The more "metrosexual" becomes the trend, the less important truly gay culture will become as a whole.

All of these images are bathed in stereotype; the five men in "Queer Eye" represent nothing more than how the gay community is perceived by the straight community. Positive stereotypes (claiming gay males have superior fashion sense) hold the same effect as negative ones in terms of solely defining a community - just more deceptively and subtly. This current obsession with the so-called gay lifestyle does nothing but mask very poorly the homophobia that is still rampant in our current society. Our president still defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Certain pastors still vehemently plead their case for homosexual damnation at any opportunity they make for themselves.

I wrote a letter to GLAAD, the Gay community's advocate for fair speech and equal representation about this issue. Their response disappointed me, but didn't surprise me in any way. They claim what most people think about it already; that there is no such thing as bad publicity, especially in terms of our community as a whole. We should be grateful for any representation we get, they said, positive or not as much. It's a shame to concede defeat so powerfully, isn't it? Oh well, I guess I'll just go back to my manicure.
 
wow, lots of reading material..
thanks redactrice and welcome on board :flower:
 
thanks for the other perspectives...i just had a little trouble trying to figure out what was quoted and what was your opinion...redactrice :unsure: :flower:
 
Thought it might be a bit hard, my writing comes before the name of the publication that I took the article from... whatever I wrote before the title of the article or the name of publication is my own. Hope that can clear it up.
 
thx- :P so that's not you getting a pedicure then? :flower:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,896
Messages
15,133,119
Members
84,665
Latest member
Valkirius
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->