Tolerance V Acceptance Of Men Wearing Heels (Or Any Other Feminine Attire In Public)

Richy · August 16, 2012

I was reading some of this old thread http://www.hhplace.org/topic/11007-do-women-like-men-in-heels/, and this most recent comment struck a chord.

Megan I think most women are tolerant of men wearing heels but that number reduces dramatically when it's their own man wanting to wear heels. Women such as my wife are still a rare breed but generally I think the 'live and let live' philosophy is stronger today than ever.

I'm glad that he used the word tolerate and not accept. For me, there is a huge difference, which most members of this forum probably fail to appreciate. Bear in mind that I write this as an outsider to the desires or beliefs of most members of this board, in that I have no interest in wearing heels myself or in seeing men in heels. When I joined, this was Jenny's site and the focus was on women wearing high heels, not men.

It is generally regarded in this "enlightened" age, that even if you don't accept something, you do not speak out on it. Indeed, in the UK, you can be fined for doing so, if the words or actions used can be deemed "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". Society has been conditioned, often by legislation, to be tolerant of most things outside of the home. Therefore, when asked if the general public tolerate such behaviour as males wearing female attire of any description in public, the perception of those who do so is that the public couldn't care less.

Given the chance to comment privately or anonomously however, such as in response to newspaper articles covering stories such as heels for men, the overwhelming reaction is negative, suggesting that while tolerance may be the norm, acceptance of the behaviour is in fact quite low.

I know it has been argued many times that history has shown that it is possible to change society attitudes and many refer to the acceptance of women wearing mens attire, such as trousers as being the prime example. The difference is, that in the case of women wearing trousers it took a world war and the fact that women were suddenly propelled into an abnormal working enviroment to replace the men, which brought about that change. It was for practical reasons, not any sort of fashion statement or self fulfillment.

This is why, from my own perspective, there will never be a general acceptance of the sort of fashion reversal that many members of this board wish for, or even perceive to be the case. By all means keep on doing what you are doing if it makes you feel happy, providing that it doesn't hurt or embarrass anyone else such as your partner, but don't set your sights on it becoming the norm.

Shafted · August 16, 2012

I've said this before at least twice, but while we're on the subject. Tolerance is everywhere, acceptance is something one earns as an individual. There is no general acceptance of anything or anyone outside the family unit. That's just the world we live in.

Steve63130 · August 16, 2012

I think we need to realize that fashions are not static; they change over time. Sometimes a fad catches on and fashions change quickly. Other times it takes decades. In the 1970s we saw heels for guys for a little while (and leisure suits and polyester everything). The heels were not the stilettos that some people here long for, but they WERE heels. That fashion came and went. On the other ear, earrings for men are pretty common now. A couple of decades ago they weren't, but guys insisted on wearing them and did so. The fashion persisted and while we used to stare in the beginning, it's pretty common now, so nobody stares any more. Will it happen with heels? Or pantyhose? Or skirts? Advocates of those articles of apparel hope so, many are openly wearing now, but the critical mass isn't there to make a widespread change yet. One thing is for sure. Fashions will change. They're a lot different now than they were three decades ago and even more so than three centuries ago. It's safe to predict that fashions will be different in 30 years. Will it include heels for men? Let's see, I'll be 93...I probably won't be able to wear them then. I better get on with it and wear them now, while I still can! Steve

HHeeler · August 16, 2012

I would have to agree that a "fashion reversal" is unlikely. What muddies this discussion a great deal, apparent even in this thread, is what one is even defining as heels. Can platform shoes, 70s style male heels, or gender neutral shoes with heels come into fashion for men? Maybe. Why not? But the true heel, the stiletto, particularly with skirt and heels, will remain outside the norm. The argument presented for fashion change usually revolves around earrings, trousers or necklaces. But I find these to be false comparisons, for several reasons, but one in particular. The same reason that, because of the nature of this site, is one that we often gloss over. It is the same reason that such a - admit it - radically impractical shoe can be worn so universally: Sexual attractiveness. Heels often trascend mere footwear and are strong symbols of sexuality and all that entails. Most men are visually driven. Ask any woman on these boards, or read through the threads on the subject, to see if they find more eyes upon them when in heels. They do. When a man co-opts this powerful symbol, it makes many uncomfortable. Again, men are visual creatures. They take their sexual cues from the visual environment. Men in heels creates a cognitive dissonance that many find unpleasant. And in the case of women's reaction to men in heels, there's a thread or two about that already.

kikepa · August 16, 2012

I'm glad that he used the word tolerate and not accept. For me, there is a huge difference, which most members of this forum probably fail to appreciate. Bear in mind that I write this as an outsider to the desires or beliefs of most members of this board, in that I have no interest in wearing heels myself or in seeing men in heels. When I joined, this was Jenny's site and the focus was on women wearing high heels, not men.

I agree, Richy. For me, the word "tolerate" means to put up with something undesirable. I'll tolerate a baby crying, for example, even if I find it incredibly annoying. Whether that child is mine or someone else's is immaterial, as baby's cannot help but cry.

Acceptance goes a step further. In my mind, the difference is one of affiliation, that one has crossed the line and bought into that which they only previously tolerated. I tolerate a great many things which I find undesirable, but I only accept those things which I believe are good, moral, just, right, or true.

It is generally regarded in this "enlightened" age, that even if you don't accept something, you do not speak out on it.

Hmm... More on this in a minute.

Given the chance to comment privately or anonomously however, such as in response to newspaper articles covering stories such as heels for men, the overwhelming reaction is negative, suggesting that while tolerance may be the norm, acceptance of the behaviour is in fact quite low.

I know it has been argued many times that history has shown that it is possible to change society attitudes and many refer to the acceptance of women wearing mens attire, such as trousers as being the prime example. The difference is, that in the case of women wearing trousers it took a world war and the fact that women were suddenly propelled into an abnormal working enviroment to replace the men, which brought about that change. It was for practical reasons, not any sort of fashion statement or self fulfillment.

This is why, from my own perspective, there will never be a general acceptance of the sort of fashion reversal that many members of this board wish for, or even perceive to be the case. By all means keep on doing what you are doing if it makes you feel happy, providing that it doesn't hurt or embarrass anyone else such as your partner, but don't set your sights on it becoming the norm.

I tend to agree, if for no other reason than the fake that most men don't want to wear heels. If they did, they would.

Back to your point:

It is generally regarded in this "enlightened" age, that even if you don't accept something, you do not speak out on it. Indeed, in the UK, you can be fined for doing so, if the words or actions used can be deemed "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". Society has been conditioned, often by legislation, to be tolerant of most things outside of the home. Therefore, when asked if the general public tolerate such behaviour as males wearing female attire of any description in public, the perception of those who do so is that the public couldn't care less.

Here in the US, you can be fined for trying to squash free speech. Just people have the right to wear what they want, so also do people have the right to speak their mind, even if others find it "offensive" or "alarming." Indeed, Wikipedia defines political correctness as "language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent."

We have no problem with laws which support a polite society, providing they stop short of infringing upon our rights as a free people. Given enough people, there will be one or more who find all sorts of things offensive or alarming. Just because one or more people find something offensive or alarming does not give them the right to infringe upon the rights of the individual who they believe is behaving in an offensive or alarming manner.

Take firearms, for example. It's legal to own a firearm in all 50 of our United States. It's legal to openly carry a firearm in 44 of states, and only 15 states require a permit for open carry.

Do some people find it offensive? Yes. Are some people alarmed at the sight of a firearm? Absolutely. Does the fact that some people are offended or alarmed give them any right to tread on the rights of those who carry a firearm? No!

Now, there are some things you cannot do with a firearm. For example, you cannot brandish it, which means carrying it in your hand in a threatening manner. That's illegal. You cannot discharge it in most municipalities, with the sole exceptions of firing it at a shooting range or using it in self-defense.

No, we do not make things illegal simply because they're "alarming" or "offensive," and that includes free speech. I'm aware of several popular message forums that'll ban you outright for violating the unwritten rules of political correctness. Fortunately for us, their microcosms aren't the norm.

Bubba136 · August 17, 2012

I've said this before at least twice, but while we're on the subject. Tolerance is everywhere, acceptance is something one earns as an individual. There is no general acceptance of anything or anyone outside the family unit. That's just the world we live in.

So, it's acceptable in todays society for two men to get married and carry on in public but unacceptable for any man to appear in public wearing high heels? Go figure. Something out of kilter here in my opinion.

Shafted · August 17, 2012

So, it's acceptable in todays society for two men to get married and carry on in public but unacceptable for any man to appear in public wearing high heels? Go figure. Something out of kilter here in my opinion.

I would say both are examples of tolorated behavior. In the first case it literally is legislated tolerance. This is quite a different matter altogether from acceptance. As I said before acceptance is something we earn as individuals. I very much comes down to what kind of person one is and how well one presents themselves which determines whether one is accepted or not.

Mike Hinch · August 17, 2012

Again I see this sort of thing how heels of fem attire may be tolerated and not really accepted and I know that that is just crap. For some time now I have expedienced total freedom to dress as I like with no problems what so ever. Now lets get back to some reality. There are some fem fashions that are too fem for me. That has an effect. Then too this is Orange county which must be more accepting than Straight Lace Utah. Next time anyone goes to describe the modern day non acceptance of heels and fem fashions it would really be nice to tell us where that place is so we can all be careful if we happen to pass through town.

ilikekicks · August 17, 2012

I'm glad that he used the word tolerate and not accept. For me, there is a huge difference, which most members of this forum probably fail to appreciate.

More on this in a moment, but I really see no difference.

It is generally regarded in this "enlightened" age, that even if you don't accept something, you do not speak out on it. Indeed, in the UK, you can be fined for doing so, if the words or actions used can be deemed "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". Society has been conditioned, often by legislation, to be tolerant of most things outside of the home.

Its called ' Political Correctness '. If you dare ' offend ' anyone, you are labeled by some term and ( as you mentioned ) could be punished by some means.

My solution is simple. Laugh AT those whom espouse all this ' correctness ' and ENJOY YOUR LIFE . If people dont like what your doing or what you have to say or even what you have on your feet.. thats THEIR problem, not yours nor mine.

Therefore, when asked if the general public tolerate such behavior as males wearing female attire of any description in public, the perception of those who do so is that the public couldn't care less.

Why should the ' public ' care? *I* dont.

Given the chance to comment privately or anonymously however, such as in response to newspaper articles covering stories such as heels for men, the overwhelming reaction is negative, suggesting that while tolerance may be the norm, acceptance of the behavior is in fact quite low.

Why do either matter? Seriously.. theres too many people out there worrying about everyone else.

This is why, from my own perspective, there will never be a general acceptance of the sort of fashion reversal that many members of this board wish for, or even perceive to be the case. By all means keep on doing what you are doing if it makes you feel happy, providing that it doesn't hurt or embarrass anyone else such as your partner, but don't set your sights on it becoming the norm.

Check this out..

today, I went and did 4 estimates for my business. I wore my favorite pair of NineWest ' pinktop ' booties. 4 inch wedge heel and a pair of cargo pants with a Black Ozzy Osbourne T-Shirt.

I landed 3 of the contracts.

Think about this.. people I dont ( rather didnt at the time ) know let me walk into their homes, showed me around and then had me look into the walls of their houses to inspect them.. the whole time carrying on a conversation. all 4 places had at least 1 person whom asked about my attire.

Nothing was negative at all. Not one rude comment.

Becoming the ' norm '? It is for me. It is for Shafted. It is for a certain guy in Philly ( Ill leave him anonymous ), it is for quite a few of us and its growing.

There are more and more of us just going out daily and wearing what we want to wear. ' acceptance ' or ' tolerance ' be damned/doesnt matter.

So, it's acceptable in todays society for two men to get married and carry on in public but unacceptable for any man to appear in public wearing high heels? Go figure. Something out of kilter here in my opinion.

2 men, 2 women, 2 transexuals, 2 meterosexuals, 2 ducks in a pond at some public park.. Better to see 2 people caring about one another then taking up arms and going on rampages against one another. ( just my opinion )

Foxyheels · August 17, 2012

Clearly I agree with Ritchie as he quoted my post but I do believe that the very legislation that forces people to tolerate me wearing heels does over time, by default, mean that more people actually accept it. Homosexuality has been lawful for a long time but is clearly more accepted rather than tolerated than 20 years ago. Familiarity with something reduces the impact and effect and it does become the norm. Men in heels would need a whole lot more of us to gain the same kind of momentum as this so tolerance is what we will have and that will do nicely. I personally have a character of extreme contrasts so that means people expect the unexpected and do accept me wearing heels as they consider it part of my quirky character and I get away with things that others wouldn't. We expect to have eccentrics in our country and I will use that as a free ride to get what I want.

dww · August 17, 2012

Lets be honest with each other and accept the fact that girly type heels will never be mainstream for a guy to wear quite openly. Who would want to wear 4 inch plus stilletos all day (I accept the fact that some do). But as I see it a guy in say 2-4 inch block type heels on a boot or shoe you can wear quite openly on a daily basis without any problems, I know because I do just that. I remember a few years ago I was in a pub with a fellow heeler (from this site) he was sitting with his back towards a group of women out fot a lunch time drink, and I could see they were talking about his heels, he was wearing a pair of black boots with a 4 inch blade type heel and to be totally honest they did not appear to be alarmed or upset but they did have a bit of chat about it, then they left and went to the dinner area. I found it quite funny they did not notice I was in heels also. I consider a lot of men would wear a bit of a heel out and about if it was a bit more common nowadays. I have been to three heelmeets Cambridge 2002 London 2007 and 2009 and to be honest I am not happy being with a lot of guys in heels, seems a bit strange but on my own or with 1 maybe 2 others I can handle. Back to guys in skirts etc to me thats a totally differant ballgame something I cannot comment on. David.

Rick24 · August 17, 2012

I hate it when people tell me what I have to wear and not what to wear. its like I am a man that has to please the other gender and the taboos that are stuck on me. and put on a fake smile about it like i love to live in a sad taboo life just to please others,

ilikekicks · August 18, 2012

Clearly I agree with Ritchie as he quoted my post but I do believe that the very legislation that forces people to tolerate me wearing heels does over time, by default, mean that more people actually accept it.

I actually RESENT others legislating what I have to accept OR ' respect '. If thats not a total infringement upon my liberty, I cannot think of a better example.

A good example would be the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. *I* dont feel people should be allowed to ' own ' someone else. If they do, I would wish their genetic code to be removed from the gene pool OR those under such a persecution would enable themselves to take a stand and end their situation.

The problem with such legislation is that its one persons views over-ruling anothers. Tyranny of the majority is NOT the best route to go down as a standard practice.

If there was a law written and pushed forward saying everyone with the name ' john doe ' should be crucified OR they have a 1 month grace period to change their name to prevent such, and a majority of people supported it, should everyone names ' john doe ' be FORCED to change their name?

I run a small business. There are mandated guidelines I have to follow in order to hire of fire someone. Laws dictate the parameters in which I have to follow. If someone isnt working out, theres a long process I have to go through to terminate someone while they destroy my customers homes. If they are a ' minority ', odds are ( as has happened to me in the past ) I will wind up in court loosing much capital because they scream ' I was fired because Im *X*! ' when in fact ( this is a REAL example here ) they painted the wrong room, with the wrong paint, in the wrong color, and spilled paint all over a VERY expensive rug in a 2 million dollar home. Should I mention they put a paint can ontop of a Baldwin Grand Piano with Ivory keys ( $$$$ ) and destroyed the finish because they werent bright enough to put a drop or plastic over it ( in the wrong room to begin with ).

There are so many examples of ' Legislated ' or FORCED acceptance that it causes the total opposite and even outright hatred.

Homosexuality has been lawful for a long time but is clearly more accepted rather than tolerated than 20 years ago. Familiarity with something reduces the impact and effect and it does become the norm.

Men in heels would need a whole lot more of us to gain the same kind of momentum as this so tolerance is what we will have and that will do nicely.

I go out daily, mate. Nobody bothers me. The only thing needed is for people to put on their heels and walk out the door. Im chuckling and saying ' its really that simple '. Nobody has to accept you ( or my ) or your ideals. All they ( people/others ) have to do is let you live peacefully and go about their own business/way while we do the same.

I personally have a character of extreme contrasts so that means people expect the unexpected and do accept me wearing heels as they consider it part of my quirky character and I get away with things that others wouldn't. We expect to have eccentrics in our country and I will use that as a free ride to get what I want.

I can say I have been on the same path ( eccentric ) as you for quite a while.. since high school some 2 decades ago

Peace to you!

-ILK

Edited August 18, 2012 by ilikekicks

SleekHeels · August 18, 2012

My interpretation of the terminology is:

Legislation doesn't create tolerance, it just suppresses intolerance.
Tolerance is a personal choice to put up with something you don't like (it's not really tolerance to put up with something you like).
Acceptance doesn't necessarily mean you like something (in that sense it's little more than tolerance) but we do also like some of the things we accept, in which case it can be something more than tolerance.

I think any guys or girls who expect everyone to like them wearing heels is being overly idealistic. It's possibly even overly idealistic to expect people to tolerate our heels of their own free will, sometimes the legislation is necessary and perhaps suppressed intolerance is the best we can realistically hope for (maybe that's enough for us to get out there in our heels and instigate the cultural change beyond that).

...in the case of women wearing trousers it took a world war and the fact that women were suddenly propelled into an abnormal working enviroment to replace the men, which brought about that change. It was for practical reasons, not any sort of fashion statement or self fulfillment.

What's fascinating about that is that the stiletto heel emerged in the post-war years, perhaps as a symbol of women re-claiming their femininity and asserting their freedom of self-expression. What's also interesting is that in the modern working environment of the office, people can wear heels and skirts without compromising their ability to do their jobs so a man should be just as free to wear those things too, in fact even more so than a woman doing a more physical job where heels and a skirt would be impractical.

Edited August 18, 2012 by SleekHeels

ilikekicks · August 18, 2012

I think you and I are close to the same wavelength..

My interpretation of the terminology is:

Legislation doesn't create tolerance, it just suppresses intolerance.

I actually believe it caused hatred.

Tolerance is a personal choice to put up with something you don't like (it's not really tolerance to put up with something you like).

Totally agree!

Acceptance doesn't necessarily mean you like something (in that sense it's little more than tolerance) but we do also like some of the things we accept, in which case it can be something more than tolerance.

Eh.. I *can* understand what your saying

I think any guys or girls who expect everyone to like them wearing heels is being overly idealistic. It's possibly even overly idealistic to expect people to tolerate our heels of their own free will, sometimes the legislation is necessary and perhaps suppressed intolerance is the best we can realistically hope for (maybe that's enough for us to get out there in our heels and instigate the cultural change beyond that).

Im not instigating anything or anyone. Im just wearing cooler shoes then most of the guys on the planet

What's fascinating about that is that the stiletto heel emerged in the post-war years, perhaps as a symbol of women re-claiming their femininity and asserting their freedom of self-expression. What's also interesting is that in the modern working environment of the office, people can wear heels and skirts without compromising their ability to do their jobs so a man should be just as free to wear those things too, in fact even more so than a woman doing a more physical job where heels and a skirt would be impractical.

Hmm.. doing plaster work in a pair of heeled boots. I MIGHT have to try that sometime just to see if its really possible.

-ILK

August 18, 2012

ILK Depends on the ceiling height and head room if its only a few inches of reach it's more comfortable than 2" too much on the first rung of a step. Generally lets be sensible and it's horses for courses, some things are just stupid in heels! Al

Foxyheels · August 18, 2012

I stand by supporting legislation that enforces people to be tolerant and consequently reduces discrimination giving those minority groups a chance to be themselves. If some bigots have to surpress their views and be tolerant of something then tough on them. If I had gone out in the heels I wear today 30 years ago I undoubtedly would have received numerous negative comments and almost certainy faced physical attack as it was easy to get away with without the current legislation we have. Society has moved forward greatly since I was a teenager and if that in some part has been forced by legislation then good, long may it continue.

ilikekicks · August 19, 2012

I stand by supporting legislation that enforces people to be tolerant and consequently reduces discrimination giving those minority groups a chance to be themselves. If some bigots...

You have just proven my point for me.

Why label someone a ' bigot '. I bet you would be HIGHLY OFFENDED if someone called a black person a ' negro ' or a gay person a ' faggot ', yet here is the SAME example. Why is it YOU feel you can oppress others by legislating YOUR view upon those of us whom may or may not want it?

..have to surpress their views and be tolerant of something then tough on them.

You say such when your view or position is being supported. You verified this above by inferring someone else ( by example ) is a ' bigot '.

Its because of such, that true hatred breeds. You will outright deny such, but when people are oppressed by those whom wish to force their views onto others, some day, there will be retaliation and its usually in the form of violence.

If you dont believe Im right , its the reason 13 Colonial States tossed your government out. How about South Africa as an example?

Again, you might not view yourself as being ' oppressive ', but from your own wording, you surely appear to be in favor of such.

Im not starting an argument, Im just showing you exactly why ( in this instance ) you are completely wrong.

If someone want to call me a Spic, a jew, a nigger ( I dunno where they came up with that one but its happened ), halfbreed, female impersonator, faggot or whatever they wish, who cares? *I* dont. I laugh at the thought of such and move on in life. I dont have some kind of ' Oh no! They called me names! They said bad things about me.. ' mental breakdown where I need to have some authority go after the liberty of others.

Yes, I HAVE in fact been threatened while out and about. I have been ' fag bashed ' a while ago before I even wore high heels ( I was just at a gay bar with friends, AIDS charity event. I took a beating when we left by a bunch of people whom just didnt care for the party ).

If I had gone out in the heels I wear today 30 years ago I undoubtedly would have received numerous negative comments and almost certainy faced physical attack as it was easy to get away with without the current legislation we have.

If you think its just ' legislation ' or ' law ' that ' controls ' people, You are positively wrong.

There are laws against killing people. It still happens. Drunk Driving? 275,000 reported deaths and over 500,000 reported injuries in 2009 from such in the U.S. alone. Pot smoking? Rape? Gambling? Pick your poison, no piece of paper is going to stop people from being whom they are.

The U.S. had a ban on gays in the military, yet many served long before ' dont ask, dont tell '. Just a FACT..

If someone wishes to be negative towards someone else, for whatever reason, theres no law or ' legislation ' that will stop such. The ONLY thing that will stop such is the thought by the individual balanced by their own morality. Morality cannot be ' legislated '.

Society has moved forward greatly since I was a teenager and if that in some part has been forced by legislation then good, long may it continue.

Teen aged years for me were 20 years ago. Now? Theres more people dying from drug overdoes, drunk drivers, GANG VIOLENCE.. ' Society ' has moved backwards by great leaps and bounds. INDIVIDUALS have achieved on a higher level.

Kids today go to ' social networking sites ' instead of going out and meeting others and having REAL conversations. Kids are ' cutters '. *I* never saw that shit when I was a teen. Are these kids THAT attention starved?

I support *your* liberties no matter how you feel. This is regardless that you would wrongfully take mine from me.

If you wish to let others ' legislate ' or dictate what you can or cannot do, you are ever so free to choose such. When your liberties are consumed by others, dont cry foul when they ' legislate ' them all away. *I* like having the ability to choose what I can for myself. I like the idea that others are allowed to be ' free minded individuals ' whom can choose their own pathways to failure or success. I like knowing Im a diecent enough person to see people deserve to not live under the burden of others telling them how they need to live their lives.

I believe what you have presented is ( well.. used to be.. ) the greatest in ideological differences between The U.S. and a lot of European Nations. We in the U.S. have a lot more liberty then you do. Be it Civil or Economic, both truly apply.

Maybe you feel giving up your liberties has enhanced your life in some ways but you have never really experienced ' liberty ' as *I* have.

Again, Im not trying to start an argument, Im just presenting why your statement of legislating away peoples rights or liberties is never a good thing.

Peace to you,

-Ilk

Edited August 19, 2012 by ilikekicks

SleekHeels · August 19, 2012

I think any guys or girls who expect everyone to like them wearing heels is being overly idealistic. It's possibly even overly idealistic to expect people to tolerate our heels of their own free will, sometimes the legislation is necessary and perhaps suppressed intolerance is the best we can realistically hope for (maybe that's enough for us to get out there in our heels and instigate the cultural change beyond that).

Im not instigating anything or anyone. Im just wearing cooler shoes then most of the guys on the planet

Sure we don't need a political agenda to wear our heels and we don't have to be actively instigating anything, I agree, but just by being out there and seen in our heels I think makes us part of a cultural change... perhaps each instance is negligible in the grand scheme of things, or perhaps it's the start of the "butterfly effect".

Why label someone a ' bigot '. I bet you would be HIGHLY OFFENDED if someone called a black person a ' negro ' or a gay person a ' faggot ', yet here is the SAME example. Why is it YOU feel you can oppress others by legislating YOUR view upon those of us whom may or may not want it?

...

If you think its just ' legislation ' or ' law ' that ' controls ' people, You are positively wrong.

...

If someone wishes to be negative towards someone else, for whatever reason, theres no law or ' legislation ' that will stop such. The ONLY thing that will stop such is the thought by the individual balanced by their own morality. Morality cannot be ' legislated '.

The paradox is that the tolerant defend the human rights of the intolerant while the intolerant violate the human rights of the tolerant, hence the need to legislate and assert the human rights of the tolerant above those of the intolerant. People will always hold intolerant views but they shouldn't be free to exercise them to the detriment of others safety and well-being. Society can't function without that basic premise, the problem is that the legislation often over-steps the mark, and as humans we prescribe morality to things that have no moral basis whatsoever (like wearing heels).

Peace to you,

-Ilk

Indeed.

Foxyheels · August 19, 2012

Ilikekicks, you are right I would be offended by any homophobic or racist slurs against people, that's why I very much welcome legislation to prevent, deter and deal with the sort of people that would use their right to free speech to promote homophobic and racist views. Yes I do use offensive words to describe this type of person, they care nothing for the feelings of anyone they think is different to their normal and it makes me smile that things have turned full circle and they are the ones who have to hide their views and prejudices. You have to remember not everyone is as extrovert ad confident as ourselves, many need protection and the law provides that. I am clearly not a supporter of maintaining people's right to do as they wish no matter what and believe we should have certain restrictions on our rights. We are not going to agree on that point. Peace to you also, I won't take offence against someone who has a differing opinion to me especially when presented as articulately as you present yours.

Trolldeg · August 19, 2012

You have just proven my point for me.
Why label someone a ' bigot '. I bet you would be HIGHLY OFFENDED if someone called a black person a ' negro ' or a gay person a ' faggot ', yet here is the SAME example.

Not the same example. Not even in the same ballpark.

HappyinHeels · August 19, 2012

ILK, Such an articulate opinion, as contrasting as it is to FoxyHeels view, but proof that differences opinion can be presented and the exercise of liberty lives on in forums such as this.. The European system is different and, while I dislike the socialist tendencies of their governments and the sttic nature of their economies, the system works for them which is all it has to do. As for you, I commend you on being a small-businessperson---the true bulwark of these United States....and YES you DID build that! It takes guts and grit to thrive and survive at a time when certain forces are working against you.I really must get through the Niagara Falls area sometime soon.You epitomize that individual I have spoken of before whose ideal of liberty isn't confined to a flag sticker on a car's bumper but is a flame carried high by one who feels liberty beating deep within their own heart. That cold and hungry soldier fighting barefoot in the snow at Valley Forge in 1777 would thank you for honoring his struggle. We must never lose sight of that and obviously you haven't. Cheers! HappyinHeels

FreshinHeels · August 19, 2012

I believe what you have presented is ( well.. used to be.. ) the greatest in ideological differences between The U.S. and a lot of European Nations. We in the U.S. have a lot more liberty then you do. Be it Civil or Economic, both truly apply.

What you mean there with having more liberty in the US than a lot of European nations?

Ok compared Serbia or Albania yes I understand.

But Denmark, Sweden or The Netherlands I don't see that.

Offcourse I can miss things

Edited August 19, 2012 by FreshinHeels

meganiwish · August 20, 2012

At the risk of straying off topic, but in the spirit of recent posts, I wonder if I might take the liberty of quoting George Orwell:

"The liberty of the individual is still believed in, almost as in the nineteenth century. But this has nothing to do with economic liberty, the right to exploit others for profit. It is the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above. The most hateful of all names in the English ear is Nosey Parker. It is obvious, of course, that even this purely private liberty is a lost cause. Like all other modern peoples, the English are in the process of being numbered, labelled, conscripted, 'co-ordinated'. But the pull of their impulses is in the other direction and the kind of regimentation that can be imposed on them will be modified as a consequence. No party rallies, no Youth Movements, no coloured shirts, no Jew-baiting or 'spontaneous' demonstrations. No Gestapo either, in all probability." England Your England, 1940

When I first read this in 1980 I was struck by how true it still was. The last two decades, though, have seen governments increasingly believing that it's their job to interfere in people's private lives, to try and modify behaviour. But laws don't change behaviour, they only give the mechanism for sorting out the aftermath. Trying to change society with legislation is like trying to mend a wristwatch with a cudgel.

There's a chap in my town who goes about his business in lacy mini skirts and sandals sporting the most impressive beard. No-one seems to bat an eyelid, though I can't say for sure that he never has trouble. Among 80,000 there must be some idiots, and also those who disapprove. But I like living here because the town openly leaves people to get on with being whoever they are. I can't believe it's the only town like that.

Edited August 20, 2012 by meganiwish

Shafted · August 20, 2012

But I like living here because the town openly leaves people to get on with being whoever they are. I can't believe it's the only town like that.

Pretty much the same here. Most of the state as well.

ilikekicks · August 20, 2012

Not the same example. Not even in the same ballpark.

Sure it is. Labeling someone with a contemptuous slander is the same thing but from a different source. Hateful slurs are just that, hateful slurs.

Theres NO difference in someone calling a person a nigger then there is in calling someone a redneck/cracker/honkie. Some do a ' correctness dance ' and say one term is hateful or more hateful then the other.. they are of the same.

Apply such to the term ' bigot ', or ' bible thumper '.

The way *I* see it, if you wish to call someone a bigot, you better not have ANY dirt in your own closet and be without any faults of your own. If you wish to have contempt for someone else, you need to realize you are no better then what you disdain.

ILK, Such an articulate opinion, as contrasting as it is to FoxyHeels view, but proof that differences opinion can be presented and the exercise of liberty lives on in forums such as this.. The European system is different and, while I dislike the socialist tendencies of their governments and the sttic nature of their economies, the system works for them which is all it has to do.

What I dont bother to care for in the whole Euro system is how ( as this thread is titled ) ' Tolerance versus Acceptance '.. if you write laws regarding something, its not being tolerated nor accepted.. its being MANDATED or FORCED upon people.

Its the same scenario in Islamic Iran. They have views FORCED upon them. Granted, its done for religious reasons ( Or the Mullahas wanting it to happen ), but its the same thing.

I find it amazing how people will turn a blind eye to what they ' like ' and with their good eye, they will shout down or point out what they dont like and use whatever force they can to try and conquer it or remove it from society as a whole.

I look at societies like the U.K and the U.S. and often wonder.. with the spread of islam, how some of the people here whom believe they are so ' protected ' will feel when the majority in their country feel the need to ' legislate ' certain things wont be ' tolerated ' anymore. Gays back in their closets, women covering their faces and not being allowed to go to school..

Those whom wish to ' legislate ' in the present will be on the ' back of the bus ' someday. It will then be their turn to see the repercussions of their own ways.

Just as we might not like someones slurs in regards to our wearing heels, what if they ' legislated ' that a saw could be used publicly on our ankles for doing such? ' Oh thats extreeme! ' is it? Human beings were considered property at one time all over the planet. Roman Empire, Imperial England, the U.S., Africa.. Whats to say such couldnt happen again?

*I* believe it already is happening. We dont have the liberties we used to have anymore due to a certain mindset.

What most human beings have for a mindset is ' there are things we like, and things we dont '. I believe EVERYONE could agree on such. *I* can. Your reasonable, Im sure you can see things in such a perspective.

But what do you and I think when someone tells us we have to ' Tolerate or accept ' something we are outright disgusted by? What if they dont tell us, they FORCE US by law to have to ' tolerate ' or ' accept ' such?

You can bet your ass it will cause a LOT of resentment. That resentment turns to outright hatred. Then bad things happen.

As for you, I commend you on being a small-businessperson---the true bulwark of these United States....and YES you DID build that! It takes guts and grit to thrive and survive at a time when certain forces are working against you.

Dont toss that praise out there so quickly. My ' Business ' is failing. Some of it is my own fault, but a LOT of it is from the mentallity of those whom believe they can just ' legislate ' their way and tell me all these rules I have to go by. I recently had to let 2 of the 3 people working for me go.

These people whom wish to legislate everything should be legislated into having to do what I did. Go to 2 homes and inform those 2 guys and their wives/kids that daddy wont have a job to provide them food anymore due to the changes in workers comp insurances and the upcoming medical insurance mandates.

Its all done out of ' feel good ' mentality yet they never see the consequences of their mandates endless its for personal gain.

I really must get through the Niagara Falls area sometime soon. You epitomize that individual I have spoken of before whose ideal of liberty isn't confined to a flag sticker on a car's bumper but is a flame carried high by one who feels liberty beating deep within their own heart.

Liberty is a form of spirituality. It IS a form of religion! Wishing for liberty for not only yourself, but for others to be free in their own choices to excel of fail by their own doings is the most noble or honorable thoughts that one could have.

Liberty isnt something ' laws ' nor ' legislation ' should have any factor of. Such can only remove or completely excise what the true definition of liberty is.

The real problem is ' conformity ' being institutionalized on every level of society these days. We are told what we HAVE to accept. We are told what we HAVE to tolerate.

' And this is where liberty dies ' to quote a line from a StarWars movie.

That cold and hungry soldier fighting barefoot in the snow at Valley Forge in 1777 would thank you for honoring his struggle. We must never lose sight of that and obviously you haven't. Cheers! HappyinHeels

The problem is : People have no regard for liberty anymore.

Check this out..

What you mean there with having more liberty in the US than a lot of European nations?

Ok compared Serbia or Albania yes I understand.

But Denmark, Sweden or The Netherlands I don't see that.

Offcourse I can miss things

People dont realize whats been taken away.

How much of what you ( Freshinheels ) work for or earn are you allowed to keep? Are you allowed to defend your family? Are you allowed to defend your properties?

As an example..

A LOT of Canadians whom are over the age of 50 have seen exactly whats happening to the U.S. in their own country. They remember their lands before the forced medical system they have. They remember having the funds to take their families out and buy them things before 30+% of what they made was taken away.

They remember being able to have a pond on their property and NOT have to put in a public access road. Yep, its YOUR land, but the public has to have full access to parts of it. They remember when gas was sold by the gallon and not the liter. Their gas prices used to be on-par or even CHEAPER then the US. Now, they pay almost 5$USD/CDN a gallon whereas its 4$ here in the states, even cheaper if purchased on the Indian Reservations in the area.

Tolerance V Acceptance Of Men Wearing Heels (Or Any Other Feminine Attire In Public)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Important Information