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

[benno]

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.

Not a good analogy... We are free to wear heels. Gay people were not free to marry and 'carry on' in public. Amazing that you can ask for tolerance of heel wearing but not of two people loving each other without shame.

[Bubba136]

Not a good analogy... We are free to wear heels. Gay people were not free to marry and 'carry on' in public. Amazing that you can ask for tolerance of heel wearing but not of two people loving each other .

It is an excellent analogy if you stop to think about what I am saying ... Interms of public acceptance of two types of -- what the majority still views as deviant behavior.

[ilikekicks]

Gallon of gas (euro95 unleaded)would be about 8 dollars 40 here.

OUCH! Holy shyt! 8 and a half a gallon! I bet people dont drive all that much or if they do, they have eco-boxes.

We are allowed to defend ourselve but with appropiated measures. wich is good cause rarely there is freedom at the end of barrel of an gun.

In all honesty, if someone breaks into my property.. or brings physical violence upon my persons or my families persons.. I dont have to flee.

Purchasing a firearm where I live can be a ' pain ' as its a liberal state. But I can still purchase firearms. In many places in Europe, people arent allowed to own firearms. Some countries used to make every able bodied male in their ' reserves ' and issued them a rifle. ( dont know if thats still true or not ).

Yes we pay a lot of taxes but it is comforting to know that you don't have to endup bankrupt after having a serious desease.

I just went through Chemotherapy and related surgeries. Im not bankrupt at all. Such is something thats touted all the time, the whole ' medical problems caused me to go bankrupt ' yet its less then 2% of all bankruptcies filed.

Is the US system so good? Where did the banking crisis start?

With people taking out loans they couldnt afford to pay back. Freddie/Fanny rolling those toxic assetts and selling them off.. Its called ' The Community re-investment act ' and started back in 1978. Many of us wanted an audit in 2005/2006 but it was squished by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. We COULD have done something earlier instead of letting it boil up as bad as it did.

That town is not rare loads of them here is well.

You sound very bitter ilikelicks, wich I can understand seeing you're business going down the drain.

I dont mind things washing out as they are. Whats really bugging me is WHY.

I feel I had 3 of the greatest workers/Employees and I would go as far as to call them Great Friends working with me. The failing isnt due to their work. It isnt due to my work. Its not due to anything in how things were run nor from the quality of work we performed. Our Repeat customer base is HUGE. We would fix a couple rooms in their homes and they would have us back to do other rooms at a later date.

The problem is Taxation and Regulation.

But then you live in a country wich has 1300 goverment offices and 2000 private companies watching over security.

Ye gotta loose some freedom there.

source http://projects.wash...secret-america/

Whats really sad about this whole conversation.. Your in the Netherlands and you see what the problem is. Half of those in my own nation DONT.

This is why ( as someone mentioned earlier ) that Men in Heels will never be mainstream in the U.S. . People get their opinions from TV sets or the Internet more then sitting down and thinking about them for themselves. They would rather ' fit in ' then ' go against the grain '.

[SleekHeels]

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.

But in practice some people aren't very noble or honorable. As you also put it:

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

The thing is they only have regard for their own liberty, not the liberty of others. There are times when we exercise self-restraint in our own liberty in order to respect the liberty of others (perhaps this is what it means to be tolerant). Sure we choose to exercise that self-restraint but if we argue that we should be free to choose not to exercise it, are we not disregarding the liberty of others (or at least leaving it to chance, which you're arguing is better than any form of legislating for it).

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.

I agree, legislation shouldn't determine what ought to accepted/tolerated or not. However, in the grey area where personal liberty and the liberty of others are in contradiction, if we are to protect tolerance, that is to protect regard for liberty of others, human nature requires some form of legislation to do so. Unfortunately legislation can and often does overstep the mark and erode more liberties than it's protecting, and that is highly objectionable.

As for wearing heels, I agree with what you've said before that we should just get out there and do it, not wait for some authoritarian nanny-state legislation to force people to like it first.

[Gudulitooo]

ILK, I think minorities are often perceived by others as a threat to their own way of life. And they actually are when their number is growing, allowing them to win local elections and decide the rules the others should follow. Democracy is about numbers. Though it is biased against the minorities at first, the anti-discrimination laws are creating an artificial bias against the other people. This artificial bias should be removed when the relations reach a form of maturity... Someone who complains being a victim of racism, and treating others racists, is often more racist against the locals than his alleged attackers. Where is the balance ? Tolerance ? If you want to keep your way of life, your liberties, etc., it could be useful to fight against growing numbers of people thinking and telling you you should behave differently.... Letting others do what they want, think what they want, could not be so safe, because others are not likely to be grateful and let you be as you want.... Or is it only subversive suspicion, again ? Now the only part applying to men wearing free spirited clothing, including heels, is the initial defiance. Why many heelers experience indiference : because at the second thought, the only possible conclusion to any bystander is that an isolated guy in heels is no threat as far as his behaviour is normal. Actually he is a smaller potential threat than an unknow man wearing regular attire... For the gowing number, democracy, tolerance, acceptance, etc., well I think this is not (yet) applying to men wearing heels... as we are not even perceived as a minority. (what label applies to us ? maybe excentric ?)

Edited August 22, 2012 by Gudulitooo

[meganiwish]

Would it be worth remembering here, I wonder, that in most of our countries there are no legal restraints on what one wears, but it is illegal to attack or abuse someone for whatever reason. I know it's less likely to happen to me than it is to you chaps, even though, no doubt, there will be some people who are affronted by how I look. But then I'm less likely to be abused for any other reason either. I've never worried for my daughter as much as I have for my son

[Trolldeg]

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.

Its official folks! We should start a campaign to heckle the hecklers!

[ilikekicks]

ILK,

I think minorities are often perceived by others as a threat to their own way of life.

How so? who(m) is a ' minority ' and who(m) is a ' majority '? Define ' minority ' to me as *my* definition of ' minority ' would be of very differing persuasion then yours.

' Minority ' to be has no bounds of what color someones skin is or what their Ethnic makeup is. ' Minority ' to me has to deal with people whom put themselves on the bottom of things, constantly.

And they actually are when their number is growing, allowing them to win local elections and decide the rules the others should follow. Democracy is about numbers. Though it is biased against the minorities at first, the anti-discrimination laws are creating an artificial bias against the other people.

Artificial? Really?

This artificial bias should be removed when the relations reach a form of maturity... Someone who complains being a victim of racism, and treating others racists, is often more racist against the locals than his alleged attackers. Where is the balance ? Tolerance ?

Telling someone they ' belong ' on the back of the bus is just wrong. I think everyone could agree with such a statement.. ENDLESS they were unbathed and their clothes were truly soiled causing a nauseating stench..

What ' minority ' would that person be? ANYONE can be unclean and wear soiled clothing. Anyone can be the next physicist that makes a huge discovery. ANYONE can be a doctor whom finds the cure to cancer. Nothing is guaranteed by ones ' skin color '.

You say ' artificial ', I say hogwash. Its REAL.

Should a black person be looked at as a ' quota '? *I* dont think so. Should a White person, Asian person or a Latino be looked at as a ' quota '? Again, *I* dont think so.

For many years, its been stated that ' minorities ' have worse for wear schools to attend. For the last 30, the school around my corner in a somewhat decent neighborhood has been a ' magnet ' school, 50/50, half ' minority ' and half ' white '. Same education for both students.

Where is anyone REALLY being held back due to how they were born these days? Sure, Ive been called a Shylock, a Kike, a Jew, a Zionist, a Heimie, a Spic.. didnt stop me from starting my own business and running it for 20ish years. No special hand outs or hand-ups.

My house is worth ( maybe ) 50,000$. The places Ive worked in the last 5 years were all 500,000$-3.5Million in market value. I dont have ANY 100% ' white ' people on my crew..

I believe ' minority ' is a term for a mindset. Its an individual whom feels someone wronged them in some way so someone else owes them something in return. Weather or not they have earned it is another story completely.

If you want to keep your way of life, your liberties, etc., it could be useful to fight against growing numbers of people thinking and telling you you should behave differently.... Letting others do what they want, think what they want, could not be so safe, because others are not likely to be grateful and let you be as you want.... Or is it only subversive suspicion, again ?

If someone wishes to outright hate me, so be it. Theres NOTHING writing a bunch of laws can do to stop such.

Theres laws against all these ' crimes ', and what do they stop? What do they prevent or deter? Not much as the prison population says ' the law means nothing ' for the most part.

If someone has something against me because my mother follows Judiasm, thats *their* problem. If they wish to hate me because my fathers parents are from Puerto Rico, again, thats *their* problem. Writing a law saying someone has to accept the fact that my bloodlines originated someplace is not only stupid, but its redundant.

How is writing a law, saying where my folks come from going to change the reality of what it already is? How is it going to mandate that others need to be nicer to me or make me look less privileged so others will allow me some lee-way.. Its ' rubbish '.

Heres how to fix the situation. Get off our asses and do for ourselves. Take control of our OWN lives and ask for nothing from nobody. Be an example, not a quota or ' protected group ' on some government register.

Dont ask to be tolerated or accepted. PROVE we are worthy of being welcomed at a table, then join it.

Now the only part applying to men wearing free spirited clothing, including heels, is the initial defiance.

Defiance? What am I defying? Im getting dressed. Nothing more. It really is THAT simple.

Im willing to guess, JeffB wakes up in the morning, yawns, stretches, S/S/Shaves, goes to his closet and takes out some clothes. Puts them on and goes to work. I do the same. Im willing to bet, 95% of this site does the same thing. I bet you do something similar.

What we put on, doesnt matter. We put on ' clothes '. Thats all they are. Its not a ' lifestyle ' or ' religion ' or ' political affiliation '. Nobody is committing a crime or doing harm to anyone else.. Its really no big deal.

Why many heelers experience indiference : because at the second thought, the only possible conclusion to any bystander is that an isolated guy in heels is no threat as far as his behaviour is normal. Actually he is a smaller potential threat than an unknow man wearing regular attire...

For the gowing number, democracy, tolerance, acceptance, etc., well I think this is not (yet) applying to men wearing heels... as we are not even perceived as a minority. (what label applies to us ? maybe excentric ?)

What label applies? For me.. ' Regular Joe '. Im just a regular guy.. Damn.. Denis Leary's song is coming to mind right now..

Were not a ' minority ', or ' eccentric '. Were just regular human beings whom put on clothes and go about our lives. Nothing more.

Most of the problems with ' men in heels ' are men themselves worrying about what everyone else will think. Its all in our heads. Once an individual can rationalize out that its just a piece of clothing and put it on, what has changed?

Are they now a different person? *I* dont think so. Its just clothes

[hhboots]

Good heated discussion, and some seriously well thought out and long replies. I don't think I can say much more than what has been said in one form or another, but here goes... I am technically a minority in this country, but I have a rather 'white' appearance. I've been on both sides of that line, where I witness others being treated poorly and being talked about or made fun of behind their back, without these people making the comments realizing that I am one of the people they are poking fun at. I have jumped in on occasion and said something such as "hey, you're talking about me", etc, but more often I just let it go because it usually is not all that productive to put myself out on the line. But I know how it is to be different (besides being a minority). I have never really fit in completely, I feel like I really have always looked or behaved a little bit different than most guys, I've always sort of stood out, whether I wanted to or not, so I think for me public heeling is not that much of a stretch for me. I kind of figure, why not really stand out. For most people though, its easier to be on the majority side and just go with the flow of things then make yourself stand out. I guarantee there are a lot more men out there that would like to do more things to express their feminine sides, and do something like public heeling, but when you do something that is well out of the norms of society you are really putting yourself into what can feel like an uncomfortable spotlight, so most guys will never will do it, even though deep down, I think they would love to. As for the tolerance / acceptance debate. I think it varies from person to person, but I would say most people can tolerate seeing a man in heels but within that group they can still find it to be silly or odd (those that might give a little giggle behind your back), to those that still tolerate but find it to be bizzare or preposterous behavior (those that point and say to themselves or their friend, "wtf?")... and beyond that, I think its a much smaller group of people that you can honestly say 'accept' it.

[Gudulitooo]

ILK, thanks for your answer ! By the way, how do you find so much time to write all this ???

How so? who(m) is a ' minority ' and who(m) is a ' majority '? Define ' minority ' to me as *my* definition of ' minority ' would be of very differing persuasion then yours.

' Minority ' to be has no bounds of what color someones skin is or what their Ethnic makeup is. ' Minority ' to me has to deal with people whom put themselves on the bottom of things, constantly.

That's the trick : I used the word minority which is not defined by me, rather any reader has its own definition.

Very hard to tell what is going to be understood

When I wrote it, I thought of some strangers accepting lower (and not livable) wages than the locals, engineers accepting 2nd class travel when hard won agreements give them rights for 1st class, protestants in a catholic country, chiites in a sunite region, etc...

Your definition is interesting.

You could rewrite it to "people whom try to benefit from their difference by putting themselves on the bottom of things", but there are minorities that do not fit this. (My definition gives room also for 'minorities' that are not persecuted and do not ask for special rights, but are still 'minorities' meaning they are following a distinct way of life than the others on a particular topic)

If someone wishes to outright hate me, so be it. Theres NOTHING writing a bunch of laws can do to stop such.

If it can be applied backwards (e.g below), it should work.

Look at this totally invented example : a catholic lives in a country full of catholics. Now a few protestant people come from a neighboor country for any reason (economic, tourism, whatever) and decide to live there. You could tell them a minority. Now their number grows and grows, they win the elections, and finally decide the catholic religion is illegal and all catholoic must convert or die.

It look like stories like this nearly happened in many countries with other religions / skin color / whatever involved (eastern Europe, arabic countries, etc.)

How is writing a law, saying where my folks come from going to change the reality of what it already is? How is it going to mandate that others need to be nicer to me or make me look less privileged so others will allow me some lee-way.. Its ' rubbish '.

A long time ago human beings decided to live in society because they were stronger this way : against animals, against other groups of human beings. Then they decided to separate the tasks, some of them working in the fields while other took weapons for protection. Here comes the necessity to clearly write what the weapon wearing people are to fight against... Laws where handy...

Defiance? What am I defying? Im getting dressed. Nothing more. It really is THAT simple.

Sorry if I made a mistake by translating : I wanted to say that bystanders seeing a man wearing heels is likely to mistrust.

Were not a ' minority ', or ' eccentric '. Were just regular human beings whom put on clothes and go about our lives. Nothing more.

That's what I meant : so there is no real point in debatinng acceptance or tolerance...

Edited August 23, 2012 by Gudulitooo

[SleekHeels]

The term "majority" is often a misconception for the "norm" or the "average". If the average height of a person is 5'7" that's seen as the norm, but actually most people aren't exactly that height, that group is a minority. (You'd have to state a range wider than 5'5" to 5'9" to catch more than 50% of the population and start calling them "the majority"). The point I'm trying to make is that we're often encouraged to conform to an ideal that doesn't exist, rather than ackowledge diversity as the majority and celebrating that.. As for the bias being "artificial" I'd agree totally with ILK, it's real and affects people's lives. I'd rather say the bias is "unfounded" since it's judged against articificial ideals. Guys in heels are unlikely to every be the "norm" or the "majority", but we don't need that in order to be tolerated or accepted, we simply need respect for diversity rather than homogeneity.

[ilikekicks]

ILK, thanks for your answer ! By the way, how do you find so much time to write all this ???

Im just closing up my business, listing items on Ebay/Craigslist. I really dont have anything better to do right now

That's the trick : I used the word minority which is not defined by me, rather any reader has its own definition.

Very hard to tell what is going to be understood

When I wrote it, I thought of some strangers accepting lower (and not livable) wages than the locals, engineers accepting 2nd class travel when hard won agreements give them rights for 1st class, protestants in a catholic country, chiites in a sunite region, etc...

My perception is theres no ' group '. Only individuals. If people wish to believe they are part of a group first, then individuals second, so be it. *I* was a free thinking or ' self-thinking ' individual the moment I was born. *I* believe most of us are. Im quite sure there are people still plugged into ' the matrix ' or are part of the Borg that cannot think for themselves. I wish them the best and no bad ills by any means.

Your definition is interesting.

I hope my last statement helped clarify my belief a bit further.

You could rewrite it to "people whom try to benefit from their difference by putting themselves on the bottom of things", but there are minorities that do not fit this. (My definition gives room also for 'minorities' that are not persecuted and do not ask for special rights, but are still 'minorities' meaning they are following a distinct way of life than the others on a particular topic)

They are ' individuals '. Nothing more, nothing less. Just the same as you and I.

If it can be applied backwards (e.g below), it should work.

Look at this totally invented example : a catholic lives in a country full of catholics. Now a few protestant people come from a neighboor country for any reason (economic, tourism, whatever) and decide to live there. You could tell them a minority. Now their number grows and grows, they win the elections, and finally decide the catholic religion is illegal and all catholoic must convert or die.

It look like stories like this nearly happened in many countries with other religions / skin color / whatever involved (eastern Europe, arabic countries, etc.)

Thus why I feel NOTHING should be ' legislated ' as its a form of forced conformity or ' control '. When such happens, we as individuals are stripped of our liberties.

A long time ago human beings decided to live in society because they were stronger this way : against animals, against other groups of human beings. Then they decided to separate the tasks, some of them working in the fields while other took weapons for protection. Here comes the necessity to clearly write what the weapon wearing people are to fight against... Laws where handy...

If everyone agrees to such, theres no issues. If someone wished to say ' Im better at hunting then the other guy, put him in the kitchen instead or I will leave ', the door should be open for them to leave. They shouldnt be punished, but left to their own means.

If we take away the options for people to do for themselves or think for themselves.. We then generate what the US of A is becoming in modern times.

Sorry if I made a mistake by translating : I wanted to say that bystanders seeing a man wearing heels is likely to mistrust.

Some will mistrust some guy wearing heels. Others might think its a grand thing. Some will have no opinion at all on the matter.

That's what I meant : so there is no real point in debatinng acceptance or tolerance...

Cool!

-ILK

[Thighboots2]

Before acceptance must come tollerance, well for the question raised in the subject line (IMHO). The debate strayed a bit off the subject, but that is down to examples being raised that are similar but not relative. Once tollerance is gained, then slowly acceptance takes over as the subject in hand becomes more widely seen. It helps when the media highlights and explains correctly the reasons behind, aka education of the masses. An example of this was last year when a series of TV programmes was shown called My Transsexual Summer following several MtF and FtM transsexual folk, their stories and evolution. This series was very well done and educated a lot of people about people like me. It has been quite effective too as far as I am concerned, as those to whom I have spoken related to the TV programme and thus had a much beter understanding. The success of a transsexual to get by in the world at large really does depend on their presentation. Society has its idea of what a transvestite, aka bloke in a dress, looks like. Society isn't wrong either, so the transsexul must not conform to that stereotype, but try to look the part and not stand out. Society is more tollerant these days as long as what society sees does not push the envelope too far. Certain types of footwear and clothing is associated with certain types of women. When men do the same, then the view is usually much more hostile as they are seen as a threat to society. Mini-skirts and stiletto heels are typical and sadly will brand any man as wierd, even a pervert, and will make him a target for unwelcome attention/abuse and even physical violence. So my point is, careful selection of female items of clothing will work very well indeed, and if it works will not attract unwanted attention. Footwear is harder as the heel shape and shoe colour is difficult. You would easily, and from personal experience, wear a 3" cuban heeled shoe. Not easy to find and when you do they're expensive. However they work perfectly and there is no doubt that a cuban heel is masculine. e.g. the YSL Johnny Boot. I never felt comfortable being out in public wearing a pair of stiletto heeled plain black shoe-boots. I did it though, and relied upon the tollerant society that is London, but was never really relaxed whereas in a cuban heel I did not feel out of place at all. If only high cuban heels were readiy available for men. Now like many here I wanted to wear stiletto heels freely without the feelings mentioned above. In doing so this caused me to reassess myself, think back over my life, and why I had these desires. The result led me to where I am today. Free to do and wear as I please precisely because I took the ultimate step of shifting my presentation from Male to Female. Personally I really do take my hat off to JeffB because he is sticking true to the "Freestyler" ethos and its juxtaposition of male and female, which he now has down to perfection. But take a closer look at just how Jeff presents himself. Nothing in what he does or wears remotely suggests his underlying motives/desire are of a sexual or predatory nature.He does not present a threat to those around him. Whilst his style may bring a smile to all who see him, his appearance is tollerated. Yes well done Jeff you are an inspiraton to those who wish to do as you. It would be very remiss of me not to metion Kneehighs too. He likewise has this off to a fine art and has proved time and time again that, carefully chosen, female and male clothing can be mixed with great ease.

[kikepa]

I hope I'm doing this right. Some differences with the new sofware still has me puzzled.

Check this out..

FreshinHeels, on 19 August 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

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.

Ok. I think that ^ will work.

A year ago, along with a few dozen others here in town, I hosted a young gent from Sweden who was visiting America. Other folks from all over the world were also in town. Throughout the week we got together on a regular basis, including two dinners and an afternoon visiting the local area.

They were amazed at the fact that I carry a firearm. In their countries that's rather unheard of, if not illegal. I didn't do it to impress them. I've simply carried one for the better part of 25 years. Never had to use it, and hope I never do. A lot of folks here in America carry mace, but when I visited Canada twenty years ago, I had to leave even that at the border.

I think they were more amazed by the fact that around here, none of the locals cared. Just one tourist from Chicago, whose eyes grew very large when she saw my firearm. Sometimes I think Chicago and New York are like whole other countries... Not in a bad way, just different, and I mean no disrespect. When it comes to their laws regarding firearms, however, I just don't get it.

ilikekicks said, "people don't realize what's been taken away." I find that both wonderful and interesting, coming from him, as he lives in New York, where anti-gun laws are somewhat extreme.

By the way, I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Unexpected, but I think a welcome addition to this forum.

[ilikekicks]

ilikekicks said, "people don't realize what's been taken away." I find that both wonderful and interesting, coming from him, as he lives in New York, where anti-gun laws are somewhat extreme.

Someone mentioned earlier how there must first be tolerance then acceptance or the other way around.

I believe there should just be ' choice '. As individuals, its the most valuable thing we have. We can freely choose for ourselves what we wish to become and make such through our own efforts. Mandates should NOT be put into ones life endless its to stop harm to someone else.

Your example of a firearm could be used here.

In New York, you can purchase firearms at the age of 18. This is just rifles. Handguns have a requirement of being 21 and theres a whole process for it. Why? I dunno and its absolutely STUPID to have such a ' mandate '.

Why would I think such is ' stupid '? A handgun can be concealed. So can that same shotgun with the barrel sawed off. The Shotgun would also do a whole lot more damage to a crowd then a handgun would. Talk about common sense tossed right out of the window.

But this is just one ' example ' of a ' mandate ' or something legislated onto ourselves because someone else doesnt like something.

To put this into a leftist type of mindset, I'll play the ' Hitler ' card.

A bunch of people didnt like others so they put into effect laws stopping them from owning stores or made them off-limits. They stopped this group of people from being allowed to marry outside of their own. In the end, they tossed them into chambers and gassed them.

Things were ' tolerated ' then ' accepted ' and further went to being ' legislated '.

I dont believe at all the people of Germany wanted such to happen. Sure, some of them did but those kinds of ' people ' arent really human in my honest opinion.

It only takes one small crack in the dam and the flood gates open.

If you travel in the United States right now, you might be sexually assaulted at airports. There are incidents where elderly women and younger girls have had their vaginas both fondled and penetrated by the Transportation Safety Administration ( TSA ). This is something totally illegal in EVERY state AND on the Federal level, yet not a single TSA Agent has been brought to justice for doing this.

Why is such happening?

The answer is simple and one people absolutely hate to hear.

There are individuals on this planet whom may not care for a guy in heels. There are some whom might love a guy in heels. There are those whom could care less. On the flip side, there are some individuals whom DEMAND to have their way and will FORCE it upon all of us as if they are someone better then the rest of us.

Such is the mindest of what I call ' Little People '. Not as in short/vertically-challenged/midgit type, but ' little ' in the fact that they arent bright enough to see what their deeds lead to. They cry constantly about being a victim and putting the blame of things on those whom they dont like.

These ' Little people ' are the first to call others racists, anti-semetics, homophobics.. and they would put into places laws that would force everyones lives into some standard that PLEASES THEM, without consideration for anyone else.

They become angered that someone would have the stones to even say such or call them out for exactly what they do.

When we look at the topic at hand :

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

.. lets apply a ' what if ' standard to this.

' What if ' a law was written tomorrow that said EVERYONE must tolerate and accept guys wearing miniskirts and a pair of platforms. Doesnt matter if they shaved their legs or have a beard, nobody is allowed to harass them at all. Nobody is to tell them how absolutely aweful their beer-gut hanging over the waistband of that miniskirt really looks. This is a new ' Hate crime ' type of law.

I would be willing to wager everything I own that 50% of the people I speak with on a daily basis would be under arrest the first time they saw what I described above. I bet theres MANY of us, right here on THIS site that would see such and say ' What the hell are they thinking? Get a corset or something for that gut man! '.

Theres a philosophy that if you put a mandate into effect, eventually, people will come around to seeing it as needed/good/necessary or whatever, and abide by it. Such is simply not true at all.

-Pot is Illegal in every State in the Union I live in. I was stoned pretty good this afternoon. So were 2 of my friends with me.

-I saw 3 people all roll through the same stop sign.

-I saw a guy taking a leak in a park when I was out for a walk.

-I see people tossing junk out of their cars when driving around, littering anyone?

None of the above makes someone a bad person, yet there will always be a loud mouth to demonize those individuals just as there are loud mouths that wish to dictate to all of us how we are to live out lives.. what we SHOULD ' Tolerate and accept '.

A clue to ' those kinds ' :

*I* EARN acceptance. I dont ask anyone to not say anything about whats on my feet or covering my tush. I walk/strut on by and do my own thing. If people dont like it, so what?

I dont care for people with their drawers/pants hanging around their knees, but Im not about to scream for a law outlawing such dress standards. I dont ' tolerate ' such as if you come to my home with your ass cheeks hanging out of your pants, the door is getting slammed in your face. Have a little respect for my home. I dont ' accept ' such either as people DO have brains and CAN use them to realize they look like an idiot and they really arent ' cool ' putting their skivvies on display for grandma and young children.

A good example of ' tolerance ' and ' acceptance ' would be MLK and Jessie Jackson. MLK could come to my place any time or day of the week. He was a shining example of what humanity is meant to be. Jessie Jackson? Id rather have the kid with his skivvies hanging out over for dinner. MLK aint never called me a Spic or ' Kike '. ( Yes, I plagiarized the great Mohammed Ali of sorts ).

I can hear the cries now " Your a Racist! You wouldnt allow... " Not at all. I look at INDIVIDUALS. I dont need a mandate to decide whom is worthy of a plate at my table. I dont need to be told that all people of a specific ethnicity should be tolerated as some SHOULDNT be tolerated ( Yep! I just said it folks! start regulating your pace makers as Im sure a few people had heart attacks just reading what was typed! ). Anyone think I'm going to have some White-trash-Klan member over for dinner? They would never make it up onto the front porch! Then again, I know quite a few ' White Guys ' whom can come over anytime, the door is open, just say ' hello ' when you walk in.

Im NOT ' Politically Correct ' and P.C. is why there will always be division and hatred towards others. People dont care what we wear BUT if a view of such is FORCED upon others, they will definitely have an opinion ' right away ' on the issue.

As it stands, people dont even notice what I have on my feet. If such a law stating ' men wearing heels MUST be accepted and tolerated ', EVERYONE would start looking at what I wear. It would become and instant ' issue '.

[meganiwish]

On the flip side, there are some individuals whom DEMAND to have their way and will FORCE it upon all of us as if they are someone better then the rest of us.

.

I couldn't agree more. And the thing is, each time they're heard, more of them come ot of the woodwork.

[FreshinHeels]

sorry ilikekicks can't help it have to ask.. Where ye still stoned writing this?

[Shafted]

I know I wasn't and it makes perfect sense to me.

[FreshinHeels]

I know I wasn't and it makes perfect sense to me.

I know just kidding around me is.

I just don't understand this gun thing but thats problably cause I'm a lefty from The Netherlands

[Rockpup]

The topic of guns tends to go over like a lead balloon here. Tried to start a NFA weapon thread years ago, and it turned into a 98% anti-gun rant thread, with a few pvt msg's from people who did not want to upset the others by going against the grain. This alone confused me, so I dropped the issue here. I'd say the public needs to get comfortable with something before it is even tolerated, let alone accepted. I can speak from the gay side of the isle, where we still fight for equal rights, even though some argue we want special rights. I had to go to a lawyer to make sure my boyfriend can make medical/financial decisions for me if I am unable to do so, but this does not give him the ability as a hospital can refuse to accept legal paperwork until enough time passes that the decision is moot. Gay's are tolerated by many in society, accepted by many, and vilified by others. Amazingly guys in drag or other femme clothing gets tied in with gay culture, even though only a couple of my gay friends have even worn heels (without me pushing the issue), and only a few are into femme/sissy stuff as a kink. It's a very small subset of us that gets much more attention due to it being "outrageous". In our group the outrageous activities get the attention, thus annoys those who are on the fence. Falls into the idea that maybe we as guys need to go with a bit more toned down dress to get people used to us before going for the extreme of our interests. Multiple guys here have said that they took months/years getting friends/coworkers used to them wearing 1.5"/2" heels, then 2.5/3" etc before finally pumps/etc. You cannot expect a lawfirm to accept a lawyer to show up in a latex catsuit and ballet heels, even if it can be argued that it covers all appropriate body parts for decency. I think I got off target from my original intent, just chipping I guess since I do come from a different point of view from most here. Odd thing is, heels are not as accepted in male mode between the gays as some of you may wish.

[ilikekicks]

sorry ilikekicks can't help it have to ask..

Where ye still stoned writing this?

Nope. I ran out. Im doing this chemically-induced medical thingi and Getting stoned helps me stay above 120lbs. I was at a nice 150ish at one point but.. I do need voulenteers whom wish to donate extra pounds/stones my way .

I know I wasn't and it makes perfect sense to me.

Yep. Like minded individuals. We tend to see things for the way they are. Simply basic thought. Things dont need to be over-complicated or ' over intellectualized '.

I know just kidding around me is.

I just don't understand this gun thing but thats problably cause I'm a lefty from The Netherlands

In the United States, firearms are regulated 2 ways. The ' whole country ' and by ' states '. You can compare it to how the E.U. has rules and then each country has rules as well.

The ' Whole Country ' way says people can own firearms so long as they arent fully automatic ( machine guns ). You CAN own fully automatic firearms but it requires a special license ( FFL ) .

The individual States themselves also have laws. In N.Y. , you need a ' permit ' to purchase a handgun. You need another permit or license to ' carry ' it on your persons. You need a third permit to ' conceal ' it.

The sad part about N.Y. is someone can go into Walmart, show them my drivers license or a birth certificate and they will sell me a shotgun. Someone could go to their hardware section and buy a hacksaw and blades. They could then go to the next store down in their plaza and buy shells for the shotgun. They can then go out to my car and saw the barrel off and commit a very bad crime.

Shotguns account for the largest percentages of gun violence in the United States.. yet handguns are harder to attain?

In the State of Texas, if your 18.. you can go and buy anything. Shotguns, Rifles, Handguns. You can carry those handguns but they cannot be concealed. You would have to get a holster like the old cowboy movies OR apply for a permit to conceal them.

North Carolina? Buy anything so long as your 18, no permits needed for anything ( or at least it was as such about 10 years ago when I was down there ).

Some cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. dont allow ANY firearms in them.

The Great thing about all of it is its a PERFECT model of how things should be.

If I wanted to go all day long wearing dresses and not be harassed, I could go to SanFrancisco. I certainly wouldnt go to Dallas Texas as I might get lynched ( just guessing folks, not saying it would happen ).

When things are ' Legislated ' into ' All-in-one ', there becomes a stagnant theme and everything becomes bland. People fail to realize this and adopt a mindset of ' we need to push this so everyone.. '.. *I* am not everyone. I dont know what the peopel in California want to live like. I dont know what the people in Florida or texas want to live like. I know whatthe people in *my* area want to live like and I can work with them to achieve such.

I say this as I dont own a surfboard and dunno a thing about surfing. I dont know much about alligators/crocs and swamps like they have in Florida. I'm willing to bet that those in Cali and Florida dont own a snowblower/snowplow and probably havent ever seen one in real life being used in 6-10 feet of snow! I bet they dont even own Parkas or cold-weather coats!

Why should I tell them how to live their lives? Why should they tell me how to live mine? Why cant we just wish each other the best, pray ( if you believe in god ) for peace and live side by side in a sort of unity? WHY do we need all these laws dictating and FORCING views upon one another? Thats NOT Acceptance or Tolerance. That outright tyranny which leads to hatred and contempt for others.

I feel im being honest in saying this and if I ruffle some feathers it isnt my initial intention in doing such.. though im sure some will feel ' ruffeled '.

Europe has changed greatly over the last 50 years. Its VERY ' Socialized '. Theres this outlook that the ' State ' should look after everyone and that everyone should be a part of the ' State '. You CANNOT be a truly free ' individual ' in such a setting.

The more the State has control of your life, the less you stand as an individual and the less liberty you will ever have. Its ' Addition by Subtraction '. Some will be propped up at the expense of someone else.

People will say ' Its only fair.. '.. what kind of argument is that? Its not. Its not really a qualified answer as to how to ' Tolerate ' or ' Accept ' anothers views. Your either on the side of mandating to all how they should live their lives be it in what they wear, if they can own firearms, what kind of car they can drive, where you can go for medical needs, who pays for what.. All those decisions are taken away from YOU, because your not really an ' individual '. Your under a false pretense believing your a ' free thinker ', but your thoughts are irrelevant when someone else helps pass a law ( legislates ) away what you feel works for YOURSELF.

Here in the States, People are adopting the same Philosophy or at least the ' Dark side of the force ' of it. People saw a shooting at a school and a religious sect have a shootout so they created the ' Brady Bill ' or ' Assault Weapons Ban '.

Assault Weapons Ban.. Give that title a thought. A weapon used to harm someone is an assault weapon by definition.. The Act of an assault.. I own an AR-15, an M-14.. My guns have done less harm then a ( now dead ) Legislator/Senator named Teddy Kennedy ( drunk and drove his car into a lake. Left a woman to drown. ). Shouldnt cars be ' Assault Weapons ' as they kill more people then Guns every year.. this includes the wars being fought!

People here felt horrified and scared when 9/11 happened. Whats the first thing they did? ' Patriot Act '. They could now legally tape everyones phones, do searches without a warrant.. I mean.. every liberty we had was under question. Why would a free people give up so much and to this day STILL continue to give into it?

Theres a whole problem with such a mindset and its why I could NEVER live in Europe. Its why Im looking to move out of New York. Its why I could never live in California.. Theres really no freedom or Liberty when one scratches the surface. Its a facade, a menagerie, something that looks good, but really isnt.

So when I see things like ' Universal Health Care ', I scratch the surface. When I see laws about EPA Regulations, I scratch the surface. When I see someone talking about legislating anything, I REALLY scratch the surface.

I dont want to be ' Legislated '. I can be accepted and tolerated ( as I am at this very moment ) through my own merits. If someone else cant, maybe they are doing something wrong. Maybe they arent going about what they need to properly or they are trying to ' oversell ' their position.

I love hockey.. I could never play in the NHL. I dont have the skill nor youth to do it. I love recording and playing my guitar, but I know and have accepted I'll never perform on a major labels tour at Arenas/Stadiums. Should there be a law saying Im to be given special consideration and everyone HAS to listen to my playing? *I* dont think so and it would be completely WRONG to force such upon everyone.

Theres more to the world then just 1 persons views or a weak minded group bullying another by writing laws to FORCE their views upon everyone.

The topic of guns tends to go over like a lead balloon here. Tried to start a NFA weapon thread years ago, and it turned into a 98% anti-gun rant thread, with a few pvt msg's from people who did not want to upset the others by going against the grain. This alone confused me, so I dropped the issue here.

The problem isnt with the topic of ' guns '. Its with ' familiarity '. People wish to discuss things they are aquatinted with.

You state your gay. I have a friend whom is a ' queen ' and he was 100% against private ownership of firearms. A 100% flaming liberal type. Hated Bush, hated people whom believed in god.. He was so far left he made Lenin look like a Republican!

He came out to a party at a friends ranch, and it was the FIRST TIME he ever held a firearm. By the time he left, he was asking what the requirements were to go buy one. He ( literally ) had a blast.

On a forum like this one, theres people from all over the world. They are raised under the guise that somethings are ' bad ' even though they dont have the lawful liberty to ever find out about these things for themselves. About half of Europe isnt allowed to own firearms and some of their police officers arent even allowed to carry on their normal beat.

How can you speak to them on the subject of firearms when all they have ever seen or been told is from a very narrow minded view/perspective? ( Im being 100% honest folks. Its not what a lot of people want to hear, but its the truth. )

I'd say the public needs to get comfortable with something before it is even tolerated, let alone accepted.

AGREED! We ' need to know ' and its up to us as individuals to do the research on things for ourselves.

I can speak from the gay side of the isle, where we still fight for equal rights, even though some argue we want special rights.

What ' special rights '? Wanting to marry those whom you may love, no different from anyone else? Wanting to do the same jobs as anyone else? Theres no such thing as a ' special right ' to me. Were all equal and should be recognized as such under the law.

I had to go to a lawyer to make sure my boyfriend can make medical/financial decisions for me if I am unable to do so, but this does not give him the ability as a hospital can refuse to accept legal paperwork until enough time passes that the decision is moot.

Thats F-ed up and wrong.

Gay's are tolerated by many in society, accepted by many, and vilified by others.

You might understand this and others will be gravely ' offended ' by me saying it.. but.. theres no difference between gay and straight IMO. You either have the capability to love or your a P.O.S. ( piece of sh.. ). I cant see how some might take away anothers humanity without even knowing them.

Amazingly guys in drag or other femme clothing gets tied in with gay culture, even though only a couple of my gay friends have even worn heels (without me pushing the issue), and only a few are into femme/sissy stuff as a kink. It's a very small subset of us that gets much more attention due to it being "outrageous". In our group the outrageous activities get the attention, thus annoys those who are on the fence. Falls into the idea that maybe we as guys need to go with a bit more toned down dress to get people used to us before going for the extreme of our interests.

Im willing to bet, there are more ' heterosexual ' men wearing heels then ' homosexual ' ones. I mean.. if Homosexuals are supposedly 1 in 10, the odds of gay males being the majority of heel wearers seems moot.

Multiple guys here have said that they took months/years getting friends/coworkers used to them wearing 1.5"/2" heels, then 2.5/3" etc before finally pumps/etc. You cannot expect a lawfirm to accept a lawyer to show up in a latex catsuit and ballet heels, even if it can be argued that it covers all appropriate body parts for decency.

I think I got off target from my original intent, just chipping I guess since I do come from a different point of view from most here. Odd thing is, heels are not as accepted in male mode between the gays as some of you may wish.

Just for conversation..

I ' hang ' with several different ' types ' of people. Theres the colored crew in the Ghetto whom I play cards with once in a while, Theres what I refer to as the ' upper class ' group whom my ( soon to be ) wife works with, theres the ' redneck contractors ' I used to deal with on a daily basis.. theres my friends and family.. All have ' homosexuals ' some where in there ( I dont think any reasonable person can say there isnt at LEAST 1 gay person in each of those groups.. ).. Ive never really been bothered or ragged on after the first introduction by any of them.

Some of the gay males I know are ' bears '. they dont care for ANYTHING feminine. When I was introduced to them, they looked me over and probably thought I was some Queen or of that line of life. When they found out I owned a plastering business and busted out house walls for a living, I fit right in.

I think if we are left to our own design, we as individuals can take care of our lives quite fine. There are some acceptions, but 90% of us want to do it our own way.

Where are you from?

-ILK

[Shafted]

Actually "special rights" have been legislated under the classification of "hate crimes". Commit a crime against one of the protected groups and your looking at additional punishment.

[ilikekicks]

Actually "special rights" have been legislated under the classification of "hate crimes". Commit a crime against one of the protected groups and your looking at additional punishment.

An example of yet another ' Legislative Failure '. Double-Jeopardy is not SUPPOSED to be legally possible, yet it would appear you have pointed out a grave example of it.

[Rockpup]

The FFL is the license that allows gun dealers to sell firearms. NFA firearms include machine guns, silencers, short barrel weapons, and an odd category called "any other weapons". You can get a class-2 manufacturer license, but the fee's are around $2000 a year. Individuals can use the ATF form-1 to "Make and register" anything but machine guns. That went away in 1986, which is why machine gun prices are psychotic. Both the ATF form-1 to make an item and ATF form-4 to transfer an item require a $200 tax stamp, and approval from the ATF. Currently the wait is 5.5 months. Sent paperwork for a SBR AR15 back in March, just got it back recently. Ok, so that covers the federal end of the game. Each state that allows these items, and not all allow every type of item, has their own laws. Some require a state license, so you do not need to show your approved ATF forms. My state, Florida, only says they are illegal unless owned in compliance with federal laws. This just means I need to show a copy of my paperwork to prove I am legal. I was born in Michigan, they recently made machine guns legal, but not silencers.

This is the short version. There are more legal hoops to jump through, but it starts getting county and city specific. I've had to learn a bit of the ATF/NFA game over the last several years, as the rules are very specific, they change, and they can really bite you in the ass if not followed fully.

You think the TSA is a problem for most people? Try flying with a Mac-10 machine gun and matching silencer. (ok, was not really a problem. TSA at DFW said it was the coolest thing he's had to inspect)

As far as nobody in southern Florida wearing cold weather gear? Ahem

I almost cooked alive for that photo shoot in Palm Beach. Ugh.

Btw, yes, was not trying to convince you of gay rights, etc. That would be preaching to the converted.

I am one of the guys that you'd see at construction sites, with my old Jeep club, offroading on a dirt bike, or shooting my .308 at a 1000yrd target. I do not try to pass myself off as straight, but my actual personality tends to blend in. So do most of the gay guys I happen to know right now.

And yes, at 1:10, I do suspect more straight guys do almost anything gay guys could do, just by sheer number. I hear guys talk about odd stuff they had to do for frat initiation/etc. Guess the trick is we do not stop doing some of it. hehe

I do find it interesting that whenever pics of members here pop up elsewhere online the first comment is to call them gay. And yet.. I have not seen a gay member pop up in pics.

[FreshinHeels]

lets agree that we disagree about guns, freedom etc etc

But I did find this nice quote:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Rockpup]

Hehe, yea, if it gets much more off topic we might want to move over to General Chit Chat

[Shafted]

Hehe, yea, if it gets much more off topic we might want to move over to General Chit Chat

Quite right. Thanks for the hint, Rockpup.

[Gudulitooo]

Rockpup,

Very good.

Gay's are tolerated by many in society, accepted by many, and vilified by others. Amazingly guys in drag or other femme clothing gets tied in with gay culture, even though only a couple of my gay friends have even worn heels (without me pushing the issue), and only a few are into femme/sissy stuff as a kink. It's a very small subset of us that gets much more attention due to it being "outrageous". In our group the outrageous activities get the attention, thus annoys those who are on the fence. Falls into the idea that maybe we as guys need to go with a bit more toned down dress to get people used to us before going for the extreme of our interests.

Gay definately needs a public relation campaign and a marketing consultancy to impose their image. What do specialized press? They don't publish in general editions.

ILK, thanks for the good reading,

People saw a shooting at a school and a religious sect have a shootout so they created the ' Brady Bill ' or ' Assault Weapons Ban '.

Imagine we restart the game from the beginning, we get back centuries ago without any rules

I see two difficulties that inevitably lead our society to slowly evolve towards all these regulations

1) the quest for power / leadership : humanity produces individuals that crave - and some are very skilled - to rule and imopse their views. Try to explain to me Alexandre le Grand, I never understood his motivations as an individual. Drug cartels - here I now the motivation. In France, some prefer to rule a bunch of poor and unhealthy taxpayers, than to be a nobody in a country full of free individuals. As far as in their life, they are healthy, wealthy, and only are in contact with the richest... Now with democracy, what do leaders do when confronted to falling polls when they don't react to a shootout in a sect ? They imagine something stupid.

Yes the most intelligent thing may well have been to let all these enslaved weak people kill themselves and do nothing for the sake of Darwin's law.

2) empathy, emotions and irrationality, mixed with the last : you see a shooting in a school, again something has to be done. You go to the leader and ask for a new rule. Or he falls in polls. Here Darwin's law do not count as much : human being protects the young to proliferate, unlike fishes for example. Cut the shooter's hands, torture him for years, skin him alive, leave him on a remote island full of crocodiles. Other shooters-to-be will think twice before entering a school. But leaders want to lead, not to make the wolrd better. And other, meaner, "little" as you say, leaders, have gathered lobbying groups, or pressure groups, or opinion groups, minorities, or whatever, and they also want their share of the control. Together, or fighting each other, they choose the stupid action. Which is not a solution, as you said, eliminating weapons is not going to prevent people from killing each other, maybe the next shooter is drifting his car as children get out of school.

Then comes the next event. And the next, and the next. Each time, the leaders choose the option that will bring them more support.

Look at the laws : it is a bunch of texts added one after another in reaction to diverse agressions some people did to other people in the past.

The question is : if their choices brings them more support, does that mean their choices suit most people ? I don't think so. I suits more "little" leaders, for sure. And the worst thing is the accumulation. I think law-makers loses some hair to make the new reactions to events laws consistent with the old ones.

The solution is : let us stop counting on leaders to make the world better.

So when I see things like ' Universal Health Care ', I scratch the surface. When I see laws about EPA Regulations, I scratch the surface. When I see someone talking about legislating anything, I REALLY scratch the surface.

Could not agree more.

[edit] : this forum editor is very cool, I could let this unattended for three ours without loosing the text !

[ilikekicks]

Some would say this has gone ' off topic ', yet I couldnt disagree enough. When someone speaks of ' tolerance ' or ' acceptance ', what they are speaking of is human thought. It really is that simple. as individuals, there are things we like and things we dislike. I cannot stand Peas, but love Carrots. No law or legislation will change such. I like Wedge heels and classic stilettos, I really dont care for platforms.. again.. no law will change that. I believe I would think negatively if I saw a rather overweight guy with hairy legs and a ZZ Top beard trying to sport a bikini and a set of Pleaser type shoes. On the other hand, if it was just an average guy wearing a pair of well-heeled shoes/boots not trying to impersonate a woman, I wouldnt have any problems with them at all, even if they still had hairy legs and a beard. Tolerance and Acceptance are NOT done on a ' societal ' level, but are done by individuals choosing for themselves what they feel is correct for them. The original theme for this thread truly applies to each and every one of us differently. A ' Society ' is nothing more then a group of individuals. They may or may not agree on anything/everything. A ' Society ' doesnt tolerate nor accept anything as it would have to be a 100% agreement on all aspects to flourish without issue. Writing laws doesnt prevent someone from being harassed or discriminated against. I can bet Rockpup has been called a fag or queer MANY times in the not so distant past. Ive been called a kike and a spic by others before, no big deal to me. People today are afraid to apply ' common sense ' to things as they have to first check and see if its ' ok with everyone else ' before they do something. Everyone has to live under a microscope worrying about whom they will offend. Theres an unwritten ' list ' of what WILL BE ' tolerated ' and ' Accepted ' and its written by some of the most narrow minded people to have ever existed in humanities history. ' Conformity '. Why? Why should I be forced to accept other peoples standards when they dont work for me? I weigh all of 110lbs right now. I have a 34inch chest, a 25inch waist and ( guessing here ) 30-32inch hips. What the hell can I wear from a mens catalogue that wont fall off of me with a 33inch inseam? Try and find a pair of 25-26inch waist and 34inch inseamed jeans. Outside of a custom shop, theres nothing on the racks at Walmart or any ' box store '. So, I buy stretchy womens jeans. Most people dont even know they are ' womans ' jeans and believe they are just mens jeans that I bought somewhere. If someone says they are ' offended ' because I wear ' womens ' pants, should I care? *I* dont. Would they rather see me butt-naked and talking to them in the buff? ( Very scary thought! I look like absolute hell right now ) People can only be honest when they speak freely without worry about whats ' correct '. Before someone can speak about tolerance and acceptance, they need to put ' correctness ' and forcing their will upon others outside of the conversation and be honest with everyone. Till then, theres no such thing as ' tolerance ' and ' acceptance ', just words out of someones mouth with no meaning or honesty behind them. Could *I* tolerate or accept another man in heels.. yes AND no. It depends on the individual and what they are about. It depends on WHO they ARE, not just what fashion statement they are trying to make.

[FreshinHeels]

Could *I* tolerate or accept another man in heels.. yes AND no. It depends on the individual and what they are about. It depends on WHO they ARE, not just what fashion statement they are trying to make.

Sorry I don't get this one.

Where is the freedom gone in that sentence?

Is there only tolerance/acceptance when in fits into you're way you want people to be?

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

Nelson Mandela