Whats up with the sterotypes.

The law is the law? Sorry, but what does the law have to do with this thread?

Also, who are you to tell people who they really are and what their personality is really like?

 

I really dont mean to be rude, but this doesnt make sense. Most of us, including myself said that we dont believe that Dragon meant anything to be offense. However, according to the English language his question specified that the femininity of these men was an 'act'. Nobody was correcting him because they were assuming what he was implying, however, the way it came off was offensive.


I still dont understand you point. I agree, no one, male or female, should be venturing out in public exposed. What I dont understand is the correlation with these events and the actually topic of this thread. What does the way the gay guys Dragon referenced have anything to do with those exposing themselves in streets.

 

I'm just making a point.

Anywho, I have no idea why you are having a go because if you read and understood my post you would actually realise that those people thought they had to dress like that because of the way a stereotypical gay person is perceived. Some people feel the need to put on a persona because they feel they are expected to.

I'm not discussing this further really because I feel as if you're trying to cause an argument and that isn't my intention to have a huge debate. I've stated the way I feel, it is what it is.

---------- Post added 26th Sep 2012 at 02:44 AM ----------

To the above, I feel it was relevant because he stated the word flamboyant. I would hardly say strutting in your underwear is modest.

Maybe it's asperger's or what, but I cannot understand how he was being offensive. Some guys are naturally feminine. But the stereotypical gay guy develops a persona which isn't natural, so therefore it would be correct to define unnatural behaviour as an act.