Celeb Outfits - Yes Or No?

[FastFreddy2]

Seen at tonights Grammy awards ......

 

 

"Make-up artist Patrick Starr is known for his bold beauty looks....."

 

[Shyheels]

Cross-dressing? Your 'truth' is not mine, nor indeed is there enough consistency and logic in it to be any form of absolute truth at all.  

Let me take you through the logic of this:

Footwear of any sort cannot be cross-dressing in and of its own.

Let’s start with the law of reciprocity. No woman who wears a pair of men's oxfords or penny-loafers or workbooks is ever going to be labelled a cross dresser so there alone, by the law of reciprocity, a man who does the same can't be considered to be cross-dressing. 

This would especially be true if it is not his (or her) intention to be cross dressing. And if one was intending to cross-dress one would do more than merely change one's shoes, surely.

If one is was to adopt a stern line and declare that wearing any single item of mis-gendered clothing is cross dressing what then of millions of school girls who wear neckties as part of their school uniform. Are they all cross dressing? Neckties are strongly associated with male attire. I think you would find a lot of parents would vehemently disagree with the idea that their daughters are cross dressers. 

Now let’s look at the broader picture. Footwear - as a broad category - is unisex, unlike say, the category of dresses and ballgowns which society holds to be specifically feminine. Virtually everyone wears something on their feet and so divisions between 'men's' and 'women's' footwear comes down to a matter of styling. If one one starts labelling someone as a cross-dresser solely on the styling of their shoes, and nothing else that they are wearing, one finds oneself on slippery logical and sociological ground indeed.

Example: I have a pair of masculine RM Williams dress boots - classic Aussie male boots. They have heels of about three-quarters of an inch, maybe five-eighths. Okay - I wear them with jeans and shirt, classic male attire. I raise the heels on my boots to an inch and a half, but otherwise am wearing exactly the same clothes. Am I now cross-dressing since my heels are higher? No? Yes? Not yet? Do I become a cross-dresser if I raise the heels further, to two inches? At what point, if any, everything else being equal and unchanged, am I considered to be cross-dressing? And who establishes that point? Or do we then start to consider toe shape? One could end up becoming like those ultra conservative religious scholars who can argue for hours over points of excruciating minutiae in establishing rules in the church. 

Another example - Farmer Jones goes out to clean out his barn. He usually wears his dark green Hunter gumboots for this. Alas, he can't find them. Instead he finds his wife's pink Hunter gum boots. They are identical to his - happily enough even down to the same size. So he borrows them. They are ostensibly ladies boots and would have been marketed as such in the shop. Except for the boots he’s wearing his regular clothes.  Is he cross dressing? Remember his wife’s boots are identical to his own. They’re standard gumboots. In this instance the difference is a purely matter of colour  - pink being marketed as a 'girl's' colour.  The quibble ceases to be about the boots themselves but about the colour of the boots. If a man wears pink does that make him a cross-dresser?     

Now take the example of knee boots - men are 'allowed' to wear knee boots for practical purposes, if they are engaged in such activities as motorcycles or horses. Then it is considered a good idea in fact, and indeed in dressage riding boots are part of the required attire. Now, women wear these same style boots around town as part of 'a look', a matter of fashion and style rather than practicability. This tall-booted style on the high street is strongly associated with women nowadays.  So where does that leave a man who wears otherwise masculine looking riding-style or biker-style knee boots around town, and who doesn't own a horse or a Harley? Is he cross-dressing?

What if he usually does ride a Harley but leaves it at home one day, drives his Volvo to work instead and still wears his boots. Would he be cross-dressing then?  Bear in mind that these are the same tall boots he wore on his weekend ride. And he's wearing his usual masculine clothes, say, jeans and a jumper.  Is he cross-dressing now because he's wearing tall boots the way a woman would, fashionably, without any valid practical reason?

What about a guy who aspires to owning a horse or a Harley and buys himself a pair of knee boots beforehand, and wears them around town to break them in? Is he cross-dressing? If not, how long a period of grace is he granted before he can be said to have lapsed into cross-dressing? A week? A fortnight? A month? What if he buys the boots and changes his kind, or never really had any serious intention of acquiring a motorcycle in the first place, has he been guilty of cross-dressing in spirit?

If this sounds silly, so does the idea that anyone could be cross-dressing merely because of a change of footwear and nothing else. There is no way wearing high heels or tall boots or both constitutes cross-dressing. Unusual, yes, certainly; cross-dressing? Nope. And society doesn't look at it that way either - not if all we’re talking about is just a substitution in footwear and nothing else; they just think it is bit weird. 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Shyheels

[Puffer]

5 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Seen at tonights Grammy awards ......

 

 

"Make-up artist Patrick Starr is known for his bold beauty looks....."

 

Forget the (alleged) sex of the wearer - I think the overall look is well-coordinated and attractive.   The nails  are a finishing touch and show attention to detail.   Flamboyant and showy, yes, but not nearly as OTT as many 'event outfits' worn by people who should know better.

He could quite easily 'pass' imho - although my initial reaction was that I was looking at Martha (from the Tom & Jerry cartoons) on her night off!

[Shyheels]

He's pretty clearly a guy 

[Puffer]

Shyheels:   You make some interesting and valid points about the degree of (so-called) cross-dressing.   But some of your examples of what women have borrowed from men are not so sound.   Go back 100 years or so and a necktie was a familiar item of everyday dress for women, and has remained so in a smaller way, particularly as part of a uniform, in schools and otherwise.   Ditto, 'Oxford' shoes (i.e. lace-ups with a toecap and a heel of varying height) which were commonly worn by women of most classes in a non-dressy situation until well into the 1950s; again, often as part of a uniform (nurses, policewomen, servicewomen).   Although (now) predominantly male wear, both items have never been exclusively male.   Leaving trousers aside, many other items of male wear have been 'adopted' by women, often for expediency rather than pure fashion, e.g. loafers, macintosh raincoats, caps.   I can agree that women can and do wear men's items without thought of being considered weird, but my feeling is that this is largely because the items concerned are pretty tame and often utilitarian.   The reverse is not the case when men adopt the more frivolous and 'pretty' items worn by women, e.g. stilettos, some sandals, dresses, frilly blouses - none of which could really be considered utilitarian or more suitable than 'normal' menswear.

My feeling is that this is largely about attitudes to fashion.   Men are expected to be boringly drab for most of the time and any departure from that calls for comment, often adverse, especially when anything more colourful or delicate is involved.   The extremes of the late 60s - late 70s exemplified this.

I am not of course advocating censure of men for wearing 'high' heels or other traditionally feminine items, although often they go to extremes in appearance and conduct which does them no favours and 'queers the pitch' (pun definitely intended) for others.   And I agree that tall boots or cuban heels, for example, do not per se constitute cross-dressing, and certainly do not call for criticism or ridicule.   It must be largely a question for education, but that takes time - and the current obsession with 'trans/gay equality' etc is probably doing more harm than good because it merely highlights a quiet revolution in a way which, to many, invites censure and prejudice.  (There are parallels in the molestation situation that has become flavour of the year; I'm sure that mischief is being made simply because the concept has become more widely recognised rather than because real harm has been (allegedly) done.   An unpopular view maybe - and I certainly don't support rape or serious assault, sexual or otherwise.)

[Shyheels]

In a large sense nothing in the men's wardrobe is ever or has ever been exclusively male. The borrowing is all a one way street. My point is  a woman can go into any store and buy any shoe or boot she likes from either side of the aisle and not be labelled with being a cross-dresser. 

The necktie is a perfectly valid example as are the shoe styles I mention. The fact is that now - today - these styles and items are masculine, on the men'swear side of the shop. If we want to go back a century or two and say, well, they used to be feminine as well - hey, guess what, at those very same times heels and boots were masculine. Lets stick to today. If a guy in heels is cross-dressing, so is a woman in a necktie. 

Dresses have never been part of the masculine wardrobe, so let's discount them for the purposes of this discussion. But heels and boots have most certainly been masculine and were appropriated by women. It is a curious and rather depressing aspect to society's blinkered views of masculinity and fashion that once something goes feminine, it ain't coming back in terms of menswear.  As a group, we men have been left with only those items that are practical. No colour or theatricality is allowed for men. Why? 

Unfortunately for the rank and file, most of the people who do brave the slings and arrows of censure and wear what they please in terms of boots and heels tend to be celebrities and/or people of the gay/trans/or cross-dressing persuasion. This really only helps cement the idea that only gay/trans/cross-dressers are interested in breaking these boundaries. I doubt very much that that is true. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Shyheels

[FastFreddy2]

8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Cross-dressing? Your 'truth' is not mine, nor indeed is there enough consistency and logic in it to be any form of absolute truth at all.  

Let me take you through the logic of this:

Footwear of any sort cannot be cross-dressing in and of its own.

Let’s start with the law of reciprocity. No woman who wears a pair of men's oxfords or penny-loafers or workbooks is ever going to be labelled a cross dresser so there alone, by the law of reciprocity, a man who does the same can't be considered to be cross-dressing. 

This would especially be true if it is not his (or her) intention to be cross dressing. And if one was intending to cross-dress one would do more than merely change one's shoes, surely.

If one is was to adopt a stern line and declare that wearing any single item of mis-gendered clothing is cross dressing what then of millions of school girls who wear neckties as part of their school uniform. Are they all cross dressing? Neckties are strongly associated with male attire. I think you would find a lot of parents would vehemently disagree with the idea that their daughters are cross dressers. 

Now let’s look at the broader picture. Footwear - as a broad category - is unisex, unlike say, the category of dresses and ballgowns which society holds to be specifically feminine. Virtually everyone wears something on their feet and so divisions between 'men's' and 'women's' footwear comes down to a matter of styling. If one one starts labelling someone as a cross-dresser solely on the styling of their shoes, and nothing else that they are wearing, one finds oneself on slippery logical and sociological ground indeed.

Example: I have a pair of masculine RM Williams dress boots - classic Aussie male boots. They have heels of about three-quarters of an inch, maybe five-eighths. Okay - I wear them with jeans and shirt, classic male attire. I raise the heels on my boots to an inch and a half, but otherwise am wearing exactly the same clothes. Am I now cross-dressing since my heels are higher? No? Yes? Not yet? Do I become a cross-dresser if I raise the heels further, to two inches? At what point, if any, everything else being equal and unchanged, am I considered to be cross-dressing? And who establishes that point? Or do we then start to consider toe shape? One could end up becoming like those ultra conservative religious scholars who can argue for hours over points of excruciating minutiae in establishing rules in the church. 

Another example - Farmer Jones goes out to clean out his barn. He usually wears his dark green Hunter gumboots for this. Alas, he can't find them. Instead he finds his wife's pink Hunter gum boots. They are identical to his - happily enough even down to the same size. So he borrows them. They are ostensibly ladies boots and would have been marketed as such in the shop. Except for the boots he’s wearing his regular clothes.  Is he cross dressing? Remember his wife’s boots are identical to his own. They’re standard gumboots. In this instance the difference is a purely matter of colour  - pink being marketed as a 'girl's' colour.  The quibble ceases to be about the boots themselves but about the colour of the boots. If a man wears pink does that make him a cross-dresser?     

Now take the example of knee boots - men are 'allowed' to wear knee boots for practical purposes, if they are engaged in such activities as motorcycles or horses. Then it is considered a good idea in fact, and indeed in dressage riding boots are part of the required attire. Now, women wear these same style boots around town as part of 'a look', a matter of fashion and style rather than practicability. This tall-booted style on the high street is strongly associated with women nowadays.  So where does that leave a man who wears otherwise masculine looking riding-style or biker-style knee boots around town, and who doesn't own a horse or a Harley? Is he cross-dressing?

What if he usually does ride a Harley but leaves it at home one day, drives his Volvo to work instead and still wears his boots. Would he be cross-dressing then?  Bear in mind that these are the same tall boots he wore on his weekend ride. And he's wearing his usual masculine clothes, say, jeans and a jumper.  Is he cross-dressing now because he's wearing tall boots the way a woman would, fashionably, without any valid practical reason?

What about a guy who aspires to owning a horse or a Harley and buys himself a pair of knee boots beforehand, and wears them around town to break them in? Is he cross-dressing? If not, how long a period of grace is he granted before he can be said to have lapsed into cross-dressing? A week? A fortnight? A month? What if he buys the boots and changes his kind, or never really had any serious intention of acquiring a motorcycle in the first place, has he been guilty of cross-dressing in spirit?

If this sounds silly, so does the idea that anyone could be cross-dressing merely because of a change of footwear and nothing else. There is no way wearing high heels or tall boots or both constitutes cross-dressing. Unusual, yes, certainly; cross-dressing? Nope. And society doesn't look at it that way either - not if all we’re talking about is just a substitution in footwear and nothing else; they just think it is bit weird. 

 

 

 

The trees are not blue.

What is cross-dressing? Wearing attire designed/made for the opposite sex of whoever wears it. You could write a book declaring it isn't so, but it is. You don't make this decision, nor do I. The community, the society we live in does.

[FastFreddy2]

1 hour ago, Puffer said:

I am not of course advocating censure of men for wearing 'high' heels or other traditionally feminine items, although often they go to extremes in appearance and conduct which does them no favours and 'queers the pitch' (pun definitely intended) for others.   And I agree that tall boots or cuban heels, for example, do not per se constitute cross-dressing, and certainly do not call for criticism or ridicule.   It must be largely a question for education, but that takes time - and the current obsession with 'trans/gay equality' etc is probably doing more harm than good because it merely highlights a quiet revolution in a way which, to many, invites censure and prejudice. 

Well said.

 

This 'discussion' over CD is ridiculous unrealistic.

As I first wrote, I could ask 100 people ..... Anyone of us could ask 100 people for their views. Do any of you REALLY think trying to intellectualise 'men wearing womens shoes' here will change the attitude of one single person in the real world? And more importantly, one we might ask in the street while doing out 100 person survey?

How many of you have told your social group you are a member here? Many don't even tell their nearest-and-dearest. (I know two as fact haven't shared.)  Why is this? Because you will be viewed in exactly the terms I suggest you will be seen in.

If I told people I wore stockings, they'd consider me a cross-dresser or a transvestite. If I told people I wore lacy undies (panties), they'd consider me a CD or TV. Yet both of these have been worn by men. About the only item of clothing never worn by men is a bra. History is irrelevant. Many people don't even know about the social history of recent times, much less hundreds of years ago, and even if they did know (were educated) it would change nothing.

 

As I have already said, this isn't about where we choose to draw boundaries, it's where others do, where our society does. And at present, those boundaries don't coincide, by a long way. I'm not happy with that. I'd be happier if people could wear whatever they wanted without censure from anyone. But that's not what we have today. Getting seen wearing high heels, expect to be thought of as a CD or TV - in the British sense of the words.

 

[Shyheels]

1 hour ago, FastFreddy2 said:

The trees are not blue.

What is cross-dressing? Wearing attire designed/made for the opposite sex of whoever wears it. You could write a book declaring it isn't so, but it is. You don't make this decision, nor do I. The community, the society we live in does.

No they don't. Or at least the vast majority don't. It's just seen as unusual, weird, possibly gay but not cross dressing. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Shyheels

[FastFreddy2]

13 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

No they don't. Or at least the vast majority don't. It's just seen as unusual, weird, possibly gay but not cross dressing. 

The leaves on trees are blue for you then.

What the heck has wearing a high heel got to do with being gay? While I haven't met hundreds of gay men, only one of the 20/30 I have met, was anything like effeminate, and he went on to be TS anyway. As for CD's and TV's, the ones I've met have for the most part (if not entirely) been heterosexual men. 

Go out and do a survey. When you come back with over half your respondents saying men in high heels isn't CD or TV, I'll change my assessment. Until that happens (and it's extremely unlikely it will in my lifetime) trees have green leaves because everyone I've ever met says they are green. 

Just to be clear here .... I'm not saying you or anyone else (apart from me) is a cross-dresser or transvestite. I don't mind the label because I'm doing what pleases me and labels don't affect me in any way. BUT .... What men wearing womens attire have to expect, is they WILL be labelled as CD or TV because society perceives this to be the case. Even those close to us, perceive it to be the case. Telling me (or anyone else) that isn't true, is disingenuous. 

 

Getting back to my concept, I would rather all clothing/footwear was asexual. If a man wants to wear a skirt, (and as long as it doesn't look ridiculous) I'm happy for them to wear it. Heels, thigh boots, knock yourself out. But this isn't what society says is anything like 'normal', and that is an undeniable truth.

 

 

 

 

[Shyheels]

Sorry - it just doesn't work that way. Believe what you like. You're the one seeing pretty colours on the trees. Heels are not cross dressing. 

I agree - being gay and wearing heels have nothing in common, but that would be the judgement people would be likely to make regarding men in heels. Cross-dressing in most people's view would involve skirts, dresses, trying 'to pass'. 

Simply wearing a pair of heels wouldn't cut the mustard for cross-dressing... 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Shyheels

[FastFreddy2]

20 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

I agree - being gay and wearing heels have nothing in common, but that would be the judgement people would be likely to make regarding men in heels. Cross-dressing in most people's view would involve skirts, dresses, trying 'to pass'. 

Cross-dressing, isn't in my world (and unlike you, I've been there) trying to pass. I have shown Puffer some 'selfie' pictures taken some 30 years ago, I'm sure he will vouch for my honesty in this matter. For me cross-dressing refers to attire, not lifestyle or intent (to pass). That would be the domain of a transvestite, and usually involve underwear and/or partially living as a woman (if a man) or living as a man (if a woman). 

And the colours I'm seeing in the trees are green, because that's the colour everyone I've ever met says is the colour. You are the person who sees them differently. I say 100 of 100 people (or 99 of 100) would say you were a cross-dresser, a TV or gay. You deny this. Okay, deny away, but they would. You trying to make your point with me, won't change a single opinion. Not my assessment, not those of people you might meet in the street, not those on any media, not the spouses/girlfriends to most of the respondents here either.     

I wish it were different, but it isn't. I accept this, and is why I call the leaves on the trees green.

  

Edited January 29, 2018 by FastFreddy2
Typo.

[Shyheels]

We'll have to agree to disagree. 

I think you're just dead wrong.

I wear OTK boots all the time - low heeled, grey or brown suede, and there is nothing even remotely suggestive of cross dressing about them.

I am enjoying wearing stilettos at my office at home - I can imagine that someone might - for reasons that seem obscure to me - decide that it 'looked gay' but that would be the extent of it. Nothing more. 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Shyheels

[FastFreddy2]

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

We'll have to agree to disagree. 

Of course. 

 

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I am enjoying wearing stilettos at my office at home - I can imagine that someone might - for reasons that seem obscure to me - decide that it 'looked gay' but that would be the extent of it. Nothing more. 

Neither you nor I would be bothered by seeing a man wearing a heel in public, but that's simply because we have been 'normalised' to it. That isn't true of the other 60M people on these islands. In fact some newcomers from the Middle East and Africa, would have some very unpleasant views on what we consider acceptable, not least because they have no positive experience of it. 

What makes people more accepting of style nouveau is probably quite a deep question. In general perhaps, a good education away from strong political views, and likely within a working democracy. An environment that isn't repressive. A place where religion is optional. Someone who has knowledge of the world, not just their little bit of it. Someone not exposed to bigotry in any form or sexual predation. Someone who is allowed to (if they chose) work in a creative environment even if the didn't work in one. So basically, "middle-class living in London".  Oh, and probably with no 'bad experience of life' yet. (aka someone without baggage.)  Under 25, and middle class Londoner.

 

[Shyheels]

That is certainly true. I was just reading an editorial on the Fox News website (yes, I know, but I try to get my news from a variety of sources) in which the writer was condemning the Hollywood set in no uncertain terms  for their lack of strong, conservative Christian values  

Such a person as that writer would not bother labelling a man wearing stilettos with any term other than “evil”.

[FastFreddy2]

7 hours ago, Shyheels said:

That is certainly true. I was just reading an editorial on the Fox News website (yes, I know, but I try to get my news from a variety of sources) in which the writer was condemning the Hollywood set in no uncertain terms  for their lack of strong, conservative Christian values  

Such a person as that writer would not bother labelling a man wearing stilettos with any term other than “evil”.

I don't doubt it at all. 

I can't recall where exactly I mentioned it (and it was to do with women wearing trousers so on the same sort of theme), but I intimated that some Christian organisations in the US don't hire/employ women who wear trousers, because of their 'unofficial' (illegal) dress code. 

"Christianity", and other religions created 1400-4000 years ago are the perfect medium for controlling the mindset of people. Often written in almost forgotten languages in terms (dialects, syntax) completely forgotten. Open to translation and interpretation by many layers of (fallible) humans, often with their own agendas. Conditioning used before many can (if ever) read and write, and carried out for many years, what chance those minds could be 'free' enough to accept something not part of their conditioning?

These, together with uneducated/unworldly groups are the very reason we were/are repressed into conformity.    

[Shyheels]

Any government wants conformity too and will seek it with even greater vigorour - having (generally) more power.

[Puffer]

5 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Any government wants conformity too and will seek it with even greater vigorour - having (generally) more power.

I could live with greater conformity imposed in spelling.      (And the vigorour the better.)

[Shyheels]

7 minutes ago, Puffer said:

I could live with greater conformity imposed in spelling.      (And the vigorour the better.)

Yes, very drôle. And I could happily live without autocorrect and 'predictive' text...

 

[FastFreddy2]

7 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Any government wants conformity too and will seek it with even greater vigour - having (generally) more power.

When Marx penned his often quoted prose "Religion is the opium of the people", I suspect it would have read better in modern times if 'opium' was replaced with 'sedative', or a brand name folk might be familiar with. Taken from Wiki >> here <<

Opium of the people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

This article is about Karl Marx's statement. For Slipknot's song, see Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses).

"Religion is the opium of the people" is one of the most frequently paraphrased statements of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx. It was translated from the German original, "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" and is often rendered as "religion... is the opiate of the masses."

.......

The full quote from Karl Marx translates as: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". Often quoted only in part, the interpretation of the metaphor in its context has received much less attention.

 

Meaning[edit]

Marx was making a structural functionalism argument about religion, and particularly about organized religion.^[3][4] Marx believed that religion had certain practical functions in society that were similar to the function of opium in a sick or injured person: it reduced people's immediate suffering and provided them with pleasant illusions, but it also reduced their energy and their willingness to confront the oppressive, heartless, and soulless reality that capitalism had forced them into.

 

At the time, Marx would not have had a socialism model to compare capitalism to, and over a hundred years later we do. They both fail in isolation.

The conclusion is unavoidable. Religion has calmed the masses through the ages,  helping to keep us all from becoming murderous thieves, having multiple partners with multiple families. Kept us on the 'straight and narrow' in many, many ways. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by FastFreddy2

[Shyheels]

Yes and no - a belief in a higher power and a fear of divine retribution and damnation does keep the masses quiet as a rule, that and the fact that most people are law abiding by nature. But by the same token even a quick glance at the news will show you that an overwhelming amount of the violence in the world today has religion (of one sort or another) at the root of it. Murderous religiosity is a coda the times. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Shyheels

[FastFreddy2]

30 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

Yes and no - a belief in a higher power and a fear of divine retribution and damnation does keep the masses quiet as a rule, that and the fact that most people are law abiding by nature. But by the same token even a quick glance at the news will show you that an overwhelming amount of the violence in the world today has religion (of one sort or another) at the root of it. Murderous religiosity is a coda the times. 

 

9 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Open to translation and interpretation by many layers of (fallible) humans, often with their own agendas. Conditioning used before many can (if ever) read and write, and carried out for many years, what chance those minds could be 'free' enough to accept something not part of their conditioning?

 

The religion, or those who espouse to promote it? (To their own agenda.) 

 

King James Bible
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Has doubtless been used by religious cults to justify having as much sex as was possible, with as many partners as possible (in the commune).

It may also be leverage for having more than one 'wife', in some versions of the religion.

 

Given enough time (ie hundreds of years) I would suggest almost anything can be drawn from innocuous statements, which leads to the fanaticism we read about so often in the newspapers. And similar levels of fanaticism we might have experienced ourselves, not so long ago. I had a friend (ex copper) who used to reunite children taken from their unmarried mothers, who had been sent to Australia with the church intending the babies should never meet their mothers again. A cruel practice that often ruined both lives. While there can be no doubt the church has done much for many, I sometimes wonder at what cost. These days we read about abuse being rife, babies dying in orphanages with no record of their existence, demise or burial .... All done -we are told- in the name of "God". Not being done in the name of any divine being I care to recognise.    

 

 

[Shyheels]

Yes, it’s troubling that I and nearly everyone I know are nicer and more forgiving than the “loving” god of the church (any church) 

[Puffer]

Religion may well be the opium of the people, but someone once said that 'work is the curse of the drinking classes' - all too true.

Cheers, everyone! 

[Shyheels]

I have never been afraid of hard work. In fact, I’ll lie down next to it and go to sleep!