|
|
Post by Sigh on Jun 13, 2007 7:34:22 GMT -5
by the way, you're turning my colorful crossdressing thread into another boring political debate! ;D Yeah Russ!!! Put on a flowery dress before you post in here, damnit  *wonders what tal is wearing*  |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Jun 13, 2007 8:36:39 GMT -5
by the way, you're turning my colorful crossdressing thread into another boring political debate! ;D Yeah Russ!!! Put on a flowery dress before you post in here, damnit yeah! get into the spirit of the thing!  |
|
|
|
Post by Tal on Jun 13, 2007 12:22:14 GMT -5
Yeah Russ!!! Put on a flowery dress before you post in here, damnit *wonders what tal is wearing* hahaha... Didn't cover myself well there did I... oh... and I meant the post, not my body |
|
|
|
Post by Sigh on Jun 13, 2007 15:41:31 GMT -5
*wonders what tal is wearing* hahaha... Didn't cover myself well there did I... oh... and I meant the post, not my body Indeed Aw damn I was hoping for the latter |
|
|
|
Post by Astroruss on Jun 13, 2007 23:33:30 GMT -5
by the way, you're turning my colorful crossdressing thread into another boring political debate! ;D Yeah Russ!!! Put on a flowery dress before you post in here, damnit Oh hell, i'm sorry. Yeah, you're right, that's very irresponsible of me.  I don't own any dresses, but i can model one of my Mom's many rarely used purses if anyone wants to see.  |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Jun 27, 2007 9:54:37 GMT -5
apparently there is a precedence for a ruler crossdressing in history. for example, this woman who dressed as a man and ruled as pharoah in ancient egypt.
********************************
Mystery mummy is female pharaoh
POSTED: 9:13 a.m. EDT, June 27, 2007
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Egyptian authorities using DNA analysis and a tooth identified Wednesday a mummy found a century ago as the remains of pharaoh Queen Hatshepsut.
The mummy was discovered in Egypt's Valley of the Kings burial ground in 1903, but had not been identified as that of the queen and was left on site until two months ago when it was brought to the Cairo Museum for testing, said Egypt's antiquities chief Zahi Hawass.
"We are one hundred percent certain" the mummy belongs to Hatshepsut, Hawass told The Associated Press.
He said DNA and other scientific testing of a tooth found in a relic box containing some of the missing queen's organs had allowed Egyptologists to confirm that the unidentified mummy was in fact Hatshepsut.
A woman monarch who called herself a pharaoh and dressed like a man, Hatshepsut ruled over Egypt during the 15th century B.C.
During her famed 18th Dynasty rule, she wielded more power than Cleopatra or Nefertiti. But when her rule ended, all traces of her mysteriously disappeared, including her mummy.
Another mummy, which had been in the Cairo Museum for decades and was long believed to be the queen's wet nurse was initially investigated as possibly being Hatshepsut herself.
But Hawass said Wednesday that a different mummy brought back to Cairo two months ago was in fact identified as the pharaoh queen.
|
|
|
|
Post by phoenixferret on Jun 27, 2007 11:47:13 GMT -5
I wouldn't vote for ol' Rudolph in a suit or in a dress, or in a box or in a tree, but that's beside the point. Especially since it sounds like he just thinks it's funny, from what people have said..? All I know is what I've read here. I'm going to go with theoreticals on this one. I would probably be uncomfortable with a cross-dressing president if this information were in any way public. It is an embarrassment to have a president whose personal life is on display, as I think anyone conscious during the Monica Lewinsky scandal can attest. This kind of thing has a tendency to strip away the aura of authority and respectability that is so important in leadership. Yes, everyone has quirks and sex lives, but everyone uses the toilet, too, and I don't want the world to know how the president wipes his ass. Being a leader is, like it or not, as much about image and social psychology as it is about having access to the Big Red Button (which I'm sure you realize, I'm just writing it out). Given the choice, what I want, what I think most people want, and what I think a nation needs is a charismatic everyman, or at least a very convincing appearance of one. Isn't this why Obama is so popular? He presents himself as a down-to-earth, polished version of an average and likeable guy, and aside from a few upbeat details of his family life, that's really all we have to go on besides his public political record (which I doubt a majority of people are well aware of, anyway; I for one have never researched these things independently). And really, I think that's what an office like the presidency needs: a smart, sane person who knows how to talk to people, or someone who appears to be so (and that's just a general observation, not necessarily an appraisal of Obama's suitability). It's difficult to really make a funny jab about Obama; he's so far seemed to keep his image both likable and respectable--at least respectable--and that really is a powerful thing. International relations seem to hang on personal relations between leaders almost as much as anything else, and the world's perception of our country, or any country, is inextricably linked to the way our president acts and reacts. And really, the less the world knows about the president beyond his public face, the better. Respect often depends on an aura of mystique which allows our minds to imagine that maybe they're something a little more than human. If you've ever really looked up to someone, and then one day you heard an intimate and human detail about their life that changed the way you looked at them and knocked them off their pedestal a bit, well--same idea. Anyone else in government can be who and what they want as long as they're still legislating effectively, whatever. Publicly acknowledged cross-dressing would be unlikely to affect my vote for a justice of the peace or a state representative. The presidency, however, is a unique position that I feel much more strict about, personally, since the world sees my country through the lens of the respect they hold for our president. I also don't think that cross-dressing necessarily has any bearing on bringing out traditionally "feminine" views of politics or anything else, for that matter. I think they're two distinct arenas, the drive to dress and act like a woman at times, and the desire to support a "feminine" world view. Aren't a lot of cross-dressers (the males, at least) heterosexual? I think I've read that, anyway; and from what I understand, these fellas are pretty much indistinguishable from the regular variety of hetero man when they're not wearing panty hose and lipstick. Iiiin which case I'd expect that any absorbed tendency to follow society's prescription for manliness would continue to be expressed out of drag, and quite probably in drag, as well--albeit in higher and more honeyed tones. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Jun 27, 2007 18:41:20 GMT -5
well, i'm sure there's a certain amount of variation among individuals, but the crossdressing men i've known have all been supportive of women's rights and a good deal more sensitive to women's issues than the average hetero man. this may be because they've walked a mile in her heels, so to speak. and as far as a crossdressing president, we may not see an openly crossdressing male in office in my lifetime, but it certainly seems possible long-term. a number of US states have seen legislation passed lately making it illegal to discriminate against transgendered individuals, protection that includes crossdressers. 13 states and the district of columbia have passed this type of legislation. for example, new jersey recently passed such a law: "The law makes it illegal for a landlord to evict a tenant because of his or her gender status, and companies cannot refuse to hire people because they are transsexual, cross-dressers, asexual, of ambiguous gender or simply not traditionally feminine or masculine. The law also bans discrimination in credit, business contracts and public accommodations such as stores or restaurants. " New Jersey Joins States Protecting Transgender Rightsthe interesting thing to me is that we have already accepted cross-dressing women in our society, but the idea of a man wearing 'women's' clothes bothers so many people so much. why is our idea of what makes a man so much more inviolable than our idea of what makes a woman i wonder? |
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Jun 27, 2007 20:58:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Jun 28, 2007 10:35:58 GMT -5
now see...that stars and stripes outfit would be perfect for campaigning! |
|
|
|
Post by Astroruss on Jun 29, 2007 20:26:14 GMT -5
Well, to be perferctly honest, i think crossdressing is completely irrelevant and shouldn't be considered for a candidate's qualifications. I know many people would look at it as weird, but so what? Besides, i wouldn't vote for a candidate just because they're popular and charismatic anyways. That too is irelevant. I guess i just hesitate to accept a candidate with wide public support. Those are the ones that can get out of control. I'm much more comfortable with having politicians and bueaucrats that get criticized to death than one that's looked at a God-like figure or popular hero. |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixferret on Jun 30, 2007 17:33:32 GMT -5
I guess i just hesitate to accept a candidate with wide public support. Those are the ones that can get out of control. I'm much more comfortable with having politicians and bueaucrats that get criticized to death than one that's looked at a God-like figure or popular hero. 1. How in the world does having a broad support base make a candidate less trustworthy or capable? You wouldn't vote for a candidate just because they're popular or charismatic, but you would also withhold your vote because of their popularity or charisma?  2. How many examples of presidents can you think of in our history who enjoyed wide popularity and yet fucked up the country and ran the economy into the ground? Name an American president who has gotten "out of control" based on his wide-spread popularity. 3. How is being "criticized to death" a positive recommendation for a presidential candidate? I guess it's too bad we can't get Nixon back, the old rascal. Is it impossible to imagine that a president might draw criticism because he honestly deserves it, rather than out of nation-wide spite for the great job he's doing? 4. Do you realize that electing a candidate based on wide-spread public support is pretty much the whole point of the democratic process? |
|
|
|
Post by HybridMoment on Mar 12, 2008 3:32:08 GMT -5
Yeah, what's with all the cross dressing candidates? The other day on the news I saw a picture of Obama in a dress and matching turban.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Mar 12, 2008 9:06:16 GMT -5
Yeah, what's with all the cross dressing candidates? The other day on the news I saw a picture of Obama in a dress and matching turban. i guess they're getting in touch with their feminine side. |
|
