Originally Posted By jonvn "Are we painting with a broad brush there?" I'm trying to be specific to gay pride parades, and the behavior I've seen at them, and how it affects the community as a whole. "if thats whay you want to believe, " I believe what I have seen. "lets condemn ALL gays" As long as the behavior I am talking about is condoned and excused, it will affect all gay people. That's how it works. Why? Because these parades are organized by gay folks, supposedly. Gay organizations doing a community event. That would imply these folks are leaders of the community, and if the leaders of the community tolerate this, and this is a republic, then the people in turn then support it. It filters down. If you want to be considered just another average person, you can't act like you are a public deviant. Private sexual acts are one thing, but a group of people exposing themselves on a city street in a public parade is absolutely deviant behavior.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Every year at the NY St. Patrick's Day parade, there is a lot of public drunkenness, public puking, and even public urination. For most of the past several years there's also been a spate of drunk driving, some of it right at the parade route. This, of course, reinforces the worst stereotype of the Irish. So I think both points being talked about here are illustrated. A la jonvn, if someone wants to believe that all Irish people are drunkards, this parade offers plenty of fuel for that particular fire, and it can't help the image. On the other hand, a la KT, most people are savvy enough to know that not all Irish people are drunkards, some very public exceptions notwithstanding.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Heck, there is Public Puking at Disneyland and DCA (just watch the folks getting off the Tea Cups and Sun Wheel) Disney has terms like "Protein Spill" and Code V for a reason, they also have Code U and Code P for similar reasons (I could make a joke about why it is the "Number ONE reason" But in public setting, the police should monitor folks, and if they break the law, and that includes being too drunk in public, urinating where you are not suppose to, public nudity and overt sexual acts, then they should be arrested, removed from the group and then processed at a central booking area. Most of these minor crimes could be handled with either a citation and being released, or just given a warning. But it would send a clear message that these type of activities are not welcome in a public setting, especially with kids around. If you want to have events like that, find a private venue, but still make sure the laws are followed. But of course, prosecution in the examples of an St. Patrick's Day parade or a LGBT parade are not done due to political pressure, which is just wrong. The laws should be followed and treated equally by everyone. Why is it OK to expose your breasts at an LGBT event, even be a participant like Dykes on Bikes, but not elsewhere? It is a double standard. But the original question was why should a public employee be forced into participating in an overtly sexual situation, when anywhere else it would be called sexual harassment.... (And participating is being IN the parade, as compared to doing their job by providing public safety work, such as crowd control and medical attention.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You think the towns that make tons of money on Spring Break events don't more than tolerate some breast flashing? Have we learned nothing from "Girls Gone Wild?" Not to mention Mardi Gras (how do you think you "earn" beads?). It's tolerated quite a few places. "when anywhere else it would be called sexual harassment..." Well, that's just the thing. I don't think anywhere else it rises to the standard of sexual harrassment. Normally, that entails people who work at the same place, usually a superior and an inferior worker (i.e. the supervisor at Sears harrassing his employee who works at the perfume counter; not a member of the public harrassing her).
Originally Posted By Darkbeer As for the Girls Gone Wild things, seems like most of that is done in Bars where there are only adults are present, once again, a private setting instead of a public street. But if it is girls driving down a public street, the police should be out to keep the community standard. Interesting, in New Orleans, they do allow some public breast flashing in a small area that is designed for adults only, but they still enforce all the other rules and laws, and it is handled like I mentioned above, most folks are taking away from the party and either warned or cited. Once again, a political decision to help draw tourism, but it is still a lot different to have an area blocked off and designed for adults only as compared to a parade in the middle of the day and going thru residential areas and streets. But it looks like the Firefighters case will being going to the courts, and they will decide if it does match the standard for sexual harassment. And based on the decision of the San Diego Fire Chief to make sure that only volunteers will be used in the future, it looks like the city thinks it might be.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 An awful lot of the Girls Gone Wild stuff is done outdoors, public beaches, etc. And while the police could enforce the law in many such places, let's get real; in many towns they're told to look the other way or at least have a wider than usual definition of "indecent" during Spring Break, Mardi Gras, or (shock!) Gay Pride. <But it looks like the Firefighters case will being going to the courts, and they will decide if it does match the standard for sexual harassment. > Juries have returned stranger verdicts, but I don't think (nor did most of the other people who weighed in) this constituted sexual harassment on the part of the city or fire Dept.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 <<Well, that's just the thing. I don't think anywhere else it rises to the standard of sexual harrassment. Normally, that entails people who work at the same place, usually a superior and an inferior worker (i.e. the supervisor at Sears harrassing his employee who works at the perfume counter; not a member of the public harrassing her).>> I think there's more to it than that. If a Supervisor puts an employee into a work atmosphere where they knowingly will be sexually harassed, then they are culpable. I get the impression from some posters that because the firefighters expressed a negative opinion on the gay lifestyle then they obviously need to shut up and become more accepting of the lifestyle, even if that includes getting sexual harassed. Similiar to what Chevey Chase said in Vacation -- "You're going to go to that parade and get sexually harassed, and you're going to enjoy it, *#$* it!" If a waitress was being forced to serve a group of sexually unruly men and told by her boss to "get over it" without any corrective action, she'd have a pretty good lawsuit on her hands. The legal precedent is pretty clear on this. If you're going to argue that being dressed as one of the village people in a Gay Day's parade is not being thrown into a sexually charged atmosphere, then we are going to have a problem agreeing that 1 is 1 and one of us is not looking at this objectively.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, the Irish may be a bunch of drunks (two of the three Irish people I know really are drunks...) but you know what? Everyone drinks. Not everyone flashes a crowd of people on a city street. And when you do that, you are not considered the most average and regular sort of people. Women in New Orleans who do that get cited. They do it, but they get arrested.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The Village People didn't have a fireman. And all the firemen in SD were fully dressed, weren't they? <one of us is not looking at this objectively.> Yes, and it's you. I've attended many Gay Pride parades in New York, and not once have I heard firemen get anything but cheers. Perhaps elsewhere on the route someone shouted something inappropriate, but I've never heard of the NYFD suing the city or the fire department, and they're there every year. You seem to think that putting a fireman in a gay parade guarantees something inappropriate happening, because apparently we gay people just can't control ourselves. THAT is not looking objectively. Sexual harassment as the law normally defines it, moreover, is not just getting inappropriate comments thrown one's way. It's usually more along the lines of a supervisor pressuring someone under him to have sex, or else get fired or not promoted, etc. I suppose in our ever more litigious society we can define it as broadly as "man on street gets comments he doesn't want to hear" but I for one think that's too broad.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Everyone drinks.> Not everyone drinks. And not everyone gets publically drunk <Not everyone flashes a crowd of people on a city street.> Neither do more than a handful of people in any given parade. Somehow the million people who don't are responsible for the 10 who do? Nope. If it's against the law, have the cops arrest them. I'm all for that, as long as it's even handed. But trust me, jon, my sister lived in New Orleans 3 years and the percentage of women who flashed during Mardi Gras who got arrested was miniscule.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 <<The Village People didn't have a fireman. And all the firemen in SD were fully dressed, weren't they?>> Dang it. Missed that one then. Indian, Construction worker, Cop, Firefighter? Lumberjack? <<You seem to think that putting a fireman in a gay parade guarantees something inappropriate happening, because apparently we gay people just can't control ourselves. THAT is not looking objectively.>> Yes, I am going by the reports I have seen and heard -- which proably are biased, but perhaps not so biased from collaborating posts. However, since these firefighters raised objections that such behavior may occur, and then that behavior actually did occur -- that seems to validate their concerns. Of course, not being a member of the Village People admittedly takes some steam out of my argument.
Originally Posted By Shooba Anyone who works with the public is inevitably going to hear comments directed their way that are inappropriate. I guess if someone gets a job as a sales clerk, and a customer directs a racist comment their way, they can then sue their employer?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Not everyone drinks" Most people drink. Drinking is seen as an average behavior. "Neither do more than a handful of people in any given parade" Ha, you said handful. But it doesn't matter. If it's a handful of people in a parade, it's going to cause people to think that homosexuals are not mentally there, to either do it, allow it being done, or not protesting to the people who allowed it that it was already done. "Somehow the million people who don't are responsible for the 10 who do?" Yes, for the reason I just gave. If there was attempts made to keep such behavior from happening, such as not allowing it in the first place, it'd go a long way towards making people think that homosexuals were not a bunch of mental cases who are sexually damaged. "But trust me, jon, my sister lived in New Orleans 3 years and the percentage of women who flashed during Mardi Gras who got arrested was miniscule." Probably so. But even so, women who do this are not exactly considered pillars of society, are they? You don't engage in this behavior and expect people to think well of you. And the flashing, is that actually done in the city parades? Or just a bunch of degenerate tramps on the street? That also has something to do with it, too.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Not everyone drinks>> <Most people drink. Drinking is seen as an average behavior.> Drinking yes. Public drunkenness, public peeing, no. <<Neither do more than a handful of people in any given parade>> <Ha, you said handful. But it doesn't matter. If it's a handful of people in a parade, it's going to cause people to think that homosexuals are not mentally there, to either do it, allow it being done, or not protesting to the people who allowed it that it was already done.> I agree to the extent that this is what gets focused on, and causes people to extrapolate from the handful to the larger group, especially if they have something against the larger group to begin with. This doesn't mean it's fair. If I'm just a spectator, or marching with the gay telephone workers group or something (I'm not a telephone worker, just as an example), it's really NOT my responsibility if someone else flashes someone. Now some would say it reflects on all of us. But I think that more and more people are fair enough to NOT tar the whole group, but it won't be that way with everybody. <<Somehow the million people who don't are responsible for the 10 who do?>> <Yes, for the reason I just gave. If there was attempts made to keep such behavior from happening, such as not allowing it in the first place, it'd go a long way towards making people think that homosexuals were not a bunch of mental cases who are sexually damaged.> You can't "not allow" someone intent on flashing from flashing. Here, Mardi Gras, or Cancun. Human nature is such that if you tell them not to, they'll just be more intent on doing it. <<But trust me, jon, my sister lived in New Orleans 3 years and the percentage of women who flashed during Mardi Gras who got arrested was miniscule.>> <Probably so. But even so, women who do this are not exactly considered pillars of society, are they? You don't engage in this behavior and expect people to think well of you.> During Mardi Gras, it's just the sort of thing where people who are otherwise uptight and would NEVER do it anywhere else, do it there. They actually might be pillars of society at home. But they come to Mardi Gras specifically so they can "let it all hang out." <And the flashing, is that actually done in the city parades? Or just a bunch of degenerate tramps on the street? That also has something to do with it, too.> It happens during the parades, yes. And from everything I've heard, Carnival in Rio (essentially the same festival) makes Mardi Gras look tame. They come from the same place - it's the last big blowout before Ash Wednesday and Lent, when you can't eat meat and are supposed to be reflective and sober in general. So the day before was an excuse to run wild before you couldn't any more.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Drinking yes. Public drunkenness, public peeing, no." What do you think of someone who does such a thing? And are they done as part of an official thing? "especially if they have something against the larger group to begin with." I have nothing against homosexuals. I mostly couldn't care less. But in the context of the parades, this is what I see. "You can't "not allow" someone intent on flashing from flashing." If you have, for instance, an organized group wearing nothing but an apron at the start of your parade, you might get an idea. And when they do it the first time, it's permitted to continue? Um...no. You don't have that. "it's really NOT my responsibility if someone else flashes someone." It is the responsibility of the people who organized the parade, if they knew beforehand or failed to stop it from continuing. After that, it is the responsibility of the general public to see to it that the parade organizers did their proper job to keep this from happening, and if they did not, then remove them from their jobs. By not doing these sorts of things, then everyone is culpable. "it's just the sort of thing where people who are otherwise uptight and would NEVER do it anywhere else, do it there." I think a tv newscaster was caught doing that. Guess what? She got fired. You don't behave this way and expect people to respect you. "Carnival in Rio" We are not in Rio.
Originally Posted By barboy "I guess if someone gets a job as a sales clerk, and a customer directs a racist comment their way, they can then sue their employer?" Maybe.......... Look what we have here: customer A frequents a 7-11 and consistently jokes to the owner every afternoon, "Hey towelhead ring me up a Slurpee... What's taking you so long camelboy?". Then the owner hires say someone with a Middle Eastern background and places him behind the counter knowing full well customer "A" will come in the afternoon and use those slurs. Here is the truth and perhaps Pass can back me up: Employers have to take reasonable steps to insulate their employees and staff from enduring harassment. If an employer knows or should have known that placing an employee in a certain environment would LIKELY(I capped "likely" because it is a crucial distinction) bring about harassment then the affected employee has a winnable case. For good or bad, fair or unfair that is reality.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 In your example, barboy, it sounds like the 7-11 owner would be justified in employment discrimination in refusing to hire a middle easterner. I can't imagine the law would see it that way.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Drinking yes. Public drunkenness, public peeing, no.>> <What do you think of someone who does such a thing? And are they done as part of an official thing?> I think they're idiots. And they're not "official" any more than some random flasher in a gay parade is official. If it was the grand marshall or someone on the organizers' float, I'd say you had a point. But some random marcher? I don't think so. Also, you WILL get these publically drunken and publically peeing people in every St. Pat's parade. It happens every single year. But most people understand it's aberrant behavior that is not condoned by and doesn't reflect on the parade organizers. <<especially if they have something against the larger group to begin with.>> <I have nothing against homosexuals. I mostly couldn't care less. But in the context of the parades, this is what I see. > I didn't mean it to sound as though I was referring to you. I meant that people who DO have something against us use these people and try to portray them as typical. Which is why I don't like to see it - here, we're pretty much in agreement. People DO extrapolate - I'm just saying it isn't fair. <<You can't "not allow" someone intent on flashing from flashing.>> <If you have, for instance, an organized group wearing nothing but an apron at the start of your parade, you might get an idea. And when they do it the first time, it's permitted to continue? Um...no. You don't have that.> Who stops it, though? The organizers are probably marching themselves half a mile away. It's up to the cops if anyone, and I say let 'em do it. <<it's really NOT my responsibility if someone else flashes someone.>> <It is the responsibility of the people who organized the parade, if they knew beforehand or failed to stop it from continuing. After that, it is the responsibility of the general public to see to it that the parade organizers did their proper job to keep this from happening, and if they did not, then remove them from their jobs. By not doing these sorts of things, then everyone is culpable.> Organizing a major parade is a huge deal. When there was some controversy over the St. Pat's parade in NY about 10 years ago, there was some talk that another group other than the AOH would apply for the permit to organize it. Turns out they really didn't have the time or manpower. It takes a surprising amount of time and energy to organize one of these major parades. If the AOH (for St. Pat's) or Heritage of Pride (for gay pride) don't do it, it's just not going to happen. So "removing them from their jobs," though it sounds good, is just not going to happen in the real world. And just as important, most people have a sense of perspective, and although they might not LIKE seeing public peeing on St. Pat's day or random flashing at Gay Pride, they also consider it (rightly) a minor distraction and not really anything to get too worked up about. But certain people do and use it against us. And the beat goes on. <<it's just the sort of thing where people who are otherwise uptight and would NEVER do it anywhere else, do it there.>> <I think a tv newscaster was caught doing that. Guess what? She got fired. You don't behave this way and expect people to respect you. > She's in the public eye - I think you know very well that an anonymous person in a crowd can do thing a public person cannot. <<Carnival in Rio>> <We are not in Rio. > Just pointing out another example of (mostly) straight people exhibiting public sexuality and the society basically saying "okay, for today only."
Originally Posted By jonvn "In your example, barboy, it sounds like the 7-11 owner would be justified in employment discrimination in refusing to hire a middle easterner. I can't imagine the law would see it that way." Yes, the thing to do there is tell the customer to get out. "they're not "official" any more than some random flasher in a gay parade is official. " It's not random flashers only. Large floats made to look like dildos and so on. It's a very sexually charged thing. And, if someone does that, and is not removed from the parade, that's why it's a general issue, not just this one person. And it's a lot of that going on. I don't particularly care. It doesn't really bother me. Well, if they were really unpleasant look or something it might, but otherwise no. I'm just saying that such behaviors just make people think that homosexuals are sexually messed up people. "Who stops it, though?" Organizers saying that overt sexual content is not wanted in the parade will go a long way to stop it. Otherwise, I blame the SFPD for not doing their job. "She's in the public eye" In more ways than one. What I'm saying though is that by behaving in this manner, gay people totally reinforce the stereotypes about them. It is not helpful. Should they all walk down the street in dark suits with the demeanor of a pall bearer? No, but you don't go and have as the focus of your parade your sexual activity. It sends the wrong message.
Originally Posted By Mr X **No. Straight people do not have parades that celebrate their genitals.** They do in Japan, actually. There's a town that celebrates an annual penis festival, in fact. It's a pretty cool event. **Are they holding up a giant vulva?** Japan's got that too. Jon, you are FAR too "America-centric", I think.
