You should see my Don Draper seduction technique. Flawless. And I'm very fetching in a bathrobe.

But how are you at telling time?

I have a list of a bunch of things I should do, which doesn't include buying a fancy pants grill at the OSH sale and spending the weekend trying to figure out how to use it, but I suspect that might be what happens anyway.

I need more caffeine, 'cause it took me almost a minute to realize a fancy pants grill wasn't some kind of laundry press.

ICompletelyON, daily report of possible interest to Jilli: a glossily lacquered early-to-mid Victorian (1840s) hearse on sled runners for winter funerals, in full working condition, all the parts included.

sobs

I NEED this. For what, I don't know. But I need it.

(Oh, an aside to all Buffistas who haunt thrift stores/used book stores/jumble stores: I am always on the lookout for editions of Dracula. I'm looking for anything pre 1970s, and under $20-25.)

Polgara,

I need to join you, because this is what I was thinking of:

[link]

It's easy to accept attractive, affluent, normal couples in their matching sweater vests (which seem to be a hit with both square gay men and lesbians) but it's another thing to accept a 50-year-old man who is choosing to let his rear end hang out of his leather chaps

Betsy HP has a name for this, I forget what it is. But basically it's that the media for many years only showed the gay community as represented by the extremes: you know, the way the photos in the paper the day after the Pride Parade are all "Dykes on Bikes" and leather chaps and so forth. So people who lived in more, um, sheltered communities, who didn't think they knew any gay people, only had that image to draw on when they thought about homosexuality.

Do you think that's true? That homophobes find it easy to accept gay people that look and act "normal" (and by normal I mean they engage in the same amount of PDA with their partner as is considered appropriate for straight couples), or is it the daddy bear in rainbow leather chaps that they need to wrap their heads around

I think that, for some people, it's easiest to accept The Other when The Other doesn't look any different than you. It's a pretty shallow acceptance, mind, because it's really more like ignoring The Other than actually accepting them as full members of human society.

I think there's a continuous othering that assumes gay people can't be "normal".

I'm not sure what your argument is. Do some people only accept homosexuality when it looks just like heterosexuality? Yes. Is that a fair representation of homosexuality? No. Will full social acceptance necessarily require accepting the full range of homosexual life/lifestyle/expression? Yes.

But I think it's worth noting that the full range of heterosexual life/lifestyle/expression isn't socially accepted by mainstream America, either. Explicit expressions of sexuality that go past really vanilla M/F missionary-style fucking are not openly accepted in mainstream media or society, regardless of orientation--except for humorous purposes.

I am on Team Yay Fancy Pants Grill, whatever it actually means (though I am hoping it means parties on Lee's patio, because that is the patio's destiny).

Do some people only accept homosexuality when it looks just like heterosexuality?

If you mean "looks just like heterosexuality" means bumping and grinding with their boyfriend on the dance floor, or walking along the pier hand in hand, or...the fuck? What do couples do? That stuff. Coupley stuff. The things that gays are too perverted and sick to care about.

I don't think that it's a done deal that society accepts Billy has two Daddies, one of whom comes to PTA meetings and the other one who makes cookies for the bake sale. And when they both chaperone the prom, they steal some time for a slow dance.

Or that Sandra can go to a club and flirt with women and have long hair and wear makeup.

He sounds like that battle's done, now you have to get people to accept the more fetish-appearing gay people. Thing is? Most of those homophobes probably don't accept that in straight people either. In fact, I think there's an argument to be made that they don't think straight people do (or should do) fetishy things, or dress in fetishy clothes.

I'd think that most people who want gay people to not "show their gay" probably also don't want people to "show their D/s" or many other 'alternative' lifestyles.

Do you think that's true? That homophobes find it easy to accept gay people that look and act "normal" (and by normal I mean they engage in the same amount of PDA with their partner as is considered appropriate for straight couples), or is it the daddy bear in rainbow leather chaps that they need to wrap their heads around (first--obviously the goal is for people to accept all the flavours).

I don't think homophobes find it easy to accept gay people of any sort, and in fact try very hard to prevent us from mainstreaming (marrying, adopting, having our existence acknowledged in media) because their screeching and scapegoating doesn't get nearly as much traction when the people they're pointing out as threats to society look like middle-aged suburbanites taking their kids to the park rather than cowled executioners in a dungeon.

I am sad about I'll Have Another AND Car Talk.

But it's kind of nice that they're going to have I'll Have Another (and Lavaman) lead the post parade.

Dullahan is the new favorite with Union Rags as second favorite.

They will still be making new episodes of Car Talk, it sounds like, with old tape and some new bits.