Flaunting Sexuality

[The Esotericist]

IOW, what would happen if a the other half of a gay couple made a romantic gesture like that?

It would fall flat on it's face if it were done in public, b/c the only people that would think and feel it were very romantic would be the actual couple. Sure, very liberal and very romantic minded individuals might think it is romantic. . . but on balance? Society wouldn't find their actions romantic. They would find their actions; (pick one) queer, perverted, sick, twisted, weird, uncomfortable, wrong, etc. Attitudes change slowly. That sort of thing doesn't take on "romantic" overtones. It's sad, but true. Gay couples prancing around trying to be romantic is about as heart rending as a car wreck. It is what it is.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Isn't discrimination on the basis of sexuality illegal?

Not in most of the USA. Only in a few jurisdictions, and not at all at the federal level.

 

[Cifo]

A 100% inappropriate use of government property and employees.

What if he was a stalker?
What if they recently broke up?
What if s/he says "No" and bursts into tears?
What if one of them flies into a rage?
What if they end up snogging a bit too heavily in front of little kids?
What if the non-employee falls/slips/injuries him/herself?

It's all sorts of cutsy lovey-dovey when it ends happily, and the (although miniscule) misappropriation of government property/employees is blindly swept under the rug.

But it's still a misappropriation of the taxpayers' money.

 

[Michael]

Schools are paid for by taxing the local community, the same locals who were "in on the joke/romantic overture" and thought it was nice to do - so it was not a misappropriation of their tax and they didn't seem to mind their kids having a bit of fun. Not only that it models good behavior and so was teaching. I'm sure the entire town who had kids knew these couple, it's not like it happened out of the blue - everyone was in on it. It's what makes a community - of course that doesn't exist much anymore.

Lastly, it had nothing to do with heterosexuality versus homosexuality - that's just something some whiny bitch who lives with a bunch of cats on the edge of town made up in their head when they got their panties in a knot one day!

 

[spidergoat]

Someone put a sign up to be romantic at the local school to propose, something 99.99999% of the community and students probably think is cute and support and one lone whinny bitch wants to stop this because this small town societiy isn't mature enough to accept his/her sexuality. Well tough titty. It's this exact type of personality that whine about Merry Christmas because it "offends them" even though it's not harming anyone and 99.999999999999999% of the public take it as culture.

One day we'll whine ourselves into zero culture. Everything will be PC and we'll have to stop all verbal communication ... hell, ALL communication, just eyes down and interact with a vending machine....

I don't think it's cute at all. Gay people can't get married. I'm with Sarah Silverman on this, it's just like people joining a country club that doesn't allow blacks or Jews, it's totally not cool until everyone can do it.

 

[pjdude1219]

Someone put a sign up to be romantic at the local school to propose, something 99.99999% of the community and students probably think is cute and support and one lone whinny bitch wants to stop this because this small town societiy isn't mature enough to accept his/her sexuality. Well tough titty. It's this exact type of personality that whine about Merry Christmas because it "offends them" even though it's not harming anyone and 99.999999999999999% of the public take it as culture.

One day we'll whine ourselves into zero culture. Everything will be PC and we'll have to stop all verbal communication ... hell, ALL communication, just eyes down and interact with a vending machine....

congrats you proved that person's complaint

 

[Michael]

I don't agree.

No kissing in public? No holding hands? Hell, lets just ban marriage altogether - better yet, no official relationships at all because not everyone is comfortable with the lady down the road marrying 10 of her cats :S

IMO, this guy's proposal had nothing to do with homosexual, polygamous, transgender, open, swing, interracial, etc.... relationships. Nothing. That's contrived. Second, public space is for the public and in this case the community of tax payers (parents) OVERWHELMINGLY supported the proposal. They probably see it as good modeling of values they support. Unlike the whiner, they pay the actual tax for the school, it's their call.



"Down with 'Merry' Christmas" is so, so stupid. No more Christmas tress - idiotic. Multiculturalism is about finding common ground, which involves bending. If homosexuals want to be accepted they need to bend, not ban, and over time they WILL be accepted as a valid part of the community.



Sure, not all communities are happy to see homosexuals canoodling together - well tough. That is only going to change with time and education, not whining about someone who proposed to his long-term girl friend at her work which was at the local school. It's like the French trying to get rid of intolerance in certain religious practices by whining about and then banning some of their goofy costumes. Sure, it's fine to discuss the fact that if she were a man perhaps this particular community wouldn't support it, as a matter of fact, I support frank honest discussion. But banning our own cultural norms when when they are completely harmless? No way. Anyway, in San Fransisco this may have been a non-event with two men.




What next? No marriages in the public park?!?!?

 

[Michael]

You know, it's not "flaunting sexuality" to propose to your partner in public either. That's ridiculous.

 

[Asguard]

Actually government property is NOT public. You think if she worked for the CIA they would breach security to let him in? Unauthorized people arnt alowed on school property. Its a safety issue for the students.

As for multiculturalism it doesn't exist, its a cop out. If its real why is Easter and Christmas public holidays but rumadum and buda's bithday arnt

 

[Tiassa]

Bring on the prancing horses

... and students probably think is cute and support and one lone whinny bitch wants to stop this ....

I don't see anything that suggests the person wants to actually stop anything other than discrimination. See, the thing is that if people don't speak up and occasionally make the blatantly obvious point, nothing ever changes. To the other, you demonstrate that if someone speaks up and makes the obvious point, there are plenty of people out there who will simply harden.

You know how people, in the middle of a bigotry discussion, will sometimes suggest that another doesn't know any ______ people? Black, gay, Mexican, female, whatever. The reason some think that is because it is statistically unlikely that the only _____ people one knows fit the stereotype. All it reminds is that the beholder, in such a case, is a petty, superficial bigot who is far more obsessed with gender roles than the homosexual. You know, like, "prancing around trying to be romantic."

What it comes down to is that the "whinny bitch" actually has a point, but isn't going to win the argument because this whole "sacred institution" has been rendered a superficial mess.

 

[pjdude1219]

You know, it's not "flaunting sexuality" to propose to your partner in public either. That's ridiculous.

you don't get and your cluelessness is rather offensive for the complete and utter lack of though behind it. the fact that a heteosexual can do this with recrimination is a given for a homesexual to do this they would have to deal with attacks, people claiming their after the children, that they are trying to convert people to homesexuality, and in the extremist cases death threats they don't have the option for them to do this is a risk to their lives and livelyhoods but right its no big deal

 

[Tiassa]

Give heterosupremacists a parking placard

the fact that a heteosexual can do this with [no] recrimination is a given for a homesexual to do this they would have to deal with attacks, people claiming their after the children, that they are trying to convert people to homesexuality, and in the extremist cases death threats they don't have the option for them to do this is a risk to their lives and livelyhoods but right its no big deal

I'm not sure it's fair to call it cluelessness. Or, at least, to criticize the utter lack of thought behind the argument. The problem is that this sort of bigotry is acquired, and very strongly conditioned, behavior.

One aspect of social justice and human equality that is very difficult to deal with is baseline perspective. Many heterosupremacists have enjoyed the privileged position of being able to condemn and persecute homosexuals that they are oblivious to the devices supporting their outlook.

Because they cannot see what seems so obvious to you or I, the situation looks entirely different. The change taking place as marriage equality draws nigh looks to us like the decay of a useless bigotry. But to the heterosupremacist, it looks like a usurpation, the stripping away of what was, naturally and formally, their "right".

But because the heterosupremacist argument is entirely superficial and self-interested, there really isn't much they can actually say. As a result, they turn to unhealthy myths, such as we've seen in the invocation of fairy-tale romance and the aesthetics of cheap stereotypes.

It isn't a matter of an utter lack of thought, but, rather, of a complete inability to look deeper than the most convenient available surface.

Yes, such bigotry is annoying, offensive, and stupid beyond all measure, but the truth is that a good portion of the heterosupremacists in the world simply can't help themselves. They're not capable of dealing honestly with the situation.

And, yes, that does to a certain degree make them victims. After all, someone had to condition them to the point of disability.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

You know, it's not "flaunting sexuality" to propose to your partner in public either. That's ridiculous.

As the Linguistics Moderator I would judge that this phrase is simply the wrong choice of words, in a topic for which the right words are still evolving. They're not flaunting their sexuality, they're flaunting their sexual orientation.

"Nyah nyah, we can celebrate our love in public. We can even flaunt our right to marry. You can't marry. Nyah nyah!" I'm quite sure that's how the world looks to gay people. There's a reason they congregate in communities in places like Hollywood, where they can walk down the street holding hands.

How would you feel if you had to hide your love for your wife, to pretend to be roommates, to be told that the most important thing in your life is wicked and sinful, while gay people got to do all of those things? Especially if you lived in a country where gay people outnumbered you about ten to one and got to make all the laws and invent all the religions?

 

[The Esotericist]

I don't see anything that suggests the person wants to actually stop anything other than discrimination. See, the thing is that if people don't speak up and occasionally make the blatantly obvious point, nothing ever changes. To the other, you demonstrate that if someone speaks up and makes the obvious point, there are plenty of people out there who will simply harden.

You know how people, in the middle of a bigotry discussion, will sometimes suggest that another doesn't know any ______ people? Black, gay, Mexican, female, whatever. The reason some think that is because it is statistically unlikely that the only _____ people one knows fit the stereotype. All it reminds is that the beholder, in such a case, is a petty, superficial bigot who is far more obsessed with gender roles than the homosexual. You know, like, "prancing around trying to be romantic."

. . . OR, it could be that the observer has placed themselves, as a social scientist, in the place of the average person at large, to answer the question posed. I believe you have perhaps mistaken said analysis, however astute, with the character of the analyzer. If you don't care for the character of society, please, do not get this confused with the character of the person making the analysis. If my analysis has struck a nerve, perhaps it is because of its incisiveness and clarity of vision, not due to some perceived "bigotry."

However, I DO agree with you. Perhaps one of the greatest components of romanticism ARE gender roles. I was myself contemplating what it was that made romantically inclined stories successful in America, and it does seem to be the heavy identification of gender roles. A good example of this would be the movie, The Birdcage, an updated remake of La Cage aux Folles, which stars Robin Williams and Nathan Lane. This movie has strong gender roles and could be said to have some very strong romantic elements in it. It proved to be very popular in America, even though it dealt with a gay relationship, it was very romantic. About 3 out of 4 people enjoyed it. Of course, that's self-selected for people who would bother to see a movie about gay relationships to begin with.

The problem with changing attitudes of middle America, and the old mainstream America's ideals that the non-traditional couplings can be romantic, is that romance has an element of purity and piousness to it. And Michael raises a very good point, it's the WAY in which the bi/gay/trans-gender community has approached the mainstream which has caused America not to view these relationships on equal terms, as so much as spiritually sacrosanct. Heterosexuals have a romantic notion that they were "made" for each other. They don't understand that homosexuals can feel the same way. With the way they are portrayed in our culture, most heterosexuals believe gay people just want to be together because they have found the best piece of meat that will have them. If I myself hadn't went to university, and lived in a co-op with gay/lesbian friends, worked with them, and had many friends, seen them in real relationships, and only had scenes from Hollywood, San Francisco and scenes like this:

I wouldn't know jack.
If my only knowledge of this culture was from T.V., movies, and the massive amounts of notorious porn that is flooded into the cyber world. . . what do you think the average American is going to think of these communities? How romantic do you think they are going to really view these relationships unless they have friends who are homosexual, and find out, wow, it's only the minority that give the rest a bad name. Or just like heterosexuals, homosexuals act dumb and stupid when they are young. Why crucify them for that? . . they have feelings of love, loneliness, hopes and dreams like everyone else. But these stupid parades? You think that does anything to further their cause and endear them to mainstream America and make the rest of America believe they are capable of ROMANCE? Me?! Personally? I have no beef with it, I think they are a gas. . . like Marti Gras, but with a political and solidarity message. But they certainly aren't going to help change any stereo types any time soon. . .

 

[Pandaemoni]

I tend to think this sort of thing is perfectly fine. The *problem* is that homosexuals can't do it, not that heterosexuals can. There's no sense in abridging the right to do that (with the school administrator's permission), simply because a disfavored group would be prohibited.

It is , however, appropriate to point out the double standard. Putting that on display advances the ball so that, eventually, the homosexual couples will be more socially free to do it as well

 

[Michael]

I'm happily having some drinks with friends in the Castro next week and while I super tired right now, I'll try to re make my point - although to be fair, I' am so tired!

Proposing to someone at a local school IS fine and has NOTHING to do with hetero, bi or homosexuality except by the most construed and tenuous of threads.

Second, I don't mind having a conversation about "Don't Ask Don't Tell", that's fine. I do have a problem with hijacking PC and slamming into the side of what would otherwise be a nondescript perfectly harmless marriage proposal a few innocent young and in love Americans were enjoying before being broadsided with a Bowing 7/57 splattering hate and spite desolate all over the place.

This is just like the anti-Merry Christmas people trying to ram their PC jollies down everybody's throat and ruining Xmas. I'm confident, 100%, that in America 2010 - muchkins'd more likely side with the Wicked Witch of the West and hand the girl and her dog over - for calling her a mean old witch "Oh My. That's age discrimination - kill Dorthy!"


I warned you!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . in America 2010 - Munchkins'd more likely side with the Wicked Witch of the West and hand the girl and her dog over - for calling her a mean old witch "Oh My. That's age discrimination - kill Dorothy!"

Actually the majority of Americans do not think highly of political correctness, if only because most of us harbor at least one politically incorrect opinion. This is why it has to be legislated and policed.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

This is just like the anti-Merry Christmas people trying to ram their PC jollies down everybody's throat and ruining Xmas.

Just like all them uppity Negroes ramming their PC "civil rights" jollies down everybody's throat after World War II.

Look, we get it. When people are conditioned to accept and enforce bigotry, the one thing that won't work is pointing out injustice, double standards, or the bigotry itself.

Second, I don't mind having a conversation about "Don't Ask Don't Tell", that's fine. I do have a problem with hijacking PC and slamming into the side of what would otherwise be a nondescript perfectly harmless marriage proposal a few innocent young and in love Americans were enjoying before being broadsided with a Bowing 7/57 splattering hate and spite desolate all over the place.

Oh, my. So ... applying the rhetoric equally is offensive? Doesn't that suggest there's a problem with the rhetoric?

The point isn't to screw with these people's marriage. Indeed, I think most would wish them well, even the cynics whose only purpose is to not waste tax money in the courts if that marriage fails.

But it's time to bury this rhetoric about gays flaunting their sexuality. Quite clearly, you demonstrate just how offensive such rhetoric is.

• • •​

OR, it could be that the observer has placed themselves, as a social scientist, in the place of the average person at large, to answer the question posed. I believe you have perhaps mistaken said analysis, however astute, with the character of the analyzer. If you don't care for the character of society, please, do not get this confused with the character of the person making the analysis. If my analysis has struck a nerve, perhaps it is because of its incisiveness and clarity of vision, not due to some perceived "bigotry."

Two interesting stereotypes are in play here; one is, obviously, the stereotype of the homosexual. The other, though, is the stereotype of the average person. In truth, I never know quite what to think of that one. Sure, as the saying goes, "people are stupid", but just how stupid?

If I myself hadn't went to university, and lived in a co-op with gay/lesbian friends, worked with them, and had many friends, seen them in real relationships, and only had scenes from Hollywood, San Francisco and scenes like this ... I wouldn't know jack.

This is why things like National Coming Out Day are important. Most Americans actually know homosexuals who don't fit the flamboyant stereotype. And maybe twewnty years ago, one could reasonably assert that most Americans weren't aware that they actually knew homosexuals who don't fit the stereotype.

If my only knowledge of this culture was from T.V., movies, and the massive amounts of notorious porn that is flooded into the cyber world. . . what do you think the average American is going to think of these communities?

And yet the same standard doesn't apply to heterosexuals? I mean, sure, there are social conservatives out there who despise the amount of sex and glamour in popular arts, but do they ever apply the same logical argument?

Well, sort of. But they don't apply it against heterosexuality.

We don't even have to reach into the world of Desperate Housewives. Take a science fiction show like Stargate Universe. In that one, the colonel has a beef with an associate in his organization because the guy banged his wife. Yet the colonel knocks up one of his officers, and is still emotionally distraught when his wife files for divorce. Tell me that doesn't sound like a soap opera.

Perhaps my favorite movie, a little-known Canadian film called The Lotus Eaters, involves a family in western British Columbia. The father, a school principal, has an affair with the hot, young, new teacher. The eldest daughter gets knocked up by her boyfriend in the back seat of a car. The mother (also the best-known talent in the film, Sheila McCarthy) eventually commits arson as an act of revenge against her husband. On Christmas. It's no wonder the question isn't turned on heterosexuals.

Also, the culture tends to fixate on gay men. Why? Because heterosexual men like the idea of lesbians. Really. I used to hang out on a strip club scene, occasionally working for a friend who ran a bar. And even in Oregon, in the 1990s, as there was an anti-gay push going on at the ballot box, plenty of the guys who disdained homosexuality also very much enjoyed, and looked forward to, seeing two women together.

But, you know, in that heterosexual way—as long as they're hot.

I'm trying to think of the number of films I've suffered through over the years that other people still talk about because some hot starlet got on with another hot starlet. Some of them I can't even remember the titles. Although one I do recall was a miserable flick called Embrace of the Vampire. Awful film, but, you know, I know a lot of people who opposed gay rights at the time because of the stereotypes about homosexual men who said, "You gotta see this film. Alyssa Milano gets naked while doing this hot chick!"

I think it would be enlightening to hook up some homophobes, especially of my generation, to various equipment and then interview them. Did they see Gia? I mean, it's a terrible movie, but literally everyone I know who remembers it recalls the scene with Angelina Jolie getting heavy with another girl. (And, of course, The Family Guy cemented that image in "Blue Harvest", but that's beside the point.) What you'll find is that a lot of homophobia, especially among men, is specifically sexist.

But the stupid parades? If anyone ever bothered to look closely, they would find that much of that flamboyance actually imitates heterosexual culture. And, yes—

A good example of this would be the movie, The Birdcage, an updated remake of La Cage aux Folles, which stars Robin Williams and Nathan Lane. This movie has strong gender roles and could be said to have some very strong romantic elements in it. It proved to be very popular in America, even though it dealt with a gay relationship, it was very romantic.

—The Birdcage is an excellent example. Those cabaret shows imitate traditional heterosexual burlesque and glamour.

(One irony worth noting is that I actually abandoned an earlier direct response to your fairy tale/romance post in large part because I was being too critical of the analyst; furthermore, I did consider The Birdcage in that one.)

But here's the thing about The Birdcage:

• The primary "romance" occurred between a young, attractive, heterosexual couple.

• Robin Williams and Nathan Lane both played stereotypes.

• Gene Hackman played a politician.​

The film didn't do much to advance people's idea of homosexuals. After all, everyone roots for the young, attractive heterosexual couple in love. Especially when they want to do the traditional thing and get married.

And everyone loves to hate a politician, especially an overtly hypocritical moron like Hackman's character.

And everyone loves to laugh at a prissy queen, like Nathan Lane's character. They also like to laugh at self-imposed problems, such as resulted from the cowardice of Robin Williams' character.

Some might suggest star power lent to The Birdcage's success, and while this is undoubtedly true to some degree, star power isn't the whole of the story.

Try a cast that includes Steven Weber (at the time a star of the popular NBC series Wings), Patrick Stewart, Sigourney Weaver, Kathy Najimy, Debra Monk, Nathan Lane, and Olympia Dukakis, among others.

Jeffrey was a flop.

I mean, sure, it has a prissy queen (Patrick Stewart), but not enough. It has a shady televangelist (Sigourney Weaver), but not enough. In the long run, though, it was bound to be a box office failure. A film of that quality with that kind of pedigree isn't going to sell because it doesn't play to the stereotypes; in fact, it turns a couple of them on their heads—Debra Monk and Peter Maloney are hilarious as Steven Weber's parents, but their roles are clearly farcical. Its comedy is too subtle, and its romance is, well, gay.

Or The Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls In Love. It's nearly a perfect film; indeed, a study in how to do one-camera, low-budged drama. But its a drama about lesbians, which kills its commercial success.

This is, ultimately, the marketplace. Big deal. But it does lead us back to a question you asked earlier:

Would it inspire the next generation and teach the boys and girls in their heart about romance?

Once we turn our eyes from the stereotypes, yes, such films teach about love and romance, and also about courage and fear. For the young homosexual, it is accessible because the thematic context is familiar; for young heterosexuals, it presents gays as humans. I've actually seen these processes taking place as a result of people seeing these movies.

When we rely on stereotypes—which are generally found objectionable because they are designed to be offensive—then the argument seems easy and clear.

Would The Birdcage have been so popular without Williams and Lane? And without the flaming stereotypes? Would it have been so popular if it was an ugly heterosexual couple that wanted to get married? What if the bride's father wasn't a politician, but, instead, a hard-working, blue-collar, midwestern union man?

Personally? I have no beef with it, I think they are a gas. . . like Marti Gras, but with a political and solidarity message. But they certainly aren't going to help change any stereo types any time soon. . .

You're not telling me anything new, but the problem with that consideration is that it essentially equals: Because bigotry (or hypocrisy) exists, it is offensive, and therefore unproductive, to point out the bigotry (or hypocrisy).

Because, after all, it sends people into rages, and makes them rant about "whinny bitches", as we have seen. I mean, think about it: Our neighbor has no problem with the DADT question; gays should serve in the military if they're so inclined. But by no means should the bigots and hypocrites ever stop being bigots and hypocrites, with the result that by no means should gays ever be treated decently, respectfully, and equally.

If the parades are really so problematic, what the hell am I supposed to think of Pioneer Square, Seattle, on Fat Tuesday? Or the French Quarter, New Orleans, just about anytime? Or the flesh-fests at Lake Havasu?

I went to a Jesuit high school, where plenty of the girls knelt on Friday morning (school mass) for forgiveness, and again on Friday night to blow their boyfriends.

What confounds me is that consistent application of the argument is offensive to those who invented the argument. Sure, it's fine to talk about how scary gays are, but to point to the same sort of behavior in heterosexuals? Well, as we see in this thread, that's just unacceptable.

It exposes the fundamental hatred underlying the bigotry. It is willful cruelty, and the heterosupremacists seem to feel entitled to it.

 

[pjdude1219]

I'm happily having some drinks with friends in the Castro next week and while I super tired right now, I'll try to re make my point - although to be fair, I' am so tired!

Proposing to someone at a local school IS fine and has NOTHING to do with hetero, bi or homosexuality except by the most construed and tenuous of threads.

Second, I don't mind having a conversation about "Don't Ask Don't Tell", that's fine. I do have a problem with hijacking PC and slamming into the side of what would otherwise be a nondescript perfectly harmless marriage proposal a few innocent young and in love Americans were enjoying before being broadsided with a Bowing 7/57 splattering hate and spite desolate all over the place.

This is just like the anti-Merry Christmas people trying to ram their PC jollies down everybody's throat and ruining Xmas. I'm confident, 100%, that in America 2010 - muchkins'd more likely side with the Wicked Witch of the West and hand the girl and her dog over - for calling her a mean old witch "Oh My. That's age discrimination - kill Dorthy!"


I warned you!

that is because your looking through the lens of heterosexual privilage. as I told(which you ignored probably because it doesn't fit into your viewpoint) before for a gay to do this would have put them in danger.



no one isarguing for what your strawmaning that heteros should have public marriage propossal what is being argued for is for gays to have the same ability too.

 

[Michael]

Actually the majority of Americans do not think highly of political correctness, if only because most of us harbor at least one politically incorrect opinion. This is why it has to be legislated and policed.

Just one second here, you ARE joking right? POLITICALLY INCORRECT opinions have to be legislated against and POLICED?

You're not being serious right!?!?? I'm pretty sure the 13 colonies were not founded on enforcing political correctness.

that is because your looking through the lens of heterosexual privilage. as I told(which you ignored probably because it doesn't fit into your viewpoint) before for a gay to do this would have put them in danger.



no one isarguing for what your strawmaning that heteros should have public marriage propossal what is being argued for is for gays to have the same ability too.

My heterosexual privileged lens, being so high and so mighty, gives me a viewpoint that of course would be a superior, no, make that supreme, hell supremacist of vantage.


I do understand that homosexuality is not accepted by some community's in the USA. Well, that's just that way things are for now. They are not going to change overnight. Instead it will take education (and even better movies and music videos) to slowly change society such that in the future people will be open towards open homosexual courtship.


Let me put it this way, suppose the two in love couple were a 48 year old black woman taking the day off from her job as CEO of IBM to propose to her white 18 year male lover who is a student just graduating from High School - and the whole town was happy and supported the loving couple. So, along comes this whinny gay bitch whinning about hetero-bigotry :bugeye:

Yeah, life's not fair, Deal With It .... in a constructive manner rather than give in to your inner base inclinations to bitch and whine like a whinny bitch.