BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Privilege

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:47 / 15.01.02
I can never spell it, and the use of the term winds me up.

I've just figured out why: it is oddly self-defeating. We're privileged because we have net access. I'm privileged because I live in an affluent part of London, and for many other reasons, amongst them being white and male.

But it's a mistake to think of my position as 'privileged', because that implies something above the norm. It ought to be the norm. Everyone should have access to the things I have access to. Use of the term 'privilege' implies an unfair advantage which should perhaps be removed. That's the wrong way round.

Perhaps it's trivial, but I want to be able to think of broadening what is called 'privilege', not restricting it so that everyone is equally at a disadvantage.

Am I being naive?
 
 
Persephone
15:57 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
It ought to be the norm. Everyone should have access to the things I have access to.

Well, it's not. Everyone doesn't.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
15:58 / 15.01.02
Took a quick shufti at the definitions on dictionary.com.

I think in a sense that you're right.

I would rather see the term replaced with advantage. As a slightly grey word it can be used in an argument that places a spin on percetions that maybe shouldn't be used. I think that advantage, having what I consider a more firm implication, would be used far less and maybe arguments might take a more realistic bent.

It seems wrong even for discussions around the unfairness of one set of misconceptions to introduce another misconception that would bog the discussion down in a manner that retards the progress of the exchange of opinions.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:09 / 15.01.02
Persephone: Massive contribution. Thanks.

So let me take it a little further and suggest that refering to things which ought to be regarded as normal as 'privileges' is self-defeating - and possibly counts as buying the other guy's disinformation.

'Privilege' could be taken to mean that these are things to which no one should aspire, that they can only be had at the expense of someone else. I don't think that's the case - perhaps you do.

At the same time, some things which come into this category - access to apparently limitless supplies of energy without paying for environmental consequences - are beyond privilege. They're an autodestructive congame in which the ultimate losers can only be us. 'Privilege' doesn't even begin to describe them.

I think it's a fuzzy, possibly mistaken term.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:10 / 15.01.02
Naive probably isn't quite the right word. Simultaneously idealistic and disingenous, maybe.

I think there's two aspects to what you're saying. One is the whole inherent hypocrisy that goes on if you use the term "privileged" to rubbish someone else when you're already online, so therefore in at least one respect privileged yourself. However, I think that people often get needlessly defensive whenever they see the word applied to them - if I point out to someone that being heterosexual gives them certain privileges in our society, for example, it's not necessarily an 'attack', more an observation and a suggestion as to why they might want to think about the issues at hand from a different angle. And yet it will tend to be seen as an attack, because as has been discussed before, a lot of people who consider themselves liberal/progressive/left-leaning or even radical have trouble accepting ideas like complicity and what that means (taking responsibility, etc). I also shouldn't need to say that I am privileged in the same way, if I am, because it's not really relevant to the discussionm... it shouldn't just be the underprivileged of the world who stand up against unfair privilege, you know?

(Also, there are different types of privilege, and not all of them have anything to do with net access. But that's kind of not the main issue.)

The second complaint you make is this: "I want to be able to think of broadening what is called 'privilege', not restricting it so that everyone is equally at a disadvantage." The problem with this is that it sounds like classic New Labour/bourgeois liberal rhetoric (note that I'm not accusing you of being those things, just that it's the same argument). Like many essentially conservative arguments (again their motives, not necessarily yours), this relies on a misreprentation of what people who campaign against inequality and unfair privilege are actually saying.

Practically, however, can one be done without the other? Redistribution of wealth, anyone? And which is preferable - that the people below the poverty line get adequate food, healthcare, housing etc now, even if it's at the expense of the little luxuries that you and I and many of us here have (any leisure pursuits or disposable income, basically), or that we cling to the principle that those luxuries should be available to all, and therefore refuse to relinquish our own?

Good topic, by the way.

[ 15-01-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:19 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
Persephone: Massive contribution. Thanks.

You know, I actually think the point Persephone makes is hugely important. Probably the key one in this argument.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:25 / 15.01.02
quote:Practically, however, can one be done without the other?Well...at the moment, as I understand it, we're not bottoming out of resources, so yes, basically. It would require considerable effort, of course, and would probably lead to economic reformation ex machina, so I doubt it would be a big fave with the banks...

quote:Redistribution of wealth, anyone?Never a big fan. Historically, it has a shoddy pedigree of corruption and death. And at the point when it becomes likely it would be done fairly, the necessity for doing it rather fades away. I mean, if people were that foresightful and fair minded...etc.

quote:And which is preferable - that the people below the poverty line get adequate food, healthcare, housing etc now, even if it's at the expense of the little luxuries that you and I and many of us here have (any leisure pursuits or disposable income, basically), or that we cling to the principle that those luxuries should be available to all, and therefore refuse to relinquish our own?Is it a straight swap? Let's talk cases, if so. I think we would do better to improve our management of massive surplus, to begin with. Where's the virtue (other than self-flagellation) in giving things up when we already fail to get what we have to those who need it?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:31 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Flyboy:


You know, I actually think the point Persephone makes is hugely important. Probably the key one in this argument.
In a zen-theory-slapdown kind of a way, possibly. I tend to see it more as a throw-away negative, however, unless it gets a little fleshing out.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
16:36 / 15.01.02
Certainly some good stuff there Persephone.

I will take issue on one minor point.

quote: if I point out to someone that being heterosexual gives them certain privileges in our society, for example, it's not necessarily an 'attack'

When discussing the disadvantages of being homosexual in current society then unless well presented, refering to a poster's privileges is easily construed as an attack, whether or not it is.

As a personal preference I'd rather not see that done because it often feels like someone saying "Yeah, but your straight" as if they can't understand. That really applies to any differentiation, not just sexuality.

Hypothetically, if I were in a discussion involving gay people regarding the problems of being straight I would probably regard them with a degree of asexuality.

As I say, minor point and more of a communication issue than anything else.
 
 
Ganesh
16:59 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots/potus:
Hypothetically, if I were in a discussion involving gay people regarding the problems of being straight I would probably regard them with a degree of asexuality.

That's a big "hypothetically", Potus...
 
 
Persephone
17:24 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
In a zen-theory-slapdown kind of a way, possibly.

Tch. That's not a page in your book, too?

Debate is really not my metier, you know. What passes for philosophy in my head *is* pretty much a carton filled with Zen egg-shaped things; and I can't crack my eggs and have them too.

But if I were to try to put into words what your post made me think of, it would roughly go like this: privilege ought to make you uncomfortable and then not uncomfortable. Your idea of redefining the word seems to me to be a trope of the former; but not really the way to go, if you are trying to get to my point B. Which you may not be. What I'm mostly seeing is something *around* and not *in* your argument, and so it may not be admissible.

Just a throwaway, some would say that being a white male is a privilege. But you would not say that that "ought to be regarded as normal." So a question is, what constitutes the privilege: being the white male, or getting the things that you get as a white male?

As to my point B... I like it when a person can learn to look his privilege in the eye and not blink, as it were. It's like a monster that you have, albeit a monster that allows you net access and a cozy seat by the fireplace with your lunch on a tray.

Privilege is a burden to the enlightened mind. I feel like the thing to meet it with is more strengthening of mind, rather than lightening the load.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
17:37 / 15.01.02
Ganesh - I never ever expect to have that kind of discussion.

But in situation reversal land, it seemed like a relevant replacement.
 
 
Ganesh
17:48 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots/potus:
But in situation reversal land, it seemed like a relevant replacement.

Sure, I just don't think it's that easy to approach any discussion of gender rights with such dispassionate clarity. In a wider sense, "baggage" of one sort or another is perhaps one of the problems inherent in any discussion of "privilege".
 
 
EvilFakeTodd
17:49 / 15.01.02
Persephone's last comment brings to mind something I've grappled with lately, which fits in rather neatly with other discussions we've been having about class and law, etc.

The concept of Egalitarianism is (as it seems to me) at the center of contemporary Left thought. Basically, ideally, people should have equal access to opportunity, resources, information, as well as fulfilled subsistance level needs (adequate food, shelter, medical care, etc.). Factors such as employment status, location, age, sex, sexual preference, race, creed, what have you should not determine this access and fulfillment.

Coupled with this egalitarianism is what some would call "cultural relativism." These days, the term (usually used in an uncomplementary fashion) refers to the belief that as constructs of the human mind, different cultures and their values have the same entitlement to respect and understanding. (of course the definition of culture is somewhat fluid and sticky (a sticky fluid?) and we can debate that til the cows come home to roost).

These are of course simplistic formulations of these concepts, but grappling with them pertinent to moving "Left" thought forward, in my opinion.

To start off, what about (in the words of a famous man) "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? How does this sit with "the burden of the enlightened mind"?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
17:54 / 15.01.02
Dispassionate clarity - potentially one of my problems.
 
 
Ganesh
17:56 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots/potus:
Dispassionate clarity - potentially one of my problems.

Everybody's, really. While most of us probably like to think we're discussing things "asexually" (or "aracially", or whatever), I strongly suspect we're not...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:22 / 16.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots/potus:
"Yeah, but your straight" as if they can't understand.

Well, I certainly can't understand being straight. Eeeeew....

Sorry. I will go back into the box now, for I am sleepy.
 
 
angharad
09:22 / 16.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
But it's a mistake to think of my position as 'privileged', because that implies something above the norm. It ought to be the norm. Everyone should have access to the things I have access to.

This is a subject that's recently been on my mind a lot.

I am *definitely* privileged (or advantaged) in a whole number of ways - white, middle class, well educated, lots of family support etc. etc.

But I'm at a point where I feel stuck and scared and discouraged, and all my 'advantages' serve only to make me feel ungrateful and spoilt.

I've been thinking about ways to feel less 'stuck' and I'm very well aware that many of the things I feel I need I also feel, at some level, entitled to. It seems that my materialistic expectations keep me feeling stuck and set me up for disappointment.

At the same time, I'm really fucking angry at what I see going on in the world around me - politics being run by corporate interests, mostly (and the litany of negative effects that has on the world).

It's not easy to see a way for me to continue to receive what I feel entitled to without me continuing to bolster up the very system I despise - either by going to work for The Man - or even by doing something meaningful, but continuing to rely upon and expect the multitude of modern conveniences and consumer goods that as a UK citizen/US resident I only have access to because of the way my home countries exploit people and resources worldwide.

I guess, my point is, I have got this sense of entitlement by growing up within this world shaped by a corrupt system. I can't honestly say that what is the norm for me should be the norm for me, much less for all other people.

Any tips on how I can let go of my attachment to my 'privilege', and on how we might develop a realistic sense of what 'everyone should have'?

(BTW Nick - I can't spell this bastard word either)

[ 16-01-2002: Message edited by: angharad ]
 
 
alas
09:22 / 16.01.02
quote:Privilege is a burden to the enlightened mind. I feel like the thing to meet it with is more strengthening of mind, rather than lightening the load.

Persephone--you're brilliant. Don't diss your argumentation; it's excellent.

I used this term, as applied to myself, in the class thread, and have been thinking about this very issue, so I'm glad Nick brought it up; I'm torn between wanting in a zen way to lessen my desires, my fear of financial insecurity--I'm sold on the Buddhist argument--but it's also true that Buddhism must remain concerned with suffering, especially the suffering of others, must face it head on and not ignore it or act indifferent to it.

I think redistribution of wealth is critical, and it has happened: in Europe there was a much bigger gap between the wealthy and the poor than today in the early 20th century. Democratic socialism has made a much more long term difference in most of Western Europe than in the US, where it was never as deeply entrenched--partly because wealth was perceived as more infinite here, I suspect.
It did happen, here, but we've lost all the lessons, and I'm fearful of a genuine crash that will hurt us all, except that infinitely insulated top .5% that owns 85% of the wealth in the US.

The current distribution of wealth is obscene and causes a great deal of suffering. I agree with Nick, that certain things should not be viewed as "privileges" but rights: the right to have a real voice in culture and politics. The right to have enough to eat and access to good medical care, shelter, and the means of communication. Those should not be privileges: they are necessary to the kind of world where most people can even start thinking about reaching enlightenment.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
09:22 / 16.01.02
privilege is relative, certainly. i have a roof over my head and food to eat, something many many people do not have, although on the way to my nice warm home i may have the shit kicked out of me for being queer.

what does this mean? not much, except that perhaps i am reasonably aware of how far down - and up - the pile i am.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:22 / 16.01.02
Hmm...I never said things should be viewed as 'rights'. I'm equally uncomfortable with those, because that word is also abused, or at least devalued.

Persephone, thanks for the rather more elongated version. Just briefly: quote:Privilege is a burden to the enlightened mind. I feel like the thing to meet it with is more strengthening of mind, rather than lightening the load.I don't have a problem with meeting the fact of my structural and social advantages head on, nor the fact that they are in many cases derived from murky patriarchies and so on. My discomfort comes with what I see as an implied assertion in the term that the proper remedy is a leveling-down, rather than a leveling-up. The suggestion appears to me to be not that this is the only way, but that it is the right way to deal with the situation.

And that makes me nervous, because it seems to play to the hands of anyone who would rather that the majority had lower rather than higher expectations. I want everyone demanding the impossible (constructively) not allowing themselves to be talked into accepting the adequate.
 
 
No star here laces
09:22 / 16.01.02
Oh fuck me, but I'm really angry now.

So you don't like the term 'privilege' eh? Well I'm sure plenty of black people in the first half of the century didn't like the word 'nigger' much either, but it's not really the same thing, is it?

quote:Use of the term 'privilege' implies an unfair advantage which should perhaps be removed.

No, I'll correct you here. Privilege doesn't 'imply' an unfair advantage, that is exactly what it means.

You have an unfair advantage.

Now, instead of thinking about what privilege means, why don't we concentrate on 'advantage' for a minute. An advantage is a relatively superior position. Relative. So you can't give everyone an advantage, by definition. If you want equality, you can't get it by 'giving everyone privilege' - that's meaningless. You can only remove privilege.

And this isn't some victimless situation. You arrive at that position of privilege precisely because someone else is being denied something. You could use that privilege to help prevent that person being denied. Do you?

At the end of the day, don't protest innocence, don't fucking whine about it. If you have a problem with this situation, there's a very easy solution. If you're privileged with influence, use it to change things for the better. If you're privileged with wealth, give it to people who aren't. If you're privileged with education, devote that knowledge to altruistic projects.

It's very easy - privilege or lack of it is meaningless if you are a good person. It's only privilege if you're sitting there and abusing it. And abuse constitutes, IMHO, not actively doing good.

[ 16-01-2002: Message edited by: Lyra Lovelaces ]
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:22 / 16.01.02
quote:Well I'm sure plenty of black people in the first half of the century didn't like the word 'nigger' much either, but it's not really the same thing, is it?No. It's an emotive and frankly stupid comparison. Well spotted.

quote:So you can't give everyone an advantage, by definition. If you want equality, you can't get it by 'giving everyone privilege' - that's meaningless. You can only remove privilege.How wonderful semantics can be. No, you can't give everyone an advantage, because then, as I said, it becomes the norm. You can give everyone access to tools and capacity which would constitute an advantage if only a small group had them. Which is precisely the point of this topic. To make it absolutely clear to you through your righteous expropriated rage, there are two ways to 'remove privilege': by taking access away from those who have it, or by increasing the number of people with access to it. The second may not be possible with every aspect of privilege, but it certainly is with some.

quote:You arrive at that position of privilege precisely because someone else is being denied something.Many, many people. As do you. I want them up here at the big table with me. You, apparently, want both of us down there on the floor with them. Why? How does that help either group? quote:You could use that privilege to help prevent that person being denied. Do you?Short answer, yes. And I believe your position lowers expectations and makes it easier for people who are happy with the situation as it is. Getting us to accept that it's a zero-sum game, that someone has to lose...that's a great bonus if you're at the top. And I mean the real top, not the chianti classes.

quote:At the end of the day, don't protest innocence, don't fucking whine about it.I wasn't. I was exploring a possibility about expectation management in relation to power and access. You're the one who's complaining. quote:If you have a problem with this situation, there's a very easy solution. If you're privileged with influence, use it to change things for the better.That's the idea, yes. quote:If you're privileged with wealth, give it to people who aren't.Thus increasing the amount of time I spend doing 'keep me alive' jobs and decreasing my time for 'altruistic projects' (see below.) quote:If you're privileged with education, devote that knowledge to altruistic projects.Check.

No one's sitting here complaining about the Bolshies coming and taking our Pradas, Lyra. The point was that "Everyone should have access to the things I have access to." And you've amply demonstrated why I dislike the term 'privilege' in that connection - because it suggests a state of affairs to be abhorred, not duplicated.

I think the worst I'm guilty of here is idealism.
 
 
No star here laces
10:28 / 16.01.02
No, you're guilty of dissembling.

I find it bizarre that you accuse me of using semantics to obfuscate the situation, when the entire thread appears to be about "how can I re-phrase the term privilege so that I do not appear to be an oppressor?"

You may bluster and claim as much as you like that this is really about political philosophy, but the message I'm getting from this thread is that this is a personal issue to you.

Please let us dispense now with the 'dragging everyone down' hubris. This is a straw man. No one will ever claim to want to do this - one would have to be a comically inept revolutionary to espouse a philosophy which recommended universal poverty as a solution, when it will patently never win you any support. I have never claimed this, and will not waste energy defending a position that has been set up purely as a rhetorical foil.

So, instead, I will address your dislike of having the word 'privilege' applied to your person.

If, as you claim, any privileges you have are selflessly exploited solely for the benefit of others then I see no reason for you to dislike the term. In fact it would be something to be proud of - an asset that allows you to do more good in the world.

If this is not the case, and you feel guilty about enjoying your privileges and lifestyle then either give up the privileges or stop bitching about it and enjoy them while they last. Simple as that.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:50 / 16.01.02
quote:No, you're guilty of dissembling.
I find it bizarre that you accuse me of using semantics to obfuscate the situation, when the entire thread appears to be about "how can I re-phrase the term privilege so that I do not appear to be an oppressor?" ... and so on ...An ad hominem accusation which is both untrue and personally offensive.

I can't be bothered to argue this with you on these terms. You owe me an apology.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:09 / 16.01.02
Hmm, this thread seems to be going in the direction of privilege being an in/convenience of being born. Correct me if I am wrong there.

I think that what gets overlooked in a discussion like this are the benefits of privilege. No doubt a statement that has incendiary potential but I'll take a risk on this in the hope that some people will be able to see where I'm going with this.

I have no problems admitting privilege through position, being white, middleish class, young, straight etc. It gives me better chances, a bigger social voice amongst many things. But, given what we know today, the privileges come with certain degree of responsibility. With the existing changes in social contexts, it seems that "those who do" have a growing onus to assist in the elevation of "those who don't".

Sure there are people who will only abuse the shallow benefits of status, but not everyone.

It will probably leave me sounding like a tree-hugging vegetarian socialist when I say that within a trans-demographic society like this board, there is a great opportunity for progression. Actaully that might sound a little communist.

Damn, I felt sure that I was going to be able to say something much better than that.

Ah well, what I really wanted to do was to introduce the utilisation of the benefit and responsibilities of privilege.

So there you have it.

I probably should have just said "er folks, what about the the utilisation of the benefit and responsibilities of privilege".
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
11:17 / 16.01.02
And, shortly, so will I.

Before the thread collapses into arguments on how owning a flat in North London makes one more able to help the homeless, or how a job in media is the perfect way to subvert consumer capitalism to more caring ends, maybe we should agree that you are both espousing the idea that, in general, you would both like everybody to be happy and equal.

In terms of whether or not this is brought about by the redistribution of wealth (and the Revolution will claw the keys to my Lexus out of my cold, dead fingers, no matter how laudable the uses they wish to put it to) or the broadening of the franchise of "privilege" - well, how do you dismantle a system of privilege, whether to abolish it or to build it again, but broader and flatter?

And when you say so let me take it a little further and suggest that refering to things which ought to be regarded as normal as 'privileges' is self-defeating - and possibly counts as buying the other guy's disinformation - what do you mean by "normal"? Having Internet access? Being white? Being male? Because these are (to use Potus' word) presumably advantages. How do you remove the advantage conferred without feeling in some way penalized? And would that feeling actually be what equality feels like to the "privileged"?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
11:20 / 16.01.02
there is another whole side to privilege, though i.e. straight privilege means being able to wear a ring, hold hands with your partner, put a photo of said partner, talk about partner at work, with family, kiss partner in street or on the bus without it ever occuring to said heterosexual that they might get abused/sacked/hit/disowned for it.

i have white privilege. despite my stance as an anti-racist, it didn't even occur to me until relatively recently that prospective employers/estate agents etc might chuck away a person's details because of their non-english-sounding name. at least i get to the bit where they see i haven't got a degree/massive income before my stuff goes in the bin. so yeah, i would agree that i must actively stand up against racism.
 
 
The Natural Way
11:20 / 16.01.02
Ummm...Lyra, I think the gist of Nick's argument is that we should all live in a RAW style, utopian society of raised, as opposed to lowered, expectations. But I do think the whole thing's got bogged down by this "let's redefine privilege" business. Let's not go there anymore.
 
 
Bear
11:47 / 16.01.02
quote:straight privilege means being able to wear a ring, hold hands with your partner, put a photo of said partner, talk about partner at work, with family, kiss partner in street or on the bus without it ever occuring to said heterosexual that they might get abused/sacked/hit/disowned for it.


I'd never thought about that before, not sure what that says about me but I'd never considered myself privileged before then..

Regarding the hand holding thing, I saw 2 guys holding hands yesterday and it made me look twice, probably because I'd never seen that before, don't know what this has to do with anything, remind me to just read and not post in the head shop....
 
 
The Planet of Sound
11:48 / 16.01.02
Is it possible that there are different dimensions of heirarchy, each with their own set of privileges and 'downsides'?

A basic example might be Mr. Rich Banker, who enjoys the privileges of a large house in London, a villa in Spain and as much port and veal as a man can eat. Downside: his work life is perpetually stressful and unfulfilling, and he dies of a heart attack at the age of 43.

Another example might be the artist living in Falmouth, who has the privileges of doing a job he enjoys all his life painting nudes, drinking the local scrumpy and smoking as much dope as he wants and having a series of affairs with local beauties. He also lives to be 109. Downside: being constantly 'on the breadline'. he never gets to go on that holiday to Spain. Whoopee shit!

I think we dangerous subversives sometimes fall into the trap of seeing society in fairly reactionary ways; the rich are at the top and have good lives, the poor are at the bottom and have bad lives. Some basic unexamined stereotypes about 'privilege' seem to be at the heart of this.

Has it ever been proven that Internet access actually improves quality of life, for example, and going back to an earlier point?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:39 / 16.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
I think the worst I'm guilty of here is idealism.

I think the problem is that you're being idealistic only as far as it suits you - for example, when I mentioned the idea of redistribution of wealth, your objection was primarily practical ("it never works fairly").

If we're going to discuss this in purely idealistic terms, then you need to answer questions such as "if it were as simple as you giving away half of your <unknown factor x> to a person who previously did not have any, so that the two of you would then be on equal terms, would you object to this on the principle that what is desirable is for the person who had no <x> to get a whole one, not for you to lose half?". I know that may sound facetious, and that the answer will fairly obviously be 'no', but it's the kind of thing you might want to make clear if you want to avoid the accusation that your problem with the redistribution of wealth is a less noble one*.

On the other hand, if we're going to be purely pragmatic about this, then surely the question is this: for all its limitations, does the word privilege really perform the task of describing what needs to be described so poorly that it would be better not to use it at all?

*On a related note, I also don't see quite why you think Lyra owes you an apology, Nick. There's an ad hominem element there, but not much more than occurs pretty regularly in the more spirited threads here, and certainly not enough to justify ignoring the valid points that Lyra also makes.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
13:43 / 16.01.02
Maybe it's where I live but is Homo-PDA really that taboo?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:46 / 16.01.02
Unless you live on Old Compton Street, then yeah, I think it's pretty damn risky potus. I mean, two men and two women might be safe holding hands or even kissing in any given part of say, London: but they'd probably have to think about it first. As someone else said, the risk of aggro is something that doesn't even occur to straight couples.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
13:49 / 16.01.02
Certainly I know it doesn't happen so much, but there are very limited stories of problems here when it does happen. I didn't realise the risk was so bad.

Still as I've said before, Canada is anally liberal.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply