What am I doing up this early? I must be working on something…
And now, because I’m all about tolerance and understanding…
NEXT WEEK: Chemical bonding fixes a run in the doctor’s stockings. As for me, it’s back to the salt mines, drawing for pay, instead of love.
Ty the Guy OUT!
Here now, your cross-dressing comic book moment of zen:
More about the comics’ first transvestite hero HERE.
Last week’s Bun Toons, REAL QUICK COMICS can be found by clicking the image below:
Dr. Petticoat almost looks like Vice President Joe Biden, with glasses of course to make him look more studious versus when he is washing his Trans Am in the White House driveway…
Steven G. Willis
Dr. Pettycoat looks so faboo I’m kinda in love with him – He needs a regular comic like NOW.
I agree Dr Petticoat rocks. I originally had to look twice before I got the image. Thanks for this great blog, I have booked marked it.
Glad to have you hanging around the blog, Samith. There’s another silly web comic every Saturday, and we tend to post a couple of times a week on subjects about comics.
It’s so heart warming to find asinine psychiatric dogma, which does not identify any medical condition but rather which serves to prevent men from having purely human choices, parroted here by an automaton who’d rush to be first in line if Uncle Sam wanted to slap a “666” onto people’s hides. People whose world view is comparable to that of a mouse born in a peck measure wouldn’t know that male dancers in modern Bhutan wear petticoats; that male Kathakali dancers in India wear petticoats; that Greek and Albanian men have often worn what have been described as petticoats (all while presenting as men); and that American boys were raised in petticoats to age 6 until just after the start of the 20th century—including Franklin Roosevelt, and that European nobles wore “petticoat breeches” in the 17th century. Such persons also would not know that women in pants was called “A Curious Disease” that needed to be treated “with the usual remedies in use at the best conducted hospitals for the insane,” New York Times editorial, May 27, 2876, page 6. But what else can be anticipated from those who have no understanding of what caused the trouser/skirt division of the sexes, and the plain vs fancy clothes division of the sexes? “Brain chemistry,” a ruse to peddle more toxic pharmaceuticals, is as black a lie as ever there was. Horseback riding sent men into pants; women could not wear pants till WW2 factory work caused it. Social forces, not “sex differences,” have yielded different clothing habits for the sexes. Individual differences are the only driver of clothing choice which should prevail. “Cross dressing” merely serves to prevent men from having human choices. Emperor Theodosius I exiled men in pants from Rome in AD 393. “Mental health professionals” are those who today should be the targets of exile and property forfeiture, as they so energetically interfere with civil rights. No one other than men in bras and women in athletic supporters should be said to be cross-dressed. If a man is trying to present as a woman, it’s fair to label him a female impersonator. To stubbornly assign skirts to females is folly. Mere social convention cannot be equated with the normal functioning of the kidneys!
I think I’m with you all the way, but I’m not sure if there was a political point here.
How so political? This is a sociological matter. Republicans and Democrats both wear suits and ties. Sex typing of clothing is sociological in nature. People didn’t forget about Evelyn Bross being ordered to see a court appointed psychiatrist for six months when she was arrested by Chicago police for wearing pants in public in June 1943, because they can’t forget what they never knew. Educational institutions won’t mention details which don’t support current convention, and convention is what they cling to. Innovation is more subversive than strychnine on frosted pastry. One hour’s worth of factual review can overcome years of the “we do it this way because we do it this way” mass hypnosis cant. The last presidential contender to have worn a skirt was Mike Dukakis as a boy as shown in Newsweek magazine as part of his Greek heritage. Asking people to see skirts as sex neutral due to bodily interface (waist/legs) is monumentally challenging, because they’re stuck with associative reasoning. The long hair/short hair sex division is another case of social forces, not chromosomes. Early medieval European military regulations mandated short hair on soldiers because head lice were a problem; troops could not afford distractions on watch; and lice were easier to control with short hair. If men want to “look like men,” they should stop shaving, and worry less about the almighty pair of pants, which women now also wear on a preponderant basis.
I’m with ya. I’m a live like you want to live type of guy, until someone’s intolerance interrupts me or my neighbours. Everyone gets to believe what they wish, but no one else has to believe it, in my world. (I hope that was the underlying statement to a heck of a lot of these Bun Toons over the years.) And as a long haired or shaved head, but constantly bearded-hippie who encourages anything one wishes to wear to be worn, worn in layers and not worn to the point of nudism, there’s no conflict here about all of this stuff. I’m on your side, fellow baby.
“Believe what they wish,” gee, it’s strongly established fact, not religious faith, that men wore skirts as men for 1,000’s of years, and that society tossed all manner of psychiatric accusations against women when they started wearing pants (Horace English 1958 et al). Cross dressing is a dogma not supported by empirical fact, because both genders are born naked; and both have worn both styles over the ages without impersonation objectives. The present system of raising women with choices and men without, then attributing men wearing one style only to biology, is classic psychiatric sham. Men wear pants because they’re indoctrinated to wear them (“your masculinity depends on it” is the hypnotic mantra.) So we raise women to dress as individuals with personal choices, but we raise men to dress as members of a collective. We’re demanded to be cookie cutter replicas of each other and dress like undertakers in plain unexpressive attire while women are egged on to dress like tropical fish. In the 19th century women wearing pants was called an “attempt to merge the two sexes in one person” that’s been proved false and dropped. But we still do this with men. In the tower scene in Braveheart the king’s son is wearing what easily can be called a dress. This wasn’t thought reactionary at the time. People are so conditioned to their environment they can’t question systems today.
Okey dokey Charles. I think we’re going to call this subject closed. You’ve written about two thousand words or more, and no one’s reading it but you at this point. Thanks for playing, but I’m not posting any more of these comments, so be aware when you don’t see them online.