Are you man enough?

[McElmurry]

Carobs or grasshoppers? Asks the long haired, misanthropic, Neo-Curmudgeonly hermit of the desert.

I remember that movie. Don Johnson played the boy. I don't remember who did the voice of the dog.

[Bugbear]

I remember that movie. Don Johnson played the boy. I don't remember who did the voice of the dog.

"A Boy and His Dog" based on the story by Harlan Ellison. That was a good movie.

I don't remember who did the dog's voice either, but they did leave out, in the movie, the explanation of why the dog could communicate with the boy.

I remember writing a paper on it in seventh grade, pointing out the boy was safer up top than down in the underworld.
__________________

[wildrover]

kilt......is received wisdom, that shows where one comes from and where one fits into the culture, rather than carving out a statement about one's uniqueness.

That is worth a bottle of good scotch right there...that is probably the best statement regarding kilts that I have ever read, here or elsewhere.

I would have to look into the wild honey to see if it "means what it means."

I'm just gonna take it on assumption .

Surely somebody can make a joke about "wild honeys" can't they?

I never joke about wild honeys .

-Sean

*edit* Sigh...I'm not even gonna bother with a long post, because I've said it all before...

That picture right there is a complete and utter failure, when held to the light of gilmore's remark. A kilt may technically be a "skirt", but it is a traditional and cultural symbol, not a social marker, so stop trying to come in the back door by skirting around the #9 check, k boys?

The rest of the article...when you see people like that dressed in public and not on their to a convention, let me know. Torn up, patched shirts and jeans are sold at Nordstrom now, for crying out loud. I don't doubt they'll soon start putting brass plates on the stuff, too. It's mainstream.

[ggibby]

Wow, this has wandered into wilderness not anticipated by the OP, I suspect.

I just got a kick out of the grammar, even after seeing it's from the Polish version of Fashioner. Not sure who/what did the translation, but I think I got their point more clearly for the scrambled metaphors and lack of segue.

[wildrover]

Wow, this has wandered into wilderness not anticipated by the OP, I suspect.

That got me thinking...there are a lot of totally bogus costumes and runway abominations thrown in this forum (or rather, thrown on the forum somewhere that would eventually become this sub-forum), simply because, at some point, somebody notices the word "kilt" and then assumes it's all good...no vetting of any kind A/F/A whether the link is actually relevant, or just another outbreak of men in skirts or snarky sartorialists.

Wait...snarky sartorialists...isn't that redundant?

...Whatever. I will give them a run for their snark .

At any rate, you figure maybe we're "kilt blind"? Seeing only our beloved kilts...without seeing the context in which they're presented, or differentiating between a kilt and something that's a MUG but not a kilt?

[Steveall]

As the "original poster", when I read the article I had many thoughts but none of them were about cross-dressing. The article did involve Kilts and it was obviously in the media. I thought the article might be controversial but the comments have not been what I expected and I certainly never thought that I would be part of the controversy. I wanted to contribute to the community but that obviously didn’t work.

[Mike_Oettle]

Well, Steve, I think you did a good job in posting the article, for all that it was a load of fashionista claptrap. It just puts our sartorial choices in context – to my mind an entirely sound context of wearing something that has a tradition behind it, rather than those weird skirt efforts the models are shown in.
For that matter, the model in a kilt doesn’t look right, either. Men who model kilts generally seem to do it wrong – is this the photographer, the model, or someone else who gets it all messed up?

On the subject of John the Baptist, two points:
Firstly, his camel-hair garment does have an echo of a belted plaid about it.
Secondly, there is nothing strange about either wild honey or locusts.
The Hebrews did keep bees, and probably sold their honey, too. But out in the desert there would have been no hives, and John would have had to make do with what the wild bees produced.
The desert on the Jordan’s banks was not as lifeless as it is now (not nearly as many goats to kill off the vegetation), and probably yielded very good honey from the spring flowers.
It is highly unlikely that John ate carob beans, because grasshopper-type locusts were kosher food.
Leviticus 11:21-23 has this to say on the subject (the source I located quotes the Revised Standard Version – most translations will tell you much the same):
Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those which have legs above their feet, with which to leap on the earth. Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you.
There was a type of locust that was not fit for eating, but unfortunately present-day knowledge of Ancient Hebrew is inadequate to determine what that type was. As a result there is a consensus among rabbis that since it is not known which locusts are not kosher, locusts should not be eaten at all.
Many societies still make regular use of locusts as food, and solitary prophets typically ate them in the absence of other food sources.
In fact, vast amounts of money are spent regularly on poisoning locust swarms (rendering them a biological hazard) when they could instead be caught and used to feed the starving.
Regards,
Mike

[wildrover]

Question Mike!

Was there a specific reason that type of locust was poor eating? Spines, taste, color, lack of substance? Or was it more a dogmatic declaration?

I've eaten chocolate covered crickets (or maybe it was grasshoppers)...and my sugar gliders loved pretty much any of the "four legged bugs with legs above their feet"...but never eaten a locust...

...Why camel hair? Lack of any other available fiber?

-Sean

[Bugbear]

Question Mike!

Was there a specific reason that type of locust was poor eating? Spines, taste, color, lack of substance? Or was it more a dogmatic declaration?

I've eaten chocolate covered crickets (or maybe it was grasshoppers)...and my sugar gliders loved pretty much any of the "four legged bugs with legs above their feet"...but never eaten a locust...

...Why camel hair? Lack of any other available fiber?

-Sean

It's because the world you experience and know is the one in your brain.

These "are you man enough," "real men" do this that and the other, and "gentlemen" do this that and the other mantras bother me a little in the back of my mind. Can't quite figure out why, but it has the feel of bully-speak after a point.

[wildrover]

It's because the world you experience and know is the one in your brain.

Huh? I was OT...what does that have to do with bugs as a source of protein, or other biblical history?

These "are you man enough," "real men" do this that and the other, and "gentlemen" do this that and the other mantras bother me a little in the back of my mind. Can't quite figure out why, but it has the feel of bully-speak after a point.

I can see that. Mostly, I read it as marketing gimmick..."you're not a real man if you don't drink our beer, drive this brand of automobile, partake of these hobbies..."

...most of which have absolutely no bearing on one's manhood whatsoever, and in the worst cases, are bizarre attempts to appeal to masculinity in efforts to encourage emasculation.

A real man doesn't need a load of ad copy to tell him how to be a real man.