Brickbat: No Girls Allowed

|

The Illinois Department of Human Rights is investigating Wang's, a gay bar in Chicago. A sign on the wall says "Men Only After 11 p.m.," and authorities are looking into whether the bar discriminates against women.

Brickbat Archives

NEXT: Mike Riggs on the 3 Worst Arguments for Legalizing Marijuana

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes, it’s discriminatory. Why the hell does that matter?

    1. OT: Obama, “the fourth Black president” may not be as Black as some would like. He just called Black 17 year old Trayvon Martin a “boy.”

      1. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”

        He was sensitive to the parents

        1. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”

          born with bullet-holes?

  2. I assume they mean cis-women.

    1. Quit making up words!

      1. “Cis” indicates a match among someone’s sex, gender and role identities.

          1. I blame videogames

          2. +1

        1. We call each other “Sis” all the time! MMMMmmmmHHMmmmm!

    2. Love the organic chemistry humor!

      1. So transgender people were born with only sigma bonds?

        1. only sigma bonds => only rotational conformers => cis, trans killed by a tiny amount of heat

          1. But where do nido, closo, and arachno fit in?

    3. Maybe trans-women, too, since they generally identify as and (try to) appear as women.

      Trans-men might get a pass.

      1. It depends, I guess. Are there guys who self-identify as gay who go for trans-women? Show your work.

        1. Pre-ops, maybe. Post-op, I think you’d have to consider yourself at least a little bi. But, really, for all things there is a fetish.

          This reminds me of one of my favorite Jezebel threads, wherein they confessed a po-faced cluelessness about why a straight guy might not want to have sex with a post-op trans-woman. Because, they argued, sexually is was exactly the same as having sex with a cis-woman.

          1. Was it because of the patriarchy?

            1. Lucky guess.

            2. Transphobia. Apparently it’s not OK to be not OK with people who have surgically mutilated their genitals.

              SLD, of course.

              1. I would think a big negative would be that a trans woman can’t get pregnant.

                1. Negative?

                  I’m cool with chicks that can’t get pregnant.

              2. CIRCUMCISION THREAD

                1. CIRCUMCISION THREAD

                  That’s what they use to make foreskin necklaces.

          2. Wow. So they would have been fine having sex with a trans male?

            1. I guess. Out on the extremes of feminists political correctness most seem to confess to some level of bi-curiousness. They like to say it’s a spectrum, but you can’t truly be PC without denying that the straight side has an end-point.

            2. Trans-men are not well-accepted in the gay male community, since most of them still have female genitalia. Phalloplasty is expensive and doesn’t yield as good a results as the M2F gender reassignment surgery.

              1. I was talking about the Jezebelles, but what you said doesn’t surprise me. At one place I worked, there was someone we suspected of being a trans male (short build, feminine features, no facial hair). A gay guy on my work team was pretty vicious when talking about him.

                1. God makes transpeople too. Maybe it was one of those XXY people:
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter‘s_syndrome

                  There’s also this:
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..y_syndrome
                  Sometimes they are kind of hot.

                  Also, its grimy to care about shit like that at work.

        2. I once worked with a transgender female (male to female) who dated a trans male (female to male). I didn’t know their current genital status, but they were able to marry at one point since they were legally different sexes.

          Which totally doesn’t answer your question, but fuck you.

          1. I feel bad for female to male transsexuals. Men really are a lot better at looking like women than women are at looking like men.

          2. I hopez I hopez I hopez that the wife impregnated the husband before they got their surgeries.

          3. BakedPenguin|3.23.12 @ 11:44AM|#
            I once worked with a transgender female (male to female) who dated a trans male (female to male).

            Um. Wholly, Shit. WTF. Wrong. Foul. Time out. Stop. Pull over. Delete. Undo. Erase. Why.. why. why.

            People. Fucked. Up.

  3. Wait, you mean that gay guys like to hang out with other gay guys, not straight women who are only there to “avoid the male gaze” while simultaneously gawking at the fitness instructor in a mesh tank top? OMG it’s the end of civilization as we know it!!!

    In other news, Curves doesn’t allow men in so they’re members can work out without being subjected to that damn male gaze. The world doesn’t seem to care.

    1. Curves doesn’t allow men in so they’re members can work out without being subjected to that damn male gaze.

      ** laugh up leotard sleeves **

    2. Oh…avoid the male gaze…not male gays!

      Well then of course it’s discriminatory!

    3. Women are generally accepted in gay bars catering to men. Particularly women who come there regularly with gay male friends – these women are known affectionately as fag-hags or fruit-flys.

      Groups of straight women there to gawk or avoid straight men, not so much. Effing tourists.

      1. It must be fun being treating like the inhabitants of a petting zoo.

        1. Yes. And thanks for that.

          1. Thanks for the empathy, that is. Wasn’t being snide (for once).

            1. Beneath my hard and bitter shell there lies a gooey center of acceptance. I’m a terrible example of a stereotypical libertarian.

      2. Ha, fruit-flies, that’s one I haven’t heard before.

      3. Tony once wrote a post on that in his blog for another site. Thought the women to be pathetic and they bugged the crap out of him. I can understand that sentiment better than someone craving the attention of another whom they have no physical interest.

      4. I would think that if the bar was that lady-unfriendly, eventually ladies would stop wanting to go there. No need for this issue.

      5. Oh I know. My gay friends complain about that shit all the time.

  4. Heh heh, “Wang’s”, heh heh heh.

    1. “Will that be straight, or with a chaser?”

    2. “Mind if I push in your stool?”

      1. How do you get four gay guys on a barstool? Turn it upside down.

    3. As good as the gay bar on Polk Street in San Francisco, with its delicate silhouette of a bird in flight on the awning — “The White Swallow”.

      1. This is a holdover from the days when it was illegal to serve alcohol to known homos (yes, really). The names allowed you to clue-in on what the bar was about.

        1. What? Where was there such a law?

          1. According to Wikipedia, New York State at the very lease.

          2. Most places. Still on the books here in Va (I think), but not enforced. Srsly.

            And for those of you reading this who laugh at the notion that there’s such a thing as gay history, try to move past your comfortable notions and embrace that there were centuries of anti-sodomy laws, unprosecuted murders, and bs like this.

            1. Yes Tonio. We all know there was such a thing as English boarding schools. Read Sigfried Sasson or Robert Graves’ war memoirs sometime. Homosexuality, at least among men, may have been illegal in Edwardian England, but it was pretty damned common, at least among the young.

              1. Wasn’t Hamilton gay? I definitely remember hearing that.

                It was definitely true that the Chevaliar D’Eon was anatomically male, starting as male, switching to female, etc.

              2. John, my courageous friend, you are profoundly missing my point.

            2. history is history. no need to hyphenate it unless you are working a political angle. nice try faggot. i can say faggot, right? or will you try to control my speech?

              1. So you think it is also stupid to talk about American history, for example? History is history, you know. Also, I don’t see any hyphen.

                1. i suppose american history doesn’t include gay history? news to me. gay history is just politics, grievance-mongering. do we need american-irish history to talk about the mistreatment of the irish in america?

              2. Say faggot all you want. It only makes you look bad. I have a well-established record here of opposing laws against “hate” speech.

                1. What is it about the word “faggot” that makes people so frightened? Do you think it’s the actual letters, themselves? Well, let’s take a look at that.

                  Do you think maybe it’s the letter “F”? I don’t think so, because “F” stands for fun. And, we all love to have fun, don’t we?

                  Maybe it’s that naughty “A.” Now, I can’t believe that for one second, because “A” is what we all want to bring home from school.

                  Well then, maybe it’s those double “G”s. How could that be? We all love twins. I love that Doublemint ad.

                  Maybe it’s the “O.” Well, you might as well get mad at a donut.

                  You know what? I bet–I bet it’s that evil “T,” because it reminds people of Christ’s agony on the cross.

                  Well, I’ve got the perfect solution. Let’s get rid of the “T” and all the hate that goes with it. So, come on faggos, let’s sing! Everybody! Come on all you faggos!

                2. it only makes me look bad to those whose minds are enslaved by PC correctness and who buy into the gay grievance industry’s premises

        2. I think it was the Gambinos or the Columbos who owned the Stone Wall. Only the mafia was willing to sell booze to homos.

          1. no one goes broke catering to vice

          2. There’s a long history of underworld figures owning clubs catering to the gay marketplace.

            NPR did an interview with a guy who wrote a book on the history of underworld markets being the real impetus of progress in this country.

            It was also noted that the raid on the Stonewall was not a raid on homosexuals, but a raid on the mob owners of the club and the gay angle was a side effect.

            I’ve been googling for the interview for 15 minutes and I can’t find it. But it was broadcast on NPR about a month ago.

  5. Women aren’t going to like this, but for now, gay rights > women’s rights, so they lose. And, of course, it’s absurd to bring an action like this. Might as well sue for the right to use the men’s room.

    1. it’s absurd to bring an action like this

      On the contrary, more of this kind of thing is exactly what is needed. Make the Grievance Industry defend its own rules until the outrageous notion that the government should be regulating interpersonal relationships dies in a pit of burning law suits.

      1. And eventually kill the rumor that my business is a public facility? In my dreams.

        1. private commercial interaction – how does it work? my business belongs to the “public” – who knew?

    2. Interesting factoid: in most male-oriented gay bars you use whichever restroom is closest or least crowded.

      Scariest moment ever: taking a leak in a dyke bar in DC; there was no men’s room.

      1. Ah gay bar restrooms. Mens for the conspicuously open urinals for checking guys out, womens for the stalls for doing coke.

      2. So you peed in the sink then?

      3. It would seem that I hang out in a better class of gay bar than do you, Tony. NTTAWWT. Like you a bit of the old rough trade, eh?

        1. Where I live you have classy bars where gays frequent, then you have gay bars. Seedy can be fun though. As for “old,” let’s just say they’re usually better off buying a hooker considering how expensive I like my wine.

      4. And isn’t there kind of an animosity between lesbians and gay men? I remember that coming up during the lesbian on gay dude hate crime thing a few weeks back.

        1. And isn’t there kind of an animosity between lesbians and gay men?

          Yes, there sometimes can be.

  6. Next government will investigate whether mens toilets discriminate against women and womens shower at the gym discriminate against men.

  7. Maybe I’ll check that place out sometime.

    1. Let us know how that works out for you, you fucking disgusting faggot!

  8. When protected worlds collide.

  9. I remember a lot of college chicks thought it was divinely fabulous to hang out in gay bars.

    Do they grow out of it?

    1. Some do, some don’t.

      1. the attractive women do

  10. A gay bar here in CA does this during… special events, let’s say, such as underwear parties. The rationale being that they want to make a safe space for the men as well as not expose women to sexual content they’d rather not see. I’ve always wondered if someone could make this a anti-discrimination issue.

    1. There are two gay-dude bars near my house. One has an alarm that goes off every once in a while signaling everybody to take their shirts off, and they not-really-but-really throw out anyone who doesn’t obey the alarm (i.e., women). The other bar is so overrun with women, only the only-in-it-for-the-hags crowd hangs there.

      The hags (and miscellaneous other insufferable white women) have yearly-or-so fits of public rage that the former place survives without them, and I’m sure they’ll eventually get its liquor license pulled for hate-crimey-ness.

      Because hags outrank fags?or at least they outrank the icky manly fags who are in it for the cock and man-ass and the being-with-other-dudes and aren’t like the adorable singin’-and-marryin’ dress-up gays on TV, who exist to amuse women.

      1. I love this post – the analysis of lifelong fag hags is right on the money!

      2. There’s an entire class of women who need gay-dude bars. They go there to be “left alone”. Because, you know, without the gay-dude bars, these women would be utterly besieged with uncomfortable offers from unscrupulous straight men who find them utterly irresistable.

        1. Right, until they start talking.

  11. A lot of private property issues seem to boil down to “those people won’t let me on their property and that makes me feel unwanted!” It’s remarkably pathetic.

    1. More or less pathetic than Michael Bay’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie being about aliens, meaning they are neither Mutants nor Turtles?

      1. I don’t know what you’re talking about, but now I’m scared, because nothing you just said should exist in any universe or time, ever.

        1. It’s the horror of the multiverse theory. It will occur in some universe. There is even one where you like Transformers.

          But the fact that this movie is getting funding is proof that this universe is one of the more evil ones.

          1. Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Bay is the alien, come here to destroy taste, style, and quality.

          2. These turtles are from an alien race, and they are going to be tough, edgy, funny and completely loveable.

            Yes, evil does exist.

          3. Everyone kills Michael Bay on their first time-travel trip.

          4. Oh my science. I think that made me want to drown a kitten. Sorry Warty.

      2. *brain explode*

      3. Heroes in a half-shell!

      4. It’s even more nonsensical than that. Explain the logic in aliens coming to earth and using…ninja? Or is Bay going to do away with that too? Will these beings even be teenagers?

      5. I’m just going to point this out: In the original comic, the ooze that mutated the Turtles did come from aliens. The Turtles themselves weren’t aliens, but their mutation was alien based.

        1. They were still mutated turtles.

    2. A lot of private property issues seem to boil down to “those people won’t let me on their property and that makes me feel unwanted!”

      Here at H&R, Epi, we prefer to call it “othered”.

  12. This is the motherlode of irony.

    1. No, that would be white male libertarians bitching about others having grievances. Is there truly a whinier bunch than you guys?

      1. Tony you really are the cartoon of the whinny fairy. I am surprised other gay guys don’t beat you up for embarrassing them.

        1. Nay, John, “whinny” is what I do. I believe you meant “whiny.”

      2. You see I don’t whine, I take it up the ass whenever the government wants it, and I do it with glee.

        1. THAT post, was really hard to tell, spoof-wise.

      3. You are an expert on victimology, who is higher on the victim ladder and thus wins ?

        1. That reminds me of when I was taking aviation ground school, and we had to learn about the right of way hierarchy for all the different flying craft. Hot air balloons are at the very top, with helicopters at the very bottom.

          1. I presume this has to do with how easily they can move to avoid somebody else?

            1. No, the Balloonists Association is just very powerful on Capitol Hill.

              1. Damn special interests.

              2. Professional courtesy between gas bags of hot air.

            2. sorta like fat people on a sidewalk

        2. I dunno. I’ve been here a long time, and among the few things I’ve learned is that only libertarian grievances are important, and only the rights and entitlements libertarians care about are worthy of being paid for with tax dollars.

          1. Right, which is why we defend your right to say anything you want and contribute any amount you want to your own sad group of leaders. Because we only care about our rights.

            We also defend your right to discriminate against stupid straights who sneak into your clubs to hit on ther women who want to be left alone…

            Because it’s your right of freedom of association.

            By the way, did you catch that story about… what was it, Vanderbilt University demanding that all groups on campus must let anyone in and now must let anyone take a leadership role? So that means Andrew Dice Clay can head up the campus LGBT assocation.

          2. I must have blacked out all those times people were on here defending gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose.

  13. Isn’t it a private business? So can’t they decide who is allowed in and who is not?

    1. No. Under civil rights laws it is a “public accommodation”.

      This goes back to the feminists poisoning the civil rights well by equating gender to race. Gender is not race. There are real social and biological differences between the genders that don’t exist between races.

      There is no justifiable reason to have a single race bar or hotel. But there sure as hell is one to have a single gender one.

      Of course we have a great intra victim conflict here. What is Muslims set up a men only restaurant? Will they get the same treatment the gays are getting here?

      1. You’re confusing gender with sex, John.

        Ones gender has nothing to do with physical plumbing.

        1. Chromosomes? We don’t need no stinking chromosomes!

          1. I suppose the argument is that X/Y chromosomes determine sex. I happen to think that gender and sex are at least mostly linked. But I don’t think it matters much and people should identify as whatever they want to.

      2. There is no justifiable reason to have a single race bar or hotel

        it’s called “freedom”. you’re just such a slave to PC group think that you won’t say it.

        some “public accommodations” cater to the young, some to the old, some to the rich, some to the middle class, some to the quiet, some to the loud, some to c&w, some to hip-hop. if someone thinks they can make money by excluding big chunks of potential customers, what justification is there for government to tell them no?

        1. There is no justifiable reason to have a single race bar or hotel

          If it’s my property, I can justify it something like this:

          Fuck you, that’s why.

          1. If it’s my property, I can have been wrongfully deprived of the ability to justify it something like this

    2. Nope. It is a crime to say “No”.

    3. I don’t know. Are they allowed to determine whether people are allowed to smoke on the premises or not?

      Smokers told you all: you’re next. As soon as they can tell private property owners what behavior is allowed on the premises, it won’t end with smoking.

      Have fun.

      1. Private property owners have every right to kick out the niggers at their lunch counter.

        1. Sure. And someone else has a right to take their business. The problem with Jim Crow was not that the odd idiot wouldn’t serve blacks. It was that the law required them not to serve blacks.

          Sorry. But your trolling gets an F-

          1. Actually, you could serve both races if you wanted. Ex:

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..eGlade.jpg

            But the vast majority of business did not. I wonder why?

            1. I am not sure that was legal in some states. And sure lots chose not too. But read Thomas Sowell sometime. That was changing on its own.

              1. Yes, it was changing on its own. That’s why blacks were blasted with fire hoses and had attack dogs set on them, because integration was so wildly popular with southern whites.

                And no conservative attack against civil rights laws is complete without citing Thomas “Uncle Tom” Sowell.

                Face it, civil rights laws are a great example of the government increasing freedom for the vast majority of people, which is why libertarians like to make up fantasies like “you couldn’t serve blacks if you wanted to!” or “it was changing on its own!”

                Bullshit. Had we followed libertarian practices we would still have Jim Crow up until the 1990s.

                1. Heck probably up until the present day. Conservatives are *still* trying to undermine voting rights for example. And Mississippi had a referendum to remove the segregationist language from its state constitution in 1995–and it failed.

                2. Sorry Brian but you have to be smart enough to understand the argument to be in the discussion. We are talking about public accommodation laws here. We not talking about voting laws or government enforced segregation. All they had to do was prohibit the government from discriminating and stop the government from legally requiring segregation. They didn’t need the public accommodation laws.

                  You confuse objecting to one set of civil rights laws with objecting to all civil rights laws. But hey, you are a liberal so that means your IQ is lucky to hit triple digits.

                  1. You’re wasting your time John. People like Brian don’t do well with distinctions. They’re too stupid.

                  2. All they had to do was prohibit the government from discriminating and stop the government from legally requiring segregation.

                    What a novel idea! /sic

                3. Brian, that is just stupid. Jim Crow was a legal regime. One which is about as anti-libertarian as you can get. You will find very few libertarians who think that the parts of the civil rights act which apply to government are not a good thing. Though they haven’t done much about assholes like you who think that black people all need to fall in line with your preferred politics.

                4. Ahhhhhhh. Finally. The good liberal telling everyone else how racist they are while calling blacks who don’t subscribe to approved liberal doctrine as “Uncle Tom.”

                  It’s not racist at all to “other” blacks who don’t think a certain way. Not. At. All. You racist fuck.

        2. Private property owners have every right to kick out the niggers at their lunch counter.

          The stupid ones!

        3. Private property owners have every right to kick out the niggers at their lunch counter.

          And the result is an “all-comers” policy.

          So David Duke gets to sit on the board of the NAACP. You wanted it, you got it. Suck on it.

          http://www.insidevandy.com/new…..0f31a.html

      2. Smokers told you all: you’re next. As soon as they can tell private property owners what behavior is allowed on the premises, it won’t end with smoking.

        Hey, this is only the second step. I imagine next will be only allowing patrons to consume 3 drinks every 6 hours. You know, so they don’t drive home “drunk.”

        1. I’m pretty sure most states already forbid bars to serve people to the point of intoxication. That ship has sailed.

          1. So no one in a bar or restaraunt is ever “intoxicated”. We all just get drunk at home?

      3. Me today, you tomorrow.

      4. Apparently dick smoking is allowed in some bars.

      5. it won’t end with smoking.

        cell phone ringtones in restaurants should be banned. and farting, definitely ban farting.

  14. For any civil rights lawyers out there. Is fag hag a protected class?

    1. It’s not generally the fag-hags who are the perceived problem, here, John. Those women are pretty hardened to the shenanigans and their presence doesn’t bother most men; it’s the “tourists” and gawkers who are the problem.

      1. Actually that is a problem. It is one thing to say “hey this is a men’s only place”. But if you do that, I think it has to really be a men’s only place or you lose your justification for claiming that. So if you let in fag hags, i think you have to let in the tourists.

        1. Yes, of course the law is ultimately the problem. And it’s probably illegal to exclude women (or men) from bars.

          Of course, they could always operate as private clubs, but that creates another set of problems, mostly revenue-limiting.

          1. That was me, John. Stupid joke handles.

          2. Of course if a gay bar can exclude women, so can say a public golf course and a lot of other things.

            I think there ought to be some justification for excluding women.

            1. there ought to be some justification for excluding women

              annoying conversation. spikey heels damaging the flooring. less alcohol consumption per person.

            2. I think there ought to be some justification for excluding women.

              Your patrons prefer it that way? What more “justification” do you need?

              1. Pshaw!!!

                Everyone knows that a government-bureaucrat-in-a-cheap-suit’s opinion is WAY more important than actual, paying customers.

      2. “it’s the “tourists” and gawkers who are the problem.”

        Ugh! heteros again… yawn!… puh-leese..

  15. So do they strip search the gay guys in drag when they enter to be sure they are gay guys?
    What about the trannys? Do they let dykes in? I always thought they were gay. It is a gay bar right?

    1. Although there are some mixed-gender gay bars, there’s still a lot of self-segregation by gender (see my other postings above).

      Gays are pretty good at picking up on who is in drag, or whatever.

      Gay can mean either all homos (including lesbians) but the more common usage is homo men.

      1. I used to go to this gay bar with a gay friend of mine now and then and shoot pool.
        The people there immediately picked up that I was not gay, and did their best to make me feel unwelcome.
        The bartender would ignore me, customers would interfere with the game.
        Then they whine and cry about inclusiveness and tolerance.
        Fucking hypocrites.

        1. Well, you were kind of invading “their” space.

          I would think a major reason that gays go to gay bars is to feel included for a period of time, compared to the rest of their life.

          1. Gays go to gay bars for the same reason singles go to singles bars: to get laid.

            1. Right, and to not be made fun of by the stupid 20-something (hell, I guess even 30-something now) college students that want to act macho in front of their friends at the bar.

              1. So the answer is combating bullshit attitutdes towards gays is to appropriate the same bullshit behavior towards straights?

          2. sarcasmic is just pissed that the one time he tries to come out of the closet, no one wants him. He should try being less hateful.

            1. “Those fucking fags weren’t man enough to suck a real man’s dick! Like me! I mean I’m a real man, not a fag! Fucking queers!”

              1. Isn’t that from a movie? I can’t remember.

            2. He should try being less hateful.

              Someone found him attractive. That’s a compliment. I only get hit on by people with a crippled daddy bear fetish. And that is not an attractive demographic.

              1. A common criticism of the bear community is that some self-described bears tend to exclude men who do not fit their standards of a “real bear”. Fat (or lack of it) is a political issue, some of whom see their overweight condition as a form of self-acceptance. Some also note a lack of racial diversity in the bear community, perceiving hirsuteness to be a standard of physical attractiveness that genetically favors white men aesthetically, socially and sexually among bears.[1]

                Huh. You learn something new every day.

                1. perceiving hirsuteness to be a standard of physical attractiveness that genetically favors white men aesthetically, socially and sexually among bears.

                  Black and Hispanic men can’t grow beards? Has anyone told them?

                  Most women can’t be bears, either. How discriminatory!

            3. What’s really funny is that the last time I went there some women started hitting on me!
              Not that it really mattered, being that I was living with my then girlfriend and now wife, but I found it amusing.

          3. I would think a major reason that gays go to gay bars is to feel included for a period of time, compared to the rest of their life.

            that’s cool, but heteros must tolerate gays invading their space and laws must be passed to mandate that gays be allowed to invade hetero space

            1. that’s cool, but heteros must tolerate gays invading their space and laws must be passed to mandate that gays be allowed to invade hetero space

              I realize the sarcasm. But no.

        2. picked up that I was not gay

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        3. Sarc, your experience, though unfortunate, is not universal. Sorry that happened to you. But I’ve been in plenty of “gay” bars where straight people were treated just the same as everyone else.

          We’re not a monolithic “they.”

          1. One thing I thought was funny. There was this back door that was always closed, and I had enough sense to ignore it. Well, one time the door burst open and this dude ran out of it, so fast he couldn’t even turn. He just bounced off people and walls like a pinball before finally making it out the door. I don’t know what he saw, and I plan to keep it that way.

  16. Private goddamn property.

  17. Why aren’t these bitches at a bar where women drink free?

    1. A lot of fag-hags are married and just want to hang out with their friends and drink, and not have to worry about being hit on, except perhaps by the odd lesbian.

      1. Well you know it is not cheating if it is with another girl.

        1. No, John, just no.

      2. A lot of fag-hags are married and just want to hang out with their friends and drink, and not have to worry about being hit on, except perhaps by the odd lesbian.

        I’d be willing to bet the establishment owners make exceptions for their regulars, but just want to keep it advertised that it’s pretty much a gay-only establishment.

        1. I’d love to take that bet, as I believe it’s morally wrong to miss an opportunity to seperate a fool from his money (other than through force or fraud, of course).

          Depends on the time and place. I’ve been part of the subculture for over 30 years, mostly in VA and DC.

          Your experience is what, exactly?

          1. I’ve been to gay bars that my brother frequented in philly and NY that were supposedly “gays only.” One look and they had me pegged as a hetero, yet my brother still managed to talk them into letting me stay and drink while he tried to blow random guys.

            1. I also now realize that in text that may sound like I’m trying to be condescending to gays or something, but I’m not. That was really his goal: to blow random dudes.

              1. Q: What do two gay guys do on their second date?

                A: What second date?

              2. That was really his goal: to blow random dudes.

                what kind of weirdo only blows dadaists and schizos?

    2. can a hetero guy “pass” at a gay bar and get other guys to buy him drinks for free?

      1. You, sir, have obviously never been to a gay bar.

        No. I don’t believe it’s possible to “pass” as gay being hetero. Unless you’re a *really* good actor.

        1. so i bought a feather boa for nothing?

      2. They can pick up immediately that you’re not gay, and after that you’ll be lucky if the bartender serves you.

      3. Are you attractive and open to fondling?

  18. BTW, IIRC, back when my friends were all getting married and shit, we used to go to a male strip club for bachelorette parties and the did not allow men (except the strippers and DJ and pimpish MC, fo course) before 11pm. I thought the “right to refuse service” was still alive and well, but I guess not.

    1. It is OK to not allow men. Just as it is OK to not allow whites. Or breeders.

      It’s when you disallow women, non-whites, or homos that it becomes a problem.

  19. There go my plans for a ressurection of the He-Man Woman Haters Club

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBIC8JTQMMQ

    1. There’s the Diogenes Club (fictional, from Sherlock Holmes), which goes well beyond excluding women:

      There are many men in London, you know, who, some from shyness, some from misanthropy, have no wish for the company of their fellows. Yet they are not averse to comfortable chairs and the latest periodicals. It is for the convenience of these that the Diogenes Club was started, and it now contains the most unsociable and unclubable men in town. No member is permitted to take the least notice of any other one. Save in the Stranger’s Room, no talking is, under any circumstances, allowed, and three offences, if brought to the notice of the committee, render the talker liable to expulsion. My brother was one of the founders, and I have myself found it a very soothing atmosphere.

      1. That sounds like my kinda club!

  20. Isn’t it a private business? So can’t they decide who is allowed in and who is not?

    lolwut

  21. This is pretty amazing. I wonder if heads will implode while trying to decide whether gays should be allowed to have a gay bar or whether women should be allowed to drink in a gay bar.

    Of course, they could just charge females a $100 cover after 11 pm and have the same effect.

  22. Let’s go back to the time where the bitches, fags, niggers, chinks and spics were kept in their place and us white straight men could do what we want.

    1. Oh whiny troll is whinny. Going to tell us about the agricultural city state now? Is your 96 hour court ordered confinement up?

    2. Let’s go back to the time where the bitches, fags, niggers, chinks and spics were kept in their place and us white straight men could do what we want.

      Yes by all means lets not allow people to associate with whom they choose! Instead let’s force them together to make you feel better about yourself.

      Dickless!

      1. Government-sanctioned or mandated discrimination is wrong.

        1. By “sanctioned”, you mean . . . ?

          1. I mean the government is actively involved in the discrimination, short of overt laws. Like not prosecuting white guys who kill black guys or stuff like that.

            Of course, this rationale can be taken too far. I’m more concerned about laws that deny people equal legal rights.

    3. In case you have not read the article, this is a battle between the bitches and the fags. Us oppressors are too busy oppressing someone else right now.

      1. We’re all down in Florida, using our guns to keep the black man down.

    1. Thin women are the enemy of fat women everywhere.

      1. Yes, because over-eating is somehow not an eating disorder.

      2. From what I’ve seen, women are the enemy of women everywhere.

        1. +1

          The caption on the photo =

          At the Oscars, Angelina Jolie came under fire for her thin frame

          No offense to ladies… but that shit is pure bitch-stupid.

          Oh, and it just gets stupider by the line… seriously… one sentence in…

          This week, Israel passed a law banning models from advertisements or fashion shows if they measure less than 18.5 on the body mass index (BMI). It’s part of an effort to promote health for women of all sizes, and to stop glorifying the ultra-thin.

          1. We were only trying to make Jewish women more beautiful.

    2. Damn, I thought that was going to be a Kate Moss pic.

      1. Here you go:

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..azine.html

        NSFW

        1. Er, it’s my business. And that’s very work appropriate.

        2. Meh. I prefer a bit more bounce in my biotch.

        3. Thanks — long time since I’ve seen some new Kates. Wonder why her trademark mole is missing from her breast in the top photo — airbrushed out for some reason?

          My favorite insatiable ex from 20 years ago bore a lot of resemblance to Kate, at least in my memory. She actually looks more like Kate all the time in my recollections, actually.

  23. Wangs. LOL

    1. Do they serve cream of sum yung gai?

    2. There’s a place in Philadelphia called “Woody’s,” if it’s still around.

  24. The Illinois Department of Human Rights is investigating Wang’s, a gay bar in Chicago. A sign on the wall says “Men Only After 11 p.m.,” and authorities are looking into whether the bar discriminates against women.

    I wonder if there will be another Soledad O’Brien-Rand Paul debate about this now.

  25. But would they allow a trans-woman cis-male self-identified gay functional lesbian in?

    1. I can’t even figure out what such a person would be, anatomically or otherwise. Well done!

      1. If I understand all the terms correctly it is a male-to-female tranny who still identifies as a gay male but has sex with women. Although it’s hard to think past my heteronormativity.

        1. So, in other words, someone who can’t make up their fucking mind.

          1. I’d call that omnisexual.

        2. trans-woman cis-male is contradictory and self-identified gay functional lesbian is redundant.

          1. I suppose that’s what I get for being gender-normal.

  26. Have the wiped out the scourge of “Ladies’ Night” yet? Talk about discrimination!

  27. This story has enriched me. I now add “fruit flys” and “fag hags” to my lexicon.

    My wife particularly liked “fruit flies”, and she likes gay guys (not me, honest) so I have been calling her a fruit fly all day today.

  28. All Power to the Imagination!

  29. Well yes, homosexuality discriminates against people of a certain gender, just as heterosexuality does. Are nanny statists going to enforce mandatory bisexuality?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.