It's a matter of perception. I have met many Americans, some dumber than the Montanan, some smarter....but most had the US-centric blinders that crippled their world view. On this forum, I see much blind patriotism, a modicum of intelligence, but little learnedness.

True but you have to think of them like divorced parents of kids....

They tend to over compensate due to guilt.

Most of these blind X-patriots feel some need to cheer lead the action of the country they abandoned...eases their perceived guilt for what ever reasons.

They then in turn jump on folks actually living in the USA who speak out against an obvious flawed Foreign Policy.

As is our right/duty as citizens living here.

They make the silly assumption it is a hatred towards their country which shows they have also abandoned/forgotten that it is a true patriots spirit/duty to keep their own government/Constitution inline with what/who it is suppose to represent.

They now believe from their detached existence in another country that blind patriotism constitutes loyalty

Certainly that is national stereotyping, Harcourt posted “ Americans are, as a rule of thumb, very patriotic, to the point of being blind to the faults of their own country.” One, I am surprised it is acceptable posting behavior and two I am surprised you believe it. One only needs to look at the end of the war in Vietnam. America got out of Vietnam because the American people protested in the streets against the will of their government and insisted on getting our of Vietnam. I would imagine the same thing will happen in Afghanistan. Currently the approval rating of the President is down to 40%. That is 60% of Americans don't approve of their President. America right now is a very polarized country on many issues such as immigration, drugs, education and foreign involvement.

I could go on and on but I am sure my reasoned arguments or historical examples would fall on your deaf anti American ears so I will stop and only request that you look a bit closer at the facts instead of your stereotypical preconceived ideas.

Certainly that is national stereotyping, Harcourt posted “ Americans are, as a rule of thumb, very patriotic, to the point of being blind to the faults of their own country.” One, I am surprised it is acceptable posting behavior and two I am surprised you believe it. One only needs to look at the end of the war in Vietnam. America got out of Vietnam because the American people protested in the streets against the will of their government and insisted on getting our of Vietnam. I would imagine the same thing will happen in Afghanistan. Currently the approval rating of the President is down to 40%. That is 60% of Americans don't approve of their President. America right now is a very polarized country on many issues such as immigration, drugs, education and foreign involvement.

I could go on and on but I am sure my reasoned arguments or historical examples would fall on your deaf anti American ears so I will stop and only request that you look a bit closer at the facts instead of your stereotypical preconceived ideas.

Always with the same old crying towel eh?

Anti American....pffft..get some new material

Yes the folks protesting the Afghan/Iraq wars are not the blind x-pats Harcourt referred to are they?

Those instead bleat support of anything & call everything else anti American....never once realizing it is they/you that are the anti Americans.

Hopefully your right about Afghanistan & it is a he11 of a lot sooner than Nam & a he11 of a lot less wasted young lives & billions of $$$

Certain high IQ societies, like Mensa, the Prometheus Society and the Triple Nine Society, use scores from certain years as one of their admission tests. For instance, the Triple Nine Society accepts scores of 1450 on tests taken before April 1995, and scores of at least 1520 on tests taken between April 1995 and February 2005.

This seems to suggest that someone knows the difficulty level of the tests and they are getting eaiser.

Perhaps, since you seem to know could you tell us how to evaluate the test scores by year?

No.

I was simply saying that the test you did was different, therefore the results show something different. Apples/Pears

It seems from your post that The Triple Nine Society have recognised this too....unfortunately, you didn't.

Do you really think that the engineers who work for Bill Gates and NASA today are dumber than the engineers who worked for IBM in the 1970's?

Do you really think the code breakers who worked at Bletchley Park are smarter than the code breakers who work at NSA today?

It's a matter of perception. I have met many Americans, some dumber than the Montanan, some smarter....but most had the US-centric blinders that crippled their world view. On this forum, I see much blind patriotism, a modicum of intelligence, but little learnedness.

True but you have to think of them like divorced parents of kids....

They tend to over compensate due to guilt.

Most of these blind X-patriots feel some need to cheer lead the action of the country they abandoned...eases their perceived guilt for what ever reasons.

They then in turn jump on folks actually living in the USA who speak out against an obvious flawed Foreign Policy.

As is our right/duty as citizens living here.

They make the silly assumption it is a hatred towards their country which shows they have also abandoned/forgotten that it is a true patriots spirit/duty to keep their own government/Constitution inline with what/who it is suppose to represent.

They now believe from their detached existence in another country that blind patriotism constitutes loyalty

I was responding to Harcourts statement, “Americans are, as a rule of thumb, very patriotic, to the point of being blind to the faults of their own country.” That statement is false and any examination of fact would prove it false.

I can't speak for anyone else. I live in Thailand because I like Thai women. I am not married and I like lots of Thai women. I like lots of different Thai women. I said , I am not married and I think that's OK.

American vs English or Australian universities? I think there is enough comparative information available. American university standards then and now? Check the SAT scores.

The SAT is taken before being admitted to university.

I mentioned the SAT scores because it is the only general measure of inter generational education that I know of. The others like LASAT scores dealing with law school admissions or GRE dealing with graduate school admissions are more specific to area of study. From what I can gather although there has been some changes in the test, there has not been a significant gain or drop in education/intelligence of students entering college in the past 40 years.

I compared my SAT scores to my daughters SAT scores and her classmates SAT scores to get an idea of her intelligence/education relative to mine and her prep school relative to my prep school. My youngest daughter was smarter than I as were her classmates. My children all took IQ tests at a very young age as it was a requirement to enter the schools I wanted them to attend.

here's the problem with SAT scores mark. Previously the SAT test was used as an indication of one's breadth of learning. Specifically in Math and English subjects. These days SAT scores more tend to reflect how well one has prepared for taking the SAT test. My kids are in the "British" school system here but a full 2months is spent prepping them for IGCSE's and A levels examinations. It has become necessary because that is what many other schools do and if the school doesn't do the same their examination scores will reflect poorly on the school and the student. I wish none of that were the case but that is the reality of "education" today.

Certain high IQ societies, like Mensa, the Prometheus Society and the Triple Nine Society, use scores from certain years as one of their admission tests. For instance, the Triple Nine Society accepts scores of 1450 on tests taken before April 1995, and scores of at least 1520 on tests taken between April 1995 and February 2005.

This seems to suggest that someone knows the difficulty level of the tests and they are getting eaiser.

Perhaps, since you seem to know could you tell us how to evaluate the test scores by year?

No.

I was simply saying that the test you did was different, therefore the results show something different. Apples/Pears

It seems from your post that The Triple Nine Society have recognised this too....unfortunately, you didn't.

Do you really think that the engineers who work for Bill Gates and NASA today are dumber than the engineers who worked for IBM in the 1970's?

Do you really think the code breakers who worked at Bletchley Park are smarter than the code breakers who work at NSA today?

No, of course not. What has actual intelligence to do with the numerical scores of differing tests for intelligence?

To say I scored xxxxx in one test, and you scored yyyy in another is not decisive about our respectrive inteliigences.

Perhaps this discourse could be a litmus test of general comprehension.

Certain high IQ societies, like Mensa, the Prometheus Society and the Triple Nine Society, use scores from certain years as one of their admission tests. For instance, the Triple Nine Society accepts scores of 1450 on tests taken before April 1995, and scores of at least 1520 on tests taken between April 1995 and February 2005.

This seems to suggest that someone knows the difficulty level of the tests and they are getting eaiser.

Perhaps, since you seem to know could you tell us how to evaluate the test scores by year?

No.

I was simply saying that the test you did was different, therefore the results show something different. Apples/Pears

It seems from your post that The Triple Nine Society have recognised this too....unfortunately, you didn't.

Do you really think that the engineers who work for Bill Gates and NASA today are dumber than the engineers who worked for IBM in the 1970's?

Do you really think the code breakers who worked at Bletchley Park are smarter than the code breakers who work at NSA today?

No, of course not. What has actual intelligence to do with the numerical scores of differing tests for intelligence?

To say I scored xxxxx in one test, and you scored yyyy in another is not decisive about our respectrive inteliigences.

Perhaps this discourse could be a litmus test of general comprehension.

Because the SAT scores have not changed much in 40 years. If the intelligence has not changed that would seem to support the scores not changing. Mean scores.

1972 530 509

1973 523 506

1974 521 505

1975 512 498

1976 509 497

1977 507 496

1978 507 494

1979 505 493

1980 502 492

1981 502 492

1982 504 493

1983 503 494

1984 504 497

1985 509 500

1986 509 500

1987 507 501

1988 505 501

1989 504 502

1990 500 501

1991 499 500

1992 500 501

1993 500 503

1994 499 504

1995 504 506

1996 505 508

1997 505 511

1998 505 512

1999 505 511

2000 505 514

2001 506 514

2002 504 516

2003 507 519

2004 508 518

2005 508 520

2006 503 518

2007 502 515

2008 502 515

No.

I was simply saying that the test you did was different, therefore the results show something different. Apples/Pears

It seems from your post that The Triple Nine Society have recognised this too....unfortunately, you didn't.

Do you really think that the engineers who work for Bill Gates and NASA today are dumber than the engineers who worked for IBM in the 1970's?

Do you really think the code breakers who worked at Bletchley Park are smarter than the code breakers who work at NSA today?

No, of course not. What has actual intelligence to do with the numerical scores of differing tests for intelligence?

To say I scored xxxxx in one test, and you scored yyyy in another is not decisive about our respectrive inteliigences.

Perhaps this discourse could be a litmus test of general comprehension.

Because the SAT scores have not changed much in 40 years. If the intelligence has not changed that would seem to support the scores not changing. Mean scores.

1972 530 509

1973 523 506

1974 521 505

1975 512 498

1976 509 497

1977 507 496

1978 507 494

1979 505 493

1980 502 492

1981 502 492

1982 504 493

1983 503 494

1984 504 497

1985 509 500

1986 509 500

1987 507 501

1988 505 501

1989 504 502

1990 500 501

1991 499 500

1992 500 501

1993 500 503

1994 499 504

1995 504 506

1996 505 508

1997 505 511

1998 505 512

1999 505 511

2000 505 514

2001 506 514

2002 504 516

2003 507 519

2004 508 518

2005 508 520

2006 503 518

2007 502 515

2008 502 515

thanks for that Mark. Your post has me suddenly feeling very good about myself.

No.

I was simply saying that the test you did was different, therefore the results show something different. Apples/Pears

It seems from your post that The Triple Nine Society have recognised this too....unfortunately, you didn't.

Do you really think that the engineers who work for Bill Gates and NASA today are dumber than the engineers who worked for IBM in the 1970's?

Do you really think the code breakers who worked at Bletchley Park are smarter than the code breakers who work at NSA today?

No, of course not. What has actual intelligence to do with the numerical scores of differing tests for intelligence?

To say I scored xxxxx in one test, and you scored yyyy in another is not decisive about our respectrive inteliigences.

Perhaps this discourse could be a litmus test of general comprehension.

Because the SAT scores have not changed much in 40 years. If the intelligence has not changed that would seem to support the scores not changing. Mean scores.

1972 530 509

1973 523 506

1974 521 505

1975 512 498

1976 509 497

1977 507 496

1978 507 494

1979 505 493

1980 502 492

1981 502 492

1982 504 493

1983 503 494

1984 504 497

1985 509 500

1986 509 500

1987 507 501

1988 505 501

1989 504 502

1990 500 501

1991 499 500

1992 500 501

1993 500 503

1994 499 504

1995 504 506

1996 505 508

1997 505 511

1998 505 512

1999 505 511

2000 505 514

2001 506 514

2002 504 516

2003 507 519

2004 508 518

2005 508 520

2006 503 518

2007 502 515

2008 502 515

Sorry Mark, I'm not following your logic: You present figures from 1972 onwards, when we are talking about YOUR SAT score ( which I have assumed was taken prior to 1972) compared to your daughter's (which I assume was taken after that). Are you saying that the same test was given over the generations?

Reply to Harcourt re SAT. I was speaking in general, not me specifically. If we accept the fact than engineers have not gotten dumber or smarter over the last 40 years then we would expect the mean scores on the test not to have changed much. If people have gotten dumber and the test scores remain the same or if people have gotten smarter and the test scores remain the same then the test must have changed.

I hope this explains what I was trying to say.

Back to the topic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081029121826.htm

Homosexual Men Have Lower Incomes Than Heterosexual Men.

A new study in the Canadian Journal of Economics provides the first evidence on sexual orientation and economic outcomes in Canada. The study found that gay men have 12 percent lower personal incomes and lesbians have 15 percent higher personal incomes than heterosexual men and women.

Would this be different in the US?

"Like previous patterns found in the U.S. and the U.K., results show that gay men have significantly lower personal incomes than similarly situated straight individuals, while lesbians have significantly higher personal incomes than straight women.

Also, similar to gay and straight differences in the U.S., gay men and lesbians in Canada are more likely to live in urban areas and more highly educated than heterosexuals in Canada."

Soi there you go - you're all right. We are poor but we're not stupid.

Some attacks are getting a little too personal. The problem with allowing a topic to stay too far from the OP is that people start using it to make their personal agenda known.

So now that we know some of you are anti-American, you can stop. Your point has been made.

This is about the military, I know, but it would seem that gay men face wage discrimination, if what Endure posted is true.

It's most likely more to do with work place discrimination when it comes to promotion.

Minorities like certain ethnic groups and the disabled have similar problems.

Often employers and overseers will ignore the best qualified if they consider that person brings "other baggage" to the job.

Women have had to put up with this time out of mind.

"Like previous patterns found in the U.S. and the U.K., results show that gay men have significantly lower personal incomes than similarly situated straight individuals, while lesbians have significantly higher personal incomes than straight women.

Also, similar to gay and straight differences in the U.S., gay men and lesbians in Canada are more likely to live in urban areas and more highly educated than heterosexuals in Canada."

Soi there you go - you're all right. We are poor but we're not stupid.

Mightn't the wage discrepency be more likely a result of the number of dependants a straight or gay worker has to support? Likewise for the women, might not straight women have children to care for, rather than be employed? If you saw how the gay DINKs skewed housing prices in SanFrancisco you might think my theory had some merit.

"Like previous patterns found in the U.S. and the U.K., results show that gay men have significantly lower personal incomes than similarly situated straight individuals, while lesbians have significantly higher personal incomes than straight women.

Also, similar to gay and straight differences in the U.S., gay men and lesbians in Canada are more likely to live in urban areas and more highly educated than heterosexuals in Canada."

Soi there you go - you're all right. We are poor but we're not stupid.

Mightn't the wage discrepency be more likely a result of the number of dependants a straight or gay worker has to support? Likewise for the women, might not straight women have children to care for, rather than be employed? If you saw how the gay DINKs skewed housing prices in SanFrancisco you might think my theory had some merit.

If that's the case wouldn't a gay male have a higher personal income rather than a lower?

I lived in SF for a number of years and I hardly think the gays had much to do with the price of houses there.

So employers are allowed to set the wage according to the number of dependents a person has? I think there would be a rather widespread uproar if that were routinely done.

It seems like a case of discrimination, unless someone has some other idea of why that would be. As one poster said, it may be a matter of them having extra 'baggage', but it still sounds discriminatory.

I lived in SF for a number of years and I hardly think the gays had much to do with the price of houses there.

So employers are allowed to set the wage according to the number of dependents a person has? I think there would be a rather widespread uproar if that were routinely done.

It seems like a case of discrimination, unless someone has some other idea of why that would be. As one poster said, it may be a matter of them having extra 'baggage', but it still sounds discriminatory.

and this is the biggest problem with EOE and PC because in business a discriminatory decisions need to be made and these laws just make it more difficult to survive and turn a profit. imo

"Like previous patterns found in the U.S. and the U.K., results show that gay men have significantly lower personal incomes than similarly situated straight individuals, while lesbians have significantly higher personal incomes than straight women.

Also, similar to gay and straight differences in the U.S., gay men and lesbians in Canada are more likely to live in urban areas and more highly educated than heterosexuals in Canada."

Soi there you go - you're all right. We are poor but we're not stupid.

Mightn't the wage discrepency be more likely a result of the number of dependants a straight or gay worker has to support? Likewise for the women, might not straight women have children to care for, rather than be employed? If you saw how the gay DINKs skewed housing prices in SanFrancisco you might think my theory had some merit.

If that's the case wouldn't a gay male have a higher personal income rather than a lower?

My point was that they may not be driven as much to earn a greater income as their expenses are less than those who only have themselves to care for. Sometimes parents have to work two jobs to get by. OK, maybe it's <deleted> but it makes a certain amount of sense to me.

So, in so many words, gay men are lazier than their straight counterparts? I highly doubt it and my experience doesn't support that idea. It is, however, a point to consider. Personally, I would wonder if gay men aren't more likely to change jobs, move, etc.. These things might mean not making the same advancements that people who remain in 'stable' employment enjoy.

....or there could be one of those invisible ceilings that just doesn't let them be a part of the old boys network.

So, in so many words, gay men are lazier than their straight counterparts? I highly doubt it and my experience doesn't support that idea. It is, however, a point to consider. Personally, I would wonder if gay men aren't more likely to change jobs, move, etc.. These things might mean not making the same advancements that people who remain in 'stable' employment enjoy.

....or there could be one of those invisible ceilings that just doesn't let them be a part of the old boys network.

How'd you get that from what I posted?

Anyhow my point is they don't need to earn as much. They' less likely as a croup to be putting tons away for the kids education and first car and braces and....

Just checking. I wasn't sure if that's what you meant.

"Like previous patterns found in the U.S. and the U.K., results show that gay men have significantly lower personal incomes than similarly situated straight individuals, while lesbians have significantly higher personal incomes than straight women.

Also, similar to gay and straight differences in the U.S., gay men and lesbians in Canada are more likely to live in urban areas and more highly educated than heterosexuals in Canada."

Soi there you go - you're all right. We are poor but we're not stupid.

Mightn't the wage discrepency be more likely a result of the number of dependants a straight or gay worker has to support? Likewise for the women, might not straight women have children to care for, rather than be employed? If you saw how the gay DINKs skewed housing prices in SanFrancisco you might think my theory had some merit.

If that's the case wouldn't a gay male have a higher personal income rather than a lower?

My point was that they may not be driven as much to earn a greater income as their expenses are less than those who only have themselves to care for. Sometimes parents have to work two jobs to get by. OK, maybe it's <deleted> but it makes a certain amount of sense to me.

Sorry - I misunderstood. Sounds quite sensible to me too. I'd never be able to manage a family on what I earn but it keeps me happy (ish). So what's the explanation for the richer than straight lesbians then?

Lesbians pose an interesting question in the whole salary scenario. I think that by and large, lesbians are left alone and they tend to be a little less noticeable than gay men. For women, their greatest sin is having sex with men outside of marriage. At least that is what society and religion seem to think. I believe it was queen Victoria who, when she outlawed male-male sex, said that 'if there is no penis, there is no sex,' or something to that affect.

If one follows some of the possible scenarios, then lesbians are well placed to be successful in the market place. First, they are less likely to marry and have children. They are, therefore, more likely to work. They are likely to have less interruptions to that work (maternity leave-child rearing). Women in general are more content to stay put as well. Men are mobile. From young boys onward into adulthood, men are more likely to move, explore and change their environment.

Females in general and I would assume this includes lesbians, tend to do better in school. They can attend to mundane tasks for longer and better than men. They stay put, unless they are following a husband or a man. Thus, they would likely be better placed to advance through the ranks in the workplace at about the same rate as straight men.

Just a theory.

Val McDermid is my favourite lesbian.

Lesbians pose an interesting question in the whole salary scenario. I think that by and large, lesbians are left alone and they tend to be a little less noticeable than gay men. For women, their greatest sin is having sex with men outside of marriage. At least that is what society and religion seem to think. I believe it was queen Victoria who, when she outlawed male-male sex, said that 'if there is no penis, there is no sex,' or something to that affect.

If one follows some of the possible scenarios, then lesbians are well placed to be successful in the market place. First, they are less likely to marry and have children. They are, therefore, more likely to work. They are likely to have less interruptions to that work (maternity leave-child rearing). Women in general are more content to stay put as well. Men are mobile. From young boys onward into adulthood, men are more likely to move, explore and change their environment.

Females in general and I would assume this includes lesbians, tend to do better in school. They can attend to mundane tasks for longer and better than men. They stay put, unless they are following a husband or a man. Thus, they would likely be better placed to advance through the ranks in the workplace at about the same rate as straight men.

Just a theory.

It is difficult to know how to treat lesbians. There is not just one type and sometimes with youth sexual orientation can change like the wind.

There is the tomboy type who just wants to be treated like one of the guys. That's easy. They objectify women and are just like another crude, primitive male straight guy.

There are also the tomboy types who hate men and those with penis envy problems. And the feminist ones and the radical feminist ones. Then there are the lesbians who don't like straight women, “ladies, there's 6 miles of cock out there and you are not going to get one inch of it till basic training is over.” (I heard this while I was in the army at Ft Knox.)

Then there are the professional army nurse lesbians and officer corps lesbians.

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Great_War_Nurses_2/Hirschfeld_Nurses_01.htm

"In the rather modest circle of activity which was alloted to them, their eagerness for fire made insatiable demands that were only satisfied when they had one transport of wounded after another and they were sad and jealous when the nearby service station had more customers than they. Even more significant is the attraction exercised upon all alike by the tragedy-laden atmosphere of the operating room. It was their highest desire to attend operations and in this they were absolutely blind and deaf to the worst sort of impacts upon their senses, the groans of the wounded, the moans of agony, they never for a moment lost their cold-bloodymindedness or skill.

End of quote.

This whole subject brings up the discussion of how women have been treated during war and how they will be treated.

One hand you have much historical evidence that women are sadists, see Casanova's stories of the execution of Damien and on the other hand the unsuitability of women in combat positions because of their susceptibility to rape.

It is too bad, but I don't think TV has any lesbians commenting in OTB. I think most of the straight men here would defer to the opinions of the gay guys but I feel it is rather odd to have a lesbian agenda promulgated by straight women. Odd and not really accurate. I mean, wouldn't it be silly to have straight men being the spokesperson for gay guys? It would be like me telling Jingthing how he felt or thought. I might be correct but I think he would rather voice his own opinion.

So at best we can only get anecdotal evidence from women who have known lesbians rather than hearing from the horse's mouth, as it were.

In my own experience in hiring women, I can remember personally a couple of thousand, I have not found much difference between lesbian and non lesbian education, intelligence or job longevity. The lesbians also had partners who moved them around. When I taught in college the lesbians didn't seem any more motivated than normal women or better at repetitive tasks.

In the restaurant or bar business you can't seem to tell much difference unless you get more than 1/3 of your employees being gay or lesbian. At the 1/3 level there seems to be a change and customers identify your operation as a gay bar or lesbian bar. Especially if the lesbian chicks wear leather and chains and have a lot of visible piercings. Same thing if one were to hire 1/3 lady boys. If 30 out of a staff of 100 are dressed in drag it is a giveaway that it might be a lady boy bar.

Thanks, Marky, Just a couple of minor points. I wasn't suggesting that lesbians are better at repetitive tasks, but that women in general are. A lot of factory bosses, for example, much prefer female rather than male employees.

My experience with lesbians is limited. Unlike gay males, it's easier for them to stay 'in the closet', if they chose. Single males who aren't actively dating or married are suspect. Girls who aren't are pitied a little and seen as being a good girl. The ones I have known in the working world were professionals and they did stay longer in their jobs and when they left, it was for advancement, similar to straight males. I have never known of a lesbian who was fired for being suspected of being a lesbian. I know gay males who have.

Thanks, Marky, Just a couple of minor points. I wasn't suggesting that lesbians are better at repetitive tasks, but that women in general are. A lot of factory bosses, for example, much prefer female rather than male employees.

My experience with lesbians is limited. Unlike gay males, it's easier for them to stay 'in the closet', if they chose. Single males who aren't actively dating or married are suspect. Girls who aren't are pitied a little and seen as being a good girl. The ones I have known in the working world were professionals and they did stay longer in their jobs and when they left, it was for advancement, similar to straight males. I have never known of a lesbian who was fired for being suspected of being a lesbian. I know gay males who have.

I can tell you definitively about blood, guts, females and repetitive tasks. Yup without a doubt I know this to be true.

Female piecework butchers make more money than male piecework butchers. They are quicker, more accurate and tire less easily. The male butchers do the heavy work of splitting the primal cuts but when it comes to cutting steaks the females are better and quicker.

This however contradicts the medical profession where the overwhelming numbers of surgeons are male.

Perhaps when killing things the female is better and keeping them alive men are better. I don't know.

I think there is room for a Delta Force of lesbians. I think if you showed them some of the things Muslim men do to women in the Middle East and Africa, like genital mutilation and the acid throwing stuff they would be unstoppable.

If we are getting all this sexuality stuff out in the open might as well take advantage of it.

I used to run the food service department of a large department store and certain departments were always gay. No one did windows unless he was gay. Maybe straight guys can decorate a department store window but I have only seen substandard performance by anyone who tried.