It seems my destined role on OS is outreach to the homosexually challenged. As I see dangerous misconceptions propagating here, there, and everywhere, I feel I must speak out.

Flouncing is not primarily something one does on one's way out, unless we're talking about the closet, which while a fine example, can after all be done but once. Flouncing out is usually a misnomer, as flouncing is something one does in order to drive others out – of their minds, if not necessarily the environment. It's a way to slap those who fail to acknowledge one's fabulousness in the face without having to first acknowledge that they even exist, and as such is not so much a blogging tic as it is a critical life skill.

A certain community I often see during layovers in square state airports has a distressing tendency to take metaphors literally, which I blame on the prevalence of Christianity. When flouncing, actual ruffles are optional. The flounces are implied. It can be done in any outfit - it occurs between the hips and the shoulders with a subtle lift of the chin, and requires the ability to smile seductively yet enigmatically without parting the lips. Flouncing says, “It's been lovely, but two hallucinogen-crazed underwear models, a horse trainer, and a lubricated boxing glove are waiting for me in the confessional of a nearby Catholic church.”

Couture can be helpful, but certainly isn't required. An accomplished flouncer can carry it off in a dog collar, jockstrap, and raccoon tail buttplug. (I have the pictures to prove this, but given the recent hysteria over delightful furry creatures humping each other, there's probably no point in trying to post them.)

Literally flouncing out is of course extremely risky and best left to a few sublime practioners of the art. To be successful, it requires that all present remain utterly obsessed with the flouncer even after she or he is gone. Ideally, those so flounced give up and go home to commit suicide, there being no point to continued existence in the flouncer's absence.

Gay legend has it that the Supreme Queen once flounced a nightclub in Manhattan so effectively that it went under the next day. Subsequent efforts to run a business on the site failed, eventually necessitating demolition of the building.

The Ultimate Flounce should be regarded as a weapon of mass destruction and not used lightly. Remember: what flounces around, comes around.