Harry Styles Does Vogue Photoshoot Wearing Dresses

[Mike]

https://www.vogue.com/article/harry-styles-cover-december-2020

I'm not terribly familiar with Harry Styles; am kind of dimly aware of him like most people who aren't cavemen are. He was in a boy band, I know that. Not sure which one, but it's likely I bobbed my head to a tune or 2 from them without even knowing it. Hey, boy bands can make some catchy tunes.

I likely wouldn't have even been aware of this photo shoot had I not been an avid listener of the Ben Shapiro show, where he discussed it in length recently. I'm not even sure if it's worthy of a thread, but I'm curious to see what y'all think..

I'm of 2 minds on it:

mind number 1: who gives a f#ck?
mind number 2: maybe we should give a f#ck

Maybe some of you have seen it: he's dressed garishly in these frumpy dresses, looking quite silly in my estimation. It's all meant to "redefine" masculinity I assume..or is a symbolic middle finger to "toxic masculinity", or some such weird sh!t.

But, as Shapiro points out, maybe it's not really an attack on "toxic masculinity"; perhaps it's just an attack on masculinity, period. While the word "attack" feels a bit dramatic to me, I do think Shapiro has a point.

I'm not sure if that's what's annoying me, or if it's just that the whole thing seems affected. They're presenting Styles as some gender bending hero, someone we're supposed to laud for his "bravery" and "courage". And that's 2020 for you: men who fight in cages for a living are "toxic", and those who wear dresses are "brave". Go figure.

I'm pretty sure if it was hip and progressive to wear flannels and carhart pants and work boots, this dude would be posing in a Paul Bunyon outfit. He's doing what he's doing for hipster points, and all the inevitable pats on the head he'll get from the woke crowd, in my judgement.

On a serious note, I do fear that he is the plaything of sinister forces we're only just beginning to understand..forces that are seeking to undermine western values and invert our most basic and obvious truths.

Anyway, I suspect he'll be embarrassed by all this in the future. Meanwhile I'll be embarrassed for him.

[pueblo]

Not sure if it's an attack on toxic masculinity but it's certainly an attack on fashion!:(

https://assets.nacionrex.com/__export/1605547857149/sites/debate/img/2020/11/16/harry-styles-criticas-vestido-vogue-candance-owens_crop1605547821176.jpg_988992781.jpg

[Lunesoleil]

CHiDH8PlGRK

Normally the photographer Harry Style is French, so with the confinement in France the photographer has been replaced ... or would he have several?

B5vZ4uFobW4

:sherlock:

[Journeyman]

https://www.vogue.com/article/harry-styles-cover-december-2020

I'm not terribly familiar with Harry Styles; am kind of dimly aware of him like most people who aren't cavemen are. He was in a boy band, I know that. Not sure which one, but it's likely I bobbed my head to a tune or 2 from them without even knowing it. Hey, boy bands can make some catchy tunes.

I likely wouldn't have even been aware of this photo shoot had I not been an avid listener of the Ben Shapiro show, where he discussed it in length recently. I'm not even sure if it's worthy of a thread, but I'm curious to see what y'all think..

I'm of 2 minds on it:

mind number 1: who gives a f#ck?
mind number 2: maybe we should give a f#ck

Maybe some of you have seen it: he's dressed garishly in these frumpy dresses, looking quite silly in my estimation. It's all meant to "redefine" masculinity I assume..or is a symbolic middle finger to "toxic masculinity", or some such weird sh!t.

But, as Shapiro points out, maybe it's not really an attack on "toxic masculinity"; perhaps it's just an attack on masculinity, period. While the word "attack" feels a bit dramatic to me, I do think Shapiro has a point.

I'm not sure if that's what's annoying me, or if it's just that the whole thing seems affected. They're presenting Styles as some gender bending hero, someone we're supposed to laud for his "bravery" and "courage". And that's 2020 for you: men who fight in cages for a living are "toxic", and those who wear dresses are "brave". Go figure.

I'm pretty sure if it was hip and progressive to wear flannels and carhart pants and work boots, this dude would be posing in a Paul Bunyon outfit. He's doing what he's doing for hipster points, and all the inevitable pats on the head he'll get from the woke crowd, in my judgement.

On a serious note, I do fear that he is the plaything of sinister forces we're only just beginning to understand..forces that are seeking to undermine western values and invert our most basic and obvious truths.

Anyway, I suspect he'll be embarrassed by all this in the future. Meanwhile I'll be embarrassed for him.

I think the only way you can understand the agenda which is being pursued here is to research what the mystery schools and secret societies actually believe about androgyny. They see it as an ideal state, divine if you will. It's quite a deep subject and maybe worth a thread of its own, but if you wanted a starting point, look at the Kabbalist tree of life with its three axis. Left is female, right is male, the middle one is that which combines the two. See also the Baphomet, male and female in one. If it feels like masculinity is under attack, that's because it is. Just don't think femininity will be spared.

[Mike]

"just don't think femininity will be spared.." That's an interesting statement there Journeyman. Could you talk about that a little more? Thx

Ben's take here is brilliant. 10 mins. Highly suggested:
qO7gk7dz0_Y

[Bill Ryan]

Do also see these two interesting threads:


The Decline of Modern Man (Masculinity) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103824-The-Decline-of-Modern-Man--Masculinity-)
When men were men & women were feminine (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103824-The-Decline-of-Modern-Man--Masculinity-)

[Mike]

Do also see these two interesting threads:


The Decline of Modern Man (Masculinity) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103824-The-Decline-of-Modern-Man--Masculinity-)
When men were men & women were feminine (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103824-The-Decline-of-Modern-Man--Masculinity-)




Hi Bill, please merge if you feel it's appropriate!:thumbsup:

[Did You See Them]

Cock !

My reply was too short !

I'll say it again.

Cock !

Would love to really vent on what's wrong with "this" and all it's connected to but it's just not ever going to be a part of my life.

[Hermoor]

Well, if he's been passed around certain circles like a bowl of M and Ms and told to put on a dress for his next 'pay rise', then he wouldn't be the first.

[enfoldedblue]

To me this is an area that needs to be navigated very carefully. On the one hand there is likely an agenda to disempower and neuter masculinity and the rugged beauty and strength that comes with it.... but on the otherhand is the potential to push a stereotype that that can be toxic and damaging to the many who don't fit comfortably in the box.

30 years ago my friend... a very blokey guy... confided in me that he felt jealous of the fashion choices women had. He felt that society gave men a raw deal with an extremely narrow array of choices that were deemed acceptable for men. And he eas someone who fit quite comfortably in the social box.

So in many ways I think it is positive that men have more freedom to explore and express themselves in fashion today.

However, I feel that the problem really is that we have been heavily programmed to get our cues on how we should look from outside sources. Men are now being shoved down the road that did, and continues to do, so much damage for women. Things like manscaping and ecouraged to feel shame about body hair in wrong places etc.

Ultimately none of this would matter if everyone stopped judging eachother and we allowed each other to be free to express ourselves freely in our appearance.

[Bill Ryan]

A fun meme (from Russia :) ):

http://projectavalon.net/European_and_Russian_girls.jpg

[Journeyman]

"just don't think femininity will be spared.." That's an interesting statement there Journeyman. Could you talk about that a little more? Thx

At the risk of sounding nuts :waving:, the same reason that both towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed...

The goal isn't simply to destroy masculinity. It's to elevate 'divine androgyny'. That means Harry Styles in a dress, but it also means female icons in male attire.

Look at 'One World Trade Center'

https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/1wtc_overall2_mg.jpg

Do you get the impression that there are alternate triangles, going up and going down? See here:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/44/a6/2f/44a62fc20063f735a235e3fb77a9b3a9.jpg

or here:
http://www.celestialights.com/Crystal_Star_of_David/a_stardaviddrawing2_2.gif

See how the upward symbolises male, downward female?

You can't build One World Trade Center and the giant 'Oculus' eye that adjoins it without destroying the two towers that preceded it. You can't 'ascend' to divine androgyny on Earth without destroying both Masculinity and Femininity.

The Hollyweird thread taught me a lot. Look at the role models that young girls and women are presented with. Miley Cyrus etc. Look at the storylines Hollywood favours. The elite are working to an agenda and perhaps a timetable.

[Constance]

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

[Journeyman]

At the risk of sounding nuts :waving:, the same reason that both towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed...

The goal isn't simply to destroy masculinity. It's to elevate 'divine androgyny'. That means Harry Styles in a dress, but it also means female icons in male attire.

Look at 'One World Trade Center'

https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/1wtc_overall2_mg.jpg

Do you get the impression that there are alternate triangles, going up and going down? See here:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/44/a6/2f/44a62fc20063f735a235e3fb77a9b3a9.jpg

or here:
http://www.celestialights.com/Crystal_Star_of_David/a_stardaviddrawing2_2.gif

See how the upward symbolises male, downward female?

You can't build One World Trade Center and the giant 'Oculus' eye that adjoins it without destroying the two towers that preceded it. You can't 'ascend' to divine androgyny on Earth without destroying both Masculinity and Femininity.

The Hollyweird thread taught me a lot. Look at the role models that young girls and women are presented with. Miley Cyrus etc. Look at the storylines Hollywood favours. The elite are working to an agenda and perhaps a timetable.

Not nuts at all. :flower: There has definitely been an attempted perversion and inversion of our masculine and feminine energies.

The thing is, we are here to fully embody and express all of our masculine and feminine energies so that we can experience a heaven-on-earth, right here, right now.

Anything less than that expression is an insult to our souls and can be ignored.

We won't create a new paradigm by placing our focus and energies on the old. If we want to have peace and create a heaven-on-earth for ourselves, we have to broadcast another kind of energy, one that doesn't resist evil (for whatever we resist persists), rather, one that runs towards new possibilities and potentials.
:heart:


That's interesting. Thank you :flower:

My instinctive response to this is to highlight it, analyse and deconstruct it. I find it hard to ignore, because I worry about where it may be heading, be it enforced vaccinations or 5G etc.

However I've for a long time eschewed the spiritual view and am very much a beginner in this area.

So I have a lot to learn!

[Gracy]

I'm of 2 minds on it:

mind number 1: who gives a f#ck?
mind number 2: maybe we should give a f#ck


Hey Mike, check me into the "who gives a f#ck" category. I heard the Candice Owens/Ben Shapiro take yesterday, and all I could think was with all the stuff going on in the world, especially here in the year from hell 2020, don't y'all have better places to be focusing your energies than this ever ongoing culture war?

I remember my dad telling me how shocked his parents were, when they first saw a very young Elvis writhing his hips.

And I remember my parent's generation being shocked when David Bowie posed in a dress.

We will always have rough burly men, we will always have men in the middle somewhere, we will always have feminine gay men, and we will always have men of more an artsy fartsy persuasion that may do things just as a fashion statement, they really like it, or whatever.

There's a reporter for a small town newspaper near me that wears a dress wherever he goes. He's a very blubbery, overweight, very non attractive man in his 50's, and I always have winced when seeing him out and about doing his job in something that looks like little more than a frilly gaudy night gown.

But you know what? At the end of the day, I'm still like so f#cking what. That's him, that's his thing no matter how utterly ridiculous he looks with those shaved stocky man legs in heels. He was obviously born with that peculiar penchant, he's brave enough not to hide it, so I say have at it, I've got bigger fish to fry that clutch my pearls that he may be a part of ruining masculine society.

There will always be more men born like that, but there will always be many more me born into the macho Paul Bunyan type of role. I think we should let people be who they are (we don't have to celebrate it!), just like we all finally accepted that David Bowie thought it was cool to sport a dress. Again, so f#cking what...

Life will go on, the republic will not fall over guys in dresses.

[Deborah (ahamkara)]

I do remember Dave Chapelle years ago talking about how he was heavily pressured to dress in women’s clothes for a skit..He resisted, and finally was told by an exasperated executive “Just put on the dress, Dave!” Dave left Hollywood soon after, for his time in Africa.
There is a long tradition in Hollywood to have men dressed as women as a symbol of their surrender to the ruling elite. Harry in Vogue is simply a continuation - think Tony Curtis in “Some Like it Hot”, Dustin Hoffman in “Tootsie”, Robin Williams in “Mrs. Doubtfire” even Kurt Cobain in “Smells Like Teen Spirit” video.

[Mike]

I'm of 2 minds on it:

mind number 1: who gives a f#ck?
mind number 2: maybe we should give a f#ck


Hey Mike, check me into the "who gives a f#ck" category. I heard the Candice Owens/Ben Shapiro take yesterday, and all I could think was with all the stuff going on in the world, especially here in the year from hell 2020, don't y'all have better places to be focusing your energies than this ever ongoing culture war?

I remember my dad telling me how shocked his parents were, when they first saw a very young Elvis writhing his hips.

And I remember my parent's generation being shocked when David Bowie posed in a dress.

We will always have rough burly men, we will always have men in the middle somewhere, we will always have feminine gay men, and we will always have men of more an artsy fartsy persuasion that may do things just as a fashion statement, they really like it, or whatever.

There's a reporter for a small town newspaper near me that wears a dress wherever he goes. He's a very blubbery, overweight, very non attractive man in his 50's, and I always have winced when seeing him out and about doing his job in something that looks like little more than a frilly gaudy night gown.

But you know what? At the end of the day, I'm still like so f#cking what. That's him, that's his thing no matter how utterly ridiculous he looks with those shaved stocky man legs in heels. He was obviously born with that peculiar penchant, he's brave enough not to hide it, so I say have at it, I've got bigger fish to fry that clutch my pearls that he may be a part of ruining masculine society.

There will always be more men born like that, but there will always be many more me born into the macho Paul Bunyan type of role. I think we should let people be who they are (we don't have to celebrate it!), just like we all finally accepted that David Bowie thought it was cool to sport a dress. Again, so f#cking what...

Life will go on, the republic will not fall over guys in dresses.



a photoshoot in and of itself is no big deal, of course. what troubles me is that this might be a symptom of a much bigger problem.

i'm all for freedom of self expression, of doing your thing without fear of judgement and so forth. that man in your town who wears the dress, God bless him. if he's living his authentic life, and he's not harming anyone, good for him. i support that 150%.

but this gender stuff has become the exact opposite in my estimation. it presents itself as being a form of freedom, but what it's really become is a dogmatic ideology being rammed down everyone's throats. it's not about doing your thing and expressing yourself really, it's more to do with expressing yourself and demanding that everyone change their lives in order to accommodate your expression.

Elvis and Bowie didn't attempt to reinvent the language or demand they be referred to by some variation of an endless list of pronouns or some newly invented term used to denote oppression they could tack onto lgbqt....etc...etc...etc. They didn't chop off their d!cks either!:)

Bowie was genuinely playing with gender, as an entertaining experiment. When it was over a year or so later he spent the rest of his life wearing fancy suits and dating women. These kids these days aren't playing! They're serious. Deadly serious. And what they're asking us to do is forfeit objective reality in favor of their subjective delusions. If there was just one or two doing this, no biggie. But the numbers are growing exponentially and so then is the power of the delusion.

So I would say, whether the republic falls over guys in dresses all depends on how many guys in dresses there are!:)

[Gracy]

a photoshoot in and of itself is no big deal, of course. what troubles me is that this might be a symptom of a much bigger problem.

i'm all for freedom of self expression, of doing your thing without fear of judgement and so forth. that man in your town who wears the dress, God bless him. if he's living his authentic life, and he's not harming anyone, good for him. i support that 150%.

but this gender stuff has become the exact opposite in my estimation. it presents itself as being a form of freedom, but what it's really become is a dogmatic ideology being rammed down everyone's throats. it's not about doing your thing and expressing yourself really, it's more to do with expressing yourself and demanding that everyone change their lives in order to accommodate your expression.

Elvis and Bowie didn't attempt to reinvent the language or demand they be referred to by some variation of an endless list of pronouns or some newly invented term used to denote oppression they could tack onto lgbqt....etc...etc...etc. They didn't chop off their d!cks either!:)

But Mike, that's not what he's doing here. I just went back and suffered through that article, and as suspected, the kid just likes playing dress up. First his sister says he always liked to play dress up as a child:


I ask her whether her brother had always been interested in clothes.

“My mum loved to dress us up,” she remembers. “I always hated it, and Harry was always quite into it. She did some really elaborate papier-mâché outfits: She made a giant mug and then painted an atlas on it, and that was Harry being ‘The World Cup.’ Harry also had a little dalmatian-dog outfit,” she adds, “a hand-me-down from our closest family friends. He would just spend an inordinate amount of time wearing that outfit. But then Mum dressed me up as Cruella de Vil. She was always looking for any opportunity!”

“As a kid I definitely liked fancy dress,” Styles says. There were school plays, the first of which cast him as Barney, a church mouse. “I was really young, and I wore tights for that,” he recalls. “I remember it was crazy to me that I was wearing a pair of tights. And that was maybe where it all kicked off!”


And then further down he says he got his current idea of playing dress up from a friend of his 7 years ago:


He just has fun with clothing, and that’s kind of where I’ve got it from,” says Styles of Lambert. “He doesn’t take it too seriously, which means I don’t take it too seriously.” The process has been evolutionary. At his first meeting with Lambert, the stylist proposed “a pair of flares, and I was like, ‘Flares? That’s ****ing crazy,’  ” Styles remembers. Now he declares that “you can never be overdressed. There’s no such thing. The people that I looked up to in music—Prince and David Bowie and Elvis and Freddie Mercury and Elton John—they’re such showmen. As a kid it was completely mind-blowing. Now I’ll put on something that feels really flamboyant, and I don’t feel crazy wearing it. I think if you get something that you feel amazing in, it’s like a superhero outfit. Clothes are there to have fun with and experiment with and play with. What’s really exciting is that all of these lines are just kind of crumbling away. When you take away ‘There’s clothes for men and there’s clothes for women,’ once you remove any barriers, obviously you open up the arena in which you can play. I’ll go in shops sometimes, and I just find myself looking at the women’s clothes thinking they’re amazing. It’s like anything—anytime you’re putting barriers up in your own life, you’re just limiting yourself. There’s so much joy to be had in playing with clothes. I’ve never really thought too much about what it means—it just becomes this extended part of creating something.

When it comes to the whole infinite number of demanded gender blending pronouns that can change on a daily basis, or the whole encouraging young children to begin pondering their gender sort of thing, I'm right there with you. I think we'll still disagree on how pervasive it actually is, and how potentially dangerous it really is to the foundations of our overall society, but yes by all means, I agree with your sentiments on that type of thing 100%.

But again, that's not what home slice is doing here. I'm glad others like Elton John, and Freddie Mercury were mentioned, I would throw Liberace into the mix as well. Some dudes are just flamboyant, and like to play dress up. :)

I don't think he's any more a symptom of this other, very obvious problem, than these other guys mentioned, even though it wasn't around then.

Anyway, gawd that article was tough to read, I find the private lives of pop culture celebrities about as interesting as watching paint dry... :nod:

[Mike]

it's possible i'm conflating some things, admittedly. for better or worse, i'm viewing all the gender bending stuff as one homogeneous whole. but when i see an apparently straight man in a dress, a big star on a mag cover, i can't help but view that as a political statement. to me it's a statement that goes beyond a mere desire to play dress up. after all, he could just do that privately. but he's chosen this big publication.

but it may just be that my tin foil hat is too tight!:) i can see how it may look from your perspective, i really can...that perhaps i'm being paranoid, that i'm overreacting. and i respect that. there's even a voice in the back of my head that's chastising me as i write this - it's saying something like, "let it go dude. it's nothing. why so serious?" but there's another voice saying, "these things happen in steps bud, and these steps are happening right in front of your face...be wary."

i'm a gemini, what can i say? i'm of 2 minds on nearly everything.

hey, respect to you for suffering thru the article. even i didn't do that (skimmed it), and it's my bloody thread:bigsmile:

[Constance]

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

[enfoldedblue]

As the mother of a 12 year old boy I can say that I see the tough guy influence as a much more concerning cultual threat. My son and his friends show zero desire to dress or act like women. However, the push to glamourize gangster macho masculinity is strong in their world.
It disturbs me so much to see this push to see women as hos and objects to be collected. I see a push to suppress their natural care and emotions in order to try and achieve a twisted and toxic male ideal.

[Gracy]

If a man was fully in touch with his pure masculine energies and living and expressing that as a way of being, would he ever need or want dress like a woman?

But see, is every man meant to be purely masculine?


Do we have any true role models for what pure masculine energy represents or have we lost touch with what our ancient ancestors embodied?

I would offer up (former cage fighter) Joe Rogan as an example of that, one of the most followed people on this planet. I have to imagine a substantial number of young men looking at the arc of his life experience, and saying to themselves "I think I might want to be something like that guy". The epitome of masculine, yet also thinking and caring. Well balanced.

[Mike]

enfoldblue, there's quite a bit of truth in what you say, and I agree with much of it! Lots of excellent points there. But I don't think putting men in dresses and confusing the sexuality of several generations of kids with wonky, unscientific ideas about sex and gender is any kind of remedy.

Overly feminized men are weak men, not because femininity is bad but because they're sacrificing their masculinity to make room for it. Beta males are often mistaken for nice or kind males, but are in general the most dangerous kind of male there is. Their weakness makes them vulnerable to lapses in virtue. They are much more likely to lie, cheat, rape and murder than their alpha or semi-alpha counterparts.

Gracy gave a good example of a healthy male, Joe Rogan. Like most fully integrated males he carries himself with a certain grace. You know he could wreak havoc if he chose to, but being secure in his masculinity he feels no need. It's insecure males who have not integrated their masculinity that are the most toxic and dangerous, because they feel they have something to prove

[Bill Ryan]

enfoldblue, there's quite a bit of truth in what you say, and I agree with much of it! Lots of excellent points there. But I don't think putting men in dresses and confusing the sexuality of several generations of kids with wonky, unscientific ideas about sex and gender is any kind of remedy.

Overly feminized men are weak men, not because femininity is bad but because they're sacrificing their masculinity to make room for it. Beta males are often mistaken for nice or kind males, but are in general the most dangerous kind of male there is. Their weakness makes them vulnerable to lapses in virtue. They are much more likely to lie, cheat, rape and murder than their alpha or semi-alpha counterparts.

Gracy gave a good example of a healthy male, Joe Rogan. Like most fully integrated males he carries himself with a certain grace. You know he could wreak havoc if he chose to, but being secure in his masculinity he feels no need. It's insecure males who have not integrated their masculinity that are the most toxic and dangerous, because they feel they have something to prove

~~~

That's a really, really perceptive (and I believe fully accurate) post.

:sun:

[Constance]

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

[enfoldedblue]

Id love to hear from other parents who are actually seeing the results of this threat and not just expressing the fear of it. Maybe in America young boys are being manipulated by this trend. But I see zero evidence of this at school or anywhere else. I see memes and statements.... usually put out by people invested in Christianity... but no actual evidence.
In fact seeing the natural flowing testosterone in my son ... i would think it would be pretty hard to countetact the natural physiology of males with pictires of stars in dresses. I would be more concerned with diet and pollution that promotes estrogen and suppresses testosterone.

I also find it equally disturbing to speak of what a healthy male is as tjough it is one box. So anyone who doesn't fit in the box is.. unhealthy. Eeesh.

When I was a child in the 70s my best friend who lived at the farm nextdoor loved dressing up as a woman. We would fight over who got to be wonder woman in games... and if he lost out he would choose to be Jamie Summers daughter. He was and is an amazing human being who is strong and loving and caring and has created a beautiful life for himself that is rich...and may not be for everyone... but is perfect for him.

There have always been those who don't fit in boxes.

[Bill Ryan]

What I was referring to was "pure masculine energies", in other words, the purity of a mans masculine energies; what it means to embody masculine energies in its purest form.

Here's Robert Pirsig, in his brilliant and inspired Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ftp://admin_avlibbill:@142.93.203.225/public_html/public/ebooks/Robert%20Pirsig%20-%20Zen%20and%20the%20Art%20of%20Motorcycle%20Maintenance.pdf). He lists what a man should be, and what masculine energy really is.

The hero of the Odyssey is a great fighter, a wily schemer, a ready speaker, a man of stout heart and broad wisdom who knows that he must endure without too much complaining what the gods send; and he can both build and sail a boat, drive a furrow as straight as anyone, beat a young braggart at throwing the discus, challenge the Pheacian youth at boxing, wrestling or running; flay, skin, cut up and cook an ox, and be moved to tears by a song.

[Journeyman]

I'm of 2 minds on it:

mind number 1: who gives a f#ck?
mind number 2: maybe we should give a f#ck


Hey Mike, check me into the "who gives a f#ck" category. I heard the Candice Owens/Ben Shapiro take yesterday, and all I could think was with all the stuff going on in the world, especially here in the year from hell 2020, don't y'all have better places to be focusing your energies than this ever ongoing culture war?

I remember my dad telling me how shocked his parents were, when they first saw a very young Elvis writhing his hips.

And I remember my parent's generation being shocked when David Bowie posed in a dress.

We will always have rough burly men, we will always have men in the middle somewhere, we will always have feminine gay men, and we will always have men of more an artsy fartsy persuasion that may do things just as a fashion statement, they really like it, or whatever.

There's a reporter for a small town newspaper near me that wears a dress wherever he goes. He's a very blubbery, overweight, very non attractive man in his 50's, and I always have winced when seeing him out and about doing his job in something that looks like little more than a frilly gaudy night gown.

But you know what? At the end of the day, I'm still like so f#cking what. That's him, that's his thing no matter how utterly ridiculous he looks with those shaved stocky man legs in heels. He was obviously born with that peculiar penchant, he's brave enough not to hide it, so I say have at it, I've got bigger fish to fry that clutch my pearls that he may be a part of ruining masculine society.

There will always be more men born like that, but there will always be many more me born into the macho Paul Bunyan type of role. I think we should let people be who they are (we don't have to celebrate it!), just like we all finally accepted that David Bowie thought it was cool to sport a dress. Again, so f#cking what...

Life will go on, the republic will not fall over guys in dresses.


As the mother of a 12 year old boy I can say that I see the tough guy influence as a much more concerning cultual threat. My son and his friends show zero desire to dress or act like women. However, the push to glamourize gangster macho masculinity is strong in their world.
It disturbs me so much to see this push to see women as hos and objects to be collected. I see a push to suppress their natural care and emotions in order to try and achieve a twisted and toxic male ideal.


Id love to hear from other parents who are actually seeing the results of this threat and not just expressing the fear of it. Maybe in America young boys are being manipulated by this trend. But I see zero evidence of this at school or anywhere else. I see memes and statements.... usually put out by people invested in Christianity... but no actual evidence.
In fact seeing the natural flowing testosterone in my son ... i would think it would be pretty hard to countetact the natural physiology of males with pictires of stars in dresses. I would be more concerned with diet and pollution that promotes estrogen and suppresses testosterone.

I also find it equally disturbing to speak of what a healthy male is as tjough it is one box. So anyone who doesn't fit in the box is.. unhealthy. Eeesh.

When I was a child in the 70s my best friend who lived at the farm nextdoor loved dressing up as a woman. We would fight over who got to be wonder woman in games... and if he lost out he would choose to be Jamie Summers daughter. He was and is an amazing human being who is strong and loving and caring and has created a beautiful life for himself that is rich...and may not be for everyone... but is perfect for him.

There have always been those who don't fit in boxes.

I pondered before first responding and again after Mike's question, because a few months ago my concerns would've been far more aligned with those expressed eloquently above by @enfoldedblue and @Gracy_May - that protecting the vulnerable and ensuring a space for those that don't fit into standardised boxes was paramount. I still think those are important concerns, but I do now have a different perspective, both in assessing individual instances like the Harry Styles Photoshoot and on the wider societal level, because I think the former informs the latter and vice versa.

I don't know whether if we asked the idea for the shoot would be said to have come from Harry Styles, the Photographer, or the Editor, but I think the reality is that all of them are aligned on a goal to serve the interests of the elites that determine who is a 'star', who is on those covers, who will be delivering the narratives which will shape the opinions of the masses. I think we have to approach these subjects knowing that we ourselves have been subject to this process for many years, so we need to intelligently and compassionately look at our own assumptions afresh.

There's much in ancient lore that speaks directly to this sudden explosion of gender confusion. Hermaphroditus, the divine androgyne, the Adam ha Rishon (kabbalah.info/eng/content/view/frame/4495?/eng/content/view/full/4495):


A creature is a part of Adam ha Rishon that is inside a person of our world. All creatures, meaning souls, are parts of the body of Adam ha Rishon. They all need to correct their breaking, thus returning to the state that was before the sin, and add adhesion with the Creator. They sort the parts from within the shells.

All of us must come to the roots of our souls while in this physical world. Otherwise, we will return here until we realize the purpose of our creation.

See also the Midrash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon#Midrash):


In explaining the various views concerning Eve's creation, they taught[7] that Adam was created as a man-woman (androgynous), explaining זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה (Genesis 1:27) as "male and female" instead of "man and woman," and that the separation of the sexes arose from the subsequent operation upon Adam's body, as related in the Scripture.

Gracy May mentioned David Bowie. There's a photo of him on the back of 'Station to Station' drawing the Kabbalist Tree of Life on the floor. I think that gender blurring of the lines that he engaged in was directly influenced by occult aims and perhaps seemingly trivial instances like this photoshoot are likewise in service to hidden goals.

I think this is a lot more important in trying to understand what's happening in the world now than most realise. So I am going to try and write about this at greater length and I will do so as much as possible from a perspective of love and understanding, because you are both right that it's a sensitive subject. I don't want to make anyone feel threatened or uncomfortable!



Here's Robert Pirsig, in his brilliant and inspired Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ftp://admin_avlibbill:@142.93.203.225/public_html/public/ebooks/Robert%20Pirsig%20-%20Zen%20and%20the%20Art%20of%20Motorcycle%20Maintenance.pdf). He lists what a man should be, and what masculine energy really is.

The hero of the Odyssey is a great fighter, a wily schemer, a ready speaker, a man of stout heart and broad wisdom who knows that he must endure without too much complaining what the gods send; and he can both build and sail a boat, drive a furrow as straight as anyone, beat a young braggart at throwing the discus, challenge the Pheacian youth at boxing, wrestling or running; flay, skin, cut up and cook an ox, and be moved to tears by a song.


I loved that book, still can't strip a gearbox down though... :(

[Wind]

Gracy May mentioned David Bowie. There's a photo of him on the back of 'Station to Station' drawing the Kabbalist Tree of Life on the floor. I think that gender blurring of the lines that he engaged in was directly influenced by occult aims and perhaps seemingly trivial instances like this photoshoot are likewise in service to hidden goals.

This might be a bit off topic, but Bowie surely was an occultist (https://www.moredarkthanshark.org/eno_int_nd-mar16.html) for most of his life. As a fan I just really hope that he was working for the light instead of being a practitioner of the dark arts. Occultism tends to have bad rep even though it is nothing more than a tool really, it only matters how one chooses to use it. For good or evil, service to self or service towards others. There is light and dark, that's the whole essence of this universe as it is in portrayed in the yin & yang symbol. Every coin has two sides and what matters is their integration.

Every male has feminine energies, every female has masculine energies too. The point is to harmonize them in one's own Being, to balance the energies within oneself. The soul doesn't a have gender, but here on Earth we humans have genders. If you're masculine then embrace that energy in you and stand proud in it, if you are feminine then embrace it. Those energies have nothing to do with our physical bodies and genders here on Earth, but it is of course true that right now there's a lot of confusion here on Earth too and many people might be a bit lost about their identities.

When it comes to dressing, I don't really know what to think about it. If some guys are confident enough to wear skirts then why not, I find it mildly amusing. I don't think Scottish people find it so strange to wear Kilts? I know I'd not wear one, but then again skirts aren't my thing and I'm not a Scot. I will not express my opinion about Ben or Candace here as they're humans expressing too their feelings and opinions which is their right, even if they are quite incendiary people.

I see a lot of insencurity in males who feel that they need to compensate their fragile egos by putting on the tough guy act and somehow proving that they are strong competent males. I do feel that there's a bit too much testosterone too in some men instead of there being too little of it. Of course males do need testosterone to function well, because from a biological standpoint it affects many things. I see a lot of insecurity in women about being who they are because society puts so much pressure on them, as they should like supermodels who are about enter a beauty competition. I feel that this all really stems from insecurity in being who we really are. Why couldn't we just allow ourselves to be what we are?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I'm also, mostly, in the don't give a **** category. I'm not concerned by the phenomenon of a grown man dressing as a woman, or a baby, or a chipmunk, or what have you. If it's a natural extension of his personal expression (mental illness notwithstanding) it's none of my business.

However, what does concern me is the underlying agenda here. Gender expression, and that extends to sexuality as well, is entirely individual, because it emanates from one's individual energy - whatever body you're in. If it comes from within it is natural, but if it comes from without, from cultural engineering for example or social pressure, then it is unnatural. Anything not natural eventually harms the individual.

Gender bending isn't new though. If you grew up with my generation, and were in the UK mainly, you will remember glam rock, punk rock, and the from the late 70s/early 80s particularly the New Romantics movement. Think Bowie as already mentioned, or Spandau Ballet, Flock of Seagulls, Boy George. I do suspect though that this 'fad' sprang up organically from an eclectic pop culture scene where shock and spectacle was all part of the act. If you wanted to get noticed you had to stand out from the rest. I remember my parents being aghast at the likes of Boy George. In truth, no one really took the whole thing seriously. And the New Romantics ran their course and that was that...

I think what we are seeing now is entirely different - this is not organic. As spirits we are all androgynous, but at this stage in our evolution we are here to experience the polarity of the human condition. There are destructive, disruptive, and directed schizophrenic undertones in how these various polarities are being contradicted and manipulated, and all in the name of 'being progressive'. Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined the reality of transexual children 20 years ago. That is an extension of this phenomenon, and it is tremendously concerning.

When something is pressed into the collective psyche from without, rather than emerging naturally from within, it is not progressive, it's the opposite. I am in total agreement with Mike and the others in this thread who have articulated the same concerns.

[Waldo]

I read this a few years ago, looks like the agenda is moving forward,

https://commonsenseevaluation.com/2013/08/21/the-pussification-of-the-western-male/

[enfoldedblue]

As I mentioned in my first post...there probably is an agenda. But we would would not be wise to make our decisions in regards to how we should act by choosing to act in direct opposition to something because it was identified as desirable by the elite. This would be reactionary and we would still be led by "their" actions.

i believe the key is to encourage people to learn to stop taking tbeir cues from external sources as we have been programmed, and ultimately to find and listen to their own internal navigation systems.

[Constance]

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

[enfoldedblue]

As I mentioned in my first post...there probably is an agenda. But we would would not be wise to make our decisions in regards to how we should act by choosing to act in direct opposition to something because it was identified as desirable by the elite. This would be reactionary and we would still be led by "their" actions.

i believe the key is to encourage people to learn to stop taking tbeir cues from external sources as we have been programmed, and ultimately to find and listen to their own internal navigation systems.

Thank you for your thoughts. :flower:

I don't know which "we" you are referring to, whether it is the collective whole or the folks at Avalon so I will represent myself and respond by saying that I'm responding to the whole. When someone once said to me that Not only is everything a lie, it is the exact opposite of the truth, I really took that to heart. I'm aware that nothing is as it appears.

It's great that you believe the key is to encourage people to learn to stop taking their cues from external sources as we have been programmed, and ultimately to find and listen to their own internal navigation systems.

The question is, HOW exactly do we do that?? How do we ultimately inspire people to find and listen to their own internal navigation systems?

How exactly do we empower people around the world to be beyond all influence in a practical way?

These are the questions I ask because despite all the sharing of information, ideas and strategies for generations it appears that there is momentum gathering in the opposite direction to where humanity needs to be heading and the agenda continues to bear down on us like a freight train.

Hi Constance. When I use us I am usually referring to the collective. And yes this programming runs deep. Very deep. We are tribal creatures and all crave love and acceptance from those around us. As children most of us contorted and changed our true self in order to gain acceptance by those around us.
Finding our own inner navigation system is a journey. It took me years to really get in touch and learn to trust my own. I now work with clients to help them shift from being led by external cues to recognizing and working with internal ones. One of my clients calls it... learning to trust the bing. Deep down we each know who we are and what we want...
But for many these subtle cues get lost in the noise of social expectations. The more we learn to tune in and pay attention to our own unique inner world, the more we become familiar with our own inner guidance system.... and the more we learn to trust the gentle urgings, the more our lives align with who we truly are.
Another aspect that I feel helps is doing shadow work. The more we integrate our own shadows, the clearer our inner world becomes and ths less we are triggered the external distractions.
I created a PDF to assist wirh.shadow work ... i can link it if intetested.

[Constance]

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

[enfoldedblue]

Thank you for your wonderful reply! To me the beauty of shadow work is that it ticks all those boxes. Though obviously translation would be required. To.me healing all the disowned and rejected self energy is a very important part of healing the collective. It is not the only part... but an important piece. That is why I put this info together ans share it for free. Here is the link... https://www.christinalaverscoaching.com/shadow-work.php

[Constance]

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff