Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Gary Childress »

Skip wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:28 am But if somebody doesn't stick his or her head over the parapet once in a while, we'll never stop wearing badly tanned hides.
Well, I suppose it's possible that all this bizarre exhibitionism serves some sort of socio-evolutionary purpose. Who knows. I sure don't.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Walker »

Maybe he's one of them there preverts.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Gary Childress »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:32 am
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:22 am ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I like that unique emogie. Is that your own?
Nope. I got it off someone else's post a few moons back. Feel free to copy it and use it. I haven't found a great many "I don't know" emogies on the web that really hit it off with me so I use this one.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Scott Mayers »

Imagine that if on a dating site that you literally don't assert who you favored but ONLY what you definitely do not want. This would demonstrate to those filling out such forms their bias with better clarity. If, for instance, you asserted on the 'preference'-only form that you are say, "heterosexual", would this mean that if you were a male that you would date each and every woman in the world before even one male? In opposition, if you assert what you REFUSE to date, then you are NOT biasing yourself to such an extreme, only that you would NOT date those with certain qualities.


Example kind of form for a common heterosexual male:

I will NOT date,

_ _ any woman
_x_ women taller than yourself
_ _ women shorter than yourself
_ _ women the same height
_x_ women heavier than yourself
_ _ women smaller/lighter than yourself
....

_x_ any man
...


...
_x_ no sheep with a bald patch :lol:
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Scott Mayers »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:25 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:32 am
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:22 am ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I like that unique emogie. Is that your own?
Nope. I got it off someone else's post a few moons back. Feel free to copy it and use it. I haven't found a great many "I don't know" emogies on the web that really hit it off with me so I use this one.
If this site permits the whole set of emojies of this software, it might have it. Check out, for an example of the same software, skepticforums.com where they permit almost all available tools. The emojies for this software is also in 'gif' form (animated forms).
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Gary Childress »

Walker wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:22 am Maybe he's one of them there preverts.
Could be. If anything he's a rich one now. That magazine cover seems to be the talk of the town.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:55 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:11 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:47 am

Slippery slope to what? Wear whatever you feel like wearing. It gets pretty darn hot here, it'd be nice to wear a loose summer dress - it's ironic that because I have balls, I don't have the balls to wear a dress. Maybe a kilt is in order.
People can wear what they like. There are few things sexier than a strapping Scotsman in a kilt, but when men put on a dress and a bit of lippy and claim that it makes them a woman then yes, I do have a problem with that.
There is a stage of evolution for change that makes the extremes stand out first. The 'gay' community, as the first brave homosexuals came out, assigned this term and stereotypes, even to this day, those particlar extremes that falsely imprint society into thinking of them as 'flamboyant'. The flamboyant gays still stereotype the community, as with the 'rainbow' symbols, and, from what I mentioned above, the 'drag queen' persona. Today people are preferring to NOT be defined. In fact, I thought it logically odd that one defines themselves by some 'posited preference' when the better way to recognize their biases is to represent this by how they are implying that they discriminate against a whole subclass of people.

If you've ever checked out those dating sites, for instance, if one asserts themselves "homosexual", is this not just the same thing as asserting whom they definitely would NOT date, rather than implying that they would date anyone and everyone of ONLY the same sex. So it is more appropriate to assert that WHO you are with is your sexual preference, not a whole sex.

[Note that the major dating sites used to NOT discriminate against men's height. THIS is above and beyond MORE discriminating of women than men because one cannot do anything to fix such deficits. And women, as mentioned above, not only disapprove of men who would be with other men, but that they hate being set up with someone who is not at least an inch taller than them. In fact, for some of us 'shorter' men, (and one reason I don't like heels), the discrimination is so bad that those major dating sites STOPPED permitting matches of short men to women!! Compare THAT to one who might judge a woman who is overweight when that is something that at least MAY be reasonably possible to fix. Most disappointing is how you can notice that many of the even shortest women tend to date a man who is abnormally a head taller than the female. No wonder women like those heels, right? But why the feminist today don't care to point out how THAT looks relatively like a grown man dating some eight year old child is telling.]
An EXTREMELY tiny, but VERY vocal minority claim to not want to be 'defined' (whatever that even means). It seems to me they are VERY MUCH into DEFINING themselves. They are also very much into stereotypes. A woman in a suit, with a deep voice and short hair, is STILL a woman.
Hardly any women habitually wear high heels, or even have long hair. Most don't wear dresses either. Girls who like to play with trucks are still girls. Boys who like to play with Barbie dolls are just boys who like to play with Barbie dolls.
You say you envy kids today. Envy them? I feel sorry for them. Being used as political tools by self-serving wankers who know fuck all about science. Being forced to think about things they shouldn't be thinking about at their age. Why do children need to know that some men like wearing dresses and pretending to be (stereotypical) women? Really?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Scott Mayers »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:38 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:55 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:11 am

People can wear what they like. There are few things sexier than a strapping Scotsman in a kilt, but when men put on a dress and a bit of lippy and claim that it makes them a woman then yes, I do have a problem with that.
There is a stage of evolution for change that makes the extremes stand out first. The 'gay' community, as the first brave homosexuals came out, assigned this term and stereotypes, even to this day, those particlar extremes that falsely imprint society into thinking of them as 'flamboyant'. The flamboyant gays still stereotype the community, as with the 'rainbow' symbols, and, from what I mentioned above, the 'drag queen' persona. Today people are preferring to NOT be defined. In fact, I thought it logically odd that one defines themselves by some 'posited preference' when the better way to recognize their biases is to represent this by how they are implying that they discriminate against a whole subclass of people.

If you've ever checked out those dating sites, for instance, if one asserts themselves "homosexual", is this not just the same thing as asserting whom they definitely would NOT date, rather than implying that they would date anyone and everyone of ONLY the same sex. So it is more appropriate to assert that WHO you are with is your sexual preference, not a whole sex.

[Note that the major dating sites used to NOT discriminate against men's height. THIS is above and beyond MORE discriminating of women than men because one cannot do anything to fix such deficits. And women, as mentioned above, not only disapprove of men who would be with other men, but that they hate being set up with someone who is not at least an inch taller than them. In fact, for some of us 'shorter' men, (and one reason I don't like heels), the discrimination is so bad that those major dating sites STOPPED permitting matches of short men to women!! Compare THAT to one who might judge a woman who is overweight when that is something that at least MAY be reasonably possible to fix. Most disappointing is how you can notice that many of the even shortest women tend to date a man who is abnormally a head taller than the female. No wonder women like those heels, right? But why the feminist today don't care to point out how THAT looks relatively like a grown man dating some eight year old child is telling.]
An EXTREMELY tiny, but VERY vocal minority claim to not want to be 'defined' (whatever that even means). It seems to me they are VERY MUCH into DEFINING themselves. They are also very much into stereotypes. A woman in a suit, with a deep voice and short hair, is STILL a woman.
Hardly any women habitually wear high heels, or even have long hair. Most don't wear dresses either. Girls who like to play with trucks are still girls. Boys who like to play with Barbie dolls are just boys who like to play with Barbie dolls.
You say you envy kids today. Envy them? I feel sorry for them. Being used as political tools by self-serving wankers who know fuck all about science. Being forced to think about things they shouldn't be thinking about at their age. Why do children need to know that some men like wearing dresses and pretending to be (stereotypical) women? Really?
I DO question those parents who presume their 3 year old qualifies to 'know' they are a girl or boy. But the 'undefined' class are like myself. That is I only define what I am by who I am particularly with. You can be monogamously married to a woman named Mary. Then you would be "sexually attracted to Mary (specifically)." If you are presently not with anyone, ....(I just heard this in something comedic recently somewhere)...an ONANIST (for ONE person sexual relationship == masturbater).

The other point is to note that there is a 'cultural' set of descripations, called 'gender' that is distinct from one's 'sex'. The term, "feminine" for instance, describes anyone who has the stereotypical environmental behaviors of most women. A "Tomboy" describes a subset of a "masculine" set of behaviors of women who likes traditional thing that boys and men do. (which may not necessarily mean they have to be gay).

While we are transitioning towards more openness, there will be exceptional extremes that society will still not tolerate. For instance, some believe intrinsically in being with children. This is a 'kind' of specific "gender" we call 'petaphilia' but we would keep illegal, if not for clear logical distinction, then for PRACTICAL ones.

I usually find those who are most AGAINST something regarding social dysfunctions or unusual behaviors, AND who are relatively activistic about it, tend to be hard to determine if they are just not in guilty of their own thoughts in similar kind with an addition of fear about it, like how many who are gung ho about becoming a police officer who gets denied entry, to become their biggest opponents instead. This is like how the 'hero' needs a 'villian' or vice versa. I wouldn't get worked up about it but understand that some of the extremes are begging of social problems down the road.

[By the way, I just looked up this video discussing crossdressers in music videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7jcsxf4hTI The 'girl' (as he'd prefer to be called likely) is cute. Only the voice tends to alert you that he's not. [Mind you I've met one real woman on the phone (a landlady) who I swear could was a man until I saw her. I'm sure society will adapt to accepting deep voices as indifferent to how they judge one's external beauty.]


P.S. I actually dated and preferred giels who looked like that guy in the video, btw. (S)he has that "dark angel" look, like Phoebe Cates or Jennifer Connoly. I've always liked that contrast of dark hair and the bob bangs with variable length hair
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by attofishpi »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:31 am Apparently, a male has made "history" by being the first male to feature on the cover of Vogue Magazine by virtue of showing off what is traditionally considered women's wear.
Oh dear Gazza. I do hope the 'apparently' is in the context that you did NOT buy the Vogue Magazine, and relates to that of "making history".

Because if you bought that magazine Gazza, if you bought it....well you need to bloody man up mate! Buy a REAL mans magazine, like How to Man up a Man Cave.

You're not one of these are ya Gary?:-->>> Image
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Scott Mayers »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:06 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:31 am Apparently, a male has made "history" by being the first male to feature on the cover of Vogue Magazine by virtue of showing off what is traditionally considered women's wear.
Oh dear Gazza. I do hope the 'apparently' is in the context that you did NOT buy the Vogue Magazine, and relates to that of "making history".

Because if you bought that magazine Gazza, if you bought it....well you need to bloody man up mate! Buy a REAL mans magazine, like How to Man up a Man Cave.

You're not one of these are ya Gary?:-->>> Image
Oh, like, "How can anyone think that sex with another man is fun? I once came home to a roommate whom I caught doing it right in my living room. It was the most disgusting two hours I ever watched!" :shock:
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Gary Childress »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:06 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:31 am Apparently, a male has made "history" by being the first male to feature on the cover of Vogue Magazine by virtue of showing off what is traditionally considered women's wear.
Oh dear Gazza. I do hope the 'apparently' is in the context that you did NOT buy the Vogue Magazine, and relates to that of "making history".

Because if you bought that magazine Gazza, if you bought it....well you need to bloody man up mate! Buy a REAL mans magazine, like How to Man up a Man Cave.

You're not one of these are ya Gary?:-->>> Image
No. I don't buy Vogue magazine. Crisis over I hope?

EDIT: By the way, what is the emogie figure suppose to be?
Last edited by Gary Childress on Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by attofishpi »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:14 am Oh, like, "How can anyone think that sex with another man is fun? I once came home to a roommate whom I caught doing it right in my living room. It was the most disgusting two hours I ever watched!" :shock:
:D
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by attofishpi »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:19 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:06 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:31 am Apparently, a male has made "history" by being the first male to feature on the cover of Vogue Magazine by virtue of showing off what is traditionally considered women's wear.
Oh dear Gazza. I do hope the 'apparently' is in the context that you did NOT buy the Vogue Magazine, and relates to that of "making history".

Because if you bought that magazine Gazza, if you bought it....well you need to bloody man up mate! Buy a REAL mans magazine, like How to Man up a Man Cave.

You're not one of these are ya Gary?:-->>> Image
No. I don't buy Vogue magazine. Crisis over I hope?
Oh..er...well, I actually don't mind that you're gay.

What concerns me more is why Harry is sucking out the contents of a blue condom..?

Image
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Gary Childress »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:23 am
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:19 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:06 am

Oh dear Gazza. I do hope the 'apparently' is in the context that you did NOT buy the Vogue Magazine, and relates to that of "making history".

Because if you bought that magazine Gazza, if you bought it....well you need to bloody man up mate! Buy a REAL mans magazine, like How to Man up a Man Cave.

You're not one of these are ya Gary?:-->>> Image
No. I don't buy Vogue magazine. Crisis over I hope?
Oh..er...well, I actually don't mind that you're gay.

What concerns me more is why Harry is sucking out the contents of a blue condom..?

Image
Good one. Burn on me. I guess. :lol:
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:48 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:38 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:55 am

There is a stage of evolution for change that makes the extremes stand out first. The 'gay' community, as the first brave homosexuals came out, assigned this term and stereotypes, even to this day, those particlar extremes that falsely imprint society into thinking of them as 'flamboyant'. The flamboyant gays still stereotype the community, as with the 'rainbow' symbols, and, from what I mentioned above, the 'drag queen' persona. Today people are preferring to NOT be defined. In fact, I thought it logically odd that one defines themselves by some 'posited preference' when the better way to recognize their biases is to represent this by how they are implying that they discriminate against a whole subclass of people.

If you've ever checked out those dating sites, for instance, if one asserts themselves "homosexual", is this not just the same thing as asserting whom they definitely would NOT date, rather than implying that they would date anyone and everyone of ONLY the same sex. So it is more appropriate to assert that WHO you are with is your sexual preference, not a whole sex.

[Note that the major dating sites used to NOT discriminate against men's height. THIS is above and beyond MORE discriminating of women than men because one cannot do anything to fix such deficits. And women, as mentioned above, not only disapprove of men who would be with other men, but that they hate being set up with someone who is not at least an inch taller than them. In fact, for some of us 'shorter' men, (and one reason I don't like heels), the discrimination is so bad that those major dating sites STOPPED permitting matches of short men to women!! Compare THAT to one who might judge a woman who is overweight when that is something that at least MAY be reasonably possible to fix. Most disappointing is how you can notice that many of the even shortest women tend to date a man who is abnormally a head taller than the female. No wonder women like those heels, right? But why the feminist today don't care to point out how THAT looks relatively like a grown man dating some eight year old child is telling.]
An EXTREMELY tiny, but VERY vocal minority claim to not want to be 'defined' (whatever that even means). It seems to me they are VERY MUCH into DEFINING themselves. They are also very much into stereotypes. A woman in a suit, with a deep voice and short hair, is STILL a woman.
Hardly any women habitually wear high heels, or even have long hair. Most don't wear dresses either. Girls who like to play with trucks are still girls. Boys who like to play with Barbie dolls are just boys who like to play with Barbie dolls.
You say you envy kids today. Envy them? I feel sorry for them. Being used as political tools by self-serving wankers who know fuck all about science. Being forced to think about things they shouldn't be thinking about at their age. Why do children need to know that some men like wearing dresses and pretending to be (stereotypical) women? Really?
I DO question those parents who presume their 3 year old qualifies to 'know' they are a girl or boy. But the 'undefined' class are like myself. That is I only define what I am by who I am particularly with. You can be monogamously married to a woman named Mary. Then you would be "sexually attracted to Mary (specifically)." If you are presently not with anyone, ....(I just heard this in something comedic recently somewhere)...an ONANIST (for ONE person sexual relationship == masturbater).

The other point is to note that there is a 'cultural' set of descripations, called 'gender' that is distinct from one's 'sex'. The term, "feminine" for instance, describes anyone who has the stereotypical environmental behaviors of most women. A "Tomboy" describes a subset of a "masculine" set of behaviors of women who likes traditional thing that boys and men do. (which may not necessarily mean they have to be gay).

While we are transitioning towards more openness, there will be exceptional extremes that society will still not tolerate. For instance, some believe intrinsically in being with children. This is a 'kind' of specific "gender" we call 'petaphilia' but we would keep illegal, if not for clear logical distinction, then for PRACTICAL ones.

I usually find those who are most AGAINST something regarding social dysfunctions or unusual behaviors, AND who are relatively activistic about it, tend to be hard to determine if they are just not in guilty of their own thoughts in similar kind with an addition of fear about it, like how many who are gung ho about becoming a police officer who gets denied entry, to become their biggest opponents instead. This is like how the 'hero' needs a 'villian' or vice versa. I wouldn't get worked up about it but understand that some of the extremes are begging of social problems down the road.

[By the way, I just looked up this video discussing crossdressers in music videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7jcsxf4hTI The 'girl' (as he'd prefer to be called likely) is cute. Only the voice tends to alert you that he's not. [Mind you I've met one real woman on the phone (a landlady) who I swear could was a man until I saw her. I'm sure society will adapt to accepting deep voices as indifferent to how they judge one's external beauty.]


P.S. I actually dated and preferred giels who looked like that guy in the video, btw. (S)he has that "dark angel" look, like Phoebe Cates or Jennifer Connoly. I've always liked that contrast of dark hair and the bob bangs with variable length hair
No idea what you are blithering about.
Post Reply