Well, I suppose it's possible that all this bizarre exhibitionism serves some sort of socio-evolutionary purpose. Who knows. I sure don't.
Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
-
- Posts: 8587
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
Maybe he's one of them there preverts.
-
- Posts: 8587
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
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.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
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
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
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:25 amNope. 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.
-
- Posts: 8587
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
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.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:55 amThere 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.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:11 amPeople 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.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.
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.]
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?
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
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).vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:38 amAn 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.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:55 amThere 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.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.
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.]
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?
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
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10575
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
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".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.
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?:-->>>
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
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!"attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:06 amOh 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".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.
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?:-->>>
-
- Posts: 8587
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
No. I don't buy Vogue magazine. Crisis over I hope?attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:06 amOh 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".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.
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?:-->>>
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.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10575
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
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!"
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10575
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
Oh..er...well, I actually don't mind that you're gay.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:19 amNo. I don't buy Vogue magazine. Crisis over I hope?attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:06 amOh 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".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.
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?:-->>>
What concerns me more is why Harry is sucking out the contents of a blue condom..?
-
- Posts: 8587
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
Good one. Burn on me. I guess.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:23 amOh..er...well, I actually don't mind that you're gay.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:19 amNo. I don't buy Vogue magazine. Crisis over I hope?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?:-->>>
What concerns me more is why Harry is sucking out the contents of a blue condom..?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress
No idea what you are blithering about.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:48 amI 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).vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:38 amAn 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.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.]
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?
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