celeb news Harry Styles dragged and viral after latest interview

[Headlock]

3 hours ago, Miichael said:

Of course I didn't read them,u expect me to waste my time reading such reputable sources as "Offkilter" and "Domestika"?

Not even two sentences later:

3 hours ago, Miichael said:

it either went totally over your head or you are purposefully acting obtuse.

 

You clearly have an issue with actually engaging in debate and conversation and being handed resources to educate yourself on something you clearly aren't educated on, and this is how you behave. When the Harry apologists send their warriors, they aren't sending their best and brightest 

But I'll play:

Let's start with an entire Wikipedia page devoted to the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_art

Or this published scholarly article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00393541.2020.1778437?journalCode=usae20

Perhaps you would be interested in a 500+ page book on the subject: https://www.press.umich.edu/11694/camp

And then of course there's the Oxford English Dictionary defining the term: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199569922.001.0001/acref-9780199569922-e-1884

 

Unless of course you are digging your head in the sand when faced with actual objective reality being presented to you. But that couldn't possibly be your motive.

 

3 hours ago, Miichael said:

You don't need to use the word "exclusive", your extensive posts on this topic show that you absolutely view the queer community as an exclusive place that you get to dictate the rules for, and frankly it's disturbing. I mean you've literally just mentioned "winking at the camera" as "hinting at being queer", and you've said it quite seriously with no suggestion of extreme irony or humour. Very bizarre.

 

It's already been established you lack education on this subject, but it's kind of the definition of a marginalized community that only people within that community get to make the "rules" 

It really should not be surprising that people within a community would find issue with someone outside of that community commodifying aspects of it for profit while not experiencing the actual marginizaliation those in the community experience on a daily basis.

 

3 hours ago, Miichael said:

And please refrain from the tired "queer people explaining their frustrations" narrative. You aren't a victim because Harry Styles likes to wear dresses, nor because a fellow queer person has called you out on your ridiculous and archaic opinions.

Again, I'm trying to be nice here, but you really just aren't in a position to argue about this. Aside from you continuing to straw man my argument into him wearing a ******* dress, something I have not said once and have repeatedly said is not the issue, none of my "claims" are ridiculous. What is ridiculous is you, a person who claims to not even stan Harry, portraying him as the victim and queer people as aggressors for validly questioning his motives for repeatedly avoiding answering a very valid and simple question about who he is attracted to, a question that is entirely relevant because HE is making it relevant by creating his brand around queer aesthetics.

 

3 hours ago, Miichael said:

even if they were making millions of dollars, they still wouldn't owe you an explanation. 

 

I realize we live in a capitalistic society but Jesus ******* christ 

 

3 hours ago, Miichael said:

and wtf does him being white have to do with this? Truly just throwing it all at the wall hoping that something sticks

It underscores how he exists in this world with every type of privilege available to him. He is white, he is male, he is straight, and he is wealthy. And you are victimizing him for it 

[Headlock]

1 hour ago, R.E.M. said:

straight

 

 

1 hour ago, R.E.M. said:

straight

SO you agree then 

[Abracadabra]

1 hour ago, NausAllien said:

Yes, you HAVE TO BE QUEER to be part of the queer community. That's like saying that it's okay for Rachel Dolezal to be part of the black community in spite of being white. You cannot rip the benefits of being part of a minority group, without having to live with the negative effects that being part of a minority group has. You have to take the good with the bad as well. That's why what Harry is doing is DEPLORABLE.

Please do not try to create a false equivalency of someone wearing a dress to someone wearing black face. That is racist. Queer people do not own dresses and make-up. There's no comparison. And you do not get to decide who is queer and who isn't.Your projection that all queer people must have lived a life faced with oppression and struggle otherwise they aren't part of that minority is so inherently ignorant and problematic. I'm sorry if that was your experience, but it isn't everybody's. Being queer is about a lot more than just facing oppression. You don't get to decide who is counted as queer as who isn't. You don't have that authority.

[Headlock]

1 hour ago, R.E.M. said:

especially not YT gays who co-opt elements of the Black ballroom scene as their own.

So if Harry came out in his next video vogueing the house down boots mama yes gawd and incorporated that into his image and was applauded for it across numerous publications and seen as revolutionary and edgy and cool because of it, you would find no issue with it? 

Because that's what you are saying when you deny the existence of a group of people, who have fought for their place in this world, to be denied the right to question when those outside the group refuse to acknowledge whether they are a member purely for marketing reasons.

 

And for the final time nobody cares about a ******* dress.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Headlock

[Bosque]

Do y’all really think you need to babysit all queer people around the world? That you’re “opening their eyes” by telling them “no, but see, he is EXPLOITING you for profit” while they are bopping to “As it was”? Queer people have free will too, they can choose to not stream his songs or attend his concerts if they really find his behavior so egregious and exploitative. He’s not “exploiting” queer people anymore than Maluma, Toby Keith or Walker Hayes are “exploiting” heterosexuals. 

[Headlock]

56 minutes ago, Communion said:

People who say this need to realize that actually queer people who live their truth by the same token don't owe him understanding or the benefit of the doubt. He can keep his straightness a secret, but in the very same way we can keep laughing at his constant displays of how awkwardly a straight man tries to navigate trying to exploit our sexuality. 

 

Everybody wanna be queer but nobody wanna like the same gender. How weird. 

Nina Bo'nina pointing gif 

[Headlock]

42 minutes ago, Frawls said:

My issue with Harry is that he’s exploiting sexual ambiguity for success, reaping all the benefits of his supposed queerness while enjoying the benefits of being perceived as straight by a heteronormative society. I honestly find it insulting to out-and-proud queer men, especially those in the music industry struggling to break through. 

 

Maybe I should hate the game, not the player, but I feel Harry should know better. When you reach a certain level of success in entertainment, your name becomes a brand. Nothing you do in interviews, performances, songs, is off-the-cuff. Him and his team know women love feminine men, they know his “hehe maybe I’m queer idk” game will drum up conversation online, and they know the amibiguity plays into some delusional fans’ Larry fantasy. It’s just.. so manufactured… calculated. A shame, really. I still thank him for being an ally, but being candid about this would go a long way and I’d really appreciate him for it. 

Nina Bo'nina pointing gif [2] 

[Headlock]

7 minutes ago, Miichael said:

Please do not try to create a false equivalency of someone wearing a dress to someone wearing black face. That is racist. Queer people do not own dresses and make-up. There's no comparison. And you do not get to decide who is queer and who isn't.Your projection that all queer people must have lived a life faced with oppression and struggle otherwise they aren't part of that minority is so inherently ignorant and problematic. I'm sorry if that was your experience, but it isn't everybody's. Being queer is about a lot more than just facing oppression. You don't get to decide who is counted as queer as who isn't. You don't have that authority.

Straight people aren't queer.

[Abracadabra]

7 minutes ago, Headlock said:

Not even two sentences later:

You clearly have an issue with actually engaging in debate and conversation and being handed resources to educate yourself on something you clearly aren't educated on, and this is how you behave. When the Harry apologists send their warriors, they aren't sending their best and brightest 

But I'll play:

Let's start with an entire Wikipedia page devoted to the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_art

Or this published scholarly article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00393541.2020.1778437?journalCode=usae20

Perhaps you would be interested in a 500+ page book on the subject: https://www.press.umich.edu/11694/camp

And then of course there's the Oxford English Dictionary defining the term: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199569922.001.0001/acref-9780199569922-e-1884

 

Unless of course you are digging your head in the sand when faced with actual objective reality being presented to you. But that couldn't possibly be your motive.

 

It's already been established you lack education on this subject, but it's kind of the definition of a marginalized community that only people within that community get to make the "rules" 

It really should not be surprising that people within a community would find issue with someone outside of that community commodifying aspects of it for profit while not experiencing the actual marginizaliation those in the community experience on a daily basis.

 

Again, I'm trying to be nice here, but you really just aren't in a position to argue about this. Aside from you continuing to straw man my argument into him wearing a ******* dress, something I have not said once and have repeatedly said is not the issue, none of my "claims" are ridiculous. What is ridiculous is you, a person who claims to not even stan Harry, portraying him as the victim and queer people as aggressors for validly questioning his motives for repeatedly avoiding answering a very valid and simple question about who he is attracted to, a question that is entirely relevant because HE is making it relevant by creating his brand around queer aesthetics.

 

I realize we live in a capitalistic society but Jesus ******* christ 

 

It underscores how he exists in this world with every type of privilege available to him. He is white, he is male, he is straight, and he is wealthy. And you are victimizing him for it 

Once again, you are confusing the fashion and art world with the real world. That tends to happen when you spend too much time online and your sense of reality becomes blurred. In the world of fashion and art, certain aesthetics were pioneered by black women and queer POC, and later adopted by a larger portion of the queer community. In the real world, things such as wearing a dress or wearing leather don't belong to one particular group of people. Your argument ultimately comes down to you feeling ownership over certain aesthetics and not wanting to share them, despite the fact that they are not owned or created by you. And also that you feel entitled to know someone's sexual orientation based on the clothes they wear, which is just straight up weird and invasive. You can keep fuming about how he is "profiting" from it, that still doesn't give you the right to know information that he wants to remain private. I'm sorry if that makes you angry, but that's just the way it is. And you continue to call him straight, but I fail to see where you can make that judgement. Unless he has clarified he is straight, you are not in the position to decide that for him, no matter how upset and passionate that fact makes you. 

 

Now I'll wait for you to fume some more...

[Abracadabra]

10 minutes ago, Headlock said:

Straight people aren't queer.

Nobody said they were?

 

Not you exhibiting more delusional behavior 

[Toxicity.]

Having all the straight privilege to be able to say useless **** like this in the age of Dont Say Gay bills

[Abracadabra]

1 hour ago, R.E.M. said:

 

Whew, you cleared

 

The LGBTQ+ community is not a monolith; y'all don't own any type of aesthetic, especially not YT gays who co-opt elements of the Black ballroom scene as their own. I think it's really gross that some of you are spinning this into a bad thing. There is finally a cis straight man openly challenging gender norms/toxic masculinity and your reaction is to... shut him down? Worms.

 

It’s the desperate attempts to try and compare themselves to the experience of POC’s culture being appropriated and that wearing “queer aesthetics” is equal to black face for me  Just shows how truly delusional some people are and how powerful online groupthink can be in distorting peoples idea of reality

[NausAllien]

53 minutes ago, Miichael said:

Please do not try to create a false equivalency of someone wearing a dress to someone wearing black face. That is racist. Queer people do not own dresses and make-up. There's no comparison. And you do not get to decide who is queer and who isn't.Your projection that all queer people must have lived a life faced with oppression and struggle otherwise they aren't part of that minority is so inherently ignorant and problematic. I'm sorry if that was your experience, but it isn't everybody's. Being queer is about a lot more than just facing oppression. You don't get to decide who is counted as queer as who isn't. You don't have that authority.

I do NOT need any authority to determine whether he's queer or not. He's either attracted to other guys or he's not; he either identifies with the gender he was assigned at birth or he doesn't; he was either born intersex, or he wasn't. It's pretty simple. Since he plays coy and refuses to speak out, one can only assume he's straight and cisgender.

 

You have to actually BE L or G or B or T or I (etc) to identify as QUEER. You do NOT get to identify yourself as queer if you're a straight, cisgender person. To me it is as offensive as cultural appropriation or black face. And that's EXACTLY what Styles is doing. He's going on stage wearing the queer equivalent to black face for monetary gain and fame.

 

The fact you're excusing this sick behavior makes me sick to my stomach. If you're LGBT+, you feel ashamed of yourself for not standing up for your own community; if you aren't LGBT+, you are disgusting for inserting yourself in something that has nothing to do with you. Either way, you're in the wrong here, honey. Your fanaticism doesn't allow you to see how terrible what Harry Styles is doing really is.

Edited April 28, 2022 by NausAllien

[CandleGuy]

His team started dressing him in women's clothes because there was nothing interesting about him, next question.

[lostcause]

2 hours ago, R.E.M. said:

... we only started generating discourse around 'queer-baiting' in the last few years so artists like Prince and Bowie are not relevant to the conversation. 

 

But go off on ur boomer'd tangent I guess

First, you originally stated Harry is the cishet man “finally challenging gender norms”. Finally means “after a long time, often achieved with much difficulty”. Harry hasn’t challenged anything, he hasn’t pushed a single button that hasn’t been pushed thousands of times in his very profession. Don’t be hyperbolic if you are going to pretend you didn’t mean what you just wrote. 

second, David Bowie in his own words said: “It’s true—I am a bisexual.” David Bowie was actually a queer person, he bravely owned that fact in the 70s. Lou Reed, who was forced to undergo electroshock treatment as a teenager to curb “homosexual tendencies”, was another pioneer of gender-queerness. Little Richard was also gay, along with Freddie Mercury, Boy George and Elton John.  All of these queer men are among the most influential musicians in modern history. Harry Styles wearing a *****-bow does not compare to the boundaries broken by these actual visionaries.
Or are you implying his straightness makes his nail polish  more “challenging” to gender norms than what actual queer legends accomplished not long ago?

 

Harrys limp “gender bending” doesn’t even hold a light to fellow cis/straight musicians like Marilyn Manson, Curt Cobain, Andre 300, young thug, Prince, and Iggy pop; all of whom built the world that allows Harry’s manufactured aesthetic marketable today. Rule of thumb, it’s not “cutting edge” or “challenging” if it’s on the cover of Vogue .

Harry’s brand is a stale rehash of Jaden Smiths circa 2017. Harry isn’t relevant to any conversation about trailblazers. His “challenge of gender norms” was focus grouped by Sony and sponsored by Gucci. 
Your queer erasure/ myopic disregard for history/ minimizing the legacy and relevance of queer legends is by far the most boomer’d display in this thread.

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by lostcause

[Abracadabra]

5 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

I do NOT need any authority to determine whether he's queer or not. He's either attracted to other guys or he's not; he either identifies with the gender he was assigned at birth or he doesn't; he was either born intersex, or he wasn't. It's pretty simple. Since he plays coy and refuses to speak out, one can only assume he's straight and cisgender.

 

You have to actually BE L or G or B or T or I (etc) to identify as QUEER. You do NOT get to identify yourself as queer if you're a straight, cisgender person. To me it is as offensive as cultural appropriation or black face. And that's EXACTLY what Styles is doing. He's going on stage wearing the queer equivalent to black face for monetary gain and fame.

 

The fact you're excusing this sick behavior makes me sick to my stomach. If you're LGBT+, you feel ashamed of yourself for not standing up for your own community; if you aren't LGBT+, you are disgusting for inserting yourself in something that has nothing to do with you. Either way, you're in the wrong here, honey. Your fanaticism doesn't allow you to see how terrible what Harry Styles is doing really is.

Actually, yes you do. Just because you are queer/LGBTQ+ does not give you the right to determine if other people are or not if they haven’t clarified that themselves, no matter how mad that makes you. Not sure why that is so hard for you to wrap your head around and where this bizarre, brazen, and disturbing entitlement comes from with you. You don’t know if he is straight or not. Yet look at you getting all worked up. You can say he’s playing coy or whatever but actually it’s just none of your business. Your demand to know about a strangers sexual identity is strange and disturbing. And once again, wearing a dress or feminine accessories doesn’t belong exclusively to the LGBTQ+ community. So all of your fuming is ultimately for nothing. And I’m not a “fanatic” of Harry Styles, I barely know most of his music. I’m just not delusional

[LastKiss]

Whatever he is, he knows this debacle gives him press and money

that is the main reason why he continues with this thing

Like it would not hurtim to say he's just an ally

All the teenagers that fantazise with him would still support him no matter what so

[James_Dean]

The fact you guys are so offended by Harold's "queer aesthetics" is so ******* funny, because most of the time y'all are commenting how hideous his outfits are 

[Protocol]

20 minutes ago, James_Dean said:

The fact you guys are so offended by Harold's "queer aesthetics" is so ******* funny, because most of the time y'all are commenting how hideous his outfits are 

There seem to be two entirely different conversations happening in this thread. That or an attempt at gaslighting and deflection. Because the question asked to him in the interview was are you into men or not, and that's what he refused to answer and then said that we should all be moving towards not labelling things. And that's the ignorant offensive gay-erasing stuff that half the thread is complaining about. And then the other half is talking about how he dresses, which wasn't the question. 

 

He has an army of PR people, if he didn't want to talk about the topic it would have never been asked. It was Better Homes & Gardens Magazine not a live interview. And if he wanted to say "none of your business" that's also totally fair.

 

But the problem quote (for me, at least) is this: "The whole point of where we should be heading, which is toward accepting everybody and being more open, is that it doesn't matter, it's about not having to label everything, not having to clarify what boxes you're checking."

 

That's RICH coming from someone ensconced in highly homophobic industries that keep men in the closet, like his Eternals co-star. And it's such disingenuous bullshit to say "we should be more open" and also "we don't have to label things". So which is it? Because the practical effect of that is that it's then OK to tell gay men to stay in the closet if they still want a career. Like his Eternals co-star. I keep bringing that up because it's a key part of the puzzle none of his stans want to address. Wanting to be all free love and no labels and do whatever you want would all be fine and dandy if he Harry Styles himself wasn't actively participating in industries that keep gay men in the closet under threat of career loss/damage.

[400Iux]

26 pages total (across two threads) on this topic...... 

[Bussea]

3 hours ago, AMIT said:

Did you really just ACTUALLY type out these words and in that sequence? 

 

 

I'm out, y'all are hopeless. More than anything this is just so so sad. The fight continues, I guess....

okay before you pop a blood vessel GOOFY, I was alluding to the fact that he has songs that hint at him sleeping with both men and women, and has been outed by a male DJ that he’s allegedly been with. He just hasn’t labeled it as being bisexual, pan, or whatever the **** WHICH he doesn’t have to. Just because y’all are pressed over him being with a white women at the moment and hasn’t explicitly labeled himself doesn’t mean he’s not queer  he’s been saying this **** since  the 1D era that he doesn’t identify as straight  

Edited April 28, 2022 by Bussea

[Taylucifer]

y’all still defending this stinky man 

[Frawls]

1 hour ago, Dephira said:

Do y’all really think you need to babysit all queer people around the world? That you’re “opening their eyes” by telling them “no, but see, he is EXPLOITING you for profit” while they are bopping to “As it was”? Queer people have free will too, they can choose to not stream his songs or attend his concerts if they really find his behavior so egregious and exploitative. He’s not “exploiting” queer people anymore than Maluma, Toby Keith or Walker Hayes are “exploiting” heterosexuals. 

[Command + F] opening their eyes

 

Who in here said we're "opening [queer people's] eyes" to Harry's exploitation? Who in here said queer people don't have free will? If a queer person wants to believe he's not exploiting the community that's fine (go bop to As It Was, I really couldn't care), I just so happen to think he is, as do many others.

 

The difference between Harry and Walker Hayes is that one is being sexually ambiguous to advance his career while the other is a straight man, singing straight love songs and ~shocker~ straight people resonate with it. Like, c'mon.. let's call a spade a spade. Exploiting an oppressed group you're possibly not even apart of is very different from "exploiting" a group of people you literally identify with. We can have an honest discussion about this without veering off into false equivalencies. 

[Whore of Babylon]

just get out of people's business? it's exhausting

[Rihbeyga]

Y’all do too much. Your lives won’t change whether he’s queer or not.