The Rise of Androgyny. The focus of the new Hollywood/Liberal Agenda

so from what I've learned from this thread is, you aren't allowed to question it. Just accept it. And STFU.

IDK what the perceptions and attitudes of Bowie were in the 70s (before my time) but from what I've read and people I've talked to who were around then, Bowie and his lot were very much "counter cultural" icons at the time, meaning, not "mainstream", not widely socially accepted outside his fan base and not reflective of prevailing social attitudes.

Look at it like this: David Bowie was an musician who was pushing the envelope as part of his art, as his brand, it was part of the act. It wasn't about commercialization or selling anything other than his albums. It wasn't in the form of a PSA or about convincing anybody of anything other than David Bowie was a cool cat.

The OP is talking about something different, not an artist or an act or a performance bit, but integrating (more like force feeding) a notion of deliberately obfuscated sexual identity into FFS TV commercials (!)

This is about programming the public, not "shock and awe" to sell a record.

I agree with the OP's premise. I notice A LOT of funny things about TV commercials and how the advertising industry appears to be subliminally or even overtly pushing a lot of social suggestion as part of their sales pitch.

Is there really a need to put up a Village People video?

Hollywood only has one agenda. Make money. And if they think they can make more money by pandering to specific social subcultures, that's what they'll do. Remember a few years back when it was all about Hispanics? Then that fizzled out. And now it's kind of about divergent sexual orientations, but way more about appealing to Asian market (specifically the huge Chinese market).

Hollywood doesn't promote anything other than perhaps the general idea that a person's value is determined by how cleverly they can solve problems for the status quo. That's a happy ending. Otherwise, they.are in the business of pandering.

a reply to: Violater1

I have noticed that the Match.com commercials that show a seeker. and present lots of pictures (that could be selected)
and they are all the same sex as the seeker. They did it with both men and women, but they don't show any ads directed to straght folks. Fortunately I will never need any service like that.

a reply to: Violater1

To borrow a phrase from the Brits, which I think I'm using properly, I can't be arsed. I couldn't possibly give less of a (poo) about transgender anything, for, against, or indifferent.

In the meantime, been working on helping my kids learn how better to not make mountains out of mole hills.

Because feminine women aren't strong and masculine men are toxic. Didn't you know that? So I guess we're all aiming for that happy medium where no one is too much of one or the other. And I guess if you have to express strong femininity or masculinity then it seems safest to be transgender?

Kind of sad really.

I think the message is....balance. Wouldn't a person that incorporated the psychological advantages of both genders be able to achieve a more complete understanding ?

I never even questioned the issue until I saw a person that I literally couldn't discern what gender they were...it just left my mind confused rather than offended.
But that allowed me to pose the question to myself from a truly neutral perspective...it was then that I realized...if God is a singularity then it must be androgynous. " I am that I am ". The Bible says that when we enter the next life we will be like the angels neither marrying nor giving in marriage ( gender no longer has a purpose ).
Right now physical sex is such a foundational aspect of our physical being it's very difficult to achieve a neutral position on the subject....if we were asexual beings it would all be a non issue. Of course I do realize that without sex none of us would be here....but does that mean that truly androgynous people cannot exist here ?

a reply to: HarryJoy

Yeah, except God made them male and female. He did that for us to cleave together, man and woman, husband and wife -- the same way the church should cleave to God.

It was intentional and part of His design from the beginning.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I totally disagree with your post.

David Bowie had a massive impact over younger generations in terms of fashion and lifestyle. His influence extended far beyond record sales.

He certainly had more impact on the social zeitgeist than a few slightly androgynous models in adverts.

Ultimately, there's no "programming" taking place here. It's simply more commonplace not to have to look overtly male or overtly female, and that's inevitably going to be represented in the media we consume. There's nothing wrong with that.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: HarryJoy

Yeah, except God made them male and female. He did that for us to cleave together, man and woman, husband and wife -- the same way the church should cleave to God.

It was intentional and part of His design from the beginning.

I agree that it was God's design to separate into male and female ( I think for a number reasons )...but it's obvious that male and female came from androgynous singularity...and it's also clear that God intends to elevate us beyond our current state to that which is at least similar to the angels.

We can deduce from Matt 22:30 that we will enter into a new relationship to one another that apparently no longer involves sex. Whether or not we will be androgynous or somehow retain some form of gender identity is not clear. But it is clear that whether we retain gender identity or not.. gender will no longer play an essential role in our existence.

So....we know that we came from an androgynous God and we are heading toward an existence that is either androgynous or at the least a giant step closer to being so.

And yet during this interim period androgyny is somehow only perceived as a distortion or a perversion of human existence.

Ephesians 5:31 states that when a man and a woman are joined together they become one flesh. I think it's reasonable to believe that over time a man and a woman that live together will become more similar to one another in various ways...and also that the offspring of couples will possess qualities from both sides.

Now it seems likely to me that over an extended period of time androgynous offspring would become more likely due to the continual assimilation of male/female characteristics within married couples. with each passing generation increasing the likelihood of androgynous offspring occurring.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: HarryJoy

Yeah, except God made them male and female. He did that for us to cleave together, man and woman, husband and wife -- the same way the church should cleave to God.

It was intentional and part of His design from the beginning.

Isn't the word "cleave" a synonym for sexual intercourse? Some how the image of God and the Church "cleaveing" gets very close to the ultimate surrealistic structure.

People need to mind their own business and not be threatening the expressive freedom of others.

a reply to: olaru12

SNL skit for Jeopardy. Topic was An Album Cover and the Sean Connery impersonater said I’ll take anal bum cover for $400. Hilarious.

a reply to: olaru12

No actually

originally posted by: DeusInAbsentia
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I totally disagree with your post.


David Bowie had a massive impact over younger generations in terms of fashion and lifestyle. His influence extended far beyond record sales.


He certainly had more impact on the social zeitgeist than a few slightly androgynous models in adverts.

Sure, I don't dispute he was influential, and FTR I like some of his music. David Bowie was also a damn good actor, and played the role of Nikola Tesla (of all people) in one of my favorite films. The pinnacle of his artistic output was, as I mentioned, before my time, but I had always observed/considered David Bowie's impact was not "mainstream", not commercial, so while it definitely influenced and inspired people, would it be fair to consider him a popular culture icon at the time? Did Bowie have the cache and impact of say, the Rolling Stones or the Beatles? I had thought not, but I'll defer to those that lived through that time and watched TV, news, movies, etc during the 70s.

originally posted by: DeusInAbsentia
Ultimately, there's no "programming" taking place here. It's simply more commonplace not to have to look overtly male or overtly female, and that's inevitably going to be represented in the media we consume. There's nothing wrong with that.

That's where you and I disagree, and the crux of the disagreement is weaving of cultural and social attitudes on gender identity into commercial content. When you pay to present material in advertising, everything, everything is meticulously orchestrated, planned, focus-group tested, and designed to convey or present an image, now more so than ever.

I also think the OPs main point was that we are seeing gender lines being blurred across /all/ content coming through a TV, movies, TV shows, commercials, music, etc. When you think about it in that context, then yes, IMO it's a cultural tsunami that encompasses everything from commercials to movies to news stories, I do consider that programming, particularly if there is intent and messaging behind the content, as mentioned before, there always is.

All that said, I'm not here to demonize or disparage "looking neither overtly male or female". I make no value judgement against it. Nor do I make judgement against looking "overtly male" or "overtly female". Ultimately, in a fashion/dressing sense, who really cares about the image people cultivate for themselves? Nowhere did I say it was "right" or "wrong".

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

When you pay to present material in advertising, everything, everything is meticulously orchestrated, planned, focus-group tested, and designed to convey or present an image, now more so than ever.

People have no idea of the research, planning and scripting that goes into even small seemingly inconsequential media presentations. And it is constantly changing depending upon which way the cultural wind blows. I'm in the studio now working on just what you described. Production is about the money. If Capitalism is an ideology, then so be it. Is their a media conspiracy to shape culture or is media just a reflection of what an incredibly complicated species does? There are rooms filled with media geeks online trying to predict the next trend so capitalist can profit.
Digital technology has changed everything and data is King!

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Appreciate the response.

When you pay to present material in advertising, everything, everything is meticulously orchestrated, planned, focus-group tested, and designed to convey or present an image, now more so than ever.

I can accept that. So let's take the advert in the OP for example; maybe the model was picked for having clear skin and good lips, and it had nothing to do with any of their other attributes? I can't see how an agenda was being pushed there other than "you could have a good complexion too if you use our product". The model wasn't even outrageously androgynous.

I also think the OPs main point was that we are seeing gender lines being blurred across /all/ content coming through a TV, movies, TV shows, commercials, music, etc.

I think you're giving the OP too much credit and make a much better point, but where we disagree is that I don't see any programming in the expression of gender and sexuality in our current media. This is just how society has progressed, so it isn't surprising that we now see this being represented. 50 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find an openly homosexual character on TV, but now they're represented throughout all mediums (adverts, film, TV, music etc.). Is this programming, or is this simply the media catching up with social norms? I'd argue the latter.

Ultimately, in a fashion/dressing sense, who really cares about the image people cultivate for themselves?

Not me. I only wear worn-out band t-shirts and jeans, so I can hardly judge how one looks. But I think the OP does have an issue with it, based on what they wrote and on previous posts. They said "I can’t tell if this is a woman or a man" - but what does it matter? You and I both agree it matters squat.

I believe the OP has a problem with someone looking vaguely androgynous, and doesn't like it being represented in media. I don't think they were trying to weave a clever narrative around the influence of media on our society, rather a very basic observation of "androgynous looking model bad. Me no like". I mean, this is the same OP who referenced Chinese soldiers as "yellow" people in a since deleted thread, so I don't think there's much nuance going on.

a reply to: DeusInAbsentia

Yes, I don't have license to interpret/expand on OPs original intent, as you mention. I'm not exactly sure where they were going with it, but my inference was the idea of cultural ideas being programmed into society through advertising.

In that respect, I am not biased or skewed by the /WHAT/ is potentially being programmed, it's more the notion of someone attempting to influence my thinking through a TV commercial or sitcom or news broadcast that I take issue with. I hate the idea of manipulative, suggestive influence on entertainment/art/advertising/information, and it's irrelevant to me whether the topic is gender, sexuality, politics, world news, economics, etc ertc. This is why I limit my intake of TV now, and either read or watch video content online, but even the likes of YouTube, which if you ask me 10 years ago were very comfortably apolitical/culturally neutral/in-obtrusive, but nowadays are becoming more and more like a TV network (by design of somebody).

Only other comment I have is, I sense a bit in your last post, a (deliberate or perhaps unintentional?) conflation of gender identity and (homo)-sexuality, which to me seems a bit of a generalization. I don't believe that homosexuals are all uniform in the sense that they all adopt an indeterminate gender, neither are all gay men effeminate nor are all gay women masculine. I'm not claiming to be a spokesperson for their community, but I've seen that there are gays that are as you say are "overtly male", and "overtly female", etc. IMO it's important to keep that distinction in plain sight in this discussion, as blurring gender lines is not exclusively an issue with being gay, IMHO. I think there are people that have no issues with homosexuality, but are perplexed/confused by intentionally vague gender/adrogeny as the OP put it. Again, not going to put words in their mouth, but I think there are people out there that have that attitude.

I just hope the PC crowd doesn't mind a little package check when in questioned...