real life rants from another teenager

harry effing styles

iconic. sensational. incredible. and most of all, hella manly.

harry styles graced us all in the newest vogue cover. in. a. dress. the man is amazing, a gem among others, and i can't seem to fathom why people are so darn bothered about it. the point of the shoot is to break gender stereotypes, not get bored conservatives and tr*mp supporters - yes, you, candace owens - angry because they have nothing better to do than criticize dude for wearing a piece of fabric. it's his life. it's his style. it's his body, and he can wear whatever the hell he wants to. i said what i said, i meant what i said, and i said exactly what i meant! (and yes, i did call out conservatives, but if it doesn't morally apply to you, don't worry about it.)

i've come to rant about this after seeing a clip of logan paul's podcast, "imPAULsive". i watched the full segment on youtube, and had some thoughts about the opinions that were shared not only about harry, but about how logan was defending harry's choice.

lemme just start by saying that i stopped watching logan paul a long time ago. (if you know, you know.) i chose to hear his point of view because even though he has been controversial in the past, when i did watch his channel (back in 2015 or so) i remember that he always stood for being yourself and not caring about what others think. (also, i believe that every human being deserves to be heard, whether or not i completely agree with them.)

so, just for a recap, logan talked about how cool it was that harry wore a dress on a magazine cover. he defended harry through and through, and, like a good commentator, he didn't shut out the opinions of his friends who were also on the podcast.

logan's friends thought that harry wearing a dress wasn't "manly" and shared some points on how hollywood-society forces certain things on us that we are expected to accept without question. they both agreed that they weren't raised to see men wearing dresses as normal. while i understand that one's upbringing is the basis for how they perceive certain topics, as i was raised in a similar way, i do not think it is right to say that a man is less manly because he chooses to wear dresses or skirts.

historically, men wore skirts and dresses. they were practical and allowed for comfort. they also showed (and still continue to show) signs of strength and intelligence. scottish men wore kilts. the spartans wore metal-plated skirts to battle. japanese leaders wore kimonos - which highly resemble dresses. greek men and women wore togas - which, again, resemble dresses. even cavemen, society's favorite example of true manliness, wore skirts, which aided their way of living. even jesus christ, the savior of the white man across the street who voted for tr*mp,,, wore a piece of clothing that looks like - you guessed it - a dress.

men only started wearing pants because the rulers of europe were horseback-riding warriors. if the people that got angry at things that didn't concern them did their research, they would know that. it's kinda difficult to ride a horse in a skirt. just sayin'.

aside from the main discussion that took place in the podcast, i sensed a bit of tension between logan and the other two hosts. while logan was fighting for harry - as he should - the other two guys were obviously against him. the first guy (i couldn't find his name) tried to invalidate logan's opinion and the second host, mike, hopped right on the train with him. while the first host was explaining his thoughts, he kept telling logan that he didn't need to get mad. he kept repeating that, as did mike, as if logan wasn't just sitting at the table like the rest of them and trying to have an actual discussion. mike (somehow) brought politics into the conversation, and the sudden change of topic really screamed just how uncomfortable he was. unlike the first host, mike was so uncomfortable and distraught by the topic at hand that he had to completely switch to something else that barely had anything to do with what was being discussed.

as i stated before, the first host kept telling logan not to get mad. i have seen this happen and experienced it firsthand (mainly with racism bc that's y'all's go-to for some reason - don't get mad). the use of the term "don't get mad" while having an argument or even a normal conversation with someone makes the opposer look like the bad guy. in return, the person (in this case, the first host) looks innocent, like he's simply trying to prove a point and the opposer (logan) is labeled as a terrible person for being inconsiderate.

this is, obviously, not the case in the slightest.

👗👗👗

in summary, don't invalidate anyone else because you don't agree with them. try to see their views and come to a true understanding. (one might say a compromise.) harry styles is not any less of a man because he wore a dress. wearing a dress does not mean that you are a woman, and being a woman is not an insult that should be used against men to make them feel bad about their life choices.

jesus christ wore a dress. if that doesn't change your "holier than thou" state of mind, i don't know what will.

a/n

come on, y'all. please be better. for yourselves, for the children, for everyone. open your eyes. there is more to this world than yourself.

peace.

oh, and try on a skirt. they're super comfortable!