[fashion] crossdressing "tendency"

[Duchamp]

Is the crossdressing tendency a self-evident motivation?

I come from the Girardian school of thought that places imitation as the unrecognized motivation of all of human nature [you will have a terrible time convincing me otherwise; In other words, revisit this concept where you can, read an article by Rene Girard, before dismissal]. In fact part of what makes Christ the true God is that he is imitate-able (comes in lovable form).

A man could imitate any number of qualities of the woman he loves. Is the cross-dressing intent really that self evident? (long hair=immoral='I deny my own identity') Or does it maintain a certain anonymity (as lust is not married with nudity), in that the truth is in the light of how it's embraced? I would suggest the later; and further that the full image of both gender sexualities is possessed in all people, if only as a mold is to it's casting.

The reaction that presumes an 'obvious' offense, I'm also not willing to throw away entirely. I'm willing to accommodate, incorporate this into an understanding solely to avoid scandal, for their functional peace of mind.

But being a person who's spent his life manipulating forms over the human body on paper, it's a disappointing concession. I do not believe that spiritual reality should (ultimately) be so disappointing.

I can also see myself finally dropping this, and embracing the male uniform as a moral imperative, a kind-of marvelous stupidity(humility) that sets the world into marvelous accord.

Sheen once posed gender dress as what could be a kind of imitation of the desires of the opposite sex, the unique scenario of being the "object", in the subject, model, object triangle. ("You will want to wear what pleases your husband, and he will want to wear what pleases you"). I'd be curious if this offends certain sensibilities. This sounds the most right to me.

In many ways the acceptance of one's identity is 'it', what it's all about, the hard part, and the whole shebang.

[Sockpuppet]

It all started when women started wearing pants.

[AngloFalcon]

In truth, I think you should read St. Thomas Aquinas more than Rene Girard. I don't trust any 20th Century philosophers.

[Duchamp]

In truth, I think you should read St. Thomas Aquinas more than Rene Girard. I don't trust any 20th Century philosophers.

Can you recommend a particular work? I don't have a classic education (I don't have any "education" actually). That was actually my initial motivation for posting this, hearing the latest Remnant Video catacombs episode reference such an explanation.

I would not discount Girard as a 'philosopher'. He is actually a dramatic analyst, a scientific generalist. I don't think there would be a film version of "The Passion of the Christ" as it stands, or any M. Night films, were it not for him. He pointed out the unanimity of the crowd (the imitation-mimesis), that is mistaken for anti-semetic embelishment, yet so essential to the Gospel reality.

He's an vocal convert to Catholicsim; and opened one of his books with the statement: "We believe or dreams and desires are what make us unique; this is false."

He is hardly the "Darwin of the Humanities" as he was portrayed in his recent obituaries. I think he would strongly object to that title. They really want to shut him up.

Sockpuppet claims that "it all started when women started wearing pants." I share that sentiment; but isn't it worth asking whether it all started when some of us could not accurately explain the motivation behind women wearing dresses? as a courtesy to others? How is it truly a courtesy? It is! but that explanation has far richer reality than most I've seen presented.

Camille Paglia, for example, single-handedly gave an air of credibility to alternative sexuality. Even borrowing the idea that they are decadent; and in effect saying "so what." She is no friend to the modern feminist community oddly. She references "The Golden Bough" in her book, which has this similar moral indifference to the historic detail. It's Rene Girard that specifically refutes The Golden Bough.

Rene would be the difference between Camille believing that David Bowie is "neither male nor female" as she claims in her latest farewell, and--instead--actually acknowledging that such a characterization is a victimization. It's a defiance of this scapegoating that actually characterizes the origin of Bowie's career, where he is fighting for the right to have long hair in a British television segment. This is true regardless of whatever sexual mythology he eventually embraced, as encouraged by either progressive or conservative assumptions.

I do acknowledge that this is a personal hang-up/crusade, but a crusade born of the burden of knowledge. I don't think everyone need necessarily understand these things to function; but the more that do, the better.

[AngloFalcon]

Yes, I would read the Summa Theologica. Personally I find the full Summa pretty impenetrable (it's very dense and hard work). A much better option is A Tour of the Summa by Msg Glenn, which presents a condensed but entirely accurate reading and makes it more accessible for the general public. 
St. Thomas is the Church Philisopher who stands head and shoulders above any modern philosophers. He is entirely grounded in logic and Catholic tradition, scripture and revelation.

While I would not want to unfairly tarnish Girard's names, I am still highly skepticle of him. I'm glad to hear he converted, but most of his theories were decided upon prior to his realisation that Catholicism was the truth, and so have no guarantee of a correct understanding any more than secular philosophers. He died just months ago, which places him firmly I assume in the post-conciliar mess of the modern Church (I am unaware of him being traditional?). Just a quick browse of his key ideas throws up suspicion on my part to be honest. Anything to do with the evolution of man, the fundamental nature of religions or the concept of identity is always dubious unless firmly grounded in Catholic revelation and the light of the faith (reality), as how can one correctly understand these things without the light of faith and the truth given us by God through His church? The fact that a man personally believed in Catholicism doesn't give any guarantee of his sanity elsewhere, and as far as I can see, traditional Catholicism didn't seem to entirely act as a rigid framework for all Girard's suggestions and theories. I am not at all convinced that his ideas on the death of Christ are orthodox and traditional at all, unless he is the victim of severe misrepresentation (and it would have to be a concerted effort). Do you have access to traditional priests (SSPX ideally) who you can ask for advice from regarding Girard? I'm not being patronising but the world of 20th century philosophy is a minefield of error and teachings dangerous to the faith.

Like I said, I don't trust any modern philosophers because the 20th century has been tarnished with so many social upheavals, fallacies, erroneous opinions and heresies. As for whether I believe that the 'full image of both gender sexualities is is possessed in all people', no. I do not believe that nor is there any metaphysical reasoning for why this would be the case.

I'm not trying to come on to heavy, but there is no question that if a philosopher and the traditional teachings of the Church part ways, the philosopher is out of step. St. Thomas Aquinas represents solid, sane and entirely approved Catholic belief on just about everything, save for a few infallible announcements which have been made subsequent to his death (such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception). He should really be the touchstone for all queries about the nature of reality etc, because he has received the solid affirmation of God's Church for centuries (until the modern liberals threw him out).

[Duchamp]

Food for thought that "refutes" much of what you've said/substantiates his misrepresentation: Rene Girard was the sole motivation for my Father's adhesion to traditionalism, and consequently my own Discovering it as the sacrifice, requires an analysis of sacrifice.

Further my total agreement with the extent of your skepticism, is also primarily born of an understanding of Girard

Why this divorce? from personal observation? there is no other mechanism to accept anything?

Here is a stray thought, wherein my brother was partially lost to the faith: He was told there is no reasonable way in which to doubt God (some specific dogma you may know better than me), this made him doubt God.... ^_^

I told him the idea does not disuade me. It's a chicken vs the egg paradox, by which faith itself is proved. Like a man on the other side of the mountain telling you... "Yep it's here!" and your standing at the base of the hill saying "I... still cannot know that sir."... Doesn't change the fact that the man at the top of the hill is correct about their being no reasonable doubt about what he sees on the other side.

But, even this, you seem to refute with your position. That I should even try to consider my collected personal wisdom and honesty valuable. I would acknowledge that it is only valuable in so far as it it honest. And that honesty has nonlinear, even miraculous repercussions (the reward of faith).

Girard is not entirely honest. My dad believed he was skeptical of miracles; which Girard actually refuted in a personal letter to him. But he has certainly found something as uniquely correct as my example folk wisdom, something worth building upon. The idea that Girard would not be familiar with Augustine would also surprise me.

This doesn't let me off from acknowledging that you are giving excellent and sound advice :0] I will totally value Augustine more highly.

I'm interested in having this whole-hearted faith, and would not disregard total obedience to your suggestions. But I'd still have to acknowledge that I came to this point via my own investigations.

Now looking at that last statement I have to acknowledge that the success of those investigations was guided by a methodical acceptance of Jesus's teachings (even the act of being honest), and therefor maybe attributed to his efforts alone.

My explanation of the uniqueness of Christ as God, thus far, has been a kind of undeniable intellectual property, which converges on, and cannot be separated from, reality itself. i.e. you could imagine that someone else would propose his ideas, but you could not imagine someone proposing his ideas and having the integrity of those ideas fufilled in his life, and also not without him actually being God--as an extention of that integrity. What makes this differ from modern ecumenism is that the details matter a thousand times more. "Who was it that told you?" "How did he tell you?" These details matter. Just as the details of our own virtue matter.

[AngloFalcon]

Hi man.

Glad to hear you will check up the Church Fathers.
Basically, my point is that you are not safe with anyone who is not Church approved. We had loads of crazy thinkers who were popular for a brief time and then condemned. Teilhard de Chardin jumps to mind. With the Church fathers you are safe. We simply do not have free liberality to make our own minds up about things or to choose to believe whoever we see fit (although I'm sure this isn't what you're arguing ). Were we protestant, then yes. But Christ founded a Church to guide us, and it is to Her and Her appointed, approved instructors (who conform to the Church of all time and Her traditional wisdom) that we must adhere. Otherwise we stray into modern liberalism painted in Vatican purple.

Anyways, I will pray for you and please do so for me. 

[Duchamp]

Thank you! I will.

Thank you for your time as well, it's appreciated.

[DominusTecum]

On Girard:

I probably wouldn't be a Catholic without his insights. I had always sensed the uniqueness of the Catholic religion, but I did not consciously understand it's uniqueness until I discovered Girard. The image of the crucified Christ used to be an enigma to me, shocking and powerful but bewildering. Like many moderns I could not fathom why Christians placed so much importance on this one event, this one image. Thanks to Girard I finally have an inkling of understanding of it's significance. God himself as the innocent one crucified, the scapegoat, the "Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world". It makes so much sense. It demonstrates conclusively the absolute uniqueness of Christianity, and it's fundamental incompatibility with all other religions. We Catholics would be doing ourselves a great disservice by refusing to consider Girard's insights.

Girard was a big supporter of the Latin Mass, by the way.

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2006/12/french-declaration-favouring.html