Imagine the pegeant explaining their life to the fashion designer adn getting a custom piece. The story of one becomes inspiration to the other, coming together like Katniss and Cinna. Imagine having a fashion recycle bin, where people throw their old tech, furniture or from donations. Only use what exists.

Where Fashion Meets Pageantry, but the Greatest Attraction Is the Human Being Beneath the Presentation.

Following my previous post about how SHS – Human First intends to transform the experience of music and entertainment, I want to introduce another industry whose relationship with humanity I find particularly interesting.

Fashion.

And pageantry.

But not necessarily fashion as we currently understand it.

Because what we are exploring is something much greater than clothing, physical presentation or the performance of beauty.

We are exploring attraction itself.

What makes a human being attractive?

What makes someone beautiful?

And how much of what we have come to recognise as beauty actually belongs to the human being, rather than the societal arrangements surrounding them?

This is where I want to introduce two distinctions:

LIFE ATTRACTION.

And

SOCIETAL ATTRACTION.

One concerns what the individual expresses through their own existence.

The other concerns the additional value, imagery and appearances that society teaches us to associate with them.

And the distinction matters enormously.

Because if we are going to build a civilisation organised around consciousness, we cannot continue presenting human attractiveness through standards that reward the possession of resources, social recognition or conformity to externally manufactured expectations.

At SHS, I do not want our models to be models of societal beauty.

I want them to be models of consciousness.

And that changes the entire purpose of fashion shows, pageantry and the way we celebrate the human body.

---

1. LIFE ATTRACTION: THE BEAUTY THAT EXISTS BEFORE SOCIETY DRESSES IT.

Let us begin with life attraction.

For me, life attraction concerns the qualities through which a human being expresses their existence.

Their mentality.

Their emotions.

Their consciousness.

Their natural physicality.

Their presence.

Their expressions.

Their movements.

Their way of thinking.

Their way of relating to others.

Their relationship with their own body.

And what I describe metaphysically as the energy they bring into an environment.

This is the human being beyond the performance of a social identity.

Someone can be physically attractive without being fashionable.

Someone can be intellectually attractive without being famous.

Someone can be emotionally attractive without being wealthy.

Someone can possess an extraordinary presence without having developed any interest in the conventional methods of presenting themselves as desirable.

And someone can be beautiful without having ever been told by society that they qualify as beautiful.

Life attraction does not require society to establish its existence.

The individual already exists.

Their body already exists.

Their consciousness already expresses itself.

Their emotions already participate in their relationships.

Their way of experiencing life already gives them a particular presence.

Society may recognise some of those qualities and overlook others.

But recognition is not creation.

And this is particularly important when we look at the human body.

Because we do not begin our lives by selecting our physical features from a catalogue.

We do not choose our inherited facial structure.

Our natural proportions.

Our inherited traits.

Our starting physical circumstances.

The body is already a living expression of existence before society begins instructing us on whether it is attractive enough.

From my metaphysical perspective, if consciousness creates and expresses itself through life, then the human body is already an expression of life’s beauty.

It does not need to satisfy a commercial standard before it deserves to be appreciated.

And it does not become more worthy of existence because someone finds a way to make it resemble a fashionable ideal.

2. SOCIETAL ATTRACTION: THE BEAUTY WE MANUFACTURE AROUND THE BEING.

Now consider societal attraction.

The clothing.

The jewellery.

The tattoos.

The cosmetics.

The hairstyles.

The accessories.

The cosmetic procedures.

The status symbols.

The brands.

The carefully arranged public images.

The money.

The fame.

The prestige.

The social recognition.

The many external elements through which we construct an image of attractiveness.

These things can be beautiful.

They can be artistic.

They can be deeply meaningful to the person expressing themselves through them.

A tattoo can preserve a memory.

A garment can represent cultural heritage.

A hairstyle can express identity.

A piece of jewellery can carry generations of family history.

I am not suggesting that these expressions are worthless.

Quite the opposite.

They are part of humanity’s extraordinary capacity for creativity.

But they are not the same thing as the natural beauty of the being wearing them.

A garment can make an appearance more elaborate without making the human being more valuable.

A prestigious brand can make someone look wealthy without making them more conscious.

A cosmetic intervention can change someone’s appearance without necessarily revealing anything about their emotional or intellectual maturity.

And fame can make someone socially desirable without telling us whether their personal qualities would remain attractive if nobody recognised their name.

This is where society has confused attraction with presentation.

We have developed entire industries around making the presentation of a human being more desirable.

And then we have allowed the desirability of that presentation to influence how we value the human being beneath it.

The person with the expensive clothing appears more accomplished.

The person with a particular body type appears more desirable.

The person with professionally arranged features appears more beautiful.

The person with social recognition appears more important.

But what happens when all those external elements are removed?

Who remains?

And can we recognise the beauty of that person without requiring the accessories through which society has taught us to admire them?

That is life attraction.

3. BEAUTY AND HEALTH: WE MUST ALSO EXAMINE HOW WE NURTURE THE BODY WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN.

Now, I want to make another distinction because recognising the beauty of every human body does not mean abandoning responsibility for how we nurture our bodies.

Beauty, to me, should also invite a relationship with health.

And I do not mean that someone must look a particular way to be healthy.

Nor do I mean that a body experiencing illness, disability or physical limitation becomes less beautiful.

I mean that when we examine the beauty of life, we should also examine how we care for the living body through which we experience it.

Let me use myself as an example.

When I weighed 120 kilograms, I was beautiful.

My beauty did not disappear because I weighed 120 kilograms.

But I did not experience my body as being healthy at that time.

And that distinction mattered to me.

I could recognise my own beauty while also recognising that my relationship with my health required attention.

I did not need to consider myself ugly to recognise that something about my lifestyle or physical wellbeing needed to change.

And I did not need society to determine my attractiveness before deciding to care differently for myself.

The body deserves nourishment because it is alive.

Not because it needs to become more socially desirable.

This is particularly relevant when we examine cultural expectations.

There are societies and communities that have historically celebrated fuller bodies.

Others have preferred slimmer bodies.

Different cultures have attached different meanings to size, shape, strength, complexion and physical presentation.

And these ideals have changed across generations.

But the body’s health cannot be established simply by whether its appearance satisfies the cultural ideal of the moment.

Nor can health be reliably determined from weight or appearance alone.

A body can be socially celebrated while the person inhabiting it experiences health difficulties. And a body can be socially criticised while its owner is perfectly healthy.

So if our objective is consciousness, we must move beyond appearance.

We need to examine nutrition.

Rest.

Movement.

Function.

Physical comfort.

Mental and emotional wellbeing.

Access to healthcare.

Environmental conditions.

And the many circumstances that influence the body’s ability to sustain life.

The question is not whether someone has successfully achieved a fashionable body.

The question is whether we are caring for our bodies in ways that support our individual health and capabilities.

And that question must always account for the circumstances of the person concerned.

4. THE BODY OF A CHILD ALSO REVEALS WHY BEAUTY AND HEALTH CANNOT BE REDUCED TO INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.

Consider a child.

A child does not independently organise every condition influencing their physical development.

Parents and caregivers make decisions about food.

Nutrition.

Activity.

Rest.

Healthcare.

Living conditions.

And much of the environment in which that child develops.

Those choices are also influenced by what the family can access.

Its resources.

Its knowledge.

Its circumstances.

Its cultural practices.

Its opportunities.

Therefore, when we examine the development of a human body, we cannot always attribute its condition exclusively to the person inhabiting it.

As an individual matures, they may gradually assume greater responsibility for their own choices.

But that does not mean all people have identical resources, health conditions or possibilities.

And it certainly does not mean that someone who experiences physical difficulties has failed to care for themselves.

Life maturity requires us to understand the circumstances influencing a body before making assumptions about the person living within it.

This brings us to disability, illness and physical limitations.

Imagine I were involved in an accident tomorrow and became a wheelchair user.

My physical circumstances would change.

Some activities might require different methods.

Some environments might become more difficult to navigate.

A staircase without an accessible alternative could create an entirely new obstacle.

I might need equipment.

Adaptations.

Additional time.

Or assistance.

But would that mean the beauty of my existence had disappeared?

Of course not.

It would mean that the circumstances through which I experience life had changed.

And part of life maturity would involve learning how to navigate those circumstances without reducing my entire existence to what had become more difficult.

I could recognise the grief or frustration associated with losing a previous ability while still discovering meaningful possibilities within my new circumstances.

Both could exist.

I might need to develop new skills.

Find different routes.

Work with others.

Reconsider how I organise certain activities.

And recognise that some environments are simply poorly designed for the diversity of human bodies.

The absence of an accessible route is not evidence that the person who needs one is less capable of experiencing a beautiful life.

It may be evidence that our infrastructure has failed to account for them.

And this is precisely where SHS must distinguish life maturity from societal expectations.

Because the beauty of a human being cannot be dependent upon their ability to perform the same physical functions as everybody else.

The body is still a living body.

The individual is still a human being.

Their consciousness, expressions, relationships, experiences and possibilities have not ceased to matter.

We are not ranking human worth according to physical functionality.

We are recognising that health and care should support each person’s possibilities within their own circumstances.

Beauty belongs to life. Care is part of how we honour it.

5. SO WHAT WOULD FASHION LOOK LIKE AT SHS?

Now let us return to fashion.

I am interested in fashion because people enjoy it.

People enjoy fabrics.

Colours.

Textures.

Shapes.

Cultural expressions.

Experimentation.

Individuality.

And the creativity of discovering different ways to dress the body.

Why would we remove that?

There is extraordinary artistic possibility in clothing.

But we do not need to reproduce the financial arrangements that currently dominate parts of the industry.

At SHS, a fashion show would primarily be an opportunity to showcase creativity.

Not a competition for who can produce the most expensive garment.

Not a platform reserved for whoever can afford the greatest visibility.

Not a performance of luxury where the audience is encouraged to desire items because their prices make them inaccessible.

And not an event where the person wearing the clothing is treated as merely a desirable object through which merchandise can be sold.

Our objective would be to demonstrate what conscious clothing can look like.

What materials were selected?

Why were they selected?

How were they obtained?

What environmental consequences are associated with them?

How comfortable is the garment?

How durable is it?

Can it be repaired?

Can it be adapted?

Can it be reused?

What practical functions does it serve?

How does it accommodate different bodies?

How much unnecessary waste does its production generate?

And how does it contribute to the wellbeing of the people involved in creating it?

Because a beautiful garment should not require us to ignore the conditions through which it became beautiful.

An outfit that looks extraordinary but depends upon harmful labour practices, avoidable waste or unnecessary environmental destruction presents a very different picture when examined through the Universal Bar™.

The challenge for our designers would be to bring artistic excellence and conscious responsibility together.

Not to sacrifice beauty.

To broaden what we understand beauty to include.

And because SHS intends to reduce financial dependency, designers would not have to build their entire creative identity around producing whatever people are most likely to purchase.

As the system develops, their essential needs would increasingly be protected through SHS provision.

They could create because they have something worth expressing.

Because they enjoy creating.

Because they want to solve a problem.

Because they want to explore a material.

Because they want to contribute to the community.

And because they want to discover how far their creativity can develop.

That is a very different creative foundation from having to continually produce commercially desirable garments simply to survive.

6. WHERE FASHION MEETS PAGEANTRY: THE MODEL BECOMES A REPRESENTATIVE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

Now comes the part I find most exciting.

Our pageantry.

Because I want to create something somewhere between fashion and pageantry, without reproducing the dominant standards of either.

Imagine an event where the model does not walk onto the stage primarily to demonstrate that their face, measurements or body proportions satisfy a particular standard of beauty.

Instead, they arrive as the representative of a creative collaboration.

The individual and the designer.

Two human beings who have chosen to work together.

The designer brings an artistic expression.

The model brings their own presence, consciousness, interpretation and understanding.

And together, they develop something they can explain.

Not merely wear.

The model represents the designer, and the designer represents the model.

Their relationship becomes part of the presentation.

Why did they choose one another?

What did they recognise in each other?

What did they disagree about?

How did they resolve those differences?

What did they learn?

What did the model contribute to the design?

What did the designer discover through working with the model?

How does the garment represent their shared understanding?

What does the collaboration say about the body wearing it?

And how does the entire creation align with our standards of integrity and continuity?

Imagine the richness of those conversations.

We would be looking at more than the final appearance.

We would be looking at the consciousness involved in bringing that appearance into existence.

The clothing becomes an expression of the relationship.

And the relationship becomes an expression of the individuals.

That is what I want to celebrate.

7. THE PAGEANTRY WILL NOT BE WON BY THE PERSON WHO LOOKS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL.

This is a fundamental distinction.

We are not going to create a competition where we claim everyone is beautiful and then proceed to rank their natural physical features.

What would be the point?

If we recognise that human bodies are inherently worthy of appreciation, why would we construct a hierarchy of whose inherited physical characteristics deserve the greatest admiration?

And if we give everyone equal access to the same cosmetic tools, clothing resources and beautification possibilities, what exactly would we be ranking?

Their ability to manipulate their appearance more successfully than someone else?

Their ability to approximate a particular ideal?

Their willingness to invest more time in looking desirable?

That is not the competition I want.

Our pageantry will examine the consciousness the individual demonstrates, not the desirability of their physical presentation.

There will be no preferred body shape.

No preferred height.

No preferred complexion.

No preferred facial structure.

No preferred hair texture.

No requirement to resemble a particular social image.

And no financial advantage simply because someone can afford greater cosmetic preparation.

The physical body will be appreciated as part of the person’s living existence.

But it will not determine who wins.

Instead, the focus will move towards the individual’s ability to think, perceive, communicate, collaborate and respond.

Their life maturity.

Their emotional awareness.

Their intellectual openness.

Their relationship with responsibility.

Their understanding of their creative choices.

Their willingness to consider perspectives beyond their own.

And their capacity to remain authentically themselves without needing to perform a rehearsed version of maturity.

Which brings us to the most important part.

Spontaneity.

8. COME UNPREPARED, BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PREPARATION ITSELF.

There will be no predetermined list of questions for participants to memorise.

No conventional pageant scripts.

No rehearsed responses about how they intend to make the world a better place.

No need to practise the perfect emotional tone in which to deliver an answer.

And no reward merely for sounding impressive.

We might ask about the garment.

Or education.

Or the environment.

Or relationships.

Or human history.

Or the purpose of beauty.

Or a social contradiction.

Or an ethical dilemma.

Or why someone chose a particular collaborator.

Or how they would respond if their own assumptions were demonstrated to be wrong.

We could ask about almost anything.

And that is the point.

Because the purpose is not to establish how extensively someone has prepared to appear conscious.

It is to explore how conscious they can be while responding to something they did not anticipate.

The participant should not need to memorise a particular identity for the stage.

They should arrive with themselves.

Their experiences.

Their curiosity.

Their understanding.

Their capacity to reason.

Their willingness to acknowledge what they do not know.

And their ability to explore a question without becoming dependent upon a prepared answer.

That is what I mean by:

Come unprepared, because you are supposed to be the preparation itself.

I am not suggesting that individuals should abandon education, study or thoughtful preparation in everyday life.

I am suggesting that the deepest preparation is the development of the individual.

If your maturity only appears when you are answering questions you have rehearsed, what happens when life asks something different?

If your confidence depends upon knowing exactly what you are about to encounter, what happens when the encounter is unfamiliar?

And if your intelligence can only be demonstrated through memorised answers, how do we recognise the quality of your thinking beyond the answers themselves?

This is where our pageantry becomes an exercise in life maturity.

Not a contest of who speaks the fastest.

Not a contest of who uses the most sophisticated vocabulary.

Not a contest of who appears the most confident.

But an opportunity to demonstrate presence, adaptability, integrity and understanding.

Different individuals may express those qualities in different ways, and our formats should allow for that.

Someone might need time to organise their thoughts.

Someone might communicate differently.

Someone might possess an extraordinary depth of understanding without expressing it through conventional public-speaking performances.

We should not reproduce the very narrow definitions of competence we are attempting to move beyond.

The question is not who performs consciousness most convincingly.

The question is who demonstrates the greatest depth of consciousness through their actual engagement.

9. IMAGINE WHAT THE AUDIENCE WOULD ACTUALLY GET TO EXPERIENCE.

Consider what a conventional beauty competition often directs the audience towards.

The appearance.

The clothing.

The walk.

The smile.

The presentation.

The anticipated performance of confidence.

Now imagine an SHS event.

A model enters wearing a garment developed through a collaboration with a designer.

The garment is beautiful.

The audience appreciates it.

But that is not where the experience ends.

The participant begins explaining the creative process.

Perhaps the designer originally wanted to use a particular material.

The model questioned its sustainability.

They investigated alternatives.

One alternative was more environmentally responsible but less durable.

Another was durable but difficult to repair.

They had to reconsider their priorities.

Eventually, they developed a solution.

Now imagine the participant being asked:

If a design is environmentally sustainable but uncomfortable for the person who must wear it, can you call that conscious fashion?

No prepared answer.

They must think.

They may argue that environmental responsibility cannot completely override human comfort.

They may propose a redesign.

They may acknowledge the trade-off.

They may ask what kind of discomfort is being discussed.

They may recognise something they had not previously considered.

And that response tells us considerably more about their thinking than whether they can walk gracefully across a stage.

Or imagine asking:

If your collaborator proposed something that contradicted your values but could make the garment enormously popular, what would you do?

Now we are examining integrity.

Collaboration.

Boundaries.

Responsibility.

Recognition of competing interests.

And the ability to navigate a disagreement without automatically sacrificing the relationship or one’s principles.

The audience is no longer merely observing how beautifully someone can present themselves.

They are discovering how beautifully someone can think.

And that, to me, is an extraordinary form of attraction.

10. BEAUTY SHOULD NOT DEPEND UPON HOW MUCH MONEY SOMEONE CAN SPEND MANUFACTURING IT.

I also want to examine the financial dimension.

Because societal beauty has become deeply connected to access.

Access to particular clothing.

Access to cosmetic procedures.

Access to specialist treatments.

Access to professional styling.

Access to expensive skincare.

Access to private trainers.

Access to exclusive products.

Access to technologies capable of altering physical appearance.

Some of these resources have legitimate health, reconstructive, therapeutic or personal purposes.

But the pursuit of socially desirable appearance has also become an enormous commercial industry.

And the more resources people possess, the more opportunities they may have to modify their presentation.

Then society looks at the results and treats them as though they represent an objective hierarchy of beauty.

But they do not.

They also represent differences in access.

Differences in resources.

Differences in cultural expectations.

Differences in what people have been encouraged to regard as desirable.

And differences in how much of their time, energy and money individuals have devoted to altering their appearance.

Why would SHS create a beauty competition that rewards the unequal access to tools designed to manufacture beauty?

That would simply reproduce societal attraction under the appearance of celebrating life attraction.

And that is precisely what we do not want.

The distinction between nourishing the body and commercially beautifying its presentation is important here.

Nutrition is part of maintaining life and supporting health.

Rest is part of maintaining life.

Appropriate movement and healthcare can support wellbeing.

These forms of care have purposes beyond making someone appear attractive to others.

A cosmetic intervention pursued primarily to conform to an aesthetic ideal has a different purpose.

Neither automatically defines the moral worth of the person making the choice.

But we should not confuse the ability to purchase an appearance with the development of the person beneath it.

And we certainly should not make commercial beauty modification the foundation of what we reward.

At SHS, the value of a person will not increase according to how much money has been invested in making them look valuable.

11. OUR DESIGNERS WILL NOT NEED TO CREATE BEAUTY FOR SURVIVAL, AND OUR MODELS WILL NOT NEED TO SELL THEIR BEAUTY TO SURVIVE.

This connects directly to what I explained in my previous post about music.

As SHS develops, our objective is to create an economy where people increasingly have their essential needs provided for.

That changes the conditions under which creativity can occur.

Imagine a musician who does not need to shorten every composition to maximise commercial performance.

Imagine a designer who does not need to create garments solely according to market demand.

Imagine a model who does not need to make their body commercially desirable to earn a living.

Imagine a pageant participant who does not need a competition title to gain access to opportunities.

What happens when the ability to survive is no longer dependent upon making yourself commercially attractive?

The musician can concentrate on the music.

The designer can concentrate on the design.

The model can concentrate on expression.

The participant can concentrate on their consciousness.

And the audience can appreciate the experience without being continually directed towards purchasing something.

That is the cultural change I want us to explore.

Not the elimination of artistic ambition.

Not the elimination of excellence.

Not the elimination of presentation.

But the removal of financial survival as the dominant pressure shaping what people feel compelled to create and become.

During the transition, we will still need to respect existing rights, compensate contributors appropriately and use the financial resources necessary to operate.

But our long-term objective remains the same.

We would rather develop a society in which more people contribute because they want to create than one in which people must continually commercialise themselves to afford being alive.

And that includes the body.

Because the human body should not need to become a product before the human being inhabiting it can live securely.

12. THE WINNER WILL REPRESENT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT OF LIFE, NOT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SOCIAL APPEARANCE.

Now imagine the conclusion of our pageantry.

The participants have presented their collaborations.

They have demonstrated their understanding of the garments.

They have examined the consequences of their creative choices.

They have engaged with unfamiliar philosophical questions.

They have demonstrated spontaneity.

They have challenged their own assumptions.

They have explained their reasoning.

They have revealed something of how they understand human life.

And we recognise the participant whose engagement most fully demonstrates the principles we are examining.

Not because they possess a more beautiful body.

Not because their clothing is more expensive.

Not because they belong to a more prestigious background.

Not because their social influence is greater.

And not because they have successfully performed the socially expected image of an intelligent person.

But because they have demonstrated an exceptional capacity for conscious engagement within the experience.

Winning would recognise what was demonstrated during that event, not establish that someone possesses greater human worth or an objectively superior consciousness.

And that distinction matters.

Because I do not want to create a new hierarchy of human value while claiming to have dismantled the old one.

We can celebrate excellence without declaring that people who did not win are less beautiful, less worthy or less capable of development.

The participant who wins one event may not demonstrate the same strengths in another.

Someone who struggles with one question may offer extraordinary insight into the next.

And the person who does not win may still discover something about themselves that makes the entire experience worthwhile.

That is what a conscious competition should make possible.

The event must enrich the participants, not merely elevate the winner.

---

WHEN CONSCIOUSNESS BECOMES THE ATTRACTION, THE ENTIRE MEANING OF BEAUTY CHANGES.

Imagine what happens when someone attends one of our events expecting to admire beautiful people in beautiful clothing.

And leaves having discovered something far more profound.

They have encountered different bodies.

Different personalities.

Different forms of expression.

Different cultural interpretations of fashion.

Different approaches to collaboration.

Different philosophies.

Different emotional responses.

Different ways of thinking.

And different ways of being attractive without resembling the same ideal.

They may enter believing that beauty is something primarily recognised through the eyes.

And leave recognising that attraction can deepen through understanding.

Through conversation.

Through emotional presence.

Through intellectual discovery.

Through the way someone treats another person.

Through their ability to reflect.

Through their curiosity.

Through the integrity of their choices.

Through their willingness to acknowledge a mistake.

And through their capacity to remain themselves without relying upon a performance.

That is the attraction I want us to cultivate.

Not simply the beauty someone can put on.

The beauty someone can bring forth from within themselves.

And this is why life maturity matters so much.

Because societal maturity can teach you how to perform attractiveness.

How to dress.

How to speak.

How to smile.

How to walk.

How to present yourself.

How to gain recognition.

How to appear desirable.

But life maturity asks something much greater.

Who are you when nobody is asking you to be desirable?

How do you understand yourself when you are not being evaluated?

What do you contribute when there is no financial reward?

What do you express when there is no script?

How do you treat your body when the purpose is to nurture life rather than impress society?

And what kind of beauty emerges when you stop trying to become the image of someone else’s expectations?

These are the questions through which we will approach SHS fashion and pageantry.

Because the most beautiful human being is not necessarily the one who has mastered the greatest number of techniques for appearing beautiful.

And the most attractive person is not necessarily the one society has invested the greatest amount of resources into presenting as desirable.

There is something far more extraordinary to explore.

The human being who has developed such a relationship with their own existence that their presence, intelligence, emotions, integrity and expressions become an attraction in themselves.

No purchased social identity required.

No predetermined physical standard.

No rehearsed personality.

No need to become someone else’s ideal.

Just a human being whose consciousness has room to express itself.

And an artistic environment that celebrates that expression rather than attempting to replace it.

At SHS, fashion will dress the human being.

Pageantry will invite the human being to reveal themselves.

And consciousness will be what we are truly celebrating.

Because if we are going to appreciate the beauty of life, we must learn to recognise more than what life looks like.

We must learn to recognise how beautifully life can be lived.

Susan Ndinga-Wright

SHS – HUMAN FIRST

Life Attraction | Societal Attraction | Conscious Fashion | Metaphysical Pageantry | Life Maturity

The Womb of The Unknown Need

….

The and following up on the perspective that we want to bring into, for example, the music industry, we want to also look at both fashion and pageantry and create somewhere in between. First thing because, and not fashion, the clothing, but we’re looking at lifestyle attraction. So we have societal attraction where it’s like fame and money, but then life’s attraction, it’s someone’s mentality, someone’s emotions and someone’s body and the energy that one brings, right? Their own ways of expressing themselves. So we want to make sure that we, when it comes to things that usually in society are abused of to reach either the money or the fame, things that are natural, we want to be able to give them a platform to be able to be so and embody their full life’s attraction. So we have life attraction and societal attraction. Hopefully the distinction is very clear. Physical attraction is life attraction because it’s something that it’s the matter that our body expresses itself through. And the societal attraction is the garments that we wear upon our skin. And that could be from tattoos to clothing to whatever we use in order to look even more appealing. Because, because we want to make the distinction. We want to be able to have our models to be models of consciousness, not models of societal projections, of societal expectations of beauty. If consciousness created the body, it is because it is beautiful. Now, how one also nurtures their body is also, is important because there is bodies, like the body of a child for example. It’s the body that the parents nurture because the parents decide or based on how much they have available, how much a child eats and they manage their diet and nutrition. But when that child starts growing and becoming more independent, it’s upon the independent individual to then also cater to their body and how they use their body is you want to be able to say that all are beautiful but beauty should also be a sign of health. And I say that because when I was 120 kilograms, I was beautiful but I wasn’t healthy. So if I was to look at how consciousness treats life, I wasn’t in alignment with life’s beauty. I was in alignment with societal beauty. Because, because in parts of the world, there is cultures that value a lot of meat on the body, you know? Whereas there’s part of the world that value skin and bones. So it’s, those are societal values of beauty, whereas the value of life and the beauty of life is a body that is functional. If how we treat our body doesn’t allow us to express our body fully, meaning if how we nutritionize, how we nurture ourselves and our body and the nutrition that we follow, or even if it’s not the nutrition, whatever it is that with our body hinders the functionality of the body that isn’t necessarily like something that it’s like an accident or a circumstance that or a limitation given by birth. Unless those cases, because obviously those are special cases, not special because they’re special but they’re just special to the conversation that I’m talking about now because they’re outside the circumstantials that would qualify for the criterias that I’m explaining. Unless those cases, then of course the scenario is different. It would be different because, because those would be limitations that life created. And in it, the goal is to find the beauty of it. So not to, like in an accident, of course the accidents has happened. It’s terrible that it has happened. But okay, well if now the accident has you on a wheelchair, what beauty can you find in it, you know? What does, what beauty can you find in life beyond the circumstance that you’re experiencing through the circumstance that you’re experiencing? Meaning if I was to be in an accident tomorrow and I was to be in a wheelchair, I wouldn’t necessarily feel like I’m failing or that I’m missing out of life because I understand that I’m just limited in terms of how long it takes me to get to a specific place or yeah, it puts more time on my hands. For example, if I have to climb a stair and I have, and there’s no like accessible route, then it might take me more, longer because whether it’s if I have the right chair, I might be able to still be able to go up the stairs but with the risk of falling. Or if there’s someone that I can ask, then it will be to depend on that person. You know, there’s so many circumstantial situations that will come into the conversation. Or just don’t go altogether, you know. But those are also, yeah, those are circumstances where as human beings we come together. And as a church, of course, we recognize that. And when we look at our, like for example fashion shows or whatnot, because the only reason as to why I’m even considering having things like fashion shows is just because people do like fashion. So a fashion show, it would just be a way to showcase like new pieces, not necessarily a way to just look at the highest bidder. Because of course within as a church, they wouldn’t necessarily be the dependency of money. People not just survive but also thrive. Without it, so they wouldn’t necessarily be a situation where a designer would create for money, but they will create to be, for example, the most conscious possible. And when we look at pageantries, there wouldn’t be like a standard of physicality because instead of putting the focus on the looks, because again, we are not the ones to choose the looks that we have. But we do, if we all have the same accessibility to beautifying tools, then that beauty itself is manipulated. So it’s not natural. So instead of putting the focus on the body, we will then put the focus on the things that the body carries, meaning who were you able to collaborate with in terms of like clothing that put together the most conscious clothing? And how do you explain it? How do you explain your collaboration? How do you explain your thinking process in terms of both getting that collaboration or, and collaboration, I mean getting that one artist to represent you and you to represent them? How did you like having philosophical, like real philosophical conversations on the stage, on the spot because they wouldn’t know, they wouldn’t be like a specific type of questions that we will ask. We could ask about anything. The plan is to come unprepared but by being the preparation itself. So it’s all about spontaneity and who is the most conscious spontaneous individual is the one that would win the pageantry basically. So it’s by moving the focus of what societal accomplishments look like and ground them in life’s accomplishments. Because again, any beauty that’s manufactured isn’t real beauty. It’s beauty that has had access to certain things to beautify itself. And we don’t want to necessarily put too much value on that because it’s already the manipulation of what already was. Now, this is not the same as having a good nutrition because having a good nutrition is actually what helps you function better. It is about what, I don’t know, how much money do you spend on like facial or body care or lipo or surgery or all those things for the purpose of beautification