Natural manhood

It's quite telling, when such a learned person doesn't know a reality about men which was so widespread. It shows how much the western society has misrepresented human history to propagate its ideologies of a 'sexual orientation.' What is happening is destruction, manipulation and distortion of facts by a powerful lobby of those, whether gays or not, to redefine the entire world history (and biology and everything else in terms of 'sexual orientation.')


Here are a few eye openers for you (just google these):


Evidence no. 1: Male Homosexuality: From Common to a Rarity by By Pierre J. Tremblay in Collaboration with Richard Ramsay Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary.


Excerpts:

The above is extremely important. Note that the straight males (just like today) amongst themselves, kept guarded the secret of universal male sexuality for men. The third genders or the effeminates (or the 'gay' identified were kept out of this secret. These 'fems' or males with an underdeveloped male identity have, generation after generation, grown up thinking they are the only ones to like men, whereas the straights are totally into women (a mistaken queer belief that led to the concept of 'sexual orientation').

The guy writing this account who obviously has exclusive interest in men, was part of the straight world, i.e., he was one of the guys, and that is why he knew the secrets of the straight world. It's the effeminacy of the 'gays' that made them feel 'different' and they obviously, miscalculated this difference to be related to their desire for men. It's the same story being repeated in my society now, and all the rest of the societies.

Evidence no. 2: Heterosexuality and the Third Gender in Enlightenment London. By Randolph Trumbach, University of Chicago Press

Excerpts from review at "the Free Library at Farlex"

Quote:

no single, dominant set of practices fixed sexual identity as that located between a man and a woman aiming towards reproduction (compulsory heterosexuality); sexual activities between men, for example, either in groups or in couples, might occur during young adulthood and did not necessarily constitute a person's identity according to exclusive categories ... male libertinism itself underwent redefinition, as sexual activity eventually became limited to relations between men and women ... Sodomy became identified with a third gender, associated with a passive deviant male confined to the molly house. And everywhere, men felt called upon to prove a conventional masculine identity through three standards: heterosexuality, patriarchy, and romance.

Book overview at google books:

A revolution in gender relations occurred in London around 1700, resulting in a sexual system that endured in many aspects until the sexual revolution of the 1960s. For the first time in European history, there emerged three genders: men, women, and a third gender of adult effeminate sodomites, or homosexuals. This third gender had radical consequences for the sexual lives of most men and women since it promoted an opposing ideal of exclusive heterosexuality. In Sex and the Gender Revolution, Randolph Trumbach reconstructs the worlds of eighteenth-century prostitution, illegitimacy, sexual violence, and adultery. In those worlds the majority of men became heterosexuals by avoiding sodomy and sodomite behavior. As men defined themselves more and more as heterosexuals, women generally experienced the new male heterosexuality as its victims. But women--as prostitutes, seduced servants, remarrying widows, and adulterous wives-- also pursued passion. The seamy sexual underworld of extramarital behavior was central not only to the sexual lives of men and women, but to the very existence of marriage, the family, domesticity, and romantic love. London emerges as not only a geographical site but as an actor in its own right, mapping out domains where patriarchy, heterosexuality, domesticity, and female resistance take vivid form in our imaginations and senses. As comprehensive and authoritative as it is eloquent and provocative, this book will become an indispensable study for social and cultural historians and delightful reading for anyone interested in taking a close look at sex and gender in eighteenth-century London.


So, who were the people who got together. What were there lifestyles? What were their ideas?

Here are a few clues:

1. A false birth, by Rictor Norton.
The scholarly article by the gay historian Rictor, who tries his best to distort and misinterpret historical data to make it fit into the concept of 'sexual orientation.' But, not very successful.

It's clear from this article, that throughout the start of the creation of the concept of 'homosexuality' in the modern west, it were those who described themselves as the 'intermediate sex' or the 'third sex' or 'female inside male bodies' who took to the idea of a separate category for sexuality between males and a separate identity to go with it. Is this a new development in history, considering, all through the medieval times, the entire world had a category of third gender males who had receptive sex with men as their gender/ sexual role?

It is also clear from this article that men (as opposed to third genders) like Walt Whitman, who had first dared to create an open space for men to like men, with respect and dignity, but never wanted to create a separate, distinct category for it, opposed the move by the third genders to appropriate 'male sexual desire for men,' but then they were eventually defeated, because they just did not have that space anymore, as men became more and more compelled to be heterosexuals.

2. THIS IS HOW THE CONCEPT OF HOMOSEXUALITY ORIGINATED:

(a) The Term Homosexual, by Rictor Norton

Excerpts:

Quote:

The one person most responsible for the creation of the labels to be used in the discourse about homosexuality was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825–95). He was a German law student, secretary to various civil servants and diplomats, and a journalist – he was not a medical doctor. In May 1862 his acquaintance Johann Baptist von Schweitzer, active in the Social Democracy workers’ movement, was arrested for ‘public indecency’. Ulrichs wrote a defence and sent it to Schweitzer, but it was confiscated by the authorities. Ulrichs, who had been sexually attracted to men since his early teens, decided that now was the time to solve this ‘riddle’. In November 1862 Ulrichs told his relatives of his intention to publish a study of ‘The Race of Uranian Hermaphrodites, i.e., the Man-Loving Half-Men’. Ulrichs's ‘scientific’ inspiration was contemporary embryology, which had discovered that the sex organs are undifferentiated in the earliest stages of the development of the foetus. By analogy, homosexual desire was just as ‘natural’ as this containment of the opposite sex within the developing embryo. He believed that the ‘germ’ of the female sex could be retained in the fully developed male, creating a kind of psychic hermaphrodite or half-man: a feminine direction of the sex drive within a masculine sex. (This direct linking of sex organs to direction of sex drive is a common non sequitur.) After some refinements he settled on the phrase anima muliebria virili corpore inclusa – a feminine soul or mentality confined within a masculine body.

(b) The pinkSwastika, Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin E. Abrams, Founders Publishing Corporation, Keiser, Oregon, 1997, ISBN: 0964760932

Excerpts:

Quote:

The “grandfather” of the world “gay rights” movement was a homosexual German lawyer named Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895). At the age of 14, Ulrichs was seduced by his riding instructor, a homosexual man about 30 years old (Kennedy in Pascal:15). Observers familiar with the apparently high correlation between childhood sexual molestation and adult homosexuality might conclude that this youthful experience caused Ulrichs to become a homosexual. Ulrichs himself, however, arrived at a hereditary rather than an environmental explanation for his condition. In the 1860s Ulrichs began advancing a theory that defined homosexuals as a third sex. He proposed that male homosexuality could be attributed to a psycho-spiritual mix-up in which a man’s body came to be inhabited by a woman’s soul (and vice-versa for females). He called members of this third sex “Urnings” (male) and “Dailings” (female). Since homosexuality was an inborn condition, he reasoned, it should not be criminalized. Although Ulrichs was to be unsuccessful in changing the laws against homosexuality, his efforts did encourage widespread political activism. One early follower, a German-Hungarian writer named Benkert (under the pseudonym, Karoly Maria Kertbeny), coined the term “homosexual” in an anonymous open letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in 1869 (Lauritsen and Thorstad:6).

Quote:

Ulrichs’ successor Magnus Hirschfeld was a prominent Jewish physician and homosexual. Dr. Hirschfeld, along with two other homosexuals, Max Spohr and Erich Oberg, joined together to form the Wissenschaftlich-Humanitaeres Komitee (“Scientific-Humanitarian Committee”). As we have noted, the SHC was dedicated to two goals: 1) to carry on Ulrichs’ philosophy and works and 2) to work for the legitimization of homosexuality by the German public via the repeal of Paragraph 175, the German law which criminalized homosexual conduct (Steakley:23f). Homosexualist historian Richard Plant writes, It would be hard to overestimate Hirschfeld’s importance...He became the leader of several psychological and medical organizations, the founder of a unique institute for sexual research...He also founded the ‘Yearbook for Intersexual Variants,’ which he edited until 1923 (Plant: 28-29).

a. To believe that the world was ever divided between gay and straight people and that the 'straights' oppressed 'gays' is a very queer notion to start with, and totally baseless.

b. For most of the history, it has been the 'female soul in male body' who liked men who has been oppressed, not so much the man's sexual desire for men. The third genders were however not men who love men, nor were the straights men who didn't love men, or necessarily loved women (even if they married women, as a compulsive manhood role).

Even in the classical Greek society, while straight gendered men could love other men, the third genders (known as catamites and eunuchs) were extremely looked down upon. Indeed, it was a slur to be known as a catamite.

It was the same with ancient Vikings, and Celtic people and Germanic people, who all celebrated love between 'men' but castigated the third gender and their desire to be penetrated.

In the medieval world, although sex between men in the West was also persecuted along with sex between third gender and men, for men it was just their manhood requirement that they had to fulfill -- to like women and to keep off from men formally. And even if it caused misery to men, men were, sufficiently compensated for it by being granted 'social manhood' (for which the third genders who liked men had no need). And there is nothing that men want more than manhood identity. They are willing to die for it and sacrifice their most prized things in life for it. Furthermore, like we've already seen, men had created an informal, hidden space for themselves, within the mainstream mens' spaces, where they most of them formed secretive sexual and romantic bonds with another man, while hiding all these from women, third genders (gays) and the formal society.

Even if we look at the modern world, in the Nazi camp, those who were actually persecuted were the third genders who like men, not men who have sex with men. In fact, there is documented evidence that the Nazi soldiers who persecuted the 'homosexuals' (the effeminate males who like men) had widespread sexual relations amongst themselves. They were the straights who made the third genders wear pink triangles. The ire of the Nazi men against the effeminate 'homosexuals' could be seen as vending of the men's ire against third genders for appropriating men's sexuality for men, and depriving them of the space to love men.

Quote from Homosexulity in the Nazi party:

Quote:

... the law was used selectively against the "Femmes." And even when they were threatened, many effeminate homosexuals, especially those in the arts community, were given protection by certain Nazi leaders (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:248).

In general, it can be said that, although, men were also persecuted along with third genders in the West, about sex with men, men approached this persecution in a totally different way than the third genders. As 'desire for women' became the basic requiremment for manhood, and as 'desire for men' became a disqualification for manhood, men enmasse, disowned their sexuality for men (even if some continued it secretly), while the third genders took it up as their basic social identity, as a sign of their 'gender orientation.' Or at least, a combination of 'gender' and 'sexual orientation.'

Today's gay people (i.e. males who have little use for manhood) are much less oppressed. But today's men (who are called straights today) are much more oppressed. They are forced to be broken from men. But one will not know anything about that, if one is not one of them. Because men will suffer in silence rather than talk about this. They would cruelly sacrifice their most cherished bonds with men, but never cross the roles of manhood set for them by the society. If one is not one of the men, like in the past, today too, one is likely to believe earnestly that straight males are all (majority), genuinely, exclusively heterosexual and happy being who they are. But its nothing more than a myth.