Natural manhood

Idyllic, there is no contradiction in me. It seems, either you're really having a problem understanding me, or you're deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting me. I'll assume its the former, and re-explain myself.

I've repeatedly said 'sexual orienation' is a misleading phenomenon. your use of the term to put words into my mouth points to a certain dishonesty. If you sincerely want to understand what I'm saying (which I doubt you do) then, please rephrase what I'm saying without the western loaded terms. Otherwise, we'll go round and round.

Have I ever said that? NO!! Can you pick out the specific text where I say that!

I say the opposite. It doesn't matter whether you take it or recieve it, or do it to a woman or a man or a third gender ... you're man if you're a male with a male identity, and you're a third gender if you're broken from that male identity and have some sort of a female identity.

In fact, I'd also say that the straight spaces in the West should be reoriented to allow for a lot of male femininity that goes well with the predominant male identity. Only the extreme, transgendered males of whatever sexual desires, would then need a separate identity, unlike today, when even slight effeminacy with exclusive desires for men wants to make a male long for a separate identity.

---------- Post added at 04:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 AM ----------

If you'd just become a more open-minded and stop to look at your own folly, you'll know your drawback.

You accused the eastern culture of equating 'third gender' with 'homosexuality', when, as you agree, it only equates 'being penetrated' with 'third gender.'

Now, let's look at it mathematically:

Eastern culture: Third gender = the penetrated; Man = Penetrator

You're saying this means, in Eastern culture: Third gender = Homosexual

This would make your own definition of Homosexual, as

Homosexual= the penetrated

However, you/ your society, still defines Homosexual = any sexual act between males

You're contradicting your own definition.

But, you're not alone. These definitions are ambiguous, because the concept of 'homosexuality' was botched up in a hurry, building upon the same anti-man myths that the eastern society is living under, even today.

Even serious Western scholars do this all the time. Homosexuality is widely used as a synonym for 'being penetrated' and the penetrator is often excluded from the definition. Homosexuality is also widely used by Western serious scholars (esp. the gay ones) as a synonym for transgenderism, even heterosexual transgenderism.

You're pretty messed up there. And the mess is deliberately created.

---------- Post added at 04:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 AM ----------

It's a physical sensation preference that men and manhood have long been debarred from. It's a 'negative' gender role, in the sense that it debars a male from social manhood. In other words, males are debarred from manhood, if they openly acknowledge receiving it.

Without this gender role, men would just love to get that sensation as well. Remember, males have the same bodies.

And, when a positive human trait gets debarred from manhood, the third genders get it for free. So, 'receiving it' becomes a 'patent' of the third genders. Their gender role. Something they can indulge in without inhibition, since they have no use for manhood, being feminine gendered.

Why are we discussing this? I have several times clarified my position on this. There is no disagreement on this point. Are you deliberately trying to keep up your blame game, because you don't have anything better to support yourself?

When the very definition of 'homosexuality' is being questioned here, your using the term to make your point doesn't help your case.

Let's rephrase what you've just claimed: "Homosexuality is sex between two males. But just because two males have sex with each other doesn't make them homosexual." This is amongst the innumerable double standards that the western system of sexual orientation is built upon.

Personal choice for whom? Masculine gendered males? No. Feminine gendered males? Yes.

I've already given innumerable examples of this from your society.

It's enforced upon masculine gendered males by the feminine gendered males who like men.

ahem ... excuse me!! We're forgetting something. It's your culture that has the 'homosexual'/ 'heterosexual' divide, not mine. My culture doesn't have any criteria for such a division.

Again, I'm not here upholding my culture. My culture is basically built on the same anti-man stuff that yours is. Yours just takes it to the extreme. And we need to change both cultures and restore it to the original human nature.

---------- Post added at 05:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 AM ----------

1. The so-called 'gay' community consists originally and essentially of effeminates (by now you'd have read the history of it, I hope). The non-effeminates exist there only because they're forced out of the straight space. They exist there like fish out of water. I've been discussing these issues with the western gay community on the net itself. And, just like in my the westernized parts of my own society, here too, there are two kinds of 'gays' -- the effeminate males who fight for the gay identity. And the masculine ones who thank me profusely for liberating them from unjust western system of sexual orientation, and showing them that they don't really belong with the gays and that their discomfiture is justified.

Just give space to male sexuality for men within the straight space, and you'll see that no masculine male that likes men will ever use the word 'gay.'

2. On the contrary, the western gay community has been sharply divided between 'effeminates' (including 'straight-acting') and 'non-effeminates,' at every level. Even amongst the effeminates themselves, there is a strong bias in favour of masculine males (and the usual lament is that there aren't any in the gay community).

There are several movements in the West itself that are talking about breaking away from the 'gay' category in some way. E.g., there is the 'g0y' movement, then there are several individual attempts like "rejecting gay identity -- reclaiming manhood" by Jack Donovan. There is a movement of sorts with a site called "heroichomosex" ... there is another site which is for 'straight males who have sex with men' ... and then there are several small groups that are for male bonding and are open to sexual/ romantic liasions between men within the straight identity. There is also something called 'bro-mance' that is within the 'straight' fold.

Many masculine males are even using the word 'straight-gay' and combined with the fact that there are 'queer heterosexuals' now, it doesn't get more befittingly confusing for the West and its politics with male gender and sexuality.

Notice, that no effeminates are involved in any of these break-away movements, further, reaffirming the equation, gay = effeminacy. straight = masculine.

It's a constant struggle for the masculine male who identifies as 'gay' to have his masculinity acknowledged, in the gay world as well as the overall society -- for the same reason.


Aren't we again confusing things here? Contrary to what you suggest, its the non-effeminates, whom you insist on calling 'gays,' who appreciate the concept of 'third gender' as the basis for segregation, rather than male sexual desire for men -- whether of receptive or penetrative nature.

The effeminates, hate having to bear the stigma on male effeminacy, and so they are the ones interested in hiding their effeminacy behind a false 'man likes man' identity.

Another group that really appreciates the concept of third gender rather than 'homosexuality' are the transgenders. And why not, they are the original 'owners' of the third gender identity. The western effeminates stole it from them and renamed it in terms of 'homosexuality.'


And why shouldn't the masculine males benefit, if they like to have sex with males, whether they're penetrated or penetrate or indulge in non-penetrative sex? More importantly, why should the masculine males be penalised if they like to be penetrated, by clubbing them away from other masculine gendered males, when men who desire women are free to revel in masculine glory? In fact, when even effeminate males who desire women revel in false masculine glory?

Surely, it would be justified, considering, the feminine heterosexuals (transgenders) are not part of the 'straight' world but of the gay world.

What a shame that you're deliberately distorting everything I say, ascribing attitudes to me that are totally opposite of my contention, and do it so unabashedly, when its here for everyone to see.

Kindly bring here one statement that says that I am against the rights or dignity of the effeminate males.


---------- Post added at 05:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 AM ----------

If you haven't read my posts, how do you know?