Natural manhood

In fact, the caste system of segregation is not so sinister as your 'sexual orientation' system, because there was no organised attempt from the top to bring this about. It just evolved in a negative way, especially during the Islamic rule, when the development of HInduism stopped. However, the 'sexual orientation' system of segregation has been carefully engineered from the top, with the help of powerful organised bodies like Christianity, science and media, all of whom are controlled by anti-man forces.

I've already given about 2-3 very solid evidences. And by themselves, they should make any neutral person sit up and take notice ... after all, if scholars are saying this, there must be some truth to it. It's worth paying attention to in any case.

I'd like to see someone due a reasonable analysis of those evidences. Not the far-fetched kind done by Idyllic, but an objective one.


Well, any institution which gets too much power (like the scientific institution in the West) starts to abuse its power and authority to misrepresent facts. We should not make them into holy cows, that they can't be questioned by the layman if they go against his experiences.

And if, as in this case, their accounts are totally in opposition to what has been the case in the rest/ majority of the world, and they are self-contradictory in their analysis of the past, with several historians raising objections to the treatment of history by those who control the institution, then there is especially a case to 'reopen the files.'

The western understanding of male gender and sexuality, whether its by historians or biologists or psychologists is highly perverted because they look at everything from the lens of the way the west defines 'sexual orientation.' Several western and non-Western scholars have in every era raised their concern about this Western hegemony.

Stop blaming me for not providing the sources. Please at least read my posts before you make those false accusations. Acknowledge the sources that I've provided and tell me why they should not make you rethink.
Also, what I have asserted here has not been previously put together exactly in this way at one place. Different scholars have said different parts of it, and that is why my work is unique. I'm presenting for the first time, a non-Western perspective which will expose a lot of lies that the west is propagating about male gender and sexuality. Of course, some people would never like those lies to be exposed and they will fight with me tooth and nail.

Furthermore, I am not asking Idyllic to provide sources. I asked her a question, that will expose the bigotedness of her pov, and I expect an answer. What is the point of a discussion if everyone is going on his or her own track, without listening to what the other is saying.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

Good. So let's be patient with each other. I'll provide all the sources you want. But, only if you acknowledge and analyse the sources that I have already provided.

1. I'm making several assertions here. And, since this is not a 'paper' I will take my point to give sources and other evidences for them, gradually, as the discussion takes place, considering the time restraint that I have.

You can't come here asking me sources for every damn thing, RIGHT NOW ... when as a historian, you should have known these things already. In the non-West we live and breathe these things, that are so 'unbelievable' for you that you should ask for sources. (Of course, I'll give more sources).

2. You've asked me to provide sources for my assertions that most straight males have a sexual need for other men that is suppressed by the Western society.

I've already given two sources which should have made you think, if you were honest about discussing this issue.

The first source also includes a personal account of growing up in the US in the 1960s, whereas the second one by Randolph Trumbach shows how the majority of men BECAME heterosexual by abandoning 'sodomy' when the third genders started to claim a desire for 'sodomy' as their trait.

You should also be ready to understand the shortcoming of the Western historians to understand past concepts of male gender and sexuality, with their incapability to understand third gender, and their perverted concept of 'sexual orientation' which was never present in the past.


That's not how someone who is even reasonably intelligent analyses a source. Certainly not with a claim to have a degree in history.

You are supposed to tell me exactly how it is not relevant or 'frequently contradictory.'

If the majority of 'straight' males were having sex with each other in the US in the 1960s, would that not say a lot about straight male sexuality ... at least that it is not as exclusively heterosexual and repulsive of male eroticism as is claimed by men living under the western system of 'sexual orientation.' Any honest analyser would take that as a food for thought, as something that starts to put a question mark on the beliefs that his society has lived by for generations, rather than concentrating on dismissing me altogether.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS NOT THAT THIS PAPER DOESN'T SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT I SAY, BUT THAT IT GOES AGAINST THE ESSENCE OF WHAT AN ENTIRE SOCIETY (WEST) HAS BEEN PROPAGATING ABOUT MALE GENDER AND SEXUALITY.

Don't expect any paper to say everything that I'm saying. Because, its the first time someone from a non-Western perspective is commenting on male gender and sexuality. I'm bringing up several important issues that the western historians, scientists and scholars have missed all this while. The sources that I give here will only bring in a basis for the analysis I'm presenting. These are facts that the western historians and scientists have unjustifiably sidelined.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

1. That the gays in the west have become so powerful that they have distorted historical facts unabashedly, especially in the past few years they've changed things online too, to make facts fit into their perverted ideology, is another discussion in itself.

To take an small example, the term catamite, which is the ancient Greek term for the 'third gender' male, who was an effeminate, promiscuous male who sought receptive sex from men, using his anus as a substitute for vagina, in order to assert his inner female, has been redefined as a 'homosexual,' (i.e. a man who likes men), as a 'man,' totally obliterating any reference to his effeminacy, to his being a differnt gender than men and to his preference for receiving penetration as a woman.

When I read the meaning of the term online about a decade ago, there were several references to these traits that are integral to understanding the term 'catamite.' Today, there are hardly any. The entire definition has been changed, including the one at Wikipedia.

But if catamite just meant the younger partner in the 'homosexual' (sick) relationship (as claimed by several western 'historical' sites) or a young 'homosexual,' then the immense stigma that went with the term 'catamite' would not make any sense at all. Catamites were thought of as highly descipable people. It was alright for a man to kill another legally, if he was called a 'catamite' by the other.

Defining a 'catamite' as a 'man who loves man' (homosexual) would place him into the same category as Alexander the great. Something which is just plain stupid, and historically untrue.

Similarly, earlier several definitions of the term Queer, online included references to 'effeminacy' and 'indulging in receptive anal sex with men.' Today, there are hardly any references to those things. And Queer just means a 'man who desires men.' Period.

And the same, unfortunately has happened with the term 'gay'. I saw several references to the origin of the term gay that pointed out that the term was used for flamboyant, loud, transgendered males who sought promiscuous, receptive sex from men. Today, most of these definitions have been purged from the public domain.

Everything made to fit into the gay ideology, to make it seem that history always had the concept of 'homosexuality' as seen by the West.

2. If I bring you sources that point out that gay did refer to promiscuous sex by whom you call 'homosexuals' (who were actually transgendered males) and to prostitutes, would you accept that you know nuts about history?

Online Etymology Dictionary
Rawson ["Wicked Words"] notes a male prostitute using gay in reference to male homosexuals (but also to female prostitutes) in London's notorious Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889.

The word gay in the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a gay house was a brothel. The suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back to 1630s.

Of course, the western society has removed all references to effeminacy from the history of the origin of the word 'gay' and replacing the word with the gender neutral term 'homosexual,' based on its ideology of 'sexual orientation,' thus destroying an important aspect of historical fact. But, have no doubts, the homosexuals that 'gay' referred to were effeminate males seeking receptive sex from males, preferably masculine males (who were seen as straight).

3. With the way you seem to be distorting the historical facts about 'gay' and 'homosexuality' to fit into the gay ideology, I am beginning to suspect your 'claim' of being 'straight.'

I have dealt with so many males claiming they are 'straights' and then getting into arguments like a fanatic gay chauvinist, refusing to look into anything that negates the concept of homosexuality ... and some of them were caught red handed. Just saying.

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

FOR EVERYONE THAT MAKE THE FALSE CLAIM THAT GAY IS NOT SEEN AS OR USED FOR AN EFFEMINATE MALE IN THE WEST, HERE IS A CLEAR EVIDENCE:
Change the meaning of the word gay: A facebook group by gays

And ...

Here is an important source that clearly establishes the link between 'gay' or 'homosexual' or 'queer' of today with the 'third gender' (effeminate, promiscuous male who has receptive anal sex with men, using his anus as a vagina) of the indigenous societies and pre-modern west:

Passive Roles: by Rictor Norton