Natural manhood

Rubbish!! Animals can't be 'gay'. Just like Animals can't be 'married.' These are human concepts.

And, neither can the ancient Greeks, contemporary South Asians or native Americans be 'gay' or 'heterosexual.'

Only western males can be gay. And most don't want to.

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------


That's your point of view. You as a woman have no right to make categories for men.

If you want to stick to your category of dividing men, I'd stick to ours, there are only two kinds of women. normal women. And whores.

Normal women get married and nurse children. The whores (you call them heterosexual women) have 'sex' with men for its own sake. They are promiscuous, loud, they like to control men. They are dominant. aggressive. flamboyant. gaudy, obnoxious, vulgar not very different from the gays.

If it sounds bad, then do consider the power you have given yourself to categorise and divide men on the basis of who is willing to submit to you sexually.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 PM ----------

Anyone with a conscience would be startled by a paper by a sholar that claims that in the past, men -- straight men -- so universally indulged in sex with other men, even when women were available all the time. This goes against the grain of what the West propagates straight, normal men to be -- repulsive of any kind of intimacy with males, especially sexual intimacy.

If any of you had any conscience, instead of hounding me out for saying what I sincerely believe to be true, you should have started to do some introspection by now. For, even if my claims are way too exaggerated (yet, they're not!!) ... who am I? Just a nobody, with no power to change anything. But, the concepts about male gender and sexuality that your entire society, with all its technological, political and economical power is propagating ... if they're lying ... they are doing immense harm. I have not even presented all my assertions or evidences, yet you're too quick and eager to brush me aside. All because I challenge male sexuality, the way its practised and structured in the West, esp. male so-called 'heterosexuality.'

It's not that all Westerners are bigoted. Just the ones who tend to fight over this issue, (I exclude you, since you're not fighting with me, like the others here). I wish someone had done a sincere analysis of the sources that I have presented that go against everything that the western male today stands for.


I've said that matter of factly. Believe it or not. Funny you should bring it up. Because, even if you think I'm lying, there is enough 'published' verifiable, material to consider already. And, like I said, I'll keep posting more -- some verifiable, others not verifiable like in a paper, but those who genuinely wants to know the truth, can start to see and feel them, once they change their perspective.

Meanwhile, I wish you'd show some objectivity, and try to analyse the evidences that are there.


we here like to discuss things in a mature manner and that means we ask that people back up their beliefs with facts and citations. If you don't or cannot, you posts can be marginalized to the point of it being just your opinion.

I think you need to rethink your strategy if you want to further the discussion. You seem to want this to be about winning and not about discussing.[/QUOTE]

You call this "mature manner"

I give you evidences that in the West, not too long ago, straight men universally had sex with each other -- specifically, two published materials: by Pierre and Randolph Trumbach.

You ignore that. May I ask, is this maturity or bigotedness.

You ignore the published, online evidences about the origins of 'gay,' you ignore the evidences about


I think, its more that you people don't want to discuss it, but are more intersested in hounding me out.

I see very few people willing to discuss it outside the confines of western parameters, outside the parameters of what is already accepted and holds authority in the West.

There can be no discussion in those parameters, because, then every lie of yours would be shown as a 'fact.' If you genuinely want to see my pov, and consider it objectively, you'll have to stop insisting on western definitions.

I don't care about winning or loosing. Its the bigoted people who get the worse out of me. People like idyllic, who have done nothing but gone on her own trip accusing me of being anti-woman, giving me her opinion after opinion, never even bothering to back any thing up, and not even bothering to consider anything I say.

Even, if you ignore the sources I'm continuously giving, even if these are my opinions, if I create a thread to discuss my personal 'opinion' I would expect people to consider them and give their analysis, not go on their own trip.

Also, I can't stress this more. What I am saying has been said in parts by different western experts, but never put together to say what I'm asserting. So, don't look for a paper that says everything I'm claiming at the sametime. You'll find one source evidencing one part of it, and another evidencing another.

---------- Post added at 05:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

--------------

I think this forum has a big disadvantage that I can't posts two different (separated from each other) posts at the same time. Everything is clubbed into one big lump.