Natural manhood

It comes as a complete shock to me that you're a 'straight' ... There's hardly a straight guy I've met who so much believes in the concept of 'sexual orientation'. At best, they are indifferent to it. But secretly every straight man hates it.

The problem, like I said earlier, is with your society's definition. Straight means manhood. Plain and simple. It's about gender orientation, not about sexual orientation.

Furthermore, that all straight males (which means, masculine gendered, regular, mainstream, majority guys ... that they're heterosexual is a queer belief concretized by the western society ... heterosexuality is nothing more than a gender role for straight or masculine gendered guys).

My own personal experience of growing up straight in a non-western society, where liking men doesn't make you liable to be isolated in a separate category like a 'whore' (just like if you call a woman a whore in the west, all women come to her support and say they're whores too, similarly, if you called a straight gendered guy 'homo' for liking men, every male would stand up for him, and say they all like men. It's true!!).

I grew up hearing that sexual relations between men are wrong, but that every man has that desire, that all men are capable of it. Not only that, I experienced that universal male sexuality for men all around me, esp. in crowded buses and local ponds. Personal limits are not so strict in my society as in the west, and straight males actually feel each other up a lot in crowded places, esp. if they realise that you're game for it. And even if everyone else knows what you're up to, no one ever sees you as a different category. You remain one of the men. It doesn't matter whether you like women or not, everyone is supposed to like men. However, you need to get married and have children. Whether or not you like women. Manhood = reproduction, not desire for women.

AND, the effeminate males are considered of a separate category, a separate gender, "the third gender" and the western term 'homo' is taken to mean, third gender. So, its very interesting that an NGO reported in its workshop with men, that men consider a famous TV character who chases women all the time, but is effeminate and limpwristed as 'homo', no matter that he chases women, and two men who are regular, masculine guys, but have exclusive sex only with each other, are not seen as 'homos' but as 'men.'

I was doing a survey for an international agency on HIV/ AIDS attitudes, and a group of adolescents in high school wrote in front of "whether you think homosexuals should be banned." The boys talked amongst themselves, "No, I don't think they should be banned, They are good for sex." It turned out that they were talking about some effeminate guys who would lurk outside the school looking for sex with high school students. The point is, the 'homo' is the transgendered, 'whore' while normal guys have sex with men as well as with 'homos' and they're perfectly straight.

It's our definitions of straight and gay which are clashing here.

---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------

This shows either your ignorance or your bigotedness.

Which of the sources are you disputing. I have not given any 'opinions' as sources. The sources are important, scholarly or journalistic work of history or culture.

By the way, have your scientific or medical communities been able to prove that 'gay' as a category is a biological category, as it is claimed to be, or that, ... is 'homosexuality' as defined by the West, clubbing all kinds of male attraction for men into one lump, without considering their gender identity (not sex identity, mind you -- westerners keep confusing sex with gender), biologically backed, that somehow separates them from those males that like women, so as to validate making a separate category for them? Do all males who like men share some common biological markers related to sexuality? Are most males heterosexual and have no sexuality for males? Do only a rare, different and effeminate kind of males desire male, and the rest are repulsed?

How conveniently did western science assume that the straight identity of men reflected their true sexual aspirations (and that it excludes sexuality for men) and that there are no social reasons or pressures or conditioning or training of men to be heterosexual? And yet you talk about peer-reviews, as if it takes care of everything.

Western science has given validation to these beliefs without ever caring to prove them. In fact, western science has acted in a very dubious ways as far as male gender and sexuality goes.

It started by painting male sexuality for men as a mental disease that only some males are afflicted by. Then when the political pressure mounted, it took off 'disease' from its books and replaced it with 'anomaly.'

Now, if its actions have been creditworthy, then what made it change its stance on 'homosexuality'? Did it do it through valid researches or because of mounting political pressures? Also, Bruce Bagemihl in his research book has shown with evidence how biologists have deliberately, suppressed information on sexuality between males in the wild. Historians have been known to destroy evidences of sexual intimacy between males, and a misinterpretation of them is extremely common amongst scientific community and it all passes peer-review, because, when it comes to upholding male heterosexuality, those who control western society, know that anthing goes, and there are no limits to which one can go in order to distort the truth.

Source:

Biological exuberances
by Bruce Bagemihl
(I'm hunting for the online source)

Again, before accepting the political 'gay' category of the west as a biological one and then doing researches on it, western science didn't bother to first prove that 'gay' is indeed a biological category on its own, with people who have a certain kind of anamoly. It just made assumptions, and built an entire theory on it. Yet, till today, even after spending huge amounts of money on its reasearches, it has NOT been able to prove that there is any biological basis for 'sexual identities' or that they are indeed fixed.

All it has done is to find that those who define themselves as 'gay' have female like characteristics (sounds like third gender?), including parts of their brain, their speeches, their gait and so on.

Also, it is quite telling about how much conspiracy against men there is in the West and at such a wide scale, that something which is common knowledge in the non-West, that all men have a sexuality for other men, is seen as so unbelievable and like from outer space for western males.

I don't believe you Cynthetiq. You've been less than impartial and its clear cut.

Most of the sources, I've laid here, I've laid before. You and others repeatedly ignored it. I've done nothing new. I've just reposted them with some more quotes. I'd not given links earlier, because your site prohibits giving of links. however I'd specified that the sources are available online. It seems you apply rules arbitrarily.

Yet, its been me all along who has come up with 'facts' and peer-reviewed sources.

Can you name one person here who has refuted my claims with 'peer-reviewed journals or any sources at all -- or has refuted my assertions in any credible way,' except telling me in different ways that I'm wrong and the West is right?

Are you saying that no one can challenge the West and its brand of knowledge? Is peer-review a fool-proof process that means they cannot be wrong? Should they never be allowed to be challenged? What if there are two peer-reviewed approaches, diagonally opposite to each other? One which is popular and the other which is marginalised, but may be superior than the first?

If there is indeed a conspiracy, and the more I'm ganged up against in the way I am on western forums, the more convinced I am, of a western conspiracy against men, of the anti-men forces being extremely strong in the west.

I'll keep coming with more and more sources. As well as personal experiences.

---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 AM ----------

The entire 'whore' thing is supposed to be an analogy, to make you realise how being isolated as 'homo' hurts and restricts men's choices.

Christians in your society may be strong, but women still have won a lot of freedom for themselves. Only they don't want that same sexual freedom to extend to men. Any freedom that men get sexually has to be within the arena of heterosexuality. If they want anything else, they must leave the mainstream male space, and become someone else -- a different category altogether, something that has always been extremely stigmatized for men, at that.

Also, whore for you today does not carry the same implications as it would have in a past era, or in a non-western society, today. It is just a label that you can ignore. 'Homo' or 'gay' is not just an adjective. It has serious implications. You at once become a different species. A 'differnt' individual. Suddenly, every stigma, every stereotype that is typical of the third genders become attached to you. You are isolated from the men's spaces altogether. You psychologically are made to feel not part of the men. You become part of a different culture, an effeminate/ queer culture. How can you love another man with any dignity under such circumstances, if you're not feminine gendered?

If you go by the level of isolation in non-western societies, then even showing sexual interest or intimacy with even your husband in public is slutty, there is no question of showing any interest in any man you're not married to. And marriage is a one time affair.

Oppressive? Not, if you consider that men are forced to serve women sexually for obtaining manhood from the society. There is no space for men to say they don't want to have sex with women, without losing their manhood, and becoming third gender/ 'gay'.

The oppression of women was supposed to counterbalance the oppression of men. Men were forced to have sex with women. And women were forced to deny their sexuality. If you force men to be sexual with women (and leave men no choice) but give freedom to men, it becomes extremely oppressive for men. And I know of several ways in which straight males are suffering ... I hope I get to share some of those ways. The very first thing to realise is that the essence of straight is manhood, not heterosexuality, per se.

Also, its the same level of isolation that men who want to show any kind of intimacy with men face in the West. So, two manly males may not hold hands with each other without being ridiculed as 'gay.' And 'gay' is a huge slur for men (not for effeminacy of gays per se, but because of how male effeminacy is politicised and used as a threat space for men to deny manhood).

The non-Western suppression of female to male sexuality has a method to it. The western suppression of male to male intimacy has no purpose but to further the powers of the anti-men forces, by keeping men broken from each other.

---------- Post added at 01:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 AM ----------