Natural manhood

Open your eyes man, the world I'm talking about is right where you live. It's actually your culture that is making life much more difficult for us than it already was. Your society is where the men are most oppressed. If you don't know that you should not call yourself a 'man.'

You may fit into the anti-man system quite well, and you may believe sincerely that everything is hunky dory for other men, but then that is because men don't talk about their persecution. They bear everything silently. They think its their eternal duty to fit into what ever system they are born into.

The reason I'm here is to bring to light this persecution, even when men themselves keep silent on it. They pretend everything that they are not. It's a challenging job, especially, when there is so much hostility to it (the reason that there is so much hostility is that there is something about what I say that threatens those in power. And when one is so insecure, its usually, when one's power is dependant on lies.)

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------

Your attitude is typical of societies with a Christian past, where people tend to have strong preconceived notions about things, which may not tally with how things stand in nature, yet they browbeat facts about nature to fit into their preconceived notions.

It's true that reproduction in most animal species are through sex between males and females. However, its also true that nature has given only as much desire to males and females to have sex with each other, as much reproduction it can endure. And nature is as much concerned about limiting reproduction as it is about reproducing.

Also, most mammalian males don't have constant or exclusive sexual need for females. And a huge percentage of mammalian males may easily go without sex with females, if they have male company. Indeed a big percentage of mammalian males are actually repulsed by the idea. Otherwise, there would not be any pressure on men to have sex with women, nor would it be tied with granting of social manhood to men. Social manhood is granted to men for doing something that they find abhorrent otherwise.

Reproductive sex and a heterosexual orientation are two different things. A heterosexual orientation is a complete waste for nature, because in nature, mammalian males and females don't live together or have any sexual or romantic alliance that is not related with reproduction. And very little is required for reproduction. You'd find that mammalian males that do have sex with females get only occasional urges to do so, Once in a year or so, otherwise they leave the females alone. It's only in the reproductive season, when the female is ready to reproduce that males care to have sex with them.

Also, have you noticed, that while most males are happily grazing in the field, its only a couple of males that go bonkers to have sex with the female. And yet, the moment they do the needful they leave the female alone.

IS REPRODUCTION THE BASIC PURPOSE OF SEX?

The answer is NO ...

And the proof is that, sex was there way before reproduction became 'sexual'. Before sexual dimorphism came about, animal species used to reproduce asexually. There are still some species of animals that reproduce asexually. Yet, they have sex with each other. AND, its beteween those of the same gender.

Sex is found even in bacterias, who don't reproduce sexually at all.

The original purpose of sex is bonding. It's what makes life livable. And originally, sex is meant for the same-genders, not with the opposite.

It's only that when sexual dimorphism occurred, nature hitched on to 'sex' which was already there between the same-gender, and used it as a vehicle for reproduction. However, the basic purpose and direction of sex has remained the same amongst all animal species -- and its towards the same-gender. Sex between males and females has always been limited to the act of reproduction.

Tomorrow, nature may find some other better suited route for reproduction. Then male-female sex will cease altogether. Because it never existed before. Yet, sex between the same-gender will continue.

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

What is biology, but your society's attempt to understand life.

It is not free from your society's biases, at least in some aspects of biology.

You are incapacitated by your cultural constraints from understanding the full concept of one's gender, and you restrict it to only what can be seen from the outside. Although, you make an exception in the case of 'sexual orientation' where you go ahead and recognize it as 'biological,' even when you refuse to acknowledge gender (i.e. an inner male or female sex identity, irrespective of our outer sex) as biological.

However, gender is as biological as 'sex' and as much a part of our gender identity as our outer sex, represented by our sexual organs.

So, there is no reason that you should restrict 'third gender' only to physical hermaphrodites. There is also hermaphroditsm of the soul, which also manifests itself biologically. Have you not seen innumerable studies conducted on the 'gays' (who are third genders and not 'men' who like men)? They all report finding biological markers that are markers of female biology ... e.g. hypothalamus similar in size to women's rather than men's.