Natural manhood

I guess when I argue with non-intellectuals, I'll have to deal with such non-intelligent remarks.

Human sexuality and gender are so much controlled by social norms, that it is often impossible to separate the two. I am not even bringing in the whole issue of there being an agenda for the society in this respect, an agenda which in the past was carried out through religion.

Under this circumstances, the 'scientific' institution is so convinced that the myths that the society holds are actually facts, that it fails to verify these 'facts' through scientific methods and takes them for granted. And because they are so widely accepted in the culture, this huge misrepresentation of facts it ensues, is either totally ignored by peer-review or the opposition is sidelined with the entire power of the culture.

This then affects the entire scientific process negatively. Right from choosing the topic to be studied, to sampling and to interpretation of the results.

Thus, the science institution will readily decide that 'reproduction' is the primary purpose of life, since the western society, for 2000 years has been pathologically obsessed with reproduction, and believes earnestly in so. This pre-conceived notion would affect all of their study of life.

You will find only what you seek. You will then ignore anything else that doesn't fit into your preconceived notion.

That has what has happened with western study of 'sexual orientation.' It started out with accepting the 'homo-hetero' divide as the biological fact of life, without first caring to ascertain if this divide really exists out in the nature, outside of the western culture. How can it naively believe that with the kind of social politics around male gender and sexuality, sexual desire for men would naturally occur only amongst the 'gay' identified people? In trying to figure out the 'causes' of homosexuality, it (the western scientific institution) assumed without any proof, that it is otherwise bound to procure, that males are primarily, exclusively and constantly heterosexual, and what it terms 'homosexuality' only happens as an 'anomaly' (a more politically correct way of saying 'abnormality'). It is in such a hurry to give scientific validation to the homo-hetero divide, and to the concept of sexual orientation, especially the 'gays' (third genders) are in such a hurry to validate their identity biolgically, that they break all rules and indulge in dishonest ways to dole out half-baked results as biological facts. So, we have one day 'gay' scientist claiming to have found a 'gay' gene, and the media propagating that result extremely loudly all around the world as evidence of the biological validity of the western homo-hetero divide. And then slowly, several peers point out the enormous gaps in the study. But, the media hardly ever talks about them. The public becomes more and more convinced that 'sexual orientation' divide is biologically valid.

There have been several examples in the past where the sampling was affected by social bias. So, when they wanted to prove that so-called 'homosexuality' is a mental disease, they went to all the asylums and studied the males that came to get their 'homosexuality' (sic) treated. If you study mentally unstable people for a sample you're bound to reach at wrong results. Similarly, when they want to study the cause of why men like men, they study the 'gays'. Now since gays are primarily third genders, i.e. males with female brain mechanisms, they are bound to get results where male to male desire will be shown as equating a brain that is more like that of women, than that of men. (Source: Gay men scan shows brain differences; Gay men read maps like women: study, Gay men's brains react like women's in pheromone study
)

The western study of human male sexuality in any case has been in abstracts. Like the four blind men who were asked to find out what an elephant was, each of them groped a different part of the elephant, and described it as being like a rope, a snake, a pillar and a fan, based on what part of the elephant they groped. They were not lying. It's just that they failed to take the entirei picture into account.


Is that something you know or you believe? If this is your belief, then you are just a bigot. If you know this to be true, then let me see your evidences.


People's opinions are not published by credible universities, nor are they written by established historians. If you're doubting the works of credible historians (like Randolph Trumbach) then you should lay down why you think that. Unless, like I said, you're just bigoted. In which case, you're a waste of my time.


And what do you mean by scientific data? Do you mean a research where the genes of people are studied to find out if most straight men like other men or not? Is your science capable of finding that out?

Then again, where is the scientific proof that straight men don't really like men, and that they're not just responding to age-old psycho-social mechanisms that don't want men to like men. Remember, sexuality is greatly influenced by social environment. Yet, your society, without any scientific proof, believes in that ardently.

I think what is important is that there is historical and contemporary evidence that there have been societies that have been more accepting -- either formally or informally -- of sexual intimacy between men in general, where men can love other men to some extent, without losing their social manhood -- and in those societies, men enmasse indulge in serious, meaningful romantic bonds with men. And this cannot happen unless the biology and biological sexual orientation of men allows that.


I already gave the explanation. I think your confusion will continue unless you learn to think out of the 'homo-hetero' box (frankly, I suspect you're a closet gay, but anyways, I'll take you at your face value), and realise that straight is not about 'heterosexuality' but about 'social manhood' ... and that you may not really know about the fluidity of your own sexuality which fluidity can often be harmed in an extreme hostile environment (for man to man intimacy) like the west ... and then again, you may be in the wrong group -- wrong definitions can often lead to wrong grouping ... just like a masculine gendered male that likes men would wrongly placed in the gay group.