Might I suggest a move to San Francisco, or perhaps the French Quarter of New Orleans? Plenty of places such as you describe. Lots of hairy, very masucline, -very- gay fellows who would love to show you around.

Because you're demanding something which already exists, demanding that we accept that it does -not- exist, demanding likewise that we accept all of the preconceived BS which has led you to this erroneous conclusion as Received Truth, and furthermore demanding that the aforementioned preconceived BS (most of which appears to be deeply rooted in your own sexual anxieties and insecurities) be given equal standing with not only the vast majority of clinical, academic, and social professionals but also several thousand years of recorded history: all of which stand in diametric opposition to the statements you have made and refused to back up.

Then please do so.

Where? I've seen one source, to an article which does not support your points.

No. You are the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. It's your position, so it's your job to support it.

[quote]At least, read the sources that I give. I have even included the tests from those sources.[/quote

Where?

I call your attention once more to this line:

"I'd" is a contraction of "I would."
"Would" indicates that something has not been done. "I would go to bed, but I have more work to do." "I would marry you, but I have a boyfriend." "I would like to go see a movie."
In other words, no sources have been provided, which co-incides quite nicely with what I've observed here.

Words mean things. Words also means politics. Words are also fixed by powerful forces and given meanings that they should not have.

In Hinduism, Brahman means the superior being and the Shudra is the inferior human being. It doesn't mean that we accept these definitions when today we know better. Male gender and sexuality is even more politicised and messed up than other things.

If you're going to insist that the anti-man, western definitions and concepts be used, even if they go against the known wisdom of the non-West or indigenous societies ... without you having to justify your definitions, then by all means, please leave the discussion.

I know I can not change those who have a vested interest in men's oppression.

Says the person using definitions which apparently come from Mars (they sure don't come from Earth) and making totally unsupportable and unsupported claims about ancient societies! And then -you- gripe about other people not justifying their definitions?

Oppression...Ooh! You mean like when people force other people's sexuality into boxes, right? Like when somebody insists that even though I've always been exclusively attracted to women, had sex with several of them (sex which both partners enjoyed a great deal), and am mildly nauseated by the idea of being sexually intimate with a man...I -actually- want to have sex with men? That kind of box-shoving oppression what you're talking about? Or is it a new flavour you thought up on your own?

In the times of prehistory heterosexual sex must have obviously been seen as more than just compulsory as populations express and expose the natural inclinations for males to copulate with females.

Prior to understanding the origins of creation in a woman’s body, I would believe that nature itself dictated the arena of heterosexual sex (male penetrating females vaginally), not just for procreation but for enjoyment, as prior to scientific awareness’ birth was merely an action witnessed by humans.

It was when men and women both began to grasp the equality in the creation before them that societies did ensue. Men began to realize their place as creator of life along side WITH women and that part of their blood flowed within the blood of a child, their child, their offspring, their immortality, and man liked to know that power was his also, the power of creating life.

What man did not like, was not knowing, IF HE was truly the father, the owner of the child, so man took woman and “married” her to himself to insure his heritage, his immortality.

The separation of men from women was a necessity in times before man found other ways of proving his biological offspring. In the beginning the honeymoon was created as a way for men to insure he inseminated a woman, the couple would depart the tribe for a full moon cycle, in which time no man was permitted around them (especially the female), so it would be proven he fathered the child, a “moons cycle with your honey.”

This was before man “took” freedom from woman, this was when man respected the ability of women to prevent insemination from another. But then other men saw the love between men and women and used that love as a weakness, to destroy neighboring communities, warring tribes would copulate with their women, by using the physical/muscular weakness of women against other men and against women themselves.

As man began to acknowledge the “physical/muscular” weakness of woman he also realized the ease at which another man could penetrate his “now” incubator and sought even more to prevent his oven from baking another mans biscuits, so woman was placed behind walls, placed behind curtains, “protected” so she could not be harmed by the men who would use her (for our own protection at the time, and it was necessary to be protected THEN).

And more and more after time women became viewed as possessions for their inherent ability to provide male offspring for immortality (the child will take the mans surname) and female offspring’s for bartering and developing a grander society by marriages all leading back to the tribal leader who typically possessed the most women.

Men created the divide, men perpetuated the divide, and now NM you deem yourself right to continue it, just under a different disguise, but in your scenario you use effeminacy as your weapon of choice and you divide by character not by masculinity, but by fear and ignorance…..

You attempt to put anything effeminate, including women back behind the wall, back behind the curtains, and effeminate men, especially “gay” men back into the closet, for your own satisfaction not societies, for as you see in the progressive west, we have and will, continue to move beyond not only the gender barrier itself, but the barrier of intrinsic masculine/effeminate characteristics that make up our personalities, but DO NOT define our gender or our sexual inclinations.

The “warriors” you describe, the trials men faced, they were for the armies, for the soldiers who HAD to prove physical strength to protect their villages, it had nothing to do with manhood and everything to do with brute strength and the ability to defeat the challenger to PROTECT the village and especially PROTECT the women, the women who carried mans’ immortality…..

The men tested their strength so they could insure the strongest would fight FIRST, the men who did not posses the same physical brute strength still had great purpose, they stayed in the villages to protect the women and children, they were the last barriers and they would die protecting the woman, just as the proven warriors would.

The men who did not show the same strength as the warriors still married and loved also, and they loved too, the strongest of men because those men lead the fight and gave their lives so readily for not only the women but the men of lesser muscular ability, the society as a whole understood the importance of each individual. Just as we should today!

Stop taking history and skewing to suit your bigoted perceptions of reality, your simply wrong, it appears obvious to me you are incorrect because YOUR argument perpetuates stereotypical division of humans, and any division of the human race is inherently unprogressive, it is when people mix and mingle and remove hypocrisy that society is able to grow and flourish, I do believe history and the development of advanced societies proves my case.

(for all you out there who immediately think I am talking about AE…. I’m not, I find other countries and cultures to be just as advanced if not more so in certain arenas, so don’t start taking this thread into “I’m so proud” because I’m just not “that” full of myself)

Someone who doesn't know even about what is going on in his own society with men, when he claims to be a man, how can he judge my appraisal of the ancient societies or of the indigenous ones or the pre-industrialised western societies?

If you ask for sources, I can understand. But if you lay down the condition that any discussion has to be necessarily within the framework of definitions and concepts provided by the West, then its going to be a problem.

Then it would mean you're just plain bigoted.

Let's not just assume things. Let's look at facts. And what makes you think heterosexuality is the 'natural inclination' for males?

In order to clear the myth created by our societies about male gender and sexuality, we can look at the following areas and then decide what the default male sexuality really is:

1. Mammalian male sexuality in the wild.
2. Male gender and sexuality amongst humans:
- In the history
- in the contemporary non-West
- in the western societies
3. Pressures generated by our societies on men to be heterosexual (the more the pressure, it would mean the less likely the men are going to be heterosexual on their own).

Mammalian male sexuality in the wild:
The default sexuality of mammalian males is towards other males. There are documented evidences of this amongst several mammalian species (source: Biological Exuberances, by Bruce Bagemihl). In some species its as much as 95% of all sexual experiences of males. According to the book that compiles researches by various scientists over a period of 200 years, the only long term sexual and romantic bonds that are found are between two males. If the male cheetah, basically a solitary animal, ever bonds romantically, its with another male cheetah -- and the bond often lasts a lifetime. Bottleneck Dolphin males are known to bond romantically for life, into a couple, only sometimes, some of the males move temporarily out of this bond to mate with a female. When one of the mate dies, the other usually dies too, unless he finds someone to replace his "lover" mate.

Contrast this with heterosexual sex mammalian males indulge in. The males that do copulate with females only do it very briefly, only as much is required for reproduction. Males do not even look back at the female once the needful is done to say thank you. (same with the females). I have actually seen videos of Cheetahs losing interest in the female he is copulating with, the moment he sees a deer, and he chases the female away because he didn't want to share it with her.

In the wild, males and females interact very superficially and live in separate male and female spaces.

Most of the mating is done by a small percentage of males, roughly 15%. Males mate only during the reproductive season, and leave the female alone, the rest of the time. Most of the other males who mate do it only towards the latter part of their adulthood. An average male elephant who lives till about 50years, if he does so, mates at the age of roughly 45 years.

In some species, the 15% males who mate more regularly, create their harems, where a pair of males control upto 20 females in a 'pride.' These males by no account are exclusively 'heterosexual.' They have prides only peirodically, spending their youth in 'male spaces,' forming sexual bonds with other males. And they keep going back to these 'male spaces' throughout their lives. Furthermore, these males do not form 'emotional bonds' with the females in their pride and their is not 'coupling' as found amongst males, nor as between human males and females in the West.

According to various documented evidences compiled by biologists like Bruce Bagemihl, Paul Vase, Johann Roughgarden, etc., the only males with an exclusive 'heterosexual' orientation are the transgendered ones, the effeminate ones. These males are very rare. They don't fight for mating with females, but rather, they form relationships with females and bond with them and raise their kids, often, the kids are not their own, since they don't compete with the other males. Examples of these can be found in red foxes. In sheep, the only males with a heterosexual orientation are the transgendered ones who live with the female group as females, rather than in the male group (source: "Johann Roughgarden's Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in Nature and People"). According to a programme on Discovery Channel, there is a rare kind of males amongst Sea Lions who doesn't fight for females like other males who want to mate, but rather, quietly picks out a female with whom he bonds in a male-male like fashion, away from the maddening crowd, and comes back to the same female every reproductive season.
Among elephants, such a male has a tough time, since the females don't accept any males in their group, transgendered or not. So, such 'heterosexual' males, who don't want to live in male spaces, spend their life alone.
Thus it is natural for the heterosexual males to be differentiated from the 'male space' -- not the male who wants to bond with other males. Western concept of 'sexual orientation' does exactly the opposite. If you have to separate someone into a 'separate' category (esp of effeminate males), separate the ones with no sexuality towards males. You do exactly the opposite of nature, and thus create adverse circumstances and stressful lives for men.

I challenge you, or anyone else here, to dig out any mammalian species where 'heterosexual orientation' characterises male sexuality, rather than an instinct to bond sexually with other males.

---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

Your story is really a typical Western attempt to browbeat reality into your ideologies -- the heterosexual ideology. But its all false. Do you anything to substantiate your wishful thinking?

Men have always, always hated marriage. In my society, eg. young men routinely ran away from it, and had to be 'nailed' to marriage. There are innumerable jokes that men make about how they hate marriage. Even the terms used by men to define marriage -- altar, 'chained to,' etc show that men see it as a prison. Indeed, in the West, the number of men who marry has gone down tremendously.

Can you show me anything that I have said, that may be construed to mean that I want women to be oppressed or for 'gays' to remain in the closet?

That, sir, is an outright lie and is completely unsupportable with any sort of statistics beyond those pulled from your ass. Prove me wrong.

Last night, my two-year-old picked up two stones and banged them together for about five minutes. As a watched this act, I realized it was a metaphor for the Sexual Orientation thread on TFP - a lot of noise but neither side has any intention of breaking. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.....

There's a better term for that, Cimarron - tar baby. The more you fight it, the more stuck you get. Guess what? Now you're in here with the rest of us. :)

wait.... you're saying that western words of sexual distinction are oppressive, yet you live in a culture where an oppressive caste system has been in place for thousands of years?

Easily. I carry two University degrees in History and Anthropology (Appalachian State University, 2006-07), with concentrations in Physical Anthropology and Ancient/Medieval History. I have presented and defended a number of papers dealing with the time-frames you refer to, and have assisted in the collection of research data for numerous peer-reviewed articles and one book. I have precisely the academic qualifications needed to asses your positions. And your positions simply do not jive with -ANYTHING- in the historical or anthropological record. This is not a case of me and RoachBoy arguing over interpretations of events in history, like whether Richard Lionheart was gay or whether Ogudai Khan deserved his bad rep: this is me asking you to provide proof that something you insist against all evidence happened, happened. You might as well be insisting that Eleanor Of Acquitaine actually died in infancy and was replaced with a transsexual dwarf imported from Jerusalem at the insistence of the Space Pope. This is why I've asked for your sources: so that I can double-check them against my own notes, academic journals, etc. Your refusal to provide such sources, beyond a single non-peer-reviewed article which is mostly irrelevant to the discussion and does not support your points, is very telling.

Then please provide them. Stop prevaricating, stop with the "I would" and "I understand" and just show us the effin' source material. You keep insisting that things happened for which I am unaware of any documentation, and then not providing the documentation when asked, all the while insisting that you would like to do so. You cannot simply make historical claims, especially those which fly in the face of 5,000yrs of recorded human history, and expect people to take you at your word.

Any discussion needs definitions. So far, you have declined to provide any definition, for anything, which does not come down to "X = 3 because I say X = 3. X may = 17 in a few minutes, but for right now X = 3." Furtheremore, you say "Framework of definitions and concepts provided by the West..." What this actually refers to is the agreed-upon definitions which prevail worldwide across a vast field of study. You're attempting to arbitrarily redefine, without any support whatsoever, the meanings of words and concepts as they are near-universally understood in a scientific community. That's like trying to change the Equation of Relativity from "E=MC2" to "E=ABCatfish" and insisting that everyone take you seriously on your own word alone. Doesn't work that way.

The man who insists upon stuffing other people's sexuality into boxes accuses the man who'd like him to stop of being a bigot. I've heard a lot of logical stretches in my day, but this beggars the imagination. That's like a Klansman accusing the Deacons For Defense of being violent racists.

This is one of the reasons I bowed out of attempting to discuss this. There are many ridiculous claims in this thread about history that fly in the face of what I know from my own study of history--specifically the history of sexuality.

Natural Manhood, until you provide us with some concrete evidence via citations of ACTUAL ACADEMIC SOURCES, no one here is going to take your argument seriously.

Here's some recommended reading for you:

This book provides a comprehensive overview of the history of sexuality in Western civilization. Yes, I read the whole thing. The editor of said volume was actually my professor. Before you make radical claims about what Western societies believe or do not believe about sexuality and masculinity, I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with the history.

except that we recognize that its an oppressive system and are working against it. You glorify your oppressive system, and refuse to even acknowledge that it is oppressive.

Also, there are thousands of oppressive systems operating all over the world, including the middle eastern religions, communism and so on ... yet, they are all identifiable and people are fighting them. None of them seek to disguise themselves as 'biological truths' about humans. Unlike your society and its sexual mores (esp. the concept of sexual orientation).

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 PM ----------

As for Dunedan and Snowy. I can only go on repeating myself.

You have any right to ask me for further sources when you consider the sources I've already provided. And there are quite a few. I've also provided word to word quotes from some of them.

Also, Snowy, I'm quite familiarized with the history of western male sexuality. Anyone who understands the core of men's sexuality can discern cultural influences of sexuality from the core. I can tell which historians are on track and who are forwarding the western lies. And I can shred them to pieces. I have enough published sources to go by too.

And Dunedil, your degrees only show what the western education has taught you. If it cannot hold its ground in a down to earth discussion like this, where I'm challenging the western view itself, then your degrees are worthless, as far as understanding the true history of male gender and sexuality is concered.

And anyone who claims that 'sex with women' has never been linked with 'manhood' doesn't know shit about history, degree or no degree.

With degrees, you only get the right to distort history and misrepresent it.

Where? Just point me to the post in this thread, if I've missed it.

And they are...?

Where?

Your statements indicate that you are full of it.

Which your statements indicate you do not...

Who are these historians who are "on track?" And what are these "western lies?" Please be specific and provide citations. Please also prove that what you insist are lies are, in fact, object dishonesty and not simply differences of opinion.

Then why have you stubbornly refused to do so? Start a fight, lose the fight, declare victory and go home: very George W. Bush of you.

And they are.....?

I can go 'round insisting I'm an Emperor all day, and that some moistened bint -did- lob a scimitar at me. But unless I prove that I am, in fact, an Emperor, and show people the scimitar in question and the moistened bint who lobbed it, they'll put me away!

[/Python]


Edited To Add: I have reviewed the thread and found precisely -two- sources which you provided: one of which was irrelevant and to the degree that it referenced your points at all -opposed- them, and the other of which simply opposed your points. Congratulations. You are now the first person I've ever seen who insisted upon using someone saying he was wrong to prove he was right, all the while insisting that the person was actually agreeing with him. But since your definition of "straight" somehow includes a longing for gay sex, I can see how this could have developed.

AND MY MOST IMPORTANT POST OF THE DAY:
Don't dodge my question lady. I asked you if you would like to define 'women who like men' as 'whores.' If men who like men can be defined into a separate category of 'gays,' then why can't 'women who like men' be defined into a separate category as 'whores'?

They were both stigmatized human traits before the west liberalized one and penalized the other even further.

The trait of 'man liking men' have been ascbribed to the 'transgendered, promiscuous she-males'. So, why shouldn't the trait of women liking men be defined by promiscuous women who were seen as 'characterless.' Before 'gay' started to mean 'man liking man' it was used for whores and 'third gender prmoiscuous males' alike. Mr. Historian Dune, did they teach this to you in your history class?



Bigoted people conveniently choose to ignore where it hurts personally.

The issue is not just "not" to define someone by their sexual acts but also, NOT TO MISDEFINE PEOPLE BY THEIR SEXUAL ACTS or more importantly by acts of love, bonding and intimacy.

However, if you don't like to be defined yourself by your sexual acts (as whore!!) then how can you justify a system of social classification that defines and seggregates males by the choice of their sexual and romantic acts?


You are quick to explain what 'whore' actually means. Today, the Western society has glorified female promiscuity and you no longer have to be equated to a whore. However, at the time when they were rearranging the society (liberalizing/ heterosexualizing it) and making the 'homosexual' category, 'whore' was used for any woman who showed an interest in sex with men.

Just like 'whores' are a group of women who get paid for sex, and they are not just any woman who likes sex with men, 'gay' was actually a group of 'feminine males' who like sex with men, and not just any male who likes sex with men. Being a whore was just as stigmatized for women, as male femininity was for men.

What did your society do then. It liberated and mainstreamed the promiscuous female. So, today a promiscuous woman is just a 'heterosexual woman'. However, your society equated the feminine males (gays) with "men liking men" and gave them the name 'homosexual.'

If this was done in the context of 'whores' and the society had instread defined 'whores' as 'women who like men' at that crucial time, how many females do you think would have acknowledged liking men, and would have gone on to take on the 'heterosexual' identity? Only the real whores would call themselves 'heterosexual women'.

So, can you see what exactly happened with men? Would you expect men to go and embrace their sexual desire for men and to acknowledge it publicly, and then be labelled as 'homosexual' which is actually 'feminine male whore'? The only people who can be expected to own up their sexuality for men would be the effeminate, promiscuous males, who're addicted to receptive anal sex -- and that is exactly what is happening today.

Nothing better to make insensitive, bigoted women to understand this, than the 'whore' vs 'homo' analogy.



Did I ask you to ascribe them a separate gender orientation? NO!! I asked you to ascribe to them a separate 'sexual orientation', just as you want males who like men to have a separate 'sexual orientation'.

So, now you understand that ascribing a separate 'sexual orientation' actually tantamounts to "judging them".

To put it in your own terms ... Why? Why can't it be just be simply defining their sexual lifestyle/ preferences? Remember what you said in the case of male desire for men:

"a homosexual person is a person who has chosen to accept that moniker to describe their personal sexual preference, they like sex with the same gendered partner. That’s simply their choice."

What if I say, "A whore is a person who has chosen to accept that moniker to describe her personal sexual preference (for multiple male partners or for sex without marriage). That's simply their choice."?

THINK!!!


The point is, why would you want to identify someone by a trait that the entire society is hostile to. And to isolate them into a separate category, like a punishment! Esp, when the identity itself is a misdefinition/ misrepresentation.

And Dunedan,

I don't get paid to do this, right.

I am not going to spoonfeed you the posts that I make. Do some work. Find out for yourself. There are quite a few. They've been outlined too, much to the disliking of the administrators.

Also, don't expect me to do a paper for you right here. Wait for it. I've to deal with loads of crap at one go. I can only take things up a few at a time. I'd definitely shred your brand of history to pieces. Just be patient. Be in queue ...

While I cannot comment more on your caste system and just how much you're society is going against it, I stand by my original statement. You're just stating what you want it to be with no evidence to back that up but hearsay or ad hominem.

without them you just get to voice opinion and no authority nor credibility.

Degrees, aren't just that and a bag of chips, but if at the minimum you cannot provide sources for your information, you're just waving your hands in the air.

How much more do you want to keep moving the target?

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------

well that's not very nice of you. Demanding it from someone when others have asked you to provide source material for your claims.

Neither do I.

A'int askin' you to. I'm asking you to provide sources for some rather outlandish concrete historical claims, which you refuse to do. Neither of the two sourcings I reference above had anything to do with your historical claims, so both are irrelevant. And as for "spoon-feeding," you haven't tried, nor has anyone requested, anything of the kind. The only "feeding" you've tried has apparently been learned from prison guards at Long Kesh and Maidstone.

Did it. Looked at 'em. Nope, sorry, not relevant to, and frequently contradictory of, your claims.

A'int interested in a paper. Some backup for your assertions would be nice, though. You know, like a bibliography?

*Leans back in chair, props feet on desk, and laces fingers behind head. Smiles.*

Bring it. Let's start with this:

No, because prior to meaning "homosexual" the word "gay" meant "bright, happy, carefree, or cheerful." Sources to follow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay "the term gay was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; it had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early as 1637.[1]
From the mid-20th century on, the term came to be used in reference to homosexuality, in particular, from the early 20th century, a usage that may have dated prior to the 19th century."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay late 12c., "full of joy or mirth," from O.Fr. gai "gay, merry" (12c.); cf. O.Sp. gayo, Port. gaio, It. gajo. Ultimate origin disputed; perhaps from Frank. *gahi (cf. O.H.G. wahi "pretty"), though not all etymologists accept this. Meaning "brilliant, showy" is from c.1300. OED gives 1951 as earliest date for slang meaning "homosexual" (adj.), but this is certainly too late; gey cat "homosexual boy" is attested in N. Erskine's 1933 dictionary of "Underworld & Prison Slang;" the term gey cat (gey is a Scot. variant of gay) was used as far back as 1893 in Amer.Eng. for "young hobo," one who is new on the road and usually in the company of an older tramp, with catamite connotations. But Josiah Flynt ["Tramping With Tramps," 1905] defines gay cat as, "An amateur tramp who works when his begging courage fails him." Gey cats also were said to be tramps who offered sexual services to women. The "Dictionary of American Slang" reports that gay (adj.) was used by homosexuals, among themselves, in this sense since at least 1920. 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. Ayto ["20th Century Words"] calls attention to the ambiguous use of the word in the 1868 song "The Gay Young Clerk in the Dry Goods Store," by U.S. female impersonator Will S. Hays, but the word evidently was not popularly felt in this sense until later (cf. the stage comedy "London Assurance" written 1841 and popular through early 20c., with its character Lady Gay Spanker, famously played by Mrs. Nisbett). 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. Gay as a noun meaning "a (usually male) homosexual" is attested from 1971.

So we see here that the usage of "gay" originally meant a person who was happy or joyful (as in "the Gay Nineties). From there it moved towards describing openly promiscuous persons of both sexes, as well as describing the places where such people might be found (Gay House, Gay Paris, etc). Only in the 20th Century was the term "gay" applied exclusively to homosexuality within sexual descriptors, and only in the last few centuries did it acquire any sexual connotation at all. Even well into the latter half of the 20th Century, the meaning of "gay" was frequently still applied to it's previous definition of happy and carefree: hence why the Flintstones had a "gay old time" down in Bedrock.

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

Nevermind. I'm done playing with you. You premesis are crap, your sources (the few that you've provided) are mostly irrelevant and (as has been pointed out by others as well) frequently contradict your own assertions. Your assertions themselves are unsupported by evidence, and when presented with evidence of your error your only rebuttal is to insist that "things have been changed by the evil lying Westerners" without offering any actual evidence of it becuase, of course, whatever evidence you -could- offer has been changed! This is an intellectually-dishonest method of debate for which I have no time.

Enjoy yourself, Br'ar Fox. Br'ar Rabbit gon' back to te Briar Patch.

Not entirely, and not all species, you make grand general assumptions that are only supported by antiquated scientist who were known to be bias re: sexuality in animals, not to mention you ARE talking about “IN THE WILD” this is why humans have been able to progress as a species in so much that we dominate the earth and all animals upon it, we are not “the wild.” (I'm not implying human superiority here, just an observation, as our ability to destroy everything, including ourselves).

A “wild” animals natural instinct to mate with a female is so strong that they are DRIVEN to procreate with a female to the extent of fighting to the death for that pleasure, and in the absence of a female they will have sex with another male, or object, be it animate or not, (thank God for testosterone!!!), merely because it just feels so damn good, doesn’t change the fact that the base animal instinct is procreative sex, note the existence and evolution of LIFE. Homosexuality is not an unnatural occurrence, the concept of love is universal between the sexes, both opposite sex and same sex love….. However, the reality of your argument is misplaced in the uncommon, it is not a given normal for ALL males of a species to inherently prefer other males, in species that wish to survive and evolve, that is……

In the wild, did you even consider that male on male sex is a form of practice and game playing among young animals that cannot defeat the superior strength and wisdom of the older animals and are not permitted to mate with the female anyway? You do recognize that animals fight to the death for the right to inseminate the female.

Only the strongest get to mate with the females NM, only the top 15% are the strongest….. Hello, I would think given the opportunity without the fear of being killed by a stronger male or a female who will attempt to not mate with an inferior strength male as typically females in the wild “know” that genetically the stronger males create stronger offspring, biological fact based in observation of the evolution of species in general, you have heard of Darwin, haven’t you?

Sounds like big cat facts, I like big cats, but male and female humans are not felines.

Again, the strongest 15% rule the harems, maybe they use sex as a way of intimidating the other males, maybe they just enjoy sex with the other males, but in the end they come back to the females to procreate, and maybe the reason they do not STAY with the females is because the females don’t want them around as they have a tendency to EAT their young!!! Do you just read things that fulfill your own ignorance or what, I mean I can see relationships between men as more that just sexual, as loving and cohesive in society but your insidious proposal that ALL men predominately prefer to have sex with other men is just WRONG.

If the base natural desire in animals, was for predominately male on male sex from the beginning of history, there would be NO HISTROY, or her story. There would be no animals at all. Look around you, beyond your own box, the world is full of life, and yet you would deny the natural proclivities of male/female “heterosexual” sex as evidenced in these amassed populations of all things that evolve and progress on this earth.

One thought, China has a one child law, and yet their couples marry and have sex and stay together male and female, I would think in a country of so many, had your concepts of sexual preference been a reality, they would not be dealing with the overpopulation issues that already exist.

RARE nm, you said it yourself, again, most females kick the males out as they have a tendency to eat the offspring, or in Sea Lions’ cases, crush, especially the offspring of another male, by doing this the males force the female back into heat so he may mate with her again and/or to procreate his own offspring in the other males place. Sometimes they will kill their own offspring, few animals, outside of primates (and HUMANS), play sex games for mere pleasure alone, it is mostly about procreation and dominance (though it is not outside the norm for animals to just have sex), and I seriously doubt the animals are sitting around worrying about who is more “manly.” RARE males amongst sea lions as to imply only a few of them, NM!

NM, very rarely are male species in the animal kingdoms allowed to stay within the female groups simply because the males tend to be so randy (testosterone induced at male puberty, gets you kicked out) in their amorous expressions with the females. It is known that some male species will actually kill the offspring of other males and/or their own merely to force the female back into heat where she is more receptive to have sex.

The male species can be cantankerous inside confined relationships (true, so can females) in the wild animal kingdoms rarely do long term heterosexual relationships exist (outside of some penguins and birds, etc…), However, it would be hard to have a long term hetero relationship when you are constantly having to fight the next “big” dick on the block for your mate, it is much easier and safer to inseminate the female and then go somewhere away from the fray of testosterone driven procreation in the male species of wild animals.

Again, the matriarchal female of the elephant herd will push the “matured/reached puberty” male elephants out of the herd because they get to randy and they typically do not make good “parental” decisions when it comes to the babies of the herd, females can be very protective when it comes to the herds offspring. Most (but not all) male animals in the wild do not take to parenting well.

hmmmmm lets see; cats, dogs, horses, humans, ah, everything that is still evolving through mammalian birth, can you really be this closed minded, r e a l l y? Or maybe you think these animals are smart enough to tell each other, “yeah you big dumb dog, your not supposed to want to hump that female dog over their, no your supposed to want to hump that male dog over yonder, even though that female dogs’ “in heat” dripping vagina smells like the most incredible thing you’ve ever smelt in your life and your drooling to have her and your willing to kill me (another male dog) and any babies that get in your way, man your one dumb dog”…… I’m thinking most dogs that don’t like to procreate with females dogs reduce their own evolutionary involvement in the world…… This isn’t to say they don’t have sex with each other; it’s just that given an opportunity, they would take the bitch.


Yeah, Yeah, I'm a whore...... So what’s it to you, I’m not ashamed of a word, and I’m not scared of your innuendo. I told you women in the west know what men like you think of us, it’s blatant in your words, and I could care less what YOU think of me. NM, I don’t just like sex, I LOVE SEX with MEN, real men, not your brand of homophobic, gynophobic, backward thinking bigoted, male chauvinistic, self glorifying rhetoric spewing ball carriers such as yourself, does not a “man” make, and you, NM, most definitely are not a male I would consider worthy of my time, I’m sure your relieved.

NM, if being labeled a whore means I like sex with men, give me a frigging sign, I'd march the capital with my "I'm a WHORE" sign if it meant assuring your type of demoralizing mentality dies at my feet so my sons and other young men AND women can grow up without the likes of your perverted "teachings".

Calling me a whore is not a judgment (as you already assume I am simply because I’m a western woman), Calling me a “bad” whore, now that would be a judgment as you wouldn’t know. But I can honestly say, without judging you personally that you, ‘sir’ appear to be one of the worse “teacher’s” I’ve even had the displeasure to hear rant. But I’ll still listen so as to understand exactly how to prepare my sons to deal with “men” like you and be able to teach them NOT to drink the kind of societal arsenic that’s pouring out of your mouth.

That’s because no true scientific scholar would dare desecrate the advancements of society as you are attempting to do with your simplistic and immature, homophobic, anti-effeminate, pro-segregation views of reality. If you can’t find a scholar who has come to these same conclusions, as you erroneously have NM, doesn’t that say something, or do you truly believe that YOU are creating some NEW profound perspectives’ on reality…..

Your thinking is nothing new; it’s just another replication of antiquated conceited, male chauvinistic, self indulgences that have proven to do nothing more than hurt any individuals who buy this kind of societal segregating crap.

This is all about you making a name for yourself as some kind of guru of social equality based on your own skewed views of history where you pick apart logic and attempt to destroy the foundations of sexual freedom because it does not support your interests in perpetuating male superiority, and not just any kind of male superiority, YOUR kind, wherein men are free to control all they purvey via sexual actions alone, using sex as an excuse to support your own brand of masculinity and “hazingish” indoctrinations into manhood.

Your base argument is that ALL “real” men desire a “space” where they can create a social bond with other men, that is completely devoid of “gay” men and women, in general, but that these “real” men ALL also desire to have penetrating sex with other men too, this is your additional definition of a “real” man, going on to add that ALL those men who receive penetration are not part of the “real” man space, regardless of their intrinsic personalities, they are a part of the effeminate male-she gender and should be separated from the space of the “real” man altogether, as should woman.

The “real” man, as YOU define it, is a man who does not enjoy sexual intercourse with women at all, outside of the needs to procreate and that procreation alone is significant enough to prove manhood, whereas masculinity is simply proven by one mans ability to love another man without any sexual receptive penetrations….. This is not based in logic. Two men can love each other, to the complete exclusion of others (2nd & 3rd genders), and live together in their specially created “masculine/real” man “space”, but the minute one of them permits receptive penetration they are no longer a part of your men’s “space”, eventually you will be a lonely, lonely man, NM.

NM, the west is merely a grown up east, humanity began in the east, man evolved in the east, the oldest know human remains are found in the east…… the west was and is a natural progression from the confining mentality that much of eastern thinking still clings too. The west represents not only personal freedoms by social freedoms, I know this must seem scary to you, and somehow you have come to view a free society as destroying to males masculinity or manhood, you couldn’t be farther from the truth, it is in the west where your form of “male” space already exists.

This is why we are so dumbfounded by your argument, because we have already begun to achieve what you seek WITHOUT the necessity of penalizing those who disagree with your views, (whereas you penalize all that is “anti-man” as you deem it, whatever that is, as you can neither define it or even describe it with any intelligent non-subjugational thought), we simply call it personal freedom and continue to progress.

Why do you hate us so much….. we are simply the children of the east all grown up, you come across as hating humanity in the west, as a parent who is so steeped in their own tradition and dogma might hate their own child, that they can’t see the positive future this progression and equality offer them, and when they do glimpse it, they are so afraid of it’s powerful freedom, they crawl back into their antiquated beds and deny it’s very existence or attempt to destroy it, with their jealous undertones as a lullaby in the background. I hope all your young people WAKE UP before you smother them to death with your “real” man brand of controlling, confining and eventually condemning “love.”

I don’t care if you call me a whore…. so what, it’s merely a word you use to try and pigeon hole me or make me feel “bad” for loving sex, especially sex with men, so. If that is what I must be labeled to enjoy my life, so be it, I’m not immune to some of societies more narrow thinkers, I’m just not a party to them, nor do I let them crash my party in life.

Let me explain a little to you about western women, we will take whatever label you give us and use it to promote progressive thinking in our culture, not just for ourselves, but for our children so as they may be free from the stigma of negativities’ that others would force upon them in a means to control their futures.

I wonder if part of the easts’ problem is that you have silenced your mothers, you have removed the ability for your women to have a voice in the creation of mankind’s social evolution, in the end, NM you have no one to protect you whose motives are truly just LOVE…….

I am so sorry for that part of your culture and that those teachings dictate that your children grow up without the strength of that love and that push for education to learn more about the general kindness that dwells within the base effeminate mentality. Peace be with you NM, I hope you find your freedom, as we all desire, just not at the expense of others freedoms. I believe a “real” man would at least TRY to find another way to express sexual reality within a society, one that does not perpetuate inequality as a means to self-promote their own brand of social importance and superiority.

p.s. in the west, we see not only experience as maturity, we also see education as not only a maturing factor, but a factor of true intellectual advancements and progressive realistic thought. The_Dunedan’s degrees don’t merely just expose your intellectual immaturity; they completely BLOW YOU OUT OF THE WATER. You aren’t even in the arena of social acceptance and intelligence as an education like his would denote, hell NM, you've haven't even made it into the parking lot.

Your true cause is lost here because it is anti-social and anti-progressive, as well as just plain anti-humane altogether.

I won't bother finding the quote that made me think of this article, but if anyone is interested in learning more about animal sexual relations between animals of the same sex, here you go: Can Animals Be Gay?

TLDR: The general conclusion is that same-sex pairings among animals is more common than once thought, as scientists have been presuming for years that animals in couples must be of opposite sexes, without bothering to sex the animals. That turned out to be a mistaken assumption.

What you're displaying is a typical attitude of those who want to carry on the 'sexual segregation' of males at all cost (and its almost always someone who closely relates with the 'gay' identity, although, I suspect some males who lack natural masuclinity and are dependant on heterosexuality for their 'straight' status, may also have a strong stake in the 'sexual orientation' concept replacing the original 'manhood' concept).

1. First you attack my assertions vehemently.
2. Then you try to belittle the issue by saying this is somehow my personal issue, and the reason why I am raising it here is entirely personal.
3. Then you ask for evidences.
4. When provided by evidences you repeatedly try to ignore them. You try to hide behind what the mainstream western academic and scientific institution propagate.
5. When specifically proven wrong over an issue, and repeatedly so, you leave all of a sudden. But not gracefully after accepting defeat, but only after levelling all kinds of accusations.

your evidence is sparse at thin at best, yet you assert there is more evidence but it's been changed.so the target keeps moving and you base your statements on opinion and hearsay and not anything else.

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.

But isn't this precisely what YOU are doing NM, just not the leaving part. I will be self indulgent here by reiterating my post at 120 so as those who only backread 2 or 3 posts get an idea of this so called "debate" and your not-so-intellectually progressive "teachings."

"not-so-intellectually progressive" Of course this is just my opinion based on my experiences and education in life, NM.

Not entirely, and not all species, you make grand general assumptions that are only supported by antiquated scientist who were known to be bias re: sexuality in animals, not to mention you ARE talking about “IN THE WILD” this is why humans have been able to progress as a species in so much that we dominate the earth and all animals upon it, we are not “the wild.”

A “wild” animals natural instinct to mate with a female is so strong that they are DRIVEN to procreate with a female to the extent of fighting to the death for that pleasure, and in the absence of a female they will have sex with another male, or object, be it animate or not, (thank God for testosterone!!!), merely because it just feels so damn good, doesn’t change the fact that the base animal instinct is procreative sex, note the existence and evolution of LIFE. Homosexuality is not an unnatural occurrence, the concept of love is universal between the sexes, both opposite sex and same sex love….. However, the reality of your argument is misplaced in the uncommon, it is not a given normal for ALL males of a species to inherently prefer other males, in species that wish to survive and evolve, that is……

In the wild, did you even consider that male on male sex is a form of practice and game playing among young animals that cannot defeat the superior strength and wisdom of the older animals and are not permitted to mate with the female anyway? You do recognize that animals fight to the death for the right to inseminate the female.

Only the strongest get to mate with the females NM, only the top 15% are the strongest….. Hello, I would think given the opportunity without the fear of being killed by a stronger male or a female who will attempt to not mate with an inferior strength male as typically females in the wild “know” that genetically the stronger males create stronger offspring, biological fact based in observation of the evolution of species in general, you have heard of Darwin, haven’t you?

Sounds like big cat facts, I like big cats, but male and female humans are not felines.

Again, the strongest 15% rule the harems, maybe they use sex as a way of intimidating the other males, maybe they just enjoy sex with the other males, but in the end they come back to the females to procreate, and maybe the reason they do not STAY with the females is because the females don’t want them around as they have a tendency to EAT their young!!! Do you just read things that fulfill your own ignorance or what, I mean I can see relationships between men as more that just sexual, as loving and cohesive in society but your insidious proposal that ALL men predominately prefer to have sex with other men is just WRONG.

If the base natural desire in animals, was for predominately male on male sex from the beginning of history, there would be NO HISTROY, or her story. There would be no animals at all. Look around you, beyond your own box, the world is full of life, and yet you would deny the natural proclivities of male/female “heterosexual” sex as evidenced in these amassed populations of all things that evolve and progress on this earth.

One thought, China has a one child law, and yet their couples marry and have sex and stay together male and female, I would think in a country of so many, had your concepts of sexual preference been a reality, they would not be dealing with the overpopulation issues that already exist.

RARE nm, you said it yourself, again, most females kick the males out as they have a tendency to eat the offspring, or in Sea Lions’ cases, crush, especially the offspring of another male, by doing this the males force the female back into heat so he may mate with her again and/or to procreate his own offspring in the other males place. Sometimes they will kill their own offspring, few animals, outside of primates (and HUMANS), play sex games for mere pleasure alone, it is mostly about procreation and dominance (though it is not outside the norm for animals to just have sex), and I seriously doubt the animals are sitting around worrying about who is more “manly.” RARE males amongst sea lions as to imply only a few of them, NM!

NM, very rarely are male species in the animal kingdoms allowed to stay within the female groups simply because the males tend to be so randy (testosterone induced at male puberty, gets you kicked out) in their amorous expressions with the females. It is known that some male species will actually kill the offspring of other males and/or their own merely to force the female back into heat where she is more receptive to have sex.

The male species can be cantankerous inside confined relationships (true, so can females) in the wild animal kingdoms rarely do long term heterosexual relationships exist (outside of some penguins and birds, etc…), However, it would be hard to have a long term hetero relationship when you are constantly having to fight the next “big” dick on the block for your mate, it is much easier and safer to inseminate the female and then go somewhere away from the fray of testosterone driven procreation in the male species of wild animals.

Again, the matriarchal female of the elephant herd will push the “matured/reached puberty” male elephants out of the herd because they get to randy and they typically do not make good “parental” decisions when it comes to the babies of the herd, females can be very protective when it comes to the herds offspring. Most (but not all) male animals in the wild do not take to parenting well.

hmmmmm lets see; cats, dogs, horses, humans, ah, everything that is still evolving through mammalian birth, can you really be this closed minded, r e a l l y? Or maybe you think these animals are smart enough to tell each other, “yeah you big dumb dog, your not supposed to want to hump that female dog over their, no your supposed to want to hump that male dog over yonder, even though that female dogs’ “in heat” dripping vagina smells like the most incredible thing you’ve ever smelt in your life and your drooling to have her and your willing to kill me (another male dog) and any babies that get in your way, man your one dumb dog”…… I’m thinking most dogs that don’t like to procreate with females dogs reduce their own evolutionary involvement in the world…… This isn’t to say they don’t have sex with each other; it’s just that given an opportunity, they would take the bitch.


Yeah, Yeah, I'm a whore...... So what’s it to you, I’m not ashamed of a word, and I’m not scared of your innuendo. I told you women in the west know what men like you think of us, it’s blatant in your words, and I could care less what YOU think of me. NM, I don’t just like sex, I LOVE SEX with MEN, real men, not your brand of homophobic, gynophobic, backward thinking bigoted, male chauvinistic, self glorifying rhetoric spewing ball carriers such as yourself, does not a “man” make, and you, NM, most definitely are not a male I would consider worthy of my time, I’m sure your relieved.

NM, if being labeled a whore means I like sex with men, give me a frigging sign, I'd march the capital with my "I'm a WHORE" sign if it meant assuring your type of demoralizing mentality dies at my feet so my sons and other young men AND women can grow up without the likes of your perverted "teachings".

Calling me a whore is not a judgment (as you already assume I am simply because I’m a western woman), Calling me a “bad” whore, now that would be a judgment as you wouldn’t know. But I can honestly say, without judging you personally that you, ‘sir’ appear to be one of the worse “teacher’s” I’ve even had the displeasure to hear rant. But I’ll still listen so as to understand exactly how to prepare my sons to deal with “men” like you and be able to teach them NOT to drink the kind of societal arsenic that’s pouring out of your mouth.

That’s because no true scientific scholar would dare desecrate the advancements of society as you are attempting to do with your simplistic and immature, homophobic, anti-effeminate, pro-segregation views of reality. If you can’t find a scholar who has come to these same conclusions, as you erroneously have NM, doesn’t that say something, or do you truly believe that YOU are creating some NEW profound perspectives’ on reality…..

Your thinking is nothing new; it’s just another replication of antiquated conceited, male chauvinistic, self indulgences that have proven to do nothing more than hurt any individuals who buy this kind of societal segregating crap.

This is all about you making a name for yourself as some kind of guru of social equality based on your own skewed views of history where you pick apart logic and attempt to destroy the foundations of sexual freedom because it does not support your interests in perpetuating male superiority, and not just any kind of male superiority, YOUR kind, wherein men are free to control all they purvey via sexual actions alone, using sex as an excuse to support your own brand of masculinity and “hazingish” indoctrinations into manhood.

Your base argument is that ALL “real” men desire a “space” where they can create a social bond with other men, that is completely devoid of “gay” men and women, in general, but that these “real” men ALL also desire to have penetrating sex with other men too, this is your additional definition of a “real” man, going on to add that ALL those men who receive penetration are not part of the “real” man space, regardless of their intrinsic personalities, they are a part of the effeminate male-she gender and should be separated from the space of the “real” man altogether, as should woman.

The “real” man, as YOU define it, is a man who does not enjoy sexual intercourse with women at all, outside of the needs to procreate and that procreation alone is significant enough to prove manhood, whereas masculinity is simply proven by one mans ability to love another man without any sexual receptive penetrations….. This is not based in logic. Two men can love each other, to the complete exclusion of others (2nd & 3rd genders), and live together in their specially created “masculine/real” man “space”, but the minute one of them permits receptive penetration they are no longer a part of your men’s “space”, eventually you will be a lonely, lonely man, NM.

NM, the west is merely a grown up east, humanity began in the east, man evolved in the east, the oldest know human remains are found in the east…… the west was and is a natural progression from the confining mentality that much of eastern thinking still clings too. The west represents not only personal freedoms by social freedoms, I know this must seem scary to you, and somehow you have come to view a free society as destroying to males masculinity or manhood, you couldn’t be farther from the truth, it is in the west where your form of “male” space already exists.

This is why we are so dumbfounded by your argument, because we have already begun to achieve what you seek WITHOUT the necessity of penalizing those who disagree with your views, (whereas you penalize all that is “anti-man” as you deem it, whatever that is, as you can neither define it or even describe it with any intelligent non-subjugational thought), we simply call it personal freedom and continue to progress.

Why do you hate us so much….. we are simply the children of the east all grown up, you come across as hating humanity in the west, as a parent who is so steeped in their own tradition and dogma might hate their own child, that they can’t see the positive future this progression and equality offer them, and when they do glimpse it, they are so afraid of it’s powerful freedom, they crawl back into their antiquated beds and deny it’s very existence or attempt to destroy it, with their jealous undertones as a lullaby in the background. I hope all your young people WAKE UP before you smother them to death with your “real” man brand of controlling, confining and eventually condemning “love.”

I don’t care if you call me a whore…. so what, it’s merely a word you use to try and pigeon hole me or make me feel “bad” for loving sex, especially sex with men, so. If that is what I must be labeled to enjoy my life, so be it, I’m not immune to some of societies more narrow thinkers, I’m just not a party to them, nor do I let them crash my party in life.

Let me explain a little to you about western women, we will take whatever label you give us and use it to promote progressive thinking in our culture, not just for ourselves, but for our children so as they may be free from the stigma of negativities’ that others would force upon them in a means to control their futures.

I wonder if part of the easts’ problem is that you have silenced your mothers, you have removed the ability for your women to have a voice in the creation of mankind’s social evolution, in the end, NM you have no one to protect you whose motives are truly just LOVE…….

I am so sorry for that part of your culture and that those teachings dictate that your children grow up without the strength of that love and that push for education to learn more about the general kindness that dwells within the base effeminate mentality. Peace be with you NM, I hope you find your freedom, as we all desire, just not at the expense of others freedoms. I believe a “real” man would at least TRY to find another way to express sexual reality within a society, one that does not perpetuate inequality as a means to self-promote their own brand of social importance and superiority.

p.s. in the west, we see not only experience as maturity, we also see education as not only a maturing factor, but a factor of true intellectual advancements and progressive realistic thought. The_Dunedan’s degrees don’t merely just expose your intellectual immaturity; they completely BLOW YOU OUT OF THE WATER. You aren’t even in the arena of social acceptance and intelligence as an education like his would denote, hell NM, you haven't even made it into the parking lot.

Your true cause is lost here because it is anti-social and anti-progressive, as well as just plain anti-humane altogether.

These words you use - they do not mean what you think they do. You've succeeded in making me believe that your argument, while interesting at first, has no merit at all and is equivalent to a serious discussion of whether or not Superman is a real person.

If you set out to change minds and bring people around to your way of thinking, I think I can very safely say that you've completely and utterly failed.

yikes.
I agree with ring.
Move.
You want to live your life the way you see fit? Then live it.
THIS is not living it.
I don't have a terrible lot of good things to say about Western culture. It involves a lot of unfortunate tendencies such as hypocrisy, inanity, silliness and this obsessive preoccupation with individuality that very often becomes the rationality for greed and self-absorption, BUT that said, those same tendencies have enabled many folk to define their own lifestyles and activities freely, particularly among those who are like-minded. Making universal acceptance of 'who they are' not only unnecessary in many cases, but sometimes even undesirable.

It seems as though the axe you have to grind is far more formidable than the actual issue at hand.

Quote:

yeah, yeah, i'm a whore...... So what’s it to you, i’m not ashamed of a word, and i’m not scared of your innuendo. I told you women in the west know what men like you think of us, it’s blatant in your words, and i could care less what you think of me. Nm, i don’t just like sex, i love sex with men, real men, not your brand of homophobic, gynophobic, backward thinking bigoted, male chauvinistic, self glorifying rhetoric spewing ball carriers such as yourself, does not a “man” make, and you, nm, most definitely are not a male i would consider worthy of my time, i’m sure your relieved. Nm, if being labeled a whore means i like sex with men, give me a frigging sign, i'd march the capital with my "i'm a whore" sign if it meant assuring your type of demoralizing mentality dies at my feet so my sons and other young men and women can grow up without the likes of your perverted "teachings".

Quoted for muthafuckin' truth!!! THANK YOU!

GAWD it's nice to see a lady whippin' some ass!

*raises hand*

I'm a whore, too. :shy:

Can I be a man-whore? I like sex with women, so I dunno if I count, but I'll bring a sign and everything.

i'm pretty slutty too.

I'd just like to re-iterate my posts, 47 and 54. That's all. It's been eight days since I wrote them, though it seems like a lifetime.

We should start a club.

Something just struck me.

I've been trying to figure out where I've heard something similar to NM's rhetoric before, because it sounded horribly, greasily, familiar. The insistence that "real" men desire sex with other men, that procreative heterosexual sex was something demanded by biology only and should be treated as a chore, that heterosexual men had been "polluted" and distracted by their (subconsciously undesired) contact with women, the disdain for women in general, etc...

...it all came back to me. I remember now. I have heard exactly of -one- person put who these notions forward, and a small number of fanatics who followed him.

That man's name was Ernst Rohm. I realize I may have just committed Godwin-by-proxy, but that flash of realization was too interesting to ignore.

NM, For your pleasure, or not, definitely for mine though.... :)


Note the words, NM, oh, and show this to your "pupils" see how many run, see how many stay, no condescending either, just let THEM choose....see, if they are straight (and honest with themselves) they will want to fuck these females, if they are gay they will still appreciate the female form or at least want their clothes.

We women are not "anti-man" we are pro-man, we "love" men, straight-men, gay-men, bi-men, FtM-men, you see in the end they are ALL our sons, what we want for them IS happiness, and don't even start thinking I don't know something about making a man happy.... you talk about nature and natural, what you see IS nature, IS NATURAL.

Special thanks to all those who have made me feel more than just a piece of meat.... and to SM70 as I had forgotten what it feels like to be sexy just for sexys' sake, oh baby, my husband needs to come home NOW! :thumbsup:

You mean we're allowed to Godwin a thread???

HITLER, HITLER, NAZI, SOCIALIST, HITLER, NAZI, SWASTIKA, THIRD REICH, HITLER

I hope this works ,wish me luck!:thumbsup:

Idyllic, don't worry. You'll always be a piece of meat to me! Hubba, hubba!:thumbsup:

O.K. Just so long as you call me Wagyu and serve me tartar only. :D :oogle:

Oh, so naughty. :o (nnoooottt!)

Jesus, Cimarron and Dunedan. I wish you two would just fuck and get it over with. You guys aren't exactly Ross and Rachel.

badumpbump. All week, folks. Waitress.

Secretly, we want to. But alas, society dictates...

Oh shit, I started it all over.

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!

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.

I don't have much time to back and forth with your response, but I have a couple quick comments.
I can't be objective to just straight opinion. It's not possible in any discussion with educated people.

Please POST your links and evidence again. I cannot seem to locate the few you've made.

Finally, from here I can see that your culture just doesn't want to label it as anything really discussable. Masti for young men as the explanation as to why they want to stick it to their buddy? Sure, maybe it's a phase, no different than college girls experimenting.

But to just not acknowledge that there is a difference based on not bothering to label it is just putting your head in the sand.

It's clear that you didn't read the article, because if you had, you would have noticed that the author and scientists alike agree that it's unfair to anthropomorphize animal sexuality by saying that animals are gay, but that yes, animals DO engage in same-sex relations.

Are we being punk'd in this thread?

Oh, and people who think yer full of it are not "bigots", mighty prophet of sexuality.:rolleyes:

I ducked out of this thread a long time ago but I felt the need to come back and say:
NM, I don't understand you. You have provided no evidence what so ever to back up your opinion. You claim that you would, but it isn't out there because everyone has been biased by the west, well to that I say BS. The reason there is no evidence out there is because your entire premise is completely false. If you feel that strongly about it why not do extesive research, write a paper or book, and see how it holds up to biologists, sociologists, phychologists around the world? If your opinion truely is that ground breaking why not go for it, instead of trying to argue with people on an online setting, where you can't provide any evidence, yet insist everyone else in the entire world has it wrong, but you somehow have got if figured out.

NM, I am a mother of men, I have just as much a right, as a responsibility, to insure my sons have a voice in their world, in that allowing them the opportunity to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS is not only my maternal job but my pleasure in assuring their place as an integral part of humanity altogether.... if that means accepting their preferences for homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual sex and/or relationships, then so be it.

I will do everything within my power to assist in removing the stigmas of those who would judge them merely because of who or how they love...... and then segregate them simply because they feel it threatens their own perceptions of manhood, or masculinity.

Just as by YOUR account there are two types of men, penetrator and those who are penetrated (except you include those who are penetrated as any male who appears effeminate in any manner, even those masculine men who are physically sexually challenged by nature or injury based on their perceived inability to penetrate or procreate, they also are considered part of the “anti-man” society). I do not divide man, YOUR so called ‘teachings” do.

What do you label woman who do BOTH…… we label them humans.

The base definition for a heterosexual woman is simply a woman who prefers sex with a male, it is you who attempts to pervert words to suit your own misconceptions of human sexuality.

The only time my husband submits to me is when I ask for his wallet, in which case, I help to fill it anyways, so I guess in reality we submit to each other in the equality of life and the kinship of responsibility in the rearing of our children. Submitting to each other is not wrong, nor does it define masculine of feminine genders, it simply exposes the true nature of equal respect in one another’s natural strengths and weakness in any relationship.

What a crock of bullshit, straight men can and do have sexual relationships with other men, orgasm alone dictates that sexual contact feels good. Merely because women were available, does not mean they were interested in the sexual act at all times (we are not merely inanimate object sedentarily awaiting the insemination of men). Sexual exploration is not defined within the confines of gender, sexual curiosity is a natural occurrence, again just because a man has a homosexual experience does NOT define him as a homosexual. Nor is any form of sexual interaction considered naturally repulsive (as opposed to personally) outside of those sexual actions which derive in forced unwanted humiliation of another or tyrannical acts of cruelties that only feeds ones self perceived superiority over another, i.e. rape (not S&M), as rape is merely the use of sex to demoralize another human and feed ones own demented sense of self-superiority.

NM, you truly do not challenge anything except the ability for your pupils to see beyond your own stereotypical ignorance, and I for one would not be so interested in this thread had it not been for the fact that you, of all people, hold sexual “workshops” where you spread this form of bigotry and homophobic hate. I feel the unjust and confining sexual “chains” you place on natural sexual inclinations is anti-humane, and it is perverted and perverting the nature evolutions of your own people, especially the more vulnerable and already confused young men in your culture trying to understand progressions in self awareness and sexual freedoms.

As opposed to the ones who sit idly by and allow you to distort sexual progression so intolerantly that you would cast the entire sexual freedom movement back into the days of persecution of homosexuals and perpetuate effeminate inequalities. Your sources are either; persons who persecute anything that goes against their own perceptions of sexuality, are simply homophobes, or just self indulgent heterosexuals who fear that anything that goes against male superiority is “anti-man”, there are also those who are so afraid of their own homosexual desires, and the fear of perceived negative connotations as applied by men like yourself NM that go so far as to deny their own desires and hate homosexuals for their ability to accept and love themselves.

You do mean the sexually and humanely and socially progressive west, right……it’s coming for you NM, whether you try to alter it our not, the “gay” people of your culture are already having their voices heard and nothing you can do will alter this as human nature dictates nobody like to be segregated for who they love or how they love, this isn’t about the west, this is about the reality of human existence, you just need somebody to blame your fears upon other that exposing your own homophobia.

What you teach does nothing to attempt to expose and remove hypocrisy and permit the acceptance of human differences, it merely perpetuates them.

These aren’t western definitions they are merely ascribing words with inherent meanings that already existed but by which in doing so remove the stigma and simple attempt a cohesive understanding of human sexuality. The word “homosexual” is not a stigma, it is the explanation of “homo” = one human gender be it female or male + “sexual” = sex, put them together and you end up with a sex act between two persons of the same gender, big deal, the word has no negative connotations except those YOU apply to it, and other homophobic persons, like you appear to be.

These definitions began in the east and were adopted in the west, the words themselves actually freed sexual inclinations by allowing humans to understand personal sexual preferences as more that just some form of deviation from human nature and instead a natural part of humans' sexual expressions.

Many on this thread have acknowledged the fact of male relationships being more than just homosexual based, I believe it is you who will not consider any possible truths, outside your own self acknowledged, unsupported as a cohesive idea, proposal on sexual behavior, except to say that anything outside of your teachings’ is a part of the “anti-man” agenda.

Now where on earth could I have come to this conclusion about you NM being anti-woman, let me think:

and this:

Let me know if I need to find you more examples of your "perceived" negative view women.

As I have said, this alone should make you stop and rethink you conclusions, go to school NM, get your PhD in humans sexuality, then you can complain when nobody buys what you are selling. As I said before:

{That’s because no true scientific scholar would dare desecrate the advancements of society as you are attempting to do with your simplistic and immature, homophobic, anti-effeminate, pro-segregation views of reality. If you can’t find a scholar who has come to these same conclusions, as you erroneously have NM, doesn’t that say something, or do you truly believe that YOU are creating some NEW profound perspectives’ on reality…..

Your thinking is nothing new; it’s just another replication of antiquated conceited, male chauvinistic, self indulgences that have proven to do nothing more than hurt any individuals who buy this kind of societal segregating crap.

This is all about you making a name for yourself as some kind of guru of social equality based on your own skewed views of history where you pick apart logic and attempt to destroy the foundations of sexual freedom because it does not support your interests in perpetuating male superiority, and not just any kind of male superiority, YOUR kind, wherein men are free to control all they purvey via sexual actions alone, using sex as an excuse to support your own brand of masculinity and “hazingish” indoctrinations into manhood.}

Apparently it is only really appreciated when it supports your opinions, I simply offered you another perspective on the possible realities of history as my college education has afforded me, considering my fields of studies include, art history with an emphasis on ancient pre-written historical art (cave art, venus figues, burial artifacts, etc…), religion as a tool for early cohesive societies, and philosophy as an attempt to move past the confines of religious doctrine and dogma through the developments and understandings of science and biology. But what do I know, I’m just another whore whose sole earthly responsibility is to give birth, nurse and rear young, right.

You are so full of your own self worth that you will continue to deny anything that would teach outside of what you insist, you are the worse kind of teacher who has clung to his own brand of sexual construction as to deny all others and claim that anyone who sees a different pov is either ignorant or simply attacking you. It is not you we attack it is you antiquated perceptions of human sexuality.

Gay Rape, an Untouched and Harsh Reality | Youth Ki Awaaz: Mouthpiece for the Youth

I fear your culture needs to crack down on adult men who have sex with underage boys as a means of satisfying their sexual needs because it defines theses young men, the moment they are penetrated, for their entire lives they grow believing they are klibas (3rd gender, 3rd nature…etc.) because some pederast needed to get his nut off and didn't want to be seen with an adult 3rd gender, or lessen his “masculine” facade by admitting his proclivities to sex with women. Your brand of teachings will simply continue to promote human sexual intolerances which leads to these forms of aggressive sexual attacks on young men.

Homosexual rape, specifically pederast forms of rape has not been seen as a crime by your culture, only rape that involves females. Until now, it will change with this new law!

New Rape Laws May Help Gay Rights Cause - India Real Time - WSJ

It would appear that some of your adult men create and perpetuate the third gender (receptive males) and then are repulsed by them when they eventually accept the physical position of receptive sex that was originally “forced” upon them. I am NOT implying that all homosexuals are “created” by other men, I am merely making a realization that a lot of boys, if not provoked by “teachers” like NM, would be left to choose for themselves their natural sexual inclinations results (heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual, etc.), and if pederasts did not feel the necessity to seek out innocent, unprotected boys for their own sexual satisfactions without regard to the emotional or sociological impact this imposes on the young in regards to removing their inherent right to choose their own sexual development, not to mention the young men are not typically permitted to even entertain sex with females as normal outside of procreative sex. NM, if I were a man and I was not permitted to have “pleasure” sex with women just for the sake of enjoyment but I was permitted it with men as a penetrator only, of course I would have sex with men, what choice do you offer men…… NONE.

The GULLY | Gay Mundo | Gay and Lesbian in India

India decriminalises gay sex - India - The Times of India

So it has been almost a year since “gays” and homosexual activates have had the legal stigma of persecution removed, and now the “gay” societies are allowed to come out without the fear of retribution by the law, it can be scary to acknowledge differences that in a society as yours have been so dramatically ridiculed and altogether denied as anything but anti-man. However, NM, your perceptions and teaching merely continue the ostracizing of humans based simply on YOUR OWN FEAR and IGNORANCE

The west has nothing to do with the easts’ “gay” nation (as it has been their all along) except maybe to expose that segregations and denial in itself of homosexuality is not only unprogressive it is not a necessity in a cohesive society, on the contrary, the “gay” communities are as much a part of humanities inherent makeup as any other, it really does not matter who you fuck, NM nor does who you fuck define you, unless YOU want it to. The west not only acknowledges sexual individuality and the personification of it but also permits freedom for such and even embraces human sexual proclivities and uniqueness as merely part of the human expression of love……

One can only hope that we are Fuglystick, as the thought of this man being a "teacher" and propagating this form of repulsive hate is truly sickening!

Dan Savage weighs in on this topic...NSFW language.

The Western society, in the matters of male gender and sexuality, and indeed in every matter is controlled by the anti-man forces. They maybe in minority in nature, but thanks to the seeds sown by Christianity, they rule the Western world. And they've left almost no space for a man to actively support the cause I'm taking up, without losing their manhood.

What I've seen again and again is that these very anti-man forces make it a point to hound me out, by hook and crook. That is exactlly what is happening here. It's your space -- the anti-man's space. The real men have no voice here. They won't come here. Even if they do support me, the support can only be very, very veiled. You anti-man forces take advantage of that.

Will you ever change even if the evidences landed up on your face? No, you won't. You will continue to ignore them, to divert the issue, to accuse me, to deny this issue a space. And you're quite powerful. I don't think the fault lies with me. It's inevitable that this would happen.

Does it mean I'm unsuccessful in making a difference through the information I bring?

No.

The information I bring is invaluable. None of you, for all your aggression, have been able to prove any of my assertions, evidences and sources wrong (of course, when I get time I'll give more). The men, the real ones, will quietly grasp what I'm saying, deep in their hearts. And the information will stay with them. Truth has a way -- no matter how much you suppress or persecute it, it will subconsciously influence you in a very deep sense.

So, I know that the majority of men will quietly grasp what I'm saying, maybe partly for now, and then in the years to come, will gradually begin to experience the veracity of it themselves.

It's not only the real men who will be changed after this. Everyone of you, however anti-man you might be, the power of this truth will not let you live in peace either, provided you have any conscience. Somewhere deep down it will keep challenging you, keep reminding you that you're living a lie.

I'm certainly not wasting my time here.

---------- Post added at 09:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ----------

And you think you're helping your case with this ...?

removing twisterization
 

^^^I Love Dan Savage, makes me wish I were that one female firefighter....... sigh.

alas, his gayosity is far too fabulous, I could never be comfortable knowing I converted such an upstanding gay man......


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I am so obviously joking, anyone who takes that comment about converting him serious believes soap operas are real life.

I do really love Dan though, that's not a joke.

It is amazing how much is lost in conversation and jest when one cannot see anothers facial expressions.

On your trip again Idyllic?

I've decided to ignore you altogether. For someone who doesn't know much, you sure write long posts too.

Come back to me, when you want to discuss what I am putting forth. I am not interested in listening to your opinions, I'm here to discuss what I want. You make your own thread to discuss your views of the world.

NM, I don't think this this was meant to help our cause, it was meant to help support that straight men such as yourself need not to fear that they may actually be gay just because they like sex for sex sake outside of procreation.... sometimes you really make me laugh NM, thank you :)

It's not what they say -- its what people here in general deeply believe in. The perverted hetero-homo divide is deeply ingrained in the Western psyche .

Western scientists and experts have time and again warned against this divide, against the concept of 'homosexuality' as a separate phenomena that occurs only in those who call themselves 'gays.'

But the point is, you and everyone here goes on to ignore this important point they make, and take what suits the western mindset. So, e.g. the so-called 'gays' will take the information that animals are having sex between males, but ignore the point about animals "not being gay."

You yourself used the word 'gay' animals.

Not that the scientists that realise its wrong to call animals 'gay' practise this themselves. On one hand they warn against the practise, and at the same breath, they go on to talk about 'gay' sex or 'gay' behaviour amongst animals.

NM, What exactly DO YOU want?

I'm not here to seek personal counselling from you. Thank you.

The net is full of your brand of advice, and its full of anti-man crap.

I'm here to discuss a certain truth that I saw and experienced and have worked hard to develop all the inner strength to bring it up on a western platform.

AND, What EXACTLY IS YOUR MANHOOD????? That it could be so easily lost? What are you really afraid of?

No, it adds to the discussion, providing a different perspective on the issue. I don't have a case.

I want you to realise the hollowness of your claims of 'sexual liberation.'

I want you to realise that your society persecutes men. It persecutes male gender and sexuality. It persecutes and makes into a satan, manhood. It stops men from reaching their full potential. It wastes their lives.

I want you to realise that all the freedom that your society has generated have only been for women and the effeminate. You've left out the men, and you don't even feel that is wrong.

I am trying to understand you, I am trying, yet you use words that have no true meaning to me and then you won't define them, you just keep insisting I'm a part of something that is negatively impacting you? I don't get it and you are not helping me understand. I am not your enemy, neither is the west.

Oh yes. You sure have. Like the rest here.

You sure want to prevent me from discussing this important issue.

NM, I would never leave out the men, don't you get this, I love the men, respect the men, desire the men, honor the men, I marry the men, take the mans name, I am faithful to the man, give birth to the man, raise the man. Why do you feel so betrayed by society when almost all of it is for the man...... I love the man, NM......

If you really, really want to help me. Then just be quiet for a while (and I mean be quiet from inside, not outside). Let all the turmoil that my ideas generate in you settle down. Just listen to what I'm saying, without reacting to every word that I say. Let it all set in. You don't have to agree with it. But you don't have to reject the truth as I have experienced it outright.

Don't assume that I have not heard the western ideas that you are pouring on me, in the hope that I'll change my mind. I was trained on those ideas. I started my work on those very ideas. But, what I've experienced has changed my life, my entire perspective. And is what I want to share.

If you want to help me, then discuss my ideas, and do it more open-mindedly. But not with an 'anti' mindset. You're welcome to disagree, but at least disagree on the points I make. And do stop to look at your own attitudes, knowledge and belief, and be open to change them, if things so warrant.

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------

Listen to the man, when he talks about something that the society doesn't want him to talk about ...

---------- Post added at 09:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------

yaawwwn

Rahl. Real the evidences I've provided. They're enough for now.

If your opinion truely is that ground breaking why not go for it, instead of trying to argue with people on an online setting, where you can't provide any evidence, yet insist everyone else in the entire world has it wrong, but you somehow have got if figured out.

Share your experience so as we may understand why you feel the way you do.

I will discuss your ideas fairly so long as they do not infringe upon the freedoms of others in a confining or demeaning way.

Talk, NM, I could care less what society thinks about our words, but our actions must be about progression for all humankind, not one particular gender, it is only fair, agreed?

Do you think I haven't spoken before? I've been speaking against what is going on for centuries -- as Walt Whitman, as Alfred Kinsey, as Michel Foucalt, and innuerable number of known and unknown voices who have living persecuted lives under your perverted system of invalid identification and categorization, trying to escape or get around it as ordinary laymen, only to be categorised again by you as as 'pomosexual,' 'bicurious' 'experimenting' or just plain 'closeted.' 'I've written books, I've conducted researches, I've written poems ... But you don't listen to me. You sideline my voice. You want your 'gay' identity' to rule, and you don't care for the rest.

Are you asking me to get my work validated by the same western scientists and biologists and historians, who have worked so hard to destroy the truth in the first place?

You're the same culture that has taken away my right to know and communicate with god, telling me to get my interaction with god be validated by the church first, before I can talk about it. Denying it validity. Denying it space. And then persecuting me for it.

There is only one god, you told me. And its the one authorised by the Church. To worship any other god is to do heresy and be damned.

Today, you do the same to knowledge, to truth, to wisdom.

Truth, like god, does not need validation by organised human bodies. That is something you westerners really, really need to understand.

Truth is there for everyone to see and experience. Knowledge should not be made hostage to a few powerful authorities, who then go on to distort and fit it into their whims and fancies and agendas.

It is my basic human right to experience the truth on my own. And to talk about it without having it to be validated by the powerful.

What I am saying is something that is the basic human truth. Every person should and can experience that truth for himself. All you need to do is open your eyes.

---------- Post added at 10:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

That is what I want to do. I can't even get down to it. Give me some time. It will come up.

The moment you come to me with your judgments, you create a wall. Listen to me unconditionally. Consider my points unconditionally. For all you know, your apprehensions maybe baseless.

I want justice and space for all and sundry. I don't want to leave anyone from the society, and from a dignified life.


I can see you hold a lot of strong views about a lot of things. Unless you can listen to me without holding any pre-conditions, like a mother listens to a child in pain, you can't do justice to me.

Also, how can we talk about gender rights if our definitions of gender don't tally with each other. You see gender as equalling 'sex.' and I am used to see gender as constituting both inner and outer sex. So, you're only concerned about progression for each 'sex' when I want progression for each combination of 'sex' and 'gender.' We have a lot of cultural difference between us. The point is, I've already seen your culture and its views. The idea is to make you see mine.

NOW you sound like a person who is getting there, you are right here: "Truth, like god, does not need validation by organised human bodies."

and here: "Truth is there for everyone to see and experience. Knowledge should not be made hostage to a few powerful authorities, who then go on to distort and fit it into their whims and fancies and agendas."

and here: "It is my basic human right to experience the truth on my own. And to talk about it without having it to be validated by the powerful."

The west fights for all freedoms, ALL, and we fight hard and seriously for equality and the end of tyranny in any form, but we try to do it without punishing others who would be simple followers of the tyrannical because of lack of self strength, or blaming it upon others as it serves no purpose but to make us look petty. Strength in character is something you build from within, from the inside out, not something you wear as armor.

---------- Post added at 12:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------

I will agree it IS hard for me to see your pov when I feel that we cannot even agree on a words definition, it does make it difficult to understand each other, the language barrier can be difficult.... but in the end if equality and space for all humans, be they man, woman or undefined is what your truly desire, then I will be patient, but I will not promise to be silent when I feel you are denying basic rights towards any group in order to appease another. Isn't human equality and freedom, in the end, what we all want? I do.

There has been no evidence put forth by you to support your opinions...none. You can keep referring to these non-existant sources all you want, but when multiple people ask you for sources, and you refuse to give them, for whatever reason(they don't exist, the whole world is bias, blah blah blah) your entire argument falls apart.

You have put forth an outrageous claim...people called BS on your claim, thus asking you to provide evidence. You refuse to do so, but insist that you are right. Do you expect us to take you on faith? Do you expect us to take what you have to say, even though it flies in the face of over 2,000+ years of documented history, just because you say so?

I realise I'm beating a dead horse here, you obviously can't provide anything to actually back up your claims.

---------- Post added at 01:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 AM ----------

Yes I'm asking you to validate your opinions, if you insist on passing them on as fact. Without validation or proof, they are just opinions. And I really don't understand what god or religion has to do with this discussion. I could care less which deity you choose to worship, it has no relevance to the topic at hand.

So I will again ask you for specific sources, not others opinions, to back up your claims. If your opinion is so self evident, the obvious truth, then this really shouldn't be a problem.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Natural Manhood, If you cannot provide sources to your claims, this discussion is over and any continued discussion by you will be considered trolling. I'll lock the thread in 5 hours if you cannot provide more that has been asked, since this discussion is complete.

Oh, so this came to banning pretty soon.

Cynthetiq, you're going to ban my thread because I challenge and threaten your society's heterosexual ideology that it is based on (that marginalizes intimacy between men.). You're indeed a bad administrator. An administrator would be expected to be neutral, and not judge a thread based on whether he/ she likes the topic or agrees with it or not. You had no business to discuss the issue with me in the first place, if you're not mature enough to stomach something like this.

I should not have to give any sources for any claims. Your rules no where say, that I can't talk out of my personal experiences or opinions. If this is the freedom that your society talks about (so called, freedom of expression), then I must say, an Islamic autocratic society is much better, for whatever it does, it doesn't hide the fact that it supresses the truth.

However, I don't want to give you a false reason for banning me, so, I'll once again lay down the sources that I've already given. You will go ahead and ban me in any case. But, that will only expose your own fears -- that your lives are all lies.

Also, may I again point out your incompetency or partiality in being an adminstrator, because, I have already posted these sources at various places, so for you to claim that I have not posted sources are indeed partial.

Here are a few sources, once again:

1. Claim 1: "Homosexual" is a concept developed by the third genders or the intermediate sex or the effeminate males who liked men, as a term to define themselves.

Sources:


Sex and the Gender Revolution, Volume 1
Heterosexuality and the Third Gender in Enlightenment LondonRandolph Trumbach


Source for the fact that the person who started the 'homosexual' category was a 'third sex', a female soul trapped inside a male body, and he developed the term for himself and (what he thought of as) others like himself:

"The term Homosexual" by Rictor Norton

Quote: "For the first time in European history, there emerged three genders: men, women, and a third gender of adult effeminate sodomites, or homosexuals. This third gender had radical consequences for the sexual lives of most men and women since it promoted an opposing ideal of exclusive heterosexuality."

" ..... The one person most responsible for the creation of the labels to be used in the discourse about homosexuality was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825–95). He was a German law student, secretary to various civil servants and diplomats, and a journalist – he was not a medical doctor."


Source for the fact that people who propagated the category of 'homosexual' were all 'third sex' (not even one was non-third sex):

"A false birth" by Rictor Norton.

Quotes: Here is an account of people who were responsible for developing the concept of 'homosexual" -- as indicated by the 'birth of homosexual.'

"Carpenter’s more polemical book The Intermediate Sex also had a profound impact, upon women as well as men...

... but only three years later Carpenter’s book had helped her to realize that she was not simply a feminist, but a lesbian feminist, as she wrote to him: ‘I have recently read with much interest your book entitled The Intermediate Sex & it has lately dawned on me that I myself belong to that class & I write to ask if there is any way of getting in touch with others of the same temperament’ (cited by Newton 1984).

... In the year 1870 – the year designated by Foucault as the date of birth of the queer – Ernest Boulton and Frederick William Park, otherwise known as Lady Stella Clinton and Miss Fanny Winifred Park, were arrested in London after a year-long surveillance by the police of their practice of soliciting men in the Burlington Arcade and outside theatres while wearing women’s clothes. It transpired that they and their associates stored vast quantities of dresses, petticoats, gloves and make-up at an accommodation address.
..... More than 1,000 love-letters and photographs were discovered during the police search of the boyfriends’ premises, and many letters were read out in court. The letters refer to ‘going about in drag’, ‘getting screwed’, growing a moustache in order to pretend to be more manly for the sake of a boyfriend’s mother while staying with him in Scotland, and a great deal of camp behaviour that is not noticeably dissimilar to the behaviour of drag queens in the 1990s.

..... The painter Simeon Solomon (1840–1905) sums up his own pre-watershed gay life:

As an infant he . . . developed a tendency toward designing. . . . He was hated by all of his family before he was eighteen. He was eighteen at the time he was sent to Paris. His behaviour there was so disgraceful that his family – the Nathans, Solomons, Moses, Cohens, etc., et hoc genus homo – would have nothing to do with him. He returned to London to pursue his disgraceful course of Art . . . His "Vision of Love Revealed in Sleep" is too well known. After the publication of this [in 1871] his family repudiated him forever. (quoted by Conner 1997)

..... Edith Simcox She analyzes her own ‘development’, including characteristic features such as a tomboy stage, lack of interest in marriage or men, lack of sympathy in girls’ things: ‘I didn’t care for dolls or dresses or any sort of needlework’, and attachments to older girls whom she used to caress. She felt a ‘constitutional want of charm for men’ and that her love for women indicated that she was ‘half a man’.

...... Wilde was portrayed in the popular media as a mincing pansy well before the trials, drawing upon the single most prevalent paradigm of homosexual identity (including self-identification): the effeminate pervert as satirized by Juvenal.

..... This paradigm was well-established long before Ulrichs and Hirschfeld developed theories about the 'third sex' (indeed these theories were derived from Plato's Symposium) or 'a woman's soul trapped in a man's body'.

It is interesting to note that the Walt whitman, who was not of 'intermediate sex' hated the idea of a 'homosexual' ... as noted in the article:

"... It is argued that ‘Whitman himself stubbornly resisted the notion of a distinctive homosexual sensibility’ (D’Emilio 1993)"


CLAIM II

Most men have a sexual desire for men, and its not a quality restricted to a few. There are very few males who are exclusively heterosexual.

Sex and the Gender Revolution, Volume 1 Heterosexuality and the Third Gender in Enlightenment LondonRandolph Trumbach


Quote:

"... the majority of men became heterosexuals by avoiding sodomy and sodomite behavior."

"... As men defined themselves more and more as heterosexuals, women generally experienced the new male heterosexuality as its victims."

- Evidence that whenever allowed, straight men widely engage in sexual relations with men, even if they have a harem of women for wives.

Closely watched Pashtuns-a critique of western journalists’
reporting bias about ‘Gay Kandahar’

Quote:

"The Making of a Minority
Western views on homosexuality can be neatly divided into two
overarching traditions: a Freudian school that sees all sexuality as
“polymorphous” and homosexuality as one position on a fluid
continuum; and a gay liberationist view that sees homosexuality as a
distinct identity analogous to that of an ethnic minority. In Kandahar,
there is clearly no sense in which homosexuality constitutes a
minority identity—but this did not prevent Western journalists from
constantly using the language of the Western gay rights movement to
describe it. Thus, for example, faced with estimates from her informants
that “between 18% and 45% of men [in Kandahar] engage in
homosexual sex,” Maura Reynolds observed dryly that this is
“significantly higher than the 3% to 7% of American men who,
according to studies, identify themselves as homosexual.”
Journalists repeatedly used Western concepts such as “gay” and
“the closet” to characterize the Kandahar situation, thus imposing
their notion of homosexuality as a minority identity. The term “gay”
is used in the title of the New York Post article—“A Gay Old Afghan
Time Again”—as well as in the article itself: “Men accused of being
gay were executed by having a wall toppled on them.” The word also
appears in the headline of Smucker and Kili’s story, “The Royal
Marines and a Gay Warlord,” even though the Afghan doctor quoted
by Reynolds cautions that, among the Kandaharis, “homosexuality is
what they do, not what they are.” The picture of homosexual behavior
that emerges in even the shortest press accounts is complicated and,
to the Western eye, contradictory. Smucker and Kili’s article profiles
an Afghan warlord, Malim Jan, who has “two wives and ‘several
boyfriends,’” and who has now taken a fancy to the Royal Marines
visiting his camp."

"The Making of a Minority
Western views on homosexuality can be neatly divided into two
overarching traditions: a Freudian school that sees all sexuality as
“polymorphous” and homosexuality as one position on a fluid
continuum; and a gay liberationist view that sees homosexuality as a
distinct identity analogous to that of an ethnic minority. In Kandahar,
there is clearly no sense in which homosexuality constitutes a
minority identity—but this did not prevent Western journalists from
constantly using the language of the Western gay rights movement to
describe it. Thus, for example, faced with estimates from her informants
that “between 18% and 45% of men [in Kandahar] engage in
homosexual sex,” Maura Reynolds observed dryly that this is
“significantly higher than the 3% to 7% of American men who,
according to studies, identify themselves as homosexual.”

"But if Kandaharis seem unwilling to speak about their sex lives, as Journalists repeatedly used Western concepts such as “gay” and
“the closet” to characterize the Kandahar situation, thus imposing
their notion of homosexuality as a minority identity. The term “gay”
is used in the title of the New York Post article—“A Gay Old Afghan
Time Again”—as well as in the article itself: “Men accused of being
gay were executed by having a wall toppled on them.” The word also
appears in the headline of Smucker and Kili’s story, “The Royal
Marines and a Gay Warlord,” even though the Afghan doctor quoted
by Reynolds cautions that, among the Kandaharis, “homosexuality is
what they do, not what they are.” The picture of homosexual behavior
that emerges in even the shortest press accounts is complicated and,
to the Western eye, contradictory. Smucker and Kili’s article profiles
an Afghan warlord, Malim Jan, who has “two wives and ‘several
boyfriends,’” and who has now taken a fancy to the Royal Marines
visiting his camp."

"The tendency of Western observers to focus on instances
of abuse was matched by a tendency to reduce same-sex relations to a
Pashtun “obsession with sodomy.” Despite the jocular tone of these
exposés, their subtext was clearly aimed at discrediting the Pashtun
tradition by equating it with the ultimate American taboo, adult sex with
minors.
A secret in plain view
Modern Western cultures, particularly Anglo-American ones, construct
homosexuality as a secret—as the secret, according to Eve Kosofsky
Sedgwick in The Epistemology of the Closet (1990); but this is not
necessarily the way that other cultures have constructed it. Western
journalists relentlessly projected onto Kandahar the two great secrets of
contemporary American society: closeted homosexuality and child
abuse. Viewing homosexuality as something that’s kept secret, Western
journalists found the patterns of silence and disclosure in Afghanistan
to be rather baffling. They noted, on the one hand, a reluctance on the
part of Kandaharis to discuss their homosexual liaisons..."

"Tim Reid noted, “there appears to be no shame or furtiveness” in the
behavior of male-male couples. Michael Griffin, also of the Times,
reflecting on the history of these relations, declared that “in Pashtun
society, man-woman love was the one that dared not speak its name:
boy courtesans conducted their affairs openly.” Reid wrote of pre-
1994 Kandahar, where “the streets were filled with teenagers and
their sugar daddies, flaunting their relationship.” It’s a bit ironic that
Reid’s exposé was titled “Kandahar Comes out of the Closet,” for it
promises an act of disclosure that the Pashtuns fail to deliver. At the
same time, the Pashtuns’ behavior suggests a lack of shame that’s
inconsistent with the Western view of “the closet.” Reid seems to be
caught in the paradox of Western sexual discourse, which (as Foucault
argued) is organized around the imperative to control sexual behavior
by talking about it. In the end, Reid squares Kandahari behavior with
Western expectations only by castigating the Pashtun for “lying” to
avoid the subject and for “flaunting” their behavior in public.


"

---------- Post added at 07:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 PM ----------

Got to go now. More later ... five hours -- are you a dictator or what ...

The point I'm trying to raise becomes even clearer now...

Do you think you could have said that a hundred years ago.

The western society has mainstreamed 'whore' and removed its stigma, because aggressive female sexuality is important to force heterosexualization on men. It has elevated 'whore' to a 'normal' position, and almost every woman is supposed to behave 'sluttily' -- and most representations of women on the western media is like that.

Heterosexualization of my society is following the same process. Liberating the whore from persecution.

Nothing wrong with that, but, compare this with the marginalization of man-man desire as 'gay'. If a woman is accused of being a whore today, several mainstream, powerful, voices raise for her support as "I'm a whore too."

That takes the stigma away from the word. (not that any of you would really like to be called a whore in day to day discourse. It's only for the sake of a discussion).

If I say, I'm gay, how many normal, mainstream, manly men (and not 'females trapped inside male bodies) will come out in my support and say "I'm gay dude." Then I have do go it alone. Be ridiculed, opposed and put down by some.

Also, would you really want the kind of division of women into 'straight' 'normal' women and 'whores' -- the way man-to-man love is isolated and categorized separately?

NM the sources that you cite, while interesting, aren't even remotely accepted by any scientific or medical community. They are just further examples of opinions unsubstantiated.

The notion that all(or atleast most)straight men secretly desire sexual relations with other men is so rediculous I don't even know where to begin. There is nothing wrong with homosexual relations, but to claim that I, as a straight man, am attracted sexually to other men is competely outrageous.

This statement seems to assume that we women are automatons that do precisely what Western media tells us to do. Let me assure you, Natural Manhood, what you see in the media is not representative of most women in the United States. Yes, some of us are more comfortable with embracing our sexuality than others. Some of us aren't. The United States is also not some sexual freedom paradise, either; there is a massive puritanical streak that runs through our culture. Thus, women here who do embrace their sexuality and engage in sex with men without fear of repercussions, they do so because that is something that has been fought for and won. Now, to presume these women must also be whores--that is where we take issue, because many of us engage in sex with men outside of marriage, sure, but also, most of us are serial monogamists. It isn't like the majority of the females in the United States feel the need to jump every man in sight.

Here's an article with some interesting quotes from studies: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/we.../12kolata.html Pertinent bits, since you don't read these things anyway (or read our responses correctly, it seems, since you said that I said animals are gay, which if you look at my quotes, I never said any such thing): Women [in the United States] had a median of four male sex partners. Not exactly slutty, even compared to other Western nations. A study conducted in the UK found that women in the survey had 6.5 (half a sex partner?).

I feel like you are making a lot of assumptions about our culture without any experience of it. That's become quite apparent as this thread has gone on.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- NM, you've not been here long enough to understand how we operate here, and if you did, you'd understand that I'm not banning anything. I'm MODERATING the thread. A number of people already brought this to the staff's attention which is what brought several of us to watch this thread. There is nothing wrong with having opinion and no facts. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. In fact, I am the biggest proponent of such kinds of posts in the Politics forum. The problem with that is after a number of times a person posts "this is my opinion" and people dissect the opinion against known facts and peer-reviewed journals it leaves little to nothing left to discuss. Thus it becomes a "I'm right and you are wrong" discussion with no wiggle room to move the conversation in any manner. I specifically asked you for you to repost your links twice, once with no moderation hat on, and once with.

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 ----------

Having quickly scrolled through the last couple of pages, I must say I'm surprised. I
thought telling males that they must be a certain way in tantamount to telling them
what they cannot be.
I'm all for bisexuality. Hell, I've been with both genders. I just don't take myself as
seriously as you do.
Let each stumble upon their own sexual identity, as it evoles as we do, continually.
That's what I say.
I'm very uncomfortable when someone repeatedly uses the word all to
describe anything, because in my understanding of nature, nothing is ever all.
You sound like George W. Bush in your certainty.

Ok. I did make a mistake here. It was actually the name of the article which was wrong, "can animals be gay" ... but it wasn't your fault.

It's like asking "can birds be married"? And then go on to talk about heterosexual pairings in birds. If they're are a pair, it does'nt mean they're married. Just like if they're having sex between two males, they're not 'gay' as in 'being gay'.

---------- Post added at 01:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 AM ----------

I'm really surprised, as to what kind of male, would not care about an identity which purports to be a 'sexual identity' but is actually a 'third gender' identity, ... and then blame the other for making a ruckus out of nothing, when there is so much at stake ... you won't even know what is at stake ... men will die for these things, how convenient it is for you guys to close your eyes to everything that is wrong and say, everything is alright.

I can't do that because I work with men, and I've seen how terribly these invisible pressures hurt and harm men and mutilate their souls.

There is certainly a difference between a male who sees and experiences that his sense of gender (manhood) clashes with the 'gay' or 'bisexual' identity imposed by the society and those who don't feel that clash. Could this difference be one's own inner gender -- i.e. masculinity or femininity?

It is certainly something that should have been of interest to the academic and research community. But then men's lives don't mean much, unless they're about having sex with women and reproducing.

Dude, lighten up.
I'm not concerned with a fixed identity, but rather how it evolves.
I've got a fixed time on this earth, the end date of which I do not know.
I do not say everything is alright, because a permanent condition of
humanity is suffering. And all suffering is derived from desire (yes, I am
cribbing from Buddah). No, I'm not buddhist. I think they are right though.
I am built (outwardly) masculine. You might be suprised at how macho,
alpha male, I appear.
But I'm not gay, or straight. I'm Amaras. Take it or leave it.

In four sentences or less, can you tell me what you are trying to accomplish,
sir (using a french keyboard where I cannot find the question mark).

---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

Well , I've gotta go.
I'll tune in tomorrow.

No, your reading comprehension totally sucks. First you didn't read what Snowy posted about animals not being gay, if you did, you'd not have made the "mistake" you claim. I can post some information and say that someone else said it, doesn't mean that it's true, nor does it mean that it exists as fact from someone else, which is why the request was to post where you found the information.

The ability to post links isn't arbitrary. Again, your lack of reading comprehension seems to fail you, as we don't allow people to post links to advertise their own websites, on the internet known as spamming. If you bothered to look outside of this thread, you'd have seen there are whole discussions which include links, in fact if you noticed Snowy wasn't chastised for her link to the NYTimes.

What I sense here is your own desire to validate that you may like to rub up against men and possibly have sexual relations with men, but just don't like the fact that someone can put a label upon you. Just because you don't give something a name doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, and just because you give something a name doesn't mean it is exactly boxed in or defined by that defintion.

The point of peer review isn't limited to just 2 opinions. It means that others can study, review,and potentially come to the same conclusion. It seems in your world view, there is only binary. Again, I go back to your reading comprehension because if you read the thread and everyone's opinions you'll find that while they may disagree with you not everyone disagrees with you for the same reasons.

As for Western conspiracy? Well, if you look in the shadows long enough, eventually you'll find some sort of darkness to be afraid of.

Wow, I'm jumping in to this train wreck, I guess I feel like hating myself a little more this week.

Let me first derail this one-sided conversation by posting a funny picture. 'Cause that's how I roll.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

NM, the more and more I read of this thread, I picture you as an street preacher. You build up your soapbox high that you make sure everyone can see you. You then begin to preach your ideals and opinions to everyone that walks by. Like all good street preachers you know that conflict can draw people like moths to a flame. You don't argue points with the people you piss off, you just want them to enforce what your argument entails. You dig through their opinions and dig out just enough of their conversations that you can use it against them. You feed on it and through it, you see yourself being stronger. You don't want discuss anything with your draw (draw: the people you get to stop and listen to you), you just want to tell them how they are wrong and you are right in all that matters to you.

My biggest question here is Why? Why are you doing this? Why do you feel the need to tell everyone on here that they are wrong in everything they believe in? Do you think this will win people over? Do you really think telling every male on here that he "secretly would love to suck cock, but those damn puritans won't let him" that you will win? You have posted before that you posted this same thread (I'm sure with the same kind of responses) on "gay" forums, but to what end? Has anyone actually read your thread and then exclaimed, "Oh my god you are RIGHT! I need to gobble down on every penis I see now! Fuck screwing my bootycall/girlfriend/fiancée/wife, I needs me some cock!"

You are arguing with some people I consider incredibly smart and completely open to new opinions. Yet, you have managed to piss everyone off in here and I'm thinking that is your point. Now there is a Internet Term for this, but I'm not going to say it. I think it's best left unsaid, because I'm just going to be feeding you more fuel for the fire.

I guess what I really wonder what is your fail/win ratio of people you have "converted" to the third gender or whatever you call it? Do you have a list? Is it a mailing list or a club of them? Do you have a tree house you guys all meet at to discuss this heated issue that is plaguing Western Society? Is there punch and pie? I hope there are cookies, no meeting is complete without cookies.

Your hole notion of "third genders" is also biologically rediculous.

Y chromosome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as true third genders(hermaphrodites)
Intersex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please feel free to bang your head against the wall trying to dispute biological fact(western bias?)

I really can't understand how you can keep on insisting that there is no such thing as a straight male, that every man wants to either suck cock, or bang his buddy in the ass. If that is something that you want to do, good for you, no one here will judge you for it. But don't tell me, as a straight male, that I also want to suck cock. I like pussy very much! Nothing in this world would ever make me attracted to another dude, no amount of money...nothing!

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

This is by far the most idiotic thing you have stated so far. Men forced to have sex with women? are you kidding me? Men aren't forced to have sex with anybody, it's the natural evolutionary course that ALL species on this planet(excluding asexual organisms) use as a means of reproduction.

I can't. When you see so much wrong all around you, you can't.



---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

Well , I've gotta go.
I'll tune in tomorrow.[/QUOTE]

Well, at least you're the lone sane voice here, with whom one can discuss.

I like Buddha too, and everything he says.

I would really want to know, why to some men in the West, manhood has stopped mattering. Or is it a general trend. My guess would be that eversince they destroyed and heterosexualized men's spaces in the west, and broke men from men, men have become so isolated from each other that manhood (and I'm not talking about outer appearances) has ceased to matter for men. In any case, people in the west lead so isolated, individualistic lives that social identities may not matter so much. However, the power and need for manhood HAS shifted to heterosexuality, and men are today forced to be heterosexual (just like in the past they had to perform with the woman). AND, the stigma of lack of manhood has shifted from male transgenderism/ femininity to 'homosexuality' and men avoid any intimacy with men.

I would say, to be so involved with one's own self, that you don't care what's happening in the society around things that should concern you as a man, is not a very commendable attitude.

I'll try.

1. I want to expose the persecution of men that the society has hidden underneath false facades and myths, but nevertheless that I can see, A persecution that I hold the western society responsible for.

2. I want to expose those who persecute men and their mispropaganda.

3. Most of all I want to create awareness amongst men themselves -- not those who have a vested interests in status quo, but the vast majority of men who remain silent because they don't really have a space to speak.

I'm curious to know what society you actually live in where men seem to be so oppressed? Because here in the real world I think we have it pretty darn good.

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.

NM, for the sake of removing all unintended stigma from your argument that may be unintentionally read between your words here, please define for us your position on equality for women and/or effeminate men.

I am respectfully asking you to please answer these questions to the best of your ability:

1. Do you feel females deserve equal space within a society OUTSIDE of the house and the bedroom; i.e. getting paid the same wages for working the same jobs as a males.

2. Do you feel “gay”/effeminate males deserve equal space within a society OUTSIDE of the house and the bedroom; i.e. getting paid the same wages for working the same jobs as non-effeminate males.

3. Do you feel females are intellectually equal to males?

4. Do YOU feel that a female who exposes herself as enjoying sex is a whore?

5. Is it necessary for a female to be a virgin, prior to marriage, to be considered pure and/or suitable for marriage, in your opinion?

6. Do you believe that western females lead or perpetuate the “anti-man” agenda?

7. Do you believe that western effeminate “gay” persons lead or perpetuate the “anti-man” agenda?

8. Do you feel males should be able to enjoy sex with females without stigma? Are you afraid to acknowledge sexual enjoyment with females for fear that if you do it reduces your self image of manhood?

9. Should women be allowed to have sex outside of marriage and still be considered as a potential wife?

10. Can a female lead a dignified life without marring or having children and still be permitted to have sex with males and females without being labeled a whore, in your opinion? And if she is would having sex with her reduce the masculinity of males?

11. List three things about women you find attractive…. physically.

12. Lastly, list three things about women you find important to humankind….. Socially, as in what physically they have added in the advancements of a cohesive society outside of what defines them as female…. i.e. the awareness of the inherent weaknesses of children and their need to be protected. Can you think of anything else that women have pushed for seemingly stronger than men to implement in a societies structure. (I am not denying that men have not pushed for these basic awareness also, just noting some instances where woman may push specifically hard because of our innate maternal instinct [yes, I realize not all women make good moms, that is beside the point].)

Thank you NM, I’m sure this will help the women in understanding that we are not the crux of your “anti-man” agenda so as we may help in supporting your cause and help in preventing, for our sons also, any further destruction of their manhood within society, as this is not something women desire either, don’t you agree?

Basically, what I am asking you NM, is Do YOU think females suppress males, or do you think effeminacy attempts to oppress masculinity?

It is a fair question in your argument for females to ask, and it is fair that you respond, we have earned the right to insure that freedom for females in the west continues evolving, don’t you agree?

p.s. I will continue to re-post these questions until they are either answered by you or I am banned from this website, as I believe we can go no further in this discussion of “anti-man” until we clarify what exactly “anti-man” means in relation to “pro-female” equality within a society, specifically humanity.

GENDER AND SEX

Gender and sex are believed to be synonymous concepts in the modern West.

But according to indigenous wisdom, and surely, as innumerable transgenders who are inconvenienced by the western invalidation of gender as a valid human trait different from 'sex' would vouch, 'Gender' and 'sex' are two totally different concepts.

SEX

Sex refers to our outer sexual organs. There are three kinds of sexes in humans:

1. Male
2. Female
3. Hermaphrodite

GENDER

Gender refers to our inner sex, irrespective of our outer-sex. Thus one can be a female from the outside, yet have a predominant 'male' identity. A male inner sex identity is called "masculinity" and a female inner sex identity is called 'femininity'.

We all have both masculinity and femininity inside of us. However, one of these we experience so strongly that it becomes our predominant identity.

Our gender is more important to us personally as our 'sex identity' than our outer sex. Thus a male who strongly feels he is a female will see himself as a female and relate to this world as a female, not as a male.

To the world too, our gender matters almost as much as our sex identity (except when we limit our view of sex identity to what role we play in reproduction). People will not relate to a male with a female identity the same way they relate to men. Eg, women will see that male as partly female and may feel a lot more comfortable with him.

There are two main kinds of gender:

- Masculine
- Feminine

SEX AND GENDER IDENTITY

Our sex identity in the society is based both on our outer as well as our inner sex.

There are about 6 human gender identities, based on various combinations. And many ancient tribes still have them.

Source:
Most contemporary societies group gender identities as follows:

1. Man: A male with a predominant masculine gender
2. Woman: A female of any gender, although some societies have a different class for masculine gendered females.
3. Third gender: A combined group for those who have both male and female sex or gender. This includes, males with a feminine gender, hermaphrodites, eunuchs, females with a male identity, etc.

Sources for Third gender:

The third gender:, Scientific American: Transsexuals are illuminating the biology and psychology of sex—and revealing just how diverse the human species really is
By Jesse Bering

Eunuchs to move court for 'third gender' status, The Times of India, Mar 25, 2004

Third gender, Wikipedia

In the West however, there is confusion. The society invalidates gender as a valid human trait distinct from one's sex. This is because of Christian influence.

West confuses the third gender with 'homosexuals,' and so there is a separate western category for 'homosexuals' just on the pattern of the traditional 'third gender' identity. Even the stigma and stereotypes of 'homosexuals' are the same as that of the third gender.

Ok, I stand corrected. This is the dumbest thing you have said so far, not what I previously quoted from you. Biology is the study of life and living organisms. It is devoid of social bias. All scientific knowledge is based on the scientific method.
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The entire(global) scientific community as well as the historical records completely disagree with everything you are saying. The only sources you can provide for your claims are other people like yourself giving their opinions. There is no scientific data to support your conclusions, nor is there any historical record.

I'm still waiting for an explanation from you regarding my being a straight man, but somehow I secretly want to be pounded in the ass by my male friends.

Thank you ring, for in this I find that as its teachings and beliefs:

85% of men only have sex with females to pass the time as their Secondary sexual needs fulfillment.

85% of ALL men prefer sexual intimacy with other men, cuddly intimacy....

Only 15% of you men really like to eat pussy and those of you who do are not part of the 1st gender males, you are actually part of the 3rd genders because you want to *gasp* bond with females and enjoy female copulation and actually WANT to marry females.

Only 15% of men feel this way, guys, so all you happily married men out there are not 1st gendered true “masculine” “manly” men for if you were you would only entertain sex with a female as a second choice to be for quick self physical satisfaction, if you cuddle with a female you to are effeminate……. so you better stay away from us girls beyond anything except based penetration, or you might be considered part of NM’s 3rd gender, easy as 1, 2, 3……. 1 = MAN no woman…… 2 = woman……. 3 = man who like woman or anything seemingly effeminate…… it all sounds so oppressive and self-serving and narrowing to me. It sounds like a way to negate, anything based as natural, the inclinations for male and female bonding, AND a way to promote anything effeminate, such as the act of cuddling with women as an anti-masculine, anti-man action to other young men so as to steer them AWAY from long term pair bonding with females.

85% of ALL men would never consider cunnalingus, and if you do, you are not a “real” man, gender and sex, you are a male/she, male gendered female sexed or male sexed female gender, fuck it, YOU ARE A MAN WITH A WOMAN INSIDE YOU!

What an absolutely fabulous way to separate males from females, man from woman, to convince young men that all females are secondary humans and if you enjoy their company or enjoy sex with them or wish to live pair bonded with them you are in reality a woman yourself inside of a mans body. That would fuck me up if I were a guy and someone told me that if I preferred women then I must really be a woman inside a mans body and if this were true then I must be a 3rd gender, even less and lower than the effeminate gender itself. I may just negate woman altogether also, so as to protect my “Natural Manhood.”

What a perfect way to degrade females all over again but this time we aren’t less hu”man” YOU ARE just less a MAN if YOU LIKE US!

Bravo, NM, way to bring back the dehumanization of all that is woman and effeminate, we are not so blind as to be unable see what this thinking is and will do to society, it segregates male from female exponentially.

85% of males prefer cuddling with other men, that’s crap and there is no proof, none at all, just vain attempts to self promote gynophobia under the guise of manhood, pure crap.

rahl, this isn't about men and manhood this is about hating women and all that is effeminate, even other men who like women. He can't explain it, if he did he would have to label you as 3rd effeminate gender because you really like females thus exposing your effeminate nature thereby exposing his base belief that men who like women are not "Natural Men" just merely more women inside men's bodies.

Thank you Idyllic for saying all of the above as bluntly as you did.

I've been reading this thread since it first appeared. I agree, bottom line, that is the underlying point of the OP.

He is offended at being perceived of as weak for wanting to have sex with men and in his effort to defend his own sexuality, he has used the classic homophobic argument, replacing homosexuals with women.

Homophobe: "Having sex with men is unnatural and there for you cannot be "a real man" if that is your inclination."

NM: "Having sex with women is unnatural and therefore you cannot be a "real man" if you that is your inclination."

Therefore, in a twist of homophobic logic, he's demonizing women.

NM, as has been said over and again, have sex with whom you like and don't worry about what others think, but don't justify it by denigrating women or falsely trying to insist that "straight" men don't exist or that sex with women is forced upon them.

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.

Natural manhood, what are your bona fides?

You are the one making outrageous unsubtantiated claims. You can not provide any peer reviewed or scientific studies backing up your claims.

From your post above, you believe that I am gay because I like women? How does that even make sense?

And now I'm not an intellectual because I won't take your OPINION at face value? I should have stayed out of this thread from the start, at this point it is becoming circular and it's clear that you can't provide any sort of evidence(outside of opinion pieces) and you continue to reject ACTUAL scientific facts and historical records, yet we here are unintelligent?

One thing I want clarification on...
What in your mind defines "manhood"? Is it merely the act of penetrating? Is it being the provider in a relationship? Is it being a hunter/gatherer?

There are many differnt kinds of men out there, we are all different. We don't all fit neatly into your little boxes. I am a man, have been since my fathers sperm met my mothers egg. I don't now nor have I ever had any desire to be with a man sexually. Society didn't tell me not to, I just don't find men attractive. I prefer women. So how on earth do you conclude that I'm gay from that?

AN IMPORTANT SOURCE THAT SHOWS THAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN THE WEST IS HIGHLY BIASED IN RESEARCH ABOUT SEXUALITY BETWEEN MALES IN THE WILD

(and for anyone that claims that the west is highly supportive of sexuality between men, this amply proves them wrong too)

Biological Exuberance: by Bruce Bagemihl

(an online review): excerpts:

Snowy has already posted on Animal Homosexuality.

While interesting, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

so now you're saying that animals can be gay?

I don't understand how you are connecting this article to anything that rahl has pointed out. Or how I'm somehow interested in being sexually involved with men.

It is for you to prove that the historical research based book published by universities are not peer-reviewed. Stop making loose accusations.

Actually, I keep meeting closeted 'gays' saying they're straights and then fighting for 'gay' identity like hell. And sometimes I catch them lying red handed. It's your huge interest in the 'sexual orientation' theory, that I know for a fact is useless, even harmful to the men in the straight side of the divide, whether or not they like women exclusively. Only gays believe in the exclusivity of heterosexuality for straights. You're sounding like a gay every bit, you're fighting for a cause that is basically gay ... and then you claim you're straight. Even your pic is so 'gay'.

Can you bring here those actual scientific facts and historical records that disprove any of the things I claim? Only someone who can do that has any right to oppose me. You're a gay chauvinist, nothing else.

And, I give reasons for the theories I'm rejecting. Are you saying that we ordinary mortals do not have any right to question scientific theories, even with scientific reasons? You wouldn't be saying that if the gay identity wasn't so important to you.

The question is not what my mind defines 'manhood' as. The question is what our societies define manhood as, and what they lay for men as the criteria for granting manhood.

Even if for discussions' sake I believe that you're heterosexual, then why are you fighting for the 'sexual identities'. What does it matter if I claim that several straight men also like men? This shouldn't stir a male who is really heterosexual. The more straight men go for women, the less competition it would be for men. Like I said, you're just plain a gay chauvinist in the closet.

Another thing NM, make up your mind, if you intend on using science to attempt to prove your “men’s” space theory, then stop injecting mysticism into the fray as another vain attempt to explain you pov. First you say scientific facts support your antiquated theory (i.e. the "wild" animal kingdom), then you go all mystic guru on us, 5 genders lead by a “religious” man (whose base idea of equality you pervert) into trying to segregate back into 3 genders of separation to explain the negations of pair bonding between men and women.

Also, you should study the origins of Christ and Christianity before you attack it, for in the initial ‘his’ story Christ was born to a virgin (untouched by man) and lived a life of celibacy with men as his comrades and friends. Even the relationship with the only true female mentioned to be close to him (physically/sexually) was “Mary of Magdalene” whose relationship was described as that of prophet (Jesus) and follower (Mary), she bathed his feet with her hair her love for him was so great and profound and they were mentioned together often but never was he seen as having a physical relationship with her (she was also denounced as a whore, just as you denounce women who like men sexually in general), though I personally don’t believe this, I believe they were more than just friends and the holy grail was not the cup but the bloodline of Christ hidden in words of the bible to protect their children (yes, I am allowed my own interpretations and I still consider myself basically Christian, with a great deal of emphasis on faith in God) . Christianity actually helped the cause YOU seek, it separated men from women and allowed the yoke of subjugation over females to continue until science and philosophy arose and humans began to understand their actual physical place within this earths evolution outside of magic, mystery and the mystics.

The reality is that biology and science alone destroys your perceptions of humanity. Your realm is nothing more than fantasy gone all male chauvinistic AGAIN, we’ve already been there NM, we didn’t like it then and WE FEMALES ARE NOT GOING BACK and to top that THE MEN WHO TRULY LOVE US WOULD NEVER FORCE US THEIR AGAIN ANYWAY (THESE ARE the men we love)!!!!!

As far as “men” like you, we don’t want your kind of love, good luck finding women to carry your offspring outside of physical force, that is what it will be if you take the nature of love between women by men from them, all the seed you sew will fall upon infertile soil where it will die and eventually men who think the way you do will be extinct like the Neanderthals, you do believe in them, right, because that is what happens to a race of hominids that don’t evolve, enjoy your journey, (with you little men friends who deny cuddling with women) while you can. :thumbsup:

I'm done, It's very obvious that at this point you are just trolling.
Word of advice, if you plan to be apart of this forum I would stop slandering the people who disagree with you. Calling the females on this board whores, and calling me gay is just uncalled for. You don't know me, so don't for one second think that you can judge my sexuality.

As for my avatar, Chuck Norris is about as "Man" as you can get here in the states.
I'm a fan, nothing more. I know that in your false view of sexuality every true "man" would like to have some butt sex with Chuck, but I think he would be opposed.

I think this conversation between me and cynthetiq should be for everyone to see:

1. I still get this feeling that I'm being treated unfairly. Can you bring to my notice where I have continued with a "point of view," even after someone brought out a credible research proving me wrong? 2. Are you saying that scientific researches are not open for analysis by laymen? Even if they have personal experiences that conflict with those researches? In that case, till the scientific community sees 'homosexuality' as a mental disease, I've no right to analyse or discuss a view point that 'homosexuality' maynot be a mental disease? Scientific 'facts' keep changing by the day. One day, they say one thing. The other they do a round about. Are you taking away my power to question scientific studies?


[quote=Cynthetiq]After reading your last post is uncomfortably close to trollling. We insist that people debate the post, not the poster. Thus you're not able to call someone gay as you have here. I'm beginning to rethink our relationship here, you may not be a good fit as a community member if you cannot abide by our rules of discussion and abstain from trolling or flaming other members. I'll give you some time to rework this post. cynthetiq I am not misreading your intentions now or then. You want to ban my thread, because it forces you to deal with an issue you would rather not. It questions the very basis upon which the western civilization is built. And you don't want to give space to anything that questions it. And does it aggressively. You want to ban it, ban it. Be upfront about it. don't beat about the bush. You're wrong in doing it. But then everything that your society is based upon is a lie. The freedom of expression your society is so proud of is extremely laid with double standards. As far as calling him 'gay' is concerned, why should it be a matter of any dispute, if we agree that there is nothing wrong with the term. Also, he wanted to discuss his sexuality. It was not I who raised the issue. He again and again wanted me to comment on it. And I said what I felt. I have done nothing wrong. Don't hide behind flimsy excuses to hide your discomfort for locking this thread. I have been called a closeted gay by some of the posters here, you never took any action against them ... Bad luck to your system of 'sexual apartheid' and I hope one day it ends and together with end all your anti-man mechanisms and all the power that the anti-man elements hold in your society.

uh-oh.