Natural manhood

It's quite telling, when such a learned person doesn't know a reality about men which was so widespread. It shows how much the western society has misrepresented human history to propagate its ideologies of a 'sexual orientation.' What is happening is destruction, manipulation and distortion of facts by a powerful lobby of those, whether gays or not, to redefine the entire world history (and biology and everything else in terms of 'sexual orientation.')


Here are a few eye openers for you (just google these):


Evidence no. 1: Male Homosexuality: From Common to a Rarity by By Pierre J. Tremblay in Collaboration with Richard Ramsay Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary.


Excerpts:

The above is extremely important. Note that the straight males (just like today) amongst themselves, kept guarded the secret of universal male sexuality for men. The third genders or the effeminates (or the 'gay' identified were kept out of this secret. These 'fems' or males with an underdeveloped male identity have, generation after generation, grown up thinking they are the only ones to like men, whereas the straights are totally into women (a mistaken queer belief that led to the concept of 'sexual orientation').

The guy writing this account who obviously has exclusive interest in men, was part of the straight world, i.e., he was one of the guys, and that is why he knew the secrets of the straight world. It's the effeminacy of the 'gays' that made them feel 'different' and they obviously, miscalculated this difference to be related to their desire for men. It's the same story being repeated in my society now, and all the rest of the societies.

Evidence no. 2: Heterosexuality and the Third Gender in Enlightenment London. By Randolph Trumbach, University of Chicago Press

Excerpts from review at "the Free Library at Farlex"

Quote:

no single, dominant set of practices fixed sexual identity as that located between a man and a woman aiming towards reproduction (compulsory heterosexuality); sexual activities between men, for example, either in groups or in couples, might occur during young adulthood and did not necessarily constitute a person's identity according to exclusive categories ... male libertinism itself underwent redefinition, as sexual activity eventually became limited to relations between men and women ... Sodomy became identified with a third gender, associated with a passive deviant male confined to the molly house. And everywhere, men felt called upon to prove a conventional masculine identity through three standards: heterosexuality, patriarchy, and romance.

Book overview at google books:

A revolution in gender relations occurred in London around 1700, resulting in a sexual system that endured in many aspects until the sexual revolution of the 1960s. 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. In Sex and the Gender Revolution, Randolph Trumbach reconstructs the worlds of eighteenth-century prostitution, illegitimacy, sexual violence, and adultery. In those worlds 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. But women--as prostitutes, seduced servants, remarrying widows, and adulterous wives-- also pursued passion. The seamy sexual underworld of extramarital behavior was central not only to the sexual lives of men and women, but to the very existence of marriage, the family, domesticity, and romantic love. London emerges as not only a geographical site but as an actor in its own right, mapping out domains where patriarchy, heterosexuality, domesticity, and female resistance take vivid form in our imaginations and senses. As comprehensive and authoritative as it is eloquent and provocative, this book will become an indispensable study for social and cultural historians and delightful reading for anyone interested in taking a close look at sex and gender in eighteenth-century London.


So, who were the people who got together. What were there lifestyles? What were their ideas?

Here are a few clues:

1. A false birth, by Rictor Norton.
The scholarly article by the gay historian Rictor, who tries his best to distort and misinterpret historical data to make it fit into the concept of 'sexual orientation.' But, not very successful.

It's clear from this article, that throughout the start of the creation of the concept of 'homosexuality' in the modern west, it were those who described themselves as the 'intermediate sex' or the 'third sex' or 'female inside male bodies' who took to the idea of a separate category for sexuality between males and a separate identity to go with it. Is this a new development in history, considering, all through the medieval times, the entire world had a category of third gender males who had receptive sex with men as their gender/ sexual role?

It is also clear from this article that men (as opposed to third genders) like Walt Whitman, who had first dared to create an open space for men to like men, with respect and dignity, but never wanted to create a separate, distinct category for it, opposed the move by the third genders to appropriate 'male sexual desire for men,' but then they were eventually defeated, because they just did not have that space anymore, as men became more and more compelled to be heterosexuals.

2. THIS IS HOW THE CONCEPT OF HOMOSEXUALITY ORIGINATED:

(a) The Term Homosexual, by Rictor Norton

Excerpts:

Quote:

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. In May 1862 his acquaintance Johann Baptist von Schweitzer, active in the Social Democracy workers’ movement, was arrested for ‘public indecency’. Ulrichs wrote a defence and sent it to Schweitzer, but it was confiscated by the authorities. Ulrichs, who had been sexually attracted to men since his early teens, decided that now was the time to solve this ‘riddle’. In November 1862 Ulrichs told his relatives of his intention to publish a study of ‘The Race of Uranian Hermaphrodites, i.e., the Man-Loving Half-Men’. Ulrichs's ‘scientific’ inspiration was contemporary embryology, which had discovered that the sex organs are undifferentiated in the earliest stages of the development of the foetus. By analogy, homosexual desire was just as ‘natural’ as this containment of the opposite sex within the developing embryo. He believed that the ‘germ’ of the female sex could be retained in the fully developed male, creating a kind of psychic hermaphrodite or half-man: a feminine direction of the sex drive within a masculine sex. (This direct linking of sex organs to direction of sex drive is a common non sequitur.) After some refinements he settled on the phrase anima muliebria virili corpore inclusa – a feminine soul or mentality confined within a masculine body.

(b) The pinkSwastika, Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin E. Abrams, Founders Publishing Corporation, Keiser, Oregon, 1997, ISBN: 0964760932

Excerpts:

Quote:

The “grandfather” of the world “gay rights” movement was a homosexual German lawyer named Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895). At the age of 14, Ulrichs was seduced by his riding instructor, a homosexual man about 30 years old (Kennedy in Pascal:15). Observers familiar with the apparently high correlation between childhood sexual molestation and adult homosexuality might conclude that this youthful experience caused Ulrichs to become a homosexual. Ulrichs himself, however, arrived at a hereditary rather than an environmental explanation for his condition. In the 1860s Ulrichs began advancing a theory that defined homosexuals as a third sex. He proposed that male homosexuality could be attributed to a psycho-spiritual mix-up in which a man’s body came to be inhabited by a woman’s soul (and vice-versa for females). He called members of this third sex “Urnings” (male) and “Dailings” (female). Since homosexuality was an inborn condition, he reasoned, it should not be criminalized. Although Ulrichs was to be unsuccessful in changing the laws against homosexuality, his efforts did encourage widespread political activism. One early follower, a German-Hungarian writer named Benkert (under the pseudonym, Karoly Maria Kertbeny), coined the term “homosexual” in an anonymous open letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in 1869 (Lauritsen and Thorstad:6).

Quote:

Ulrichs’ successor Magnus Hirschfeld was a prominent Jewish physician and homosexual. Dr. Hirschfeld, along with two other homosexuals, Max Spohr and Erich Oberg, joined together to form the Wissenschaftlich-Humanitaeres Komitee (“Scientific-Humanitarian Committee”). As we have noted, the SHC was dedicated to two goals: 1) to carry on Ulrichs’ philosophy and works and 2) to work for the legitimization of homosexuality by the German public via the repeal of Paragraph 175, the German law which criminalized homosexual conduct (Steakley:23f). Homosexualist historian Richard Plant writes, It would be hard to overestimate Hirschfeld’s importance...He became the leader of several psychological and medical organizations, the founder of a unique institute for sexual research...He also founded the ‘Yearbook for Intersexual Variants,’ which he edited until 1923 (Plant: 28-29).

a. To believe that the world was ever divided between gay and straight people and that the 'straights' oppressed 'gays' is a very queer notion to start with, and totally baseless.

b. For most of the history, it has been the 'female soul in male body' who liked men who has been oppressed, not so much the man's sexual desire for men. The third genders were however not men who love men, nor were the straights men who didn't love men, or necessarily loved women (even if they married women, as a compulsive manhood role).

Even in the classical Greek society, while straight gendered men could love other men, the third genders (known as catamites and eunuchs) were extremely looked down upon. Indeed, it was a slur to be known as a catamite.

It was the same with ancient Vikings, and Celtic people and Germanic people, who all celebrated love between 'men' but castigated the third gender and their desire to be penetrated.

In the medieval world, although sex between men in the West was also persecuted along with sex between third gender and men, for men it was just their manhood requirement that they had to fulfill -- to like women and to keep off from men formally. And even if it caused misery to men, men were, sufficiently compensated for it by being granted 'social manhood' (for which the third genders who liked men had no need). And there is nothing that men want more than manhood identity. They are willing to die for it and sacrifice their most prized things in life for it. Furthermore, like we've already seen, men had created an informal, hidden space for themselves, within the mainstream mens' spaces, where they most of them formed secretive sexual and romantic bonds with another man, while hiding all these from women, third genders (gays) and the formal society.

Even if we look at the modern world, in the Nazi camp, those who were actually persecuted were the third genders who like men, not men who have sex with men. In fact, there is documented evidence that the Nazi soldiers who persecuted the 'homosexuals' (the effeminate males who like men) had widespread sexual relations amongst themselves. They were the straights who made the third genders wear pink triangles. The ire of the Nazi men against the effeminate 'homosexuals' could be seen as vending of the men's ire against third genders for appropriating men's sexuality for men, and depriving them of the space to love men.

Quote from Homosexulity in the Nazi party:

Quote:

... the law was used selectively against the "Femmes." And even when they were threatened, many effeminate homosexuals, especially those in the arts community, were given protection by certain Nazi leaders (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:248).

In general, it can be said that, although, men were also persecuted along with third genders in the West, about sex with men, men approached this persecution in a totally different way than the third genders. As 'desire for women' became the basic requiremment for manhood, and as 'desire for men' became a disqualification for manhood, men enmasse, disowned their sexuality for men (even if some continued it secretly), while the third genders took it up as their basic social identity, as a sign of their 'gender orientation.' Or at least, a combination of 'gender' and 'sexual orientation.'

Today's gay people (i.e. males who have little use for manhood) are much less oppressed. But today's men (who are called straights today) are much more oppressed. They are forced to be broken from men. But one will not know anything about that, if one is not one of them. Because men will suffer in silence rather than talk about this. They would cruelly sacrifice their most cherished bonds with men, but never cross the roles of manhood set for them by the society. If one is not one of the men, like in the past, today too, one is likely to believe earnestly that straight males are all (majority), genuinely, exclusively heterosexual and happy being who they are. But its nothing more than a myth.

Idyllic

NM, I Googled,…….. Pierre, the guy you quoted above, WAS and IS "gay" AND HE identifies HIMSELF as homosexual even though he does not care for anal sex. The questions is, are you ready to alter YOUR perceptions, my friend, as they just may be wrong, have you every considered that.

Developing a homosexual or gay identity, no psychological crisis, NM, he was gay…… We are trying to tell you, gay is normal, even closet gay, but still gay…. still homosexual….. by creating a third gender based in sexual orientation alone, you are separating men from men, YOU are separating humans from humans. It is the west that is striving to make it simplified, you are a man or a woman and who you have sex with is your choice, enjoy with common sense and common courtesy, other than that, if you wish to define your sexual orientation, please choose, we offer (at this time): hetero, homo, L,G,B,T,A etc..... we will still respect that you are a human first and foremost, of course, you don't even have to choose at all. This is the West I know.

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

Also, you said something about this not involving woman, but again you mince words, and semantics to serve your own agenda

- -

I believe most women in this country and a lot of other countries and many men the world over would find this statement pathetically gynophobic….. I tire of your insinuations of feminine inferiority and masculine superior thinking. Your way of labeling gender orientation, sexual inclination, blah blah blah orientation is self serving and more narrow that anything I’ve heard, you remove the true sense of equality and replace it with stereotypical jargon that make me feel as through you are tossing a blanket of dreary human condemnation from the bigoted, narrow minded, uneducated, fear heated, hate mongers of our past. I don’t know if this debate is worth the effort, I fear it may just be that you refuse to see anything opposite from what you, in my opinion, have been feed by other “Men” term used loosely, to help you distrust effeminacy in any form, so sad.

As I am led to believe by your argument, to be "Penetrated" is a feminine quality, and if you like to be penetrated you are either and effeminate male or a woman, both are part of the "anti-man" agenda to you...... this IS how you make it sound. If, however, you are a giver in the sexual play game, as in you like to stick it to the women and stick it to the effeminate men then you are indeed a "real" "Manly" man, because, well, because they say so... because they are: Men, Men, Men, Men...... now all one really needs is a hairy mustache like spongebob...... yea, whatever . I think I'm done here.

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------

for Men Men Men, see Youtube, SPONGE BOB-NOW THAT WE ARE MEN

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

Natural manhood

You are so obsessed with upholding your own system that you fail to open up your mind to new wisdom.
I tried to see if there is any information on the net that says Pierre calls himself gay, I couldn't find it. Not that it matters. A lot of non-Queer males that like men exclusively are forced to take up 'gay' identity in the West, because they neither have any option nor knowledge. They may even think its a valid definition space. But, the point is they're always uncomortable. They live there like misfits. Perhaps you as a woman, and the gays don't care a shit about them. But the system of sexual orientation is still invalid, and wrongly defined.

So, what is important is that, Pierre feels uncomfortable with the gay identity and the way it constructs sexuality between men. And, he has been trying to bring up more or less the same issues that I've been doing. Except that, he is crippled without a comprehension of the concept of 'third gender.'

THE INABILITY OF WESTERNERS TO COMPREHEND HUMAN GENDER AS SEPARATE FROM HUMAN SEX IDENTITY, MAKES THEM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION, EVEN IF THEY'RE GREATLY DISADVANTAGED BY IT.

---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------

I've never said that third genders loving or lusting for men is not normal. All I'm saying their sexuality is not the same as a man's sexuality for men. Just as their sexuality is not the same as a woman's sexuality for men. They may have male genitalia, but their overall gender identity (outer sex + inner sex) is different from men.

Yes, according to your society's definition. A Christian might as well claim that they are also sinners, as per their definitions. However, the problem is when both of you start claiming that this is the ultimate truth.

(a) I'm not creating a third gender based in sexual orientation. I don't even validate sexual orientation. I am vouching for a third gender category without any references to sexual preferences. All feminine gendered males are one gender, regardless of whether they like men, women or other third genders.

(b) Your society already creates a third gender based in sexual orientation. In a society that is presumably divided on the basis of sexual orientation, your society still separate the effeminate heterosexuals and put them with the GLBT.

(c) So, why do you think, its not ok to divide males from males on the basis of whether they have a male identity or a female identity, but ok to divide them on the basis of whether or not they like women? Do I see personal interests coming here?

(d) Gender orientation is a natural, biological identity. It has a historical, cultural and biological basis. Besides, the feminine gendered males themselves want a separate identity. That is why they created a separate 'gay' identity. There has always been a separate identity for feminine gendered males becaues they wanted it.

(e) If feminine 'males who exclusively desire women' can be part of the 'queer' category, why can't masculine males who exclusively like men' be part of the 'straight' category. What is the BIG problem here? Is the problem your society's unwillingness to give the mainstream, manhood to men to love other men. They'd rather have them marginalized, away from the mainstream, deprived of manhood, clubbed with the third genders, so you can easily stereotype them and put them down as non-men?

---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

That's not considered manly if you want to know what the non-West (and the pre-industrialized west) thinks about this. Indeed, men in my society won't be seen dead holding hands with women. Things are being changed forcibly though, through westernization.

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

There is no such thing as a 'bisexual' man. There are just men. While sexuality for men is universal amongst men, sexuality for women is not so universal, naturally. Like it or not. Neither is it as constant or deep as the west forces men to pretend. It gives you power as a woman who enjoys men, but, this power comes at the cost of men.

It would be difficult for you to deny the historical evidences I've quoted to prove this.

a) When have I ever debased the "female" or "feminine male" space?
b) Is it a sin for men to ask for the privacy of their space? Does that make them anti-women? Is it against women's rights? Why is it ok, if a women asks their personal spaces to be protected?

mixedmedia

Let me ask you this:

What do you want from us?

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Natural manhood

LISTEN TO THIS VERY, VERY CAREFULLY:

Would you like a category called "Whores," for women who who show sexual indulgence for men?

When the modern world was starting, women's sexuality for men was about as stigmatized as men's sexuality for men, except that women had some space to exhibit it within marriage, and men had some space to exhibit it disguised under male comradeship.

What if the society had decided to create a distinct clinical, scientific category of females at that time, based on a sample population of prostitutes, and called them, "women who like sex with men." And then the society went on to step up the hostility and stigma against women liking men.

How many women do you think, then would have gone on to take on a 'heterosexual' identity? You know what would have happened? Women would have competed with each other to show how much they hate sex with men. And, only a minority of real 'whores' would have cared to call themselves 'heterosexual.' Just like today, only the effeminate males care to call themselves 'homosexual.' If the modern world gave protection and social/ political power to the 'whores' they would even start fighting for their identity just as the third genders fight for the 'gay' identity today.

Would you justify the category of 'whores' for women? If not so, what makes you think that a category for men who like men is justified, just because the 'gay' identified fit into it?

What makes you think that just because, I'm insisting on a separate identity for masculine gendered males, it meanst that I necessarily hate the feminine gendered? It's just a matter of giving space and identity to natural, biological identities. No one is superior or inferior. Recognizing the difference is the first step in order to fight for the dignity of male femininity. To hide it behind a false man to man desire label, does not one any good. It doesn't help male femininity and it doesn't held man's desire for men. It just gives undue power to male desire for women, and I guess, you'd be ok with that.

Hello, good morning!! So, you've finally woken up to the fact that male femininty is hated. But, lest you think I've created this hatred or stigma, please open your eyes and see. You society and to less extent mine have been creating this stigma for ages now. And, if you'd care to notice, that is what is behind the entire idea of making 'man's sexuality for men' as 'gay.' In order to stigmatize it. If you choose not to see this, its your problem.

So men who are not manly in their love for other men and manly in their love for women are not real men but are effeminized by the anti-man establishment, which I’m thinking seems to include all that is feminine, right? Please prove me wrong, I so want to be wrong, I so want to believe that the depth of your distrust for females and the effeminacy of the woman is not seen to you as such an utter weakness and controlling agent that we are to blame for the “ANTI-MAN” Agenda…… do you see how you sound NM?



Site this please, also, just because a man desires men physically, does not a woman make……. and “if” it did, then one must concur that a woman who desires women only, would she then be seen as a man in the east?



Primarily, I see humans, but o.k. for conversations point, I think you are confusing the lack of masculine homosexuals because they don’t stand out as ‘gay’ to you, but that doesn’t change that fact that they ARE gay (and in the bar), regardless of if they openly, effeminately “ACT” gay or not, still gay.

And being gay does “NOT” define ones base gender; DNA typically does that (outside of hermaphrodites) and I'm not aware of an actual, dna codified, third gender yet (sounds like a label to me "third gender").

I’m not done yet, I’ll be back after I’m done pretending to be whoever I want to be in this great country, I think I shall dress like a man and act like man, and yet not be a man. What does that make me? ME [/QUOTE]

---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

Several things. To start with, at least be aware that there are other points of views, other ways of living.

Know that men too have issues. West has taken away all avenues for men to voice their real issues.

And if you believe there is a case for a change, do get together with the non-West, to change things. It's not that things in our society or the pre-modern West were hunky dory, either for men or for women. We need to make our societies more open, fair in a true sense -- and give people their true gender rights.

roachboy

i'm confused. what you're saying seems obvious. binary thinking excludes a whole range of options in-between the terms (straight/gay for example). these exclusions have consequences some of which are felt quite acutely by folk. and there's no real need for that, in part because the binary thinking is itself so obviously limited and limiting.

what am i not seeing?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

Let me be the first to say: This thread is exhausting, and there really is no end in sight!

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Natural manhood

Don't you think it's such a big thing to know this, in itself. This is everything that the West has ever told us about men turned upside down.

Yet men sacrifice such huge parts of themselves, without ever letting out sigh, just like in the past (in tribal societies) they went through excruciatingly painful, even fatal, manhood tests, without letting out the slightest cry of pain. The only difference is that in the past they had to cut a part of their body to earn social manhood. Today, they have to cut a part of their soul, sometimes, every part of it, in order to earn social manhood.

We only hear about the oppression of women, but women have never had to go through something to this extent. Plus, they have the space to complain profusely about the slightest discomfort.

The_Dunedan

Aha, so you want us to agree with you and validate your position, in spite of having a -long- way to go before you can be said to have validated it to us.

Freebirthing, anyone?

The_Jazz

Dunedan, I have to put you on notice that I'm considering banning you for causing me to pass half a chicken burrito through my nose after reading that last line. Seriously, I think I have picante sauce in my sinuses now. Well played, sir.

Mr. OP: I come from the camp of "I don't care what you do so long as you don't hurt anyone or anything that can't consent to being hurt." Really, this just seems to be an overly-long justification for something you feel. I know what I like and what I don't, and I have enough experiences under my belt to feel confident that those are my personal truths. Whatever yours are is for you to discover. Have fun with them.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Cynthetiq

damn I wonder just how that Jenny Hatch is doing.

Oh, she's a teabagger, I mean tea party activist... okay. that makes sense now.

I'm like jazz. I don't care what you do so long as it doesn't run afoul of anyone or anything.

personally I don't see how words have that much power.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

mixedmedia

You cut a lot of corners in order to defend one tiny facet of what you call 'manhood.' It's hard to get behind you when you trivialize something as important as the progression of rights for women. With all of your understanding of your own situation, you seem to have very little understanding of anyone else's dilemma (past or present)...and deliberately so.

You've come to a place to argue on the internet that is largely full of people who:
1. don't care who you have sex with
and
2. don't care how you define that sex once you've had it

I will regret with you the creep of Western society into places that might have been better off without it - American-style consumerism, the dilution of culture, pollution, industrial sprawl, bad kids, etc, etc. But as for any measurable effect (if any) it has had to help women escape lives of marital drudgery when that is not what they want out of life? Nope, you won't find me coming down on the 'tradition' side of that argument.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Idyllic

NM, nothing you have to say here seems new to me......... and I definitely don't find your definitions of human sexuality and gender to be wisdom based at all, as a matter of FACT I find your thinking very antiquated.

Let me help you,

It is understood:

Yet YOU proscribe it, you label gays and effeminate men as the “third gender” you separate them from not only other men, you separate them from women also, YOU FORCE men to choose which “gender space” they will reside in based on whether they give or receive……. YOU do this to your own men, the west does not define men by sexual preference, we simply try not to even care what happens in someone’s bedroom, unless THEY WANT to share it. It seems now that the east has begun to find personal freedoms more they are becoming more aware of the natural homosexual inclinations of man and are trying to segregate them by creating an entire new gender…… This is NOT a western idea.

and as for that new gender not being based in degrading effeminacy, hmmmm.

These quotes come from extensions of your quotes, you should really try to read your own material better as you continue to contradict yourself in trying to explain why you prefer to stay locked in your own personal “closet” of self-defining in which you attempt to PROVE that a man who sticks his dick into another man is not gay, but a man who allows another man to stick his dick into him is, and not only is he gay he is actually a woman using his butt as a vagina…… do you have any idea how crazy this sounds…….
“They’re not really homosexual, They’re like call mates in prison”……… sad.

Talk about lack of freedom to express one’s sexuality for the opposite gender, you degrade masculine/feminine sex so much that you deem your entire homosexual nation as being akin to cell mates having sex with one another and then justify it as a non-homosexual act merely because you have removed your opportunities to have healthy heterosexual sex and real relationships with women by belittling anything effeminate.

This is not about male on male sex; this is about oppressing anything effeminized, especially men who identify with the receiving side of their homosexuality.

NM, did you ever consider that it is the segregation of women from men altogether that may be leading to, and in some instances instigating altogether, some of these homosexual attractions and tendencies.

{Please excuse me, my homosexual friends, I am merely trying to explain how the young men in his country may be developing a more intense sexual attraction to men specifically because they are not allowed to show or act sexual to women, and that by their own gender split they create more specific sexual male on male desires simply because of the lack of female involvement in daily life. Not to mention their general degradation of anything effeminate, including effeminate men both straight and gay.}

We humans do have tendencies to desire that which we are accustomed to seeing on a daily basis and that which we typically find arousing are those who make us feel loved and secure, with only men around to share this with, it is nature that men would develop this form of attraction exclusively with other men, even stronger than with women as they have had very little experience with women at all in a physical sense, even just holding hands is seen as a weakness, how on earth is a sexual relationship with someone you would not even hold hands with even imaginable…..

if all you are exposed to is men, and women are constantly degraded as mere feminine holes,…. then wouldn’t most men who feel the need to belong follow the same sexual preference, it is only natural to assume that men will act sexually with other men when women are not allowed to be viewed as natural sexually desirable humans.

These acts are still considered homosexual acts none the less. Who else are the young men in your country supposed to experiment with, apparently not women, as they are part of the “I’m just a hole” effeminates, as you shroudedly acknowledge to be know as the leaders of the “anti-man” agenda…..because effeminates want…… what do effeminates’ want again, oh that’s right……. they want the “anti-man” agenda, what is it they are supposed to want again, I mean what do you think is truly the “anti-mans” agenda?

AGAIN…….. “Pierre never according to this account, experienced any psychological crisis in developing a homosexual or gay identity”

Actually this is precisely your problem, human gender does not define human sexuality, nor does human sexuality define gender. Your either a boy or a girl (dna wise), but who you shag, that doesn’t make you anything except who YOU decide to be. The inability for the East to finally drop the human gender stereotypes altogether is the base of most of the problems you are suffering with.

No, apparently you’re not basing third gender by sexual orientation….. you are basing human separation merely on the way somebody APPEARS or ACTS…… so basically, you don’t care about the who, what or why of a mans personality….. if a man acts or appears feminine he is a third gender, period. Talk about stereotypical homophobic mentality and behavior, you would divide males based on whether somebody walks with a swish or not…….. that’s beyond prejudice and just down right ignorant NM.

I know this response is indulgent but.......... GIVE BIRTH NM, squeeze a flippin' basketball out your butt and then stick it to your nipple and feed it and change its diaper, all the while being viewed as a second class citizen (just barely). Be forced to bend to the will of man because they demand it to be so, and with mans physical strength involved in the beatings that follow for disobedience we women suffer plenty pain, daily in some cases and all to prove what, nothing about ourselves except subservience to men. Lets not forget about the heels, makeup, waxing, shaving, hair and skin regiments, lipo, enhancements, do you think we do this for ourselves. Don't tell me I don't understand oppression to the extent you suffer. This is, after all, a man's world and TRUE men know this and honor women as sisters and mothers and wives.

All we women really want (imo) is to be respected and loved for what we do for our "beloved" men and our "precious" families, because in the end, we give birth to you men too. I want my sons to rule their world, but I want them to share it with the women they love so their children can grow in freedom of thoughts and actions, something it seems that you have missed out on.

NM, define the "anti-man" agenda.

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

Cimarron29414

Alright. Call me judgemental. Call me insensitive to the plight of third gender, heterosexual men who like to have anal sex with second gender homosexual men while watching A-Team re-runs. I've read the compiled mass of thrice-typed bullshit in this thread, trying to find some understanding of this grand political revolution for which we've been called to action. All I've come up with is a bitter man who has mommie issues and projects them upon our lovely and far too patient female members.

Dude, if you think you are going to garner sympathy from a class of people who were denied voting rights, equal wages, and equal protections for over 200 years, simply because there is a sudden push for unisex bathrooms invading your "males spaces"...well, you have bigger, third gender, homosexual, super-masculine balls than me, my friend. Good luck with that!

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

levite

Honestly, I don't think I can stand to make a full response post. Idyllic did a great job of pointing out most of what I would've said anyway, and it seems pretty clear that the OP is pretty much bound and determined to interpret everything he comes across as support for his position, whether it is or not. I am officially switching this thread into the "impossible discussion" category, and am out of here.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Natural manhood

Did I say that you should agree with me unless you validate what I say?

Although, its a fact that while straight males will basically see what I mean, without much persuasion, whether or not they have the space to agree with me openly, what I call the vested interest groups or the forces that have a vested interest in anti-man social systems, will reject my stand as a 'political statement' even if they are forced to agree (becasue of compelling evidences) what I'm saying.

One of the biggest of these vested interests are the males who fit into the 'gay' category, and they have a direct vested interest in propagating the lie of 'sexual orientation.' And many of these 'homosexuals' are closeted and not necessarily 'out.' But they strongly relate with the entire concept of seeing 'homosexuality' (sic) and 'homosexuals' as different from whom they consider 'heterosexuals.'

The following are the people who basically fit into the 'homosexual' category:

Primary group: feminine gendered males who like men.
Other possible groups of males who fit in: Males who are deeply into receptive anal sex, and are addicted to it, and who are extremely promiscuous too, ie, those who need receptive anal sex so much that their need for manhood takes a back seat ... although I doubt if they really are 'men' (as opposed to being third genders), they probably belong to the primary group as well, although, their femininity may not be obvious at the outset.

This is not to say that all those who enjoy receptive anal sex, even as a their primary sexual preference, are feminine. Those who fit into the 'gay' category are feminine.

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

What's OP?

It's not about what individual people care about or don't care about. It's about how the society works. It's about how it classifies and arranges its people and human traits, what spaces it provides them. What category it puts them into. These things are extremely important, particularly for men. The 'manhood' space have always been a matter of life and death for men. To exclude 'man's need for intimacy for men' from 'manhood' category and merging it with the 'third gender' category, by defining the former as 'heterosexual' and the latter as 'homosexual' is anti-man, and this is the problem.

It's about the (western) society confusing gender with sexuality in a haphazard way.

Even if man's need for men finds space back in the manhood (straight) category, something it informally lost as Christianity started but formally lost only with the introduction of the concept of homosexuality, individuals may still agree or disagree with male sexuality for men.

It's about social manhood, not about individual freedom to do this or that.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

Antiquity is the answer. Your society changed the antiquity without justifying your changes.

You've been unable to justify sexual orientation. Or prove any of my contentions wrong. The entire concept of 'homosexuality' and sexual orientation is based upon the negation of 'gender' as a valid human trait. And, you cannot justify this negation either.

---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------

You're probably a 'gay' chauvinist!!

I'm not looking for sympathy. If you did not notice, I'm in fact challenging your identity and the social beliefs that have created it.

---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 PM ----------

How other people describe his situation is hardly relevant here! The point is he has been challenging this social construction of man to man desire in the West, and even if he has to be a part of it.

And this is clear proof that it is not merely something that concerns men in the West, but is a valid and live issue in the West too.

roachboy

what do you understand by valid?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Natural manhood

What you're saying is only a secondary, and far less important problem with sexual orientation. And it's not perfectly valid either. If there is nothing wrong with the definition of 'homosexuality,' then there should be no other problem. It's not just a binary. There are three well-defined categories: Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.

The point is, the problem with 'homosexuality' is much more deep rooted.

'Gender', as a distinct human trait from (outer-sex), which is an important part of our social identity.


Sexual Orientation is not 'valid' in the sense that:

(1) WRONG DEFINITION: The definition is faulty and incomplete (unless gender orientation is acknoweldged in the formal definition).

(2) NOT VIABLE: (i) It's impractical. It won't work. The non-effeminate guys will, for the most part, keep away from it, even when they all feel sexual towards men. That's because, its actually a gendered identity.
(ii) Also, in an environment where manhood is seen as equivalent to sexual desire for women, and where, a sexual desire for men is seen as pointing to a 'female soul' inside the male, how many males that are non-feminine and have an immense stake in manhood, will even consider acknowledging their sexual desires for men, however strong (or even exclusive) they are.

(3) WRONG MOTIVES: What is the motive for the western society to classify people on the basis of what is the outer sex of the person one is having sex with? Is it something that is useful to the individual? Not unless the individual is confusing his sexuality for men with his femininity. Fact is, no one experiences desires as identity. This classification only helps the society to control and check it amongst the 'normal' males. Like you would control a disease by isolating its virus. For the society with a strong Christian mentality, its a menace, a disease to be controlled.

The vested interests or the anti-man forces, are people or groups who are benefitted by the anti-man mechanisms that the society creates to control this 'disease' amongst men.


(3) WRONG OUTCOME: The results of dividing the society in terms of 'heterosexual,' 'homosexual' and 'bisexual' are totally inaccurate. It shows the majority as exclusively heterosexual which is simply put, false. Why do you think, such a small minority choose the 'bisexual' option?

ring

Is this good timing or bad timing to mention Rishathra?


Rishathra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Natural manhood

What do you know about gender identities? Have you spoken to western gay identified males about how comfortable they'd be, without a 'separate' identity? I have. And they reject the idea. They need a 'separate' label from the guys who have manhood. They just wrongly think that the guys with manhood are heterosexual. They confuse their 'heterosexual' outer/ social behavior with their manhood.

Have you spoken to the extremely feminine guys, the transgenders, whether or not they want an identity separate from the masculine, 'normal' males? There is nothing more that they could want.

The thing is, its a social need of the feminine male to have a distinct identity for the female in them. The masculine male space suffocates this female. Esp. in the West, where male femininity is extremely hated in straight gendered spaces. This female needs to have an identity, which identity is denied in the 'manhood' space.

On the other hand, does the sexual desire cry for a distinct identity from other men? Ask yourself honestly. How much does your sexuality for men crave for an identity, rather than just a space for fulfillment? Unless, its a feminine male desire for men, males hate the idea of a separate identity. It's actually, the feminine that is desiring that separation. It just gets confuses with 'homosexuality' -- and that is a deliberate confusion created by anti-man forces.

There is nothing wrong with giving a distinct label where it is valid and applicable.

And gender identities, of which whether one has a female identity or a male identity is an extremely important part, is more important to a person than his or her outer sex.

It's precisely because your society refuses the feminine males a distinct identity from 'men,' that they are forced to live like 'diseased' 'abormal' men, rather than as healthy third genders.

You know how far some of them go to escape the 'men' tag you force on them because they have male genitalia? Because you just won't recognize the female inside them?

They see themselves as females. Braving such strong social hostility, they take on women's names, adjectives, roles, dresses, mannerisms, yet, you insist on calling them 'he.' You create an immense hatred within them against their own male bodies, because, it comes in the way of their inner female being accepted in the society. In exasperation, you force some of them, to go for a sex change operation -- I've spoken to some western transgenders who went to the extent of cutting off his penis when he was just 14 (and he was 'heterosexual').

You force third genders to be either a man or a woman. You force them to think they're sick, if they're not either a man or a woman. You deny them the third gender identity.

And then you go on to misdefine 'third gender' as 'homosexual' complicating the matter even further. And thus not only persecuting the real 'third genders' but also male desire for men.

What are men without their desire for men? How can something which is an integral part of manhood, become a criteria for their separation from the mainstream?


This shows how little you know about male gender and sexuality.

Penetrating is the Gender role of the 'men' (the straight male). And being penetrated is the gender role of the 'third genders (the Queer male). Gender roles are artificially fixed by the society.

It's not because a male gets penetrated that he becomes a Queer. It's because, he's queer that he adopts openly the artificial role of being penetrated. While a masculine male that likes to be penetrated would hide it, be ashamed of it, because that is a queer gender role. Masculine males are forced to adopt penetration, whether or not they want to do it.

Are this gender roles right? NO. Do they result in persecution of 'men' (straight males)? YES.

So, we need to work against these gender roles (penetrater/ penetrated). We need to stop viewing penetration as a masculine quality and being penetrated as a feminine quality, because that is not based on reality.

But, is the way to go ahead, to change the penetrator-penetrated divide to 'heterosexual'-'homosexual' divide? To redefine the manhood gender as 'heterosexual' and the 'third genders' as 'homosexual'? I don't think so. This is taking the oppression of men to the extreme.

The answer is to remove these gender roles altogether, and keep the distinction between 'men' and 'third genders' to its basic, biological distinction of 'gender orientation'. Men means males with a male inner identity. And, 'third gender' means, males with a female inner identity. Whether one gets penetrated, or penetrates, or desires men, women, third genders, animals, rodents, no one ... that is all immaterial, as far as this identity should be concerned.


Their is a difference between 'male' and 'man.' Your society has forgotten that difference and has been trying to ascertain that difference artificially in terms of 'men' and 'real men,' 'men' and 'gays' and so on.

Then I wish you'd stop "trying not to care what happens in someone's bedroom" by dividing males into whether its a man in their bedroom or a woman. What choice does it leave men, if they're being identified and labelled on this basis -- to keep their bedroom matters into the bedroom?

Huh?

Third gender is an ancient identity. Your society always had it, though it went underground in much of the past 2000 years.

Third gender is not about so-called 'homosexual' inclinations at all. Third gender is about male effeminacy. Receptive sex is their gender role. But, you can be a third gender without receptive sex. However, according to your own definition, homosexual is more than receptive sex, isn't it? So, how is eastern definition of third gender as penetrated = defining them as 'homosexual'? The fact is that your own definitions are ambiguous and on purpose so.

A social identity as 'third gender' is different from the fact that third genders and male femininity are stigmatized in the world. Don't forget, that the concept of 'third gender' goes back to the most original societies, when third gender was not looked down upon at all. Rather, it was believed to be the most respected of all genders and referred to as 'two-spirited' and a representation of god itself.

And don't forget, that its your society that condemns and stigmatizes male femininity to such an extent. There is a lot of acceptance of male femininity in our society.

Idyllic

NM, you contradict yourself over and over. First you say work against stereotypical sexual orientation bias, then you say, it’s still o.k. if it allows men who penetrate to remain in the ‘real” men 1st gender regardless of the “homosexual” act which really isn’t “homosexual” because men are supposed to penetrate and it doesn’t matter what hole they penetrate, they are not “gay” or 3rd gender unless they are receivers, or they act or appear effeminate.

Yes NM, homosexual sex is a term used to define a sexual encounter between to person of the same sex, it really is that simple, no judgments here. You can be a giver or a receiver, if you’re both males, it is homosexual sex, if you’re both females, it is a homosexual sex….. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Receptive sex is not a gender role; it is a physical sensation preference…….being a receiver does NOT make you effeminate nor does being a giver make you masculine. Just because you like to stick your “manhood” into a hole, does not a “real” man make, nor does it make the hole….. effeminate.

Just because someone may have a homosexual experience does not necessary make them homosexuals….. That is a personal choice. Your thinking just removes the choice part altogether which allows your society to judge others and then label them, this is not a western idea, this is a homophobic idea that is being not only perpetuated by your culture, it is being transformed into a true reason for segregation based on sexual preferences.

You can try to stop it all you want NM, but the “gay” community, effeminates or not will only tolerate so much of your segregation….. I imagine the non-effeminate gays and the effeminate straight men completely deny this third gender placement….. this “segregation” really only serves the purpose of benefitting “straight/masculine” men in their opportunity to continue homosexual penetration and to not take on the “stigma” of being “Third Gender” in your seemingly self serving narrow interpretation of human sexuality.

Again, as I read your posts and responses, it still comes back to a basic distrust and core dehumanization of anything effeminate; in the end this thinking will continue to destroy any foundations for healthy sexual relationships with women in your culture.
What a shame.

You still have yet to define the “anti-man” agenda.

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

DaveOrion

Oh my, yellow & red highlighted words must mean this is totally serious.

I would read all of this but my dog ran away, I fell of a ladder, & I dont wanna read it.

Idyllic has the upper hand anyway.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Natural manhood

Idyllic, there is no contradiction in me. It seems, either you're really having a problem understanding me, or you're deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting me. I'll assume its the former, and re-explain myself.

I've repeatedly said 'sexual orienation' is a misleading phenomenon. your use of the term to put words into my mouth points to a certain dishonesty. If you sincerely want to understand what I'm saying (which I doubt you do) then, please rephrase what I'm saying without the western loaded terms. Otherwise, we'll go round and round.

Have I ever said that? NO!! Can you pick out the specific text where I say that!

I say the opposite. It doesn't matter whether you take it or recieve it, or do it to a woman or a man or a third gender ... you're man if you're a male with a male identity, and you're a third gender if you're broken from that male identity and have some sort of a female identity.

In fact, I'd also say that the straight spaces in the West should be reoriented to allow for a lot of male femininity that goes well with the predominant male identity. Only the extreme, transgendered males of whatever sexual desires, would then need a separate identity, unlike today, when even slight effeminacy with exclusive desires for men wants to make a male long for a separate identity.

---------- Post added at 04:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 AM ----------

If you'd just become a more open-minded and stop to look at your own folly, you'll know your drawback.

You accused the eastern culture of equating 'third gender' with 'homosexuality', when, as you agree, it only equates 'being penetrated' with 'third gender.'

Now, let's look at it mathematically:

Eastern culture: Third gender = the penetrated; Man = Penetrator

You're saying this means, in Eastern culture: Third gender = Homosexual

This would make your own definition of Homosexual, as

Homosexual= the penetrated

However, you/ your society, still defines Homosexual = any sexual act between males

You're contradicting your own definition.

But, you're not alone. These definitions are ambiguous, because the concept of 'homosexuality' was botched up in a hurry, building upon the same anti-man myths that the eastern society is living under, even today.

Even serious Western scholars do this all the time. Homosexuality is widely used as a synonym for 'being penetrated' and the penetrator is often excluded from the definition. Homosexuality is also widely used by Western serious scholars (esp. the gay ones) as a synonym for transgenderism, even heterosexual transgenderism.

You're pretty messed up there. And the mess is deliberately created.

---------- Post added at 04:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 AM ----------

It's a physical sensation preference that men and manhood have long been debarred from. It's a 'negative' gender role, in the sense that it debars a male from social manhood. In other words, males are debarred from manhood, if they openly acknowledge receiving it.

Without this gender role, men would just love to get that sensation as well. Remember, males have the same bodies.

And, when a positive human trait gets debarred from manhood, the third genders get it for free. So, 'receiving it' becomes a 'patent' of the third genders. Their gender role. Something they can indulge in without inhibition, since they have no use for manhood, being feminine gendered.

Why are we discussing this? I have several times clarified my position on this. There is no disagreement on this point. Are you deliberately trying to keep up your blame game, because you don't have anything better to support yourself?

When the very definition of 'homosexuality' is being questioned here, your using the term to make your point doesn't help your case.

Let's rephrase what you've just claimed: "Homosexuality is sex between two males. But just because two males have sex with each other doesn't make them homosexual." This is amongst the innumerable double standards that the western system of sexual orientation is built upon.

Personal choice for whom? Masculine gendered males? No. Feminine gendered males? Yes.

I've already given innumerable examples of this from your society.

It's enforced upon masculine gendered males by the feminine gendered males who like men.

ahem ... excuse me!! We're forgetting something. It's your culture that has the 'homosexual'/ 'heterosexual' divide, not mine. My culture doesn't have any criteria for such a division.

Again, I'm not here upholding my culture. My culture is basically built on the same anti-man stuff that yours is. Yours just takes it to the extreme. And we need to change both cultures and restore it to the original human nature.

---------- Post added at 05:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 AM ----------

1. The so-called 'gay' community consists originally and essentially of effeminates (by now you'd have read the history of it, I hope). The non-effeminates exist there only because they're forced out of the straight space. They exist there like fish out of water. I've been discussing these issues with the western gay community on the net itself. And, just like in my the westernized parts of my own society, here too, there are two kinds of 'gays' -- the effeminate males who fight for the gay identity. And the masculine ones who thank me profusely for liberating them from unjust western system of sexual orientation, and showing them that they don't really belong with the gays and that their discomfiture is justified.

Just give space to male sexuality for men within the straight space, and you'll see that no masculine male that likes men will ever use the word 'gay.'

2. On the contrary, the western gay community has been sharply divided between 'effeminates' (including 'straight-acting') and 'non-effeminates,' at every level. Even amongst the effeminates themselves, there is a strong bias in favour of masculine males (and the usual lament is that there aren't any in the gay community).

There are several movements in the West itself that are talking about breaking away from the 'gay' category in some way. E.g., there is the 'g0y' movement, then there are several individual attempts like "rejecting gay identity -- reclaiming manhood" by Jack Donovan. There is a movement of sorts with a site called "heroichomosex" ... there is another site which is for 'straight males who have sex with men' ... and then there are several small groups that are for male bonding and are open to sexual/ romantic liasions between men within the straight identity. There is also something called 'bro-mance' that is within the 'straight' fold.

Many masculine males are even using the word 'straight-gay' and combined with the fact that there are 'queer heterosexuals' now, it doesn't get more befittingly confusing for the West and its politics with male gender and sexuality.

Notice, that no effeminates are involved in any of these break-away movements, further, reaffirming the equation, gay = effeminacy. straight = masculine.

It's a constant struggle for the masculine male who identifies as 'gay' to have his masculinity acknowledged, in the gay world as well as the overall society -- for the same reason.


Aren't we again confusing things here? Contrary to what you suggest, its the non-effeminates, whom you insist on calling 'gays,' who appreciate the concept of 'third gender' as the basis for segregation, rather than male sexual desire for men -- whether of receptive or penetrative nature.

The effeminates, hate having to bear the stigma on male effeminacy, and so they are the ones interested in hiding their effeminacy behind a false 'man likes man' identity.

Another group that really appreciates the concept of third gender rather than 'homosexuality' are the transgenders. And why not, they are the original 'owners' of the third gender identity. The western effeminates stole it from them and renamed it in terms of 'homosexuality.'


And why shouldn't the masculine males benefit, if they like to have sex with males, whether they're penetrated or penetrate or indulge in non-penetrative sex? More importantly, why should the masculine males be penalised if they like to be penetrated, by clubbing them away from other masculine gendered males, when men who desire women are free to revel in masculine glory? In fact, when even effeminate males who desire women revel in false masculine glory?

Surely, it would be justified, considering, the feminine heterosexuals (transgenders) are not part of the 'straight' world but of the gay world.

What a shame that you're deliberately distorting everything I say, ascribing attitudes to me that are totally opposite of my contention, and do it so unabashedly, when its here for everyone to see.

Kindly bring here one statement that says that I am against the rights or dignity of the effeminate males.


---------- Post added at 05:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 AM ----------

If you haven't read my posts, how do you know?

DaveOrion

Thanks NM, thats the best laugh I've had all day.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Idyllic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
it’s still o.k. if it allows men who penetrate to remain in the ‘real” men 1st gender regardless of the “homosexual” act which really isn’t “homosexual” because men are supposed to penetrate and it doesn’t matter what hole they penetrate, they are not “gay” or 3rd gender unless they are receivers, or they act or appear effeminate.

Yes NM you have really said that.

Why would anyone be forced to accept sexual contact they do not want, this is by no means a western idea, it is a wrong idea.

I said no such thing, I said it doesn’t matter which end of the sexual “dick” you are on, be a giver or receiver if it is the same gender, it is a homosexual act……

What would you call a “straight” “masculine” man who likes for a female to penetrate him with a strap on dildo? Is he a third gender too? And would that be merely because he allows himself to be penetrated, but not by a male, for he is in essence a heterosexual male who just enjoys the sensation of anal penetration? I would not call this man “gay” or effeminate, would you?.

They already do.

Why do they need an identity applied to them, can’t they decide their own or if they even want a label and then be accepted for that? Why does your society feel the need to label them? I don’t, do you?

No, you are saying that, I said that a sexual act does NOT define a person.

No, 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.

Again, what I said was that it is the act that is defined as a homosexual act, which does not however define the person, it is the persons’ decision to accept themselves as homosexual (if they wish), just because you participate in a homosexual act, does not a homosexual make.

NM, what is an “anti-man” myth? What is the “anti-man” agenda? Will you ever define this?

We exclude no-one, penetrator or receiver, same gender sex = a homosexual sex act. As I said, this is a simple term to define a physical sexual act. If you wish to be accepted as a homosexual, that is a personal choice here.

You, however, still insist on removeing choice by labeling the third gender by appearance, that is simply the reality of your argument. Third Gender = any effeminate male and or receiver of homosexual sex acts. And for as much as you try to give them all the glory you attempt to convince me of, you still ostracize them and deny effeminates the option to be “men” in the 1st gender space, even if they want to be.

You’ll find that most women in the west aren’t goaded easily, we are accustomed to being compared to whores by less free cultures, I merely found your comparison so ridiculous as to be not reply worthy, personally, I mean the whole issue here is to “not” define somebody by there sexual act, right.

But, if it helps, whores are persons who typically get paid for sex, both male and female whores exists. I don’t judge them either, and I would never try to ascribe to them a separate gender orientation because of it.

Again, define the becoming mythical “anti-man” agenda.

Well, let me try to piece together the vague innuendos of relating the effeminate man, to the female in general which within your society is viewed as a second class citizen, if citizen at all. Oh, and a major player in the “ant-man” agenda, which you still won’t define, but I am guessing it is NOT a beneficial movement of for the “masculine” “straight” men.

And effeminacy in general is seen as a weakness in you culture, it is seen as “anti-man” I am beginning to believe.

This entire 1 through 6 is just another attempt to discredit and demoralize effeminacy, and both the 2nd and the 3rd gender, as humanistically less viable within the society of the 1st gender man.

EVEN IF EFFEMINATE BEHAVIOR WAS THOUGHT OF AS POSITIVE, THERE”D STILL BE AN ISSUE HERE, what issue NM?

The issue here is WHY divide males to begin with??????? This division alone implies the lesser value of one, specifically when the one is compared to the devalued effeminate nature.

“Women, who hates power, especially when it comes easily”….. wake up NM, what power do women have, especially in your culture where all effeminacy is debased and demoralized to begin with.

Gays and their “tainted glasses”. Whatever, but it sound bigoted to me.

It is noted that 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 males in the world self profess homosexuality as a gender preference, that means 9 men in 10 to 19 men in 20 are primarily attracted to females, at least this holds true in culture where healthy non-degraded and non-stigmatized relationships with women are viewed as normal in men and not a weakness.

It is you who degrade not only “gay” man but women also. I mean it would be easy for me to look at you as a total loser for assuming that men who like to penetrate others view a man ass hole as the equivalent of my vagina, why don’t you non-gay masculine penetrators, go bear your offspring in the 3rd genders ass, as it is just another vagina, right. Your entire argument completely devalues the worth of women, but it is blatantly obvious you really don’t care about that.

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

Natural manhood

That is the problem with people who are so bigoted that they fail to pay heed to what the other is saying.

That is not what I said ...

You'd brought up the issue of who penetrates and who is penetrated, and I pointed out that these are just the gender roles of men and third genders (gays) respectively.

At no point did I say that the roles are right or justified or natural.

In fact, I did also say that its not because the males penetrate that they are men, but rather its because they are men that they have to penetrate, (addition: whether or not they like it).

And that, its not because the males get penetrated that they are 'third genders' but because, they are third genders that they get penetrated. Getting penetrated for them is the way to assert their femininity, just as penetrating is the way for masculine gendered males to assert their masculinity in social terms.

Just as in the modern west, heterosexuality is the way for the masculine gendered males to assert their masculinity, and 'homosexuality' is the way for the feminine gendered to assert their femininity.

Unfortunately, the sexual acts and desires, which should have been left to each individual's personal nature, have been converted into their gender roles, becoming a burden, a pressure for the masculine gendered male.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALE AND MAN
You must also understand the difference between males and men. Part of the problem may be because you think it is unreasonable to call the transgendered males as 'non-men.' But that is not true. 'non-man' male does not have to be a judgemental adjective. In every non-Western culture, 'man' is basically used for the masculine gendered male. Feminine gendered males are not masculine gendered and they're happy with it. They don't cease to be males, but, they are not 'men' and they don't have to be 'men' to be normal. It's perfectly normal and valid, not to be men, but be third gender males.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

Your problem is you don't pay attention to what I say.

Getting penetrated is sensually pleasurable and by default any male would like it, whether they're masculine gendered or feminine gendered. But a man's gender roles don't allow him to enjoy it. He must only penetrate. In fact, it is an oppression of men, not their privilege that they are restricted to being penetrators.

The effeminate males are free to get penetrated and enjoy sexual pleasure. That is their privilege, not their oppression.

Btw, masculine gendered males (you call them straights) accept, even offer, sexual contact that they do not want, all the time ... and its to/ from women. And its a grave form of sexual exploitation. Yet, they don't have any space to complain at all. In fact, they blame themselves for not enjoying sex with women, with whom and when they don't.

They don't even have the space to say they feel discomfort if forced into 'sexual' or vulnerable positions before women, like when they're made to strip in front of women for non-sexual purposes (let's say a physical, or a compulsory massage for sportsmen). Because refusing to bow down to this forceful exposure is taken to mean, they don't enjoy circumstances where they get to be sexual with women, which is seen as a grave deficiency of their heterosexuality, which immediately debars them from manhood by putting a question mark on their 'straightness.'

That is just one of the ways the Western society oppresses men.

You wanted to know what the 'anti-man forces' are. Its the forces that actively create and perpetuate the mechanisms that force men to go against their nature to fit into their anti-man roles. The anti-man roles have themselves been created by these forces.

---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

Here's what you said:

"It seems now that the east has begun to find personal freedoms more they are becoming more aware of the natural homosexual inclinations of man and are trying to segregate them by creating an entire new gender…… This is NOT a western idea."

You've said that we categorise natural 'homosexual' inclinations of man as a different gender, when the eastern culture can only be said to categorise (and I'm not supporting it) receptive anal sex as 'third gender.'

You're obviously equating 'homosexual' with 'receptive anal sex.'

Cimarron29414

BWAHA HA HA HA HA HA!!! If you only knew how wrong you were. You are not challenging my identity. I'm quite comfortable with who I am and with others.

I've concluded that what you are really doing is creating a new class of "victims" and blaming western women for the conditions your "victims" find themselves in.

But I'm going to let you keep typing. There's no better basis for my conclusions than your musings.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

rahl

The amount of absurd conclusions you have come to are way too long to quote all of them, so I'll deal with them simply by dismissing all of what you have said as just being dead wrong.

As for the quoted portion above, not everybody(male or female) enjoy being penetrated analy or oraly. So to assume that if some people like it then everyone should is much like the rest of your posts in that it is dead wrong.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

The_Jazz

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- The use of colored script is reserved for staff messages. Please stop using it.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

The_Dunedan

I'll be sure to remember that the next time I hear about some dude being assraped in prison or by the cops. All that screaming, the blood, the humiliation and sense of violation...it's just him acting out a social role forced upon him by unnamed man-hating social controllers. Right. He's -actually- enjoying himself because hey, it's prostate stimulation, right? And BY DEFAULT it's pleasurable! BY DEFAULT, I tell you!

This is such...such...unmitigated bullshit...I don't even have the words. Straight men offer sexual contact they don't desire? What are you smoking, and why aren't you sharing?

Plan9

But I don't want what he's smoking.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

The_Dunedan

Neither do I, but it'd gotta be some pretty powerful stuff. Might make a good engine-degreaser, or maybe something for getting all that carbon-fouling out of people's old-as-dirt-shot-to-shit .22 rifles. Gotta be an industrial market of some kind for something that strong!

Cimarron29414

You guys are just part of the oppression he is feeling. Here you are, belittling his points and assertions. This is supposed to be a masculinity safety zone. Don't make his font go fuchsia on your ass!

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Idyllic

Yea, I'm ready...... Cimarron I think his points and asserts already "be" little, that may be part of the prob..... and I like the color fuchsia.

He really believes that all men like to have homosexual sex, and that they only truly have sex with women to prove their manhood (masculinity).

I guess in his opinion, I'm just a means to another mans ass. I wonder if he has ever heard a woman in the throws of passion, I wonder if he has ever really made love to a woman, a woman who knows her way around a dick and truly loves him, not paid love either. I know, this is very very doubtful.

I have finally reached the part where I just feel sorry for him and those who believe the way he does, but I feel especially sorry for the women who will never know what it feels like to be loved for who and what they are, not to mention sexual satisfaction. These "straight" men with his mentality don't find sex with women as appealing or healthy as sex with other men, I use straight as that is what he believes men who penetrate only are - "straight" "masculine" men.

Could you imagine being a woman and some man marrying you just to prove he's a man when in reality he doesn't even like women. Women there must get a life time of lonely, yet the men can and will go fuck the 3rd genders and feel like a "real" "masculine" man and at the same time belittle the 3rd gender for receiving like a woman. I wonder if they wear condoms, scary?

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

Willravel

Sexual orientation is a perhaps outdated, anti-social-liberty concept stemming from a multitude of cultures and locations internationally. It ignores the complexity and fluidity of human romantic and sexual interaction.

There are just people, Natural Manhood. There are just people and there are just connections between people. I figured this out the first time I, a male, made out with a self-described lesbian. I'm sure people reading that think, "Oh, she's bisexual.", but that's not necessarily the case. That I'm aware of, she's only ever had a romantic experience with one male in her life. See? Not so easy to fit someone's sexuality into a box, in fact it's often doing yourself a disservice by trying to boil down such a complex way of being to fit into the standard "straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual, etc." boxes. I've only eer been romantically and sexually attracted to women, but who's to say that will always be the case? I don't pretend to know what lies ahead.

Instead of getting bogged down in the minutia of labels, maybe just experience what you want to experience and don't worry about what other people think.

The_Jazz

O Willravel. You with your rational, logical arguments. Don't you know those don't work here in "The Way He Thinks It Is"?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

Maybe I' just a naïve optimist, but I think most people have the ability to self-correct and to take in new perspectives.

Okay, I'm definitely a naïve optimist, but at least I know how to type the "i" with two dots above it in "naïve". That's gotta count for something.

telekinetic

Let me see if I can find any kind of common thread in your walls of text. Really, most of the points are contained in the the first post, so we'll start there:

This paragraph exposes his personal biases and assumptions (that he passes off as being those alternately of 'the west', 'the system', or 'society'. The information contained in this little blurb is:


1) Men are forced (by who?) to lose their manhood if they are effeminate
2) Effeminate homosexuals represent themselves (or are represented, alternately, by various groups) as being what it means for men to like men.

THEREFORE

3) Masculine homosexuals have to remain closeted and self-loathing, since, if they were outed as liking men, people will group them with the effeminate homosexuals and they will therefore lose their manhood because 1 and 2.

The anti-man group that the OP believes is being oppressed is the masculine homosexual. His proposed solution to this is to restrict the term 'homosexual' (with all of the, in his mind/society, negative connotations it carries) be restricted to effeminate men ("third genders"), so that upstanding manly men who just like to suck a little dick and pound some man-ass (or get pounded, I'm not totally clear if thats allowed for the manly men) now and then don't have their man-status negatively affected.

He lays that out fairly explicitly here:
This view is backed up by his constant definition wrangling over the meaning of homosexual, an example of which being:
The whole premise seems to be that he wants it to be OK to have sex with men without being labeled a homosexual or grouped with effeminate gays.

Is anyone seeing anything here that I'm not seeing?

To actually respond, NM, your solution seems to be do nothing to change the negative connotations that some segment of some society (most notably you, at the moment) holds for effeminacy, and you propose instead to restrict that negative connotation to women and 'queers', so that masculine manhood-status-having manly men don't have to suffer from it. I counter that this is an extremely bigoted view, and would suggest that, in so much as this problem is real, the solution is to remove the negative connotation completely, rather than just retarget it more specifically on a group of people who does not include (presumably, based on your ardency on this topic) you.

__________________
twisted no more

Natural manhood

I'm in a bit of a hurry today, so I'll just make a few points.

I see a lot of people trying to make fun of this issue. They are no different than the groups of nervous adolescents when I raise the issue of manhood and sexuality as part of my workshops on manhood. Then there are those who are part of the problem and they feel its their duty to make fun of anything that challenges the anti-man mechanisms.

Then I'd like to answer a few points from telekinetic, for he is trying to genuinely consider what I'm saying, even if he opposes it.

And is this unsubstantiated accusation not your personal bias ...?

If people would just respond to the points raised and not try to blame or find personal motivations, there can be a lot of sharing of wisdom.

I probably shouldn't blame you for not knowing this very important fact about men and manhood. You probably grew up in a time in the West, when 'manhood' was already cleverly redefined as 'heterosexuality' and the entire pride and pressures of manhood that men have has shifted from manhood to 'heterosexuality' and instead of trying to prove their manhood, westernised males prove their heterosexuality (real or not, almost often exaggerated). And the stigma of 'third gender' has shifted to 'homosexuality' so, men keep away from showing any kind of desire or intimacy for men, like hot potatoes.

However, It's a fact that anyone who has grown up in a society that has not been heterosexualized (Non-Western societies are still living in that time zone), knows all too well.

The straight category is basically the 'manhood' category. And the category that you people today know as 'homosexual' is actually the 'third gender' category.

My society is right now in the phase of being forcefully westernized/ heterosexualized (homosexualization of effeminate males is an integral part of this process), and I'm very concsiously studying the process whereby this change happens.


True.

Although, the crux of what you're saying is right, the use of the word 'Masculine homosexual' is wrong.

I am not talking about a few males here, that the concept of 'masculine homosexual' would suggest. I'm talking about the entire straight population.

The term 'homosexual' like actually stands for the effeminate male's sexuality for men. So, the terms 'masculine' and 'homosexual' are oxymorons. You might say, masculine males who like men (or who would like men if allowed), but then that would mean almost everybody.

Although, laid in a very 'anti-man' way, you're partly correct. You're sounding pretty dismissive of the idea though, you've not explained what is wrong if I propose the above. That is the way it has always been in the history. And that is the way it is in most parts of the world. Why shouldn't the West follow it too?

And if allowed, that is what any straight gendered male would do.

And what is it?

1) Although, I have not quite dwelt upon it in detail, I have mentioned that the male effeminacy should be given due respect and dignity in the society, like it enjoyed in the very ancient times. The very first step to go towards that is to take it from behind the false 'man likes man' label, where it hides in the Western society, and give it recognition.
You people seem to think that to do this is to be anti-effeminacy. I don't see how!! How is hiding behind straight male sexuality for men going to ever make male effeminacy find its due place and rights in the society?

2) Why should I feel guilty about not dwelling upon it in detail on a thread I've created to discuss specifically how men are wrongly included in this concept of 'sexual orientation' developed by the third genders to camouflage their femininity. Why do you people think that men don't deserve any right? And any question of rights have to include women and queers in it to be of any relevance?

And why should masculine gendered males have to suffer the stigma of male effeminacy? If you are concerned about the genuine rights of women and queers, then you would not support going about it the wrong way, to forcibly include male sexuality for men as part of queerhood, so that it makes the feminine males feel better about themselves.

And you don't feel that it violates the gender rights of masculine gendered males. Because in your eyes, to be masculine gendered is to be 'evil', the 'oppressor' and nothing can be away from the truth.


You still haven't suggested how this view is bigoted ...

People who have agendas, always seek to belittle broader issues by nailing them on to the person who raises the issue.

You want to remove the negative connotation to what> Male desire for men. Or male effeminacy? Or like the Western society, you think the two are related?

All I'm calling for, is to realign the male world in the way its meant to be. Where identities are based on our notions of whether we're men or women. And sexual preferences are just that -- preferences.

Are you saying that either there should be sexual categories as defined (and more importantly, practised) by the western notion of 'sexual orientation' -- or -- remove all categories and just have the binary sex categories of men and women?

I am all for it. But do you think, you'd be doing justice to the transgendered, who need an identity separate from the men. You may not acknowledge the transgendered and insist that they have to fit into the 'man' and 'woman' categories, but I reject that as a bigoted Western view.

---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 PM ----------

And finally, I would like to thank you Willravel for you have not only tried to understand the issue but have openly voiced your support.

The_Dunedan

So wait, wait, wait. You're telling me that (and I'd love to know how you "know" this) that straight men (such as myself), who -by definition- (straight) are not sexually attracted to males (effeminate or otherwise) -actually- want to have sex with the men we aren't attracted to, but aren't "allowed?"

I would laugh if this weren't such a ludicrous proposition as to defy any reaction, laughter included. Straight males (who by definition are sexually attracted to females) actually want to have sex with males? And something (like maybe that straightness thing again) "disallows" it? And -any- (ie all) straight man would want to if some unknown and undefined anti-male force were preventing them?