Natural manhood

There is NO community of "men who like women" as such.

Liking women sexually has for long been a gender/ sexual role of men who aspired for social manhood (basically masculine gendered male).

There is only a community of men who are men.

And, men who are 'men' who don't like women, but like only men, are also part of this community, which is called 'straight' in the west.

Apart from that there is also a community of men who are not men, or if you please, are men of a different nature (feminine males). These males do not fit into the community of 'men who are men.' And they don't have a stake in social manhood. So, they form a separate community. They just call it wrongly as 'men who like men' since this is a trait, owning to politics against manhood, men can't claim as their own.

What I am saying is that it is wrong for the society to force men who like men from this community of 'men who are men' and merge them with the feminine males, just because the feminine gendered call themselves 'men who like men.'

Liking men should not be make a male liable to be broken from the men's community. It's unjustified. A man who acknowledges his liking for men should have as much right to be in the 'men who are men' category as men who "prove a liking for women,' or a distaste for men.

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

Also, I'm not asking for anything new. That's the way its always been. That's the way it still is in the indigenous societies. And that is the way it actually is, even in the West itself. If you look behind the deceptive social facade created by 'sexual orientation.'

The fact is that the 'straight' so called 'gays (as in straight-gays) spend their entire life primary in the 'men who are men' community. For all practical purposes they are part of this community. They are accepted quietly as part of the straight community, unlike the gay 'gay' who stands out and is a misfit.

AND, the gay community also includes the 'queer' heterosexuals and transgendered heterosexuals, and the community is actually known as 'LGBT.'

So, already, the masculine gendered males are in one category, whatever sexual orientation they may attest to, and the feminine gendered males of all sexual orientations are in one category.

All I am saying is to acknowledge this fact in the actual definitions of these categories.

The Western society and especially, the third genders who like men, may want to see the society as ideologically divided between 'males who like women' and 'males who like men,' but this division is far from the biological, social and historical reality of males. So, even if the society forces people to group as 'hetero-homo' people will eventually, actually regroup as 'men' and 'third genders.'

Let's call a spade a spade and then fight for the dignity of every human trait.

ring

"Let's call a spade a spade and then fight for the dignity of every human trait."

Can you see the problem with this statement?

Some people call a spade, a shovel.

The_Dunedan

Umm...no. "Liking men" is pretty much the defining characteristic of "not straight." It could mean bisexual or homosexual, but a man who likes men is, by definition, -not- straight. I don't have any idea where you're getting this.

For clarification:
Heterosexual/straight man: sexually attracted exclusively to females.
Bisexual man: sexually attracted to both males and females.
Homosexual/gay man: sexually attracted exclusively to males.
Edited to add: Omnisexual/Pansexual: Makes little distinction between males and females except in regards to what goes where. Equally attracted to both sexes without precondition (thank you, Capt. Jack...)

It doesn't. Lots of straight dudes have LGBT friends, and it's not a problem...at least here in the horrible, anti-male west. Maybe it's different where you are...wherever that is.

No, the "fact" is that you cannot assert a fact buttressed by an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a straight-gay, any more than there is such a thing as a horsecow. Bisexuality is something different.

Queer heterosexuals? -THIS- I've got to hear! ANOTHER oxymoron!

Only in your mind. In the rest of the world, we're having a difficult time understanding you because you are so far outside of any normative means of describing your position, in fact you repeatedly define your position based upon contradictions in terms. You also seem to be operating from a unique and entirely separate set of definitions from the entire rest of the English-speaking world.

Where? Even in Sparta, which was the gayest of gay, and Athens, which wasn't much different, even in THEBES for Christ's sake, nothing like what you describe existed. Sparta got closest, but even there you're waaay off base. Like running around in Dacia off-base.

Name one, and cite sources for your assertion. Something published and peer-reviewed would be nice, don't go all Colin Dean on us here.

ring

Okay okay.

I do see where he is coming from a bit.

I lived in San Francisco from 1980 to '85.

Yes some of my gay friends exclusively preferred to only hang out at
the 'leather bars' south of Market.

I think a good example of what he means by Queer Homos,
would be the flaming queens and The Sister's Of Perpetual Indulgence.

Man, those were fun parties.

The strict 'Leather Manly Man Gay Guys Only Club,seemed to be rather snotty
and snubbed the rest of the eclectic mix.

I could smell the fear of, 'The Feminine' surrounding them.

Natural manhood

I'd definitely respond to your questions, but later. Right now, I'd just say that the definitions your society (or any society) creates are just that, definitions. They often have very little to do with reality.

There are so many baggages, so much politics involved with male gender and sexuality, for such milleniums, that have made sexuality something that is primarily a tool for 'buying' social manhood, rather than something to enjoy that it has been for women and queer males (whether they like men or women or both). There is often little relationship between actual sexual/ romantic desires and sexual behavior/ identity of men.

Ironically, the women and queers think, its the masculine gendered male (that they call straights) that really 'enjoy' sex.

In fact, you talk about the right to enjoy sex, and men will accuse you of 'complaining.'

---------- Post added at 10:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------

Sometimes, the society conspires to call 'spade' a shovel. And then confusion starts. The people get used to calling the spade a shovel. And then you have to work hard to make people realise that its actually a spade.

ring

"In fact, you talk about the right to enjoy sex, and men will accuse you of 'complaining.'"

Some of us here in the 'west' or whatever, label this dude,
'The Caveman.'

Natural manhood

Thank you for browbeating everything into the narrow 'homo-hetero' divide again, no matter, how I try to break this divide. Unfortunately, in western spaces, men get automatically divided into hetero and homo, and any other division comes later. So, a man is a masculine homo and feminine homo -- homo is the primary western identity, masculinity or feminity becomes just a qualification (-- although, these notions are, at one level, just reduced to artificial social constructs, and so of no consequence, whereas sexual preferences are believed to be really 'deep seated').

Nature has it the other way round. A male is primarily either a 'man' (masculine gendered) or a third gender (feminine gender). Homo, hetero has to be secondary, if to be considered at all. In fact, under natural circumstances, it is of little social concern.

So, let's at least put it this way ... A homo masculine male vs a hetero masculine male ... a hetero feminine male vs a homo feminine male.

And no!!! I'm not talking about 'masculine gays' ... (masculine gay is an oxymoron) ... I'm talking about the straightest of men in westernized spaces, who won't be seen dead holding another man's hands, not even in their most private moments -- because that is how the western society has conditioned them -- through innumerous social mechanisms (sexual orientation being one of the most important ones, the other, less imp one being Christian injunctions). Yet, if they get a chance, a desire deep inside them would would start craving for intimacy with another man. Had it not been for their conditioning, they would have had long term, committed bonding with a man.

As the normal, regular males (straights -- actually, those who really have an exclusive, deep heterosexual orientation are not 'normal','regular males) have done in any age or culture where the society did not play politics with their natural sexuality.

ring

Move to Italy.

I have nothing else to offer,
sorry.

The_Dunedan

Except that "spade" and "shovel" are two different words for the same frikkin' thing! It's no different than Cougar/Puma/Catamount/Mountain-Lion/Panther: multiple words for the same big hungry bad-tempered kittycat.

I dunno what kind of males you've been hanging around, but my suggestion would be to look for new friends. I'd also suggest finding -some- sort of support for this kind of insane position: you expect me to believe that the reason I like pussy (and I do, VERY much!) is not because it's tight and warm and wet and attached to a good-looking woman, but because I'm -forced- to like pussy in order to win the approval of other males? That's the silliest thing I've heard all week, and I work in retail!

This one certainly does! And like many heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual and pansexual males, I expend a significant amount of time and money pursuing it. If I didn't heart teh vag, I certainly wouldn't spend as much of my precious time and hard-earned money chasing it as I do, and I think lots of other folks are in the same boat, straight or otherwise.

Where are you getting this bullshit? Men commiserate about their frigid girlfriends, uptight boyfriends, pussy-whipping wives and general lack-o-nookie to each other ALL THE TIME. If you knew how much time the average man (straight, gay, whatever) spends complaining about his lack of or desire for sex, you'd never make such a ridiculous statement. To quote my -very- straight bartender: "This sucks...I a'int had pussy since pussy had me!" And this is in public, mind you. Nobody gave him a bad time about it except to suggest a few of the more...available...ladies at the bar, none of whom interest him. And as for being accused of "complaining" if you voice a desire to enjoy sex...I simply have no response to that. You've pulled that from so far up your ass it isn't even fully digested yet. You might as well insist that Kentucky Bluegrass was brilliant vermillion red. Your statement does not coincide with reality.

Source for this insanity?

telekinetic

Thank you, I like to at least respect the amount of effort you have put into communicating your position with a full read-through and attempt at analysis, and appreciate that you did the same.


I did not intend it to be an accusation. It was my interpretation of your position, and you confirmed my interpretation within this very reply. What part of it do you feel is accusatory? You can have no other assumptions and biases than your own (whose else would you have?), and when I go into detail (1, 2, therefore 3) about what I see the assumptions as being, you confirm that my analysis of your thought process was, in fact, accurate.

I think the difficulty a lot of people are having with your approach to this topic is that you are not trying to have a discussion with us. You are trying to share your wisdom, which is (in your mind) concrete and infallible facts about the way you see the world and society. Many of these things conflict with how most of us see society, but instead of discussion these conflicts, you just repeatedly tell us that we are wrong, and you are right. This does not make for good discussion, and if it continues, I doubt this thread will go much further, as anyone with pattern recognition skills has given up on it by now, if that haven't already.

I am shrinking the font of your response on this section, to more accurately reflect the relative the the weight it carries, for me, in this discussion.

Presenting your opinions as unsourced facts is a cheap debate tactic, at best, and disingenuous, at worst. Your whole reply can be summed up as "yes, I believe that" and we can move on.

I should have been more clear when stating my interpretation of your position. To clarify now, these three points are not something I believe, but something I believe YOU believe. Therefore, I will take your 'true' to mean 'yes, you accurately represent my position'

No, it is not, but we will address that in a second. Again, this is me rephrasing your point, and you are confirming that (other than my word choice, which I admittedly used intentionally) I represent you accurately.

At best, a hasty generalization, or at worst, a false assertion No, homosexual means:
and I will be ignoring/deleting any of your repeated insistences to the contrary.

Now THAT is a hasty generalization if I've ever seen one, and I don't believe it to be true for a minute. If you want to start another thread titled "all men really want to have sex with men" feel free, but I think that is MASSIVE scope-creep for this particular one. It makes some of your other assumptions make sense though, I suppose.

What I see wrong with this is you seem to have no problem with their being a stigma against effeminates or self-identified queers/homosexuals, as long as you're not included in it. That is a step backwards, not a step forwards. Obvious appeal to tradition fallacy is obvious.

Yeah, I definitely noticed when you said that the first time, but repeating it as fact isn't going to get me to agree with you any more this time.

Because you're totally fine with them being stigmatized, as long as you also aren't.
Their 'due place' and rights are the same as yours and mine. They and you and I are human beings, and their 'place' and 'rights' should start and end with that.

You take the inferior rights of women and "queers" as a given, and complain that your rights are being infringed by being grouped with them. If everyone has equal rights, your argument collapses in on itself. Therefore, it is based on the assumption that women and effeminate men must be and remain second-class.

They shouldn't, because there should be no stigma.
Male sexuality for men is homosexual. Whether this is expressed in a feminine way or a masculine way, it is and will remain, by definition, homosexual, in all contexts.

I feel nothing of the sort, and I don't see where in my post you pulled that from.

Basing an entire social concept around the idea that there is nothing wrong with stigmatizing homosexuals is bigoted. Plain and simple.

The only one with an agenda here is you, we are merely carrying on a discussion of your posts.

Related does not mean inextricably linked. They are related. This relationship is not inseparable. And I would like to remove any negative connotation from both.
Hey, if that's all you were calling for, we'd be in total agreement. It isn't.

You are mixing up your terminology here. Effeminate homosexuals are not transgenders. Transgenders can be either homosexual or heterosexual, based on their combination of the gender they choose and the gender they choose to be romantic or sexual with.

Anyways, now that I think we understand each other, I want you to understand one other thing: I don't disagree with the basic idea that everyone should be able to live how they choose, dress how they choose, fuck who they choose, marry who they choose, and society should be nothing but accepting of any combination of the above.

I think the binary sexuality labels are nearing obsolete in this country in some circles within our generation or the next.

What I don't agree with is your idea that it is so important to distance yourself from the stigma of homosexuality, and insist you are straight. If you truly desire sex with both men and women, more power to you, keep doing your thing, you will get no judgement here, but what I feel you should be fighting for is equal rights for all, not increased status for you and stigma for others.

Understand what I mean?

---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 AM ----------

It is going to be a tough sell to get people to respect your desire to "act straight and have sex with men" if you keep insisting that we all want to do it, too. We aren't talking about the theoretical mating habits of chimps, here, you are talking about us specifically, and all we have to do to provide a counter to your position is wonder if we'd like to go suck a dick...hmmmm....nope, not particularly.

__________________
twisted no more

Idyllic

I hope I'm not the only one who finds it extraordinarily frightening to think that you, NM, teach any form of sexual education to ANYBODY...... you are not teaching them freedom of sex and true NATURAL MANHOOD, you are denying them it.....

It is you who are so stubborn in your own created agenda that you are unaware of the reality of men who DO NOT think the way you do, as a matter of fact..... the majority of men prefer women, it seems as though you must intimidate those you teach to feel they MUST like homosexual sex to be “masculine”, when in all actuality, most of them would prefer sex with women if given the opportunity without somebody insisting they are not as manly if they actually LIKE women. It is scary to think young men are listening to what you "believe" is fair and just when in reality it is simply more homophobic brainwashing, of the worst kind, in which you teach intolerance, bigotry and gynophobia as normal.....


NM, it takes more that just fucking a woman to prove you’re a man……as a matter of fact, having sex with somebody regardless of gender, really only proves that you can have sex….. There are no implied gender rewards for sex here, mostly; we see sex as an enjoyable gift that none should be punished for (rape is not included as sex here; rape is about power and cruelty, imo).

RING…. why on earth would you perpetuate separation between men and women, “smell of femininity” fuck that, dude, I kick yo’ ass, That's just fodder for his fire.

My turn: Why are men so damned afraid of effeminacy, do you think it’s contagious…. are ya gonna catch it…. will it maybe make you soil your nice white slacks or something.

When is it going to end…. even to NM it is about segregation of masculine from feminine (males). You “boys” sound like a bunch of scared pussies, hell never mind, my pussys’ far stronger then any of you; I’ve seen what it can do.

You treat effeminacy like it’s a fucking weakness, it’s NOT….. I am a female, true I probably will never be as muscularly strong as men, but just go ahead and touch one of my loved ones and see how feminine I am…… I’ll happily crush you as I wear my little pink dress and 4” Stilettos, smiling coyly with my mani/pedi appendages and my hair perfectly moisturized.

And you men wonder why some women feel the need to become more masculine, maybe it’s because you men see anything feminine as an inferior and weak, is that how you perceived your mother, weak and inferior….?

(Listen, for all you men who do not agree with the segregation of humans based on their masculine/feminine behaviors, please pardon my rant, thank you, this is not meant towards you….)

p.s., Jazz if I'm pushing the boundaries here let me know. I don't want to be insulting, but as a woman, I feel insulted by the base negative foundation of effeminacy in general in this entire thread, "and it is just bubbling out" (she says in her sweetest girly voice).

__________________
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

I wonder how many forums upon which he's currently having this exact same argument? I wonder if he cuts and pastes or actually retypes this crap on each forum...

I think we are a week away from an infomercial or a book release. "Hold my hand, Fred" - A Masculine Guide to being a Queer."

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

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

Natural manhood

Another effeminate statement from you!!

ring

"I SING the Body electric;
The armies of those I love engirth me, and I engirth them;
They will not let me off till I go with them, respond to them,
And discorrupt them, and charge them full with the charge of the Soul.

Was it doubted that those who corrupt their own bodies conceal themselves; 5
And if those who defile the living are as bad as they who defile the dead?
And if the body does not do as much as the Soul?
And if the body were not the Soul, what is the Soul?

2

The love of the Body of man or woman balks account—the body itself balks account;
That of the male is perfect, and that of the female is perfect. 10

The expression of the face balks account;
But the expression of a well-made man appears not only in his face;
It is in his limbs and joints also, it is curiously in the joints of his hips and wrists;
It is in his walk, the carriage of his neck, the flex of his waist and knees—dress does not hide him;
The strong, sweet, supple quality he has, strikes through the cotton and flannel; 15
To see him pass conveys as much as the best poem, perhaps more;
You linger to see his back, and the back of his neck and shoulder-side.

The sprawl and fulness of babes, the bosoms and heads of women, the folds of their dress, their style as we pass in the street, the contour of their shape downwards,
The swimmer naked in the swimming-bath, seen as he swims through the transparent green-shine, or lies with his face up, and rolls silently to and fro in the heave of the water,
The bending forward and backward of rowers in row-boats—the horseman in his saddle, 20
Girls, mothers, house-keepers, in all their performances,
The group of laborers seated at noon-time with their open dinner-kettles, and their wives waiting,
The female soothing a child—the farmer’s daughter in the garden or cow-yard,
The young fellow hoeing corn—the sleigh-driver guiding his six horses through the crowd,
The wrestle of wrestlers, two apprentice-boys, quite grown, lusty, good-natured, native-born, out on the vacant lot at sundown, after work, 25
The coats and caps thrown down, the embrace of love and resistance,
The upper-hold and the under-hold, the hair rumpled over and blinding the eyes;
The march of firemen in their own costumes, the play of masculine muscle through clean-setting trowsers and waist-straps,
The slow return from the fire, the pause when the bell strikes suddenly again, and the listening on the alert,
The natural, perfect, varied attitudes—the bent head, the curv’d neck, and the counting; 30
Such-like I love—I loosen myself, pass freely, am at the mother’s breast with the little child,
Swim with the swimmers, wrestle with wrestlers, march in line with the firemen, and pause, listen, and count.

3

I know a man, a common farmer—the father of five sons;
And in them were the fathers of sons—and in them were the fathers of sons.

This man was of wonderful vigor, calmness, beauty of person; 35
The shape of his head, the pale yellow and white of his hair and beard, and the immeasurable meaning of his black eyes—the richness and breadth of his manners,
These I used to go and visit him to see—he was wise also;
He was six feet tall, he was over eighty years old—his sons were massive, clean, bearded, tan-faced, handsome;
They and his daughters loved him—all who saw him loved him;
They did not love him by allowance—they loved him with personal love; 40
He drank water only—the blood show’d like scarlet through the clear-brown skin of his face;
He was a frequent gunner and fisher—he sail’d his boat himself—he had a fine one presented to him by a ship-joiner—he had fowling-pieces, presented to him by men that loved him;
When he went with his five sons and many grand-sons to hunt or fish, you would pick him out as the most beautiful and vigorous of the gang.

You would wish long and long to be with him—you would wish to sit by him in the boat, that you and he might touch each other.

4

I have perceiv’d that to be with those I like is enough, 45
To stop in company with the rest at evening is enough,
To be surrounded by beautiful, curious, breathing, laughing flesh is enough,
To pass among them, or touch any one, or rest my arm ever so lightly round his or her neck for a moment—what is this, then?
I do not ask any more delight—I swim in it, as in a sea.

There is something in staying close to men and women, and looking on them, and in the contact and odor of them, that pleases the soul well; 50
All things please the soul—but these please the soul well.

5

This is the female form;
A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot;
It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction!
I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor—all falls aside but myself and it; 55
Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, the atmosphere and the clouds, and what was expected of heaven or fear’d of hell, are now consumed;
Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it—the response likewise ungovernable;
Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands, all diffused—mine too diffused;
Ebb stung by the flow, and flow stung by the ebb—love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching;
Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious juice; 60
Bridegroom night of love, working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn;
Undulating into the willing and yielding day,
Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh’d day.

This is the nucleus—after the child is born of woman, the man is born of woman;
This is the bath of birth—this is the merge of small and large, and the outlet again. 65

Be not ashamed, women—your privilege encloses the rest, and is the exit of the rest;
You are the gates of the body, and you are the gates of the soul.

The female contains all qualities, and tempers them—she is in her place, and moves with perfect balance;
She is all things duly veil’d—she is both passive and active;
She is to conceive daughters as well as sons, and sons as well as daughters. 70

As I see my soul reflected in nature;
As I see through a mist, one with inexpressible completeness and beauty,
See the bent head, and arms folded over the breast—the female I see.

6

The male is not less the soul, nor more—he too is in his place;
He too is all qualities—he is action and power; 75
The flush of the known universe is in him;
Scorn becomes him well, and appetite and defiance become him well;
The wildest largest passions, bliss that is utmost, sorrow that is utmost, become him well—pride is for him;
The full-spread pride of man is calming and excellent to the soul;
Knowledge becomes him—he likes it always—he brings everything to the test of himself; 80
Whatever the survey, whatever the sea and the sail, he strikes soundings at last only here;
(Where else does he strike soundings, except here?)

The man’s body is sacred, and the woman’s body is sacred;
No matter who it is, it is sacred;
Is it a slave? Is it one of the dull-faced immigrants just landed on the wharf? 85
Each belongs here or anywhere, just as much as the well-off—just as much as you;
Each has his or her place in the procession.

(All is a procession;
The universe is a procession, with measured and beautiful motion.)

Do you know so much yourself, that you call the slave or the dull-face ignorant? 90
Do you suppose you have a right to a good sight, and he or she has no right to a sight?
Do you think matter has cohered together from its diffuse float—and the soil is on the surface, and water runs, and vegetation sprouts,
For you only, and not for him and her?

7

A man’s Body at auction;
I help the auctioneer—the sloven does not half know his business. 95

Gentlemen, look on this wonder!
Whatever the bids of the bidders, they cannot be high enough for it;
For it the globe lay preparing quintillions of years, without one animal or plant;
For it the revolving cycles truly and steadily roll’d.

In this head the all-baffling brain; 100
In it and below it, the makings of heroes.

Examine these limbs, red, black, or white—they are so cunning in tendon and nerve;
They shall be stript, that you may see them.

Exquisite senses, life-lit eyes, pluck, volition,
Flakes of breast-muscle, pliant back-bone and neck, flesh not flabby, good-sized arms and legs, 105
And wonders within there yet.

Within there runs blood,
The same old blood!
The same red-running blood!
There swells and jets a heart—there all passions, desires, reachings, aspirations; 110
Do you think they are not there because they are not express’d in parlors and lecture-rooms?

This is not only one man—this is the father of those who shall be fathers in their turns;
In him the start of populous states and rich republics;
Of him countless immortal lives, with countless embodiments and enjoyments.

How do you know who shall come from the offspring of his offspring through the centuries? 115
Who might you find you have come from yourself, if you could trace back through the centuries?

8

A woman’s Body at auction!
She too is not only herself—she is the teeming mother of mothers;
She is the bearer of them that shall grow and be mates to the mothers.

Have you ever loved the Body of a woman? 120
Have you ever loved the Body of a man?
Your father—where is your father?
Your mother—is she living? have you been much with her? and has she been much with you?
—Do you not see that these are exactly the same to all, in all nations and times, all over the earth?

If any thing is sacred, the human body is sacred, 125
And the glory and sweet of a man, is the token of manhood untainted;
And in man or woman, a clean, strong, firm-fibred body, is beautiful as the most beautiful face.

Have you seen the fool that corrupted his own live body? or the fool that corrupted her own live body?
For they do not conceal themselves, and cannot conceal themselves.

9

O my Body! I dare not desert the likes of you in other men and women, nor the likes of the parts of you; 130
I believe the likes of you are to stand or fall with the likes of the Soul, (and that they are the Soul
I believe the likes of you shall stand or fall with my poems—and that they are poems,
Man’s, woman’s, child’s, youth’s, wife’s, husband’s, mother’s, father’s, young man’s, young woman’s poems;
Head, neck, hair, ears, drop and tympan of the ears,
Eyes, eye-fringes, iris of the eye, eye-brows, and the waking or sleeping of the lids, 135
Mouth, tongue, lips, teeth, roof of the mouth, jaws, and the jaw-hinges,
Nose, nostrils of the nose, and the partition,
Cheeks, temples, forehead, chin, throat, back of the neck, neck-slue,
Strong shoulders, manly beard, scapula, hind-shoulders, and the ample side-round of the chest.

Upper-arm, arm-pit, elbow-socket, lower-arm, arm-sinews, arm-bones, 140
Wrist and wrist-joints, hand, palm, knuckles, thumb, fore-finger, finger-balls, finger-joints, finger-nails,
Broad breast-front, curling hair of the breast, breast-bone, breast-side,
Ribs, belly, back-bone, joints of the back-bone,
Hips, hip-sockets, hip-strength, inward and outward round, man-balls, man-root,
Strong set of thighs, well carrying the trunk above, 145
Leg-fibres, knee, knee-pan, upper-leg, under leg,
Ankles, instep, foot-ball, toes, toe-joints, the heel;
All attitudes, all the shapeliness, all the belongings of my or your body, or of any one’s body, male or female,
The lung-sponges, the stomach-sac, the bowels sweet and clean,
The brain in its folds inside the skull-frame, 150
Sympathies, heart-valves, palate-valves, sexuality, maternity,
Womanhood, and all that is a woman—and the man that comes from woman,
The womb, the teats, nipples, breast-milk, tears, laughter, weeping, love-looks, love-perturbations and risings,
The voice, articulation, language, whispering, shouting aloud,
Food, drink, pulse, digestion, sweat, sleep, walking, swimming, 155
Poise on the hips, leaping, reclining, embracing, arm-curving and tightening,
The continual changes of the flex of the mouth, and around the eyes,
The skin, the sun-burnt shade, freckles, hair,
The curious sympathy one feels, when feeling with the hand the naked meat of the body,
The circling rivers, the breath, and breathing it in and out, 160
The beauty of the waist, and thence of the hips, and thence downward toward the knees,
The thin red jellies within you, or within me—the bones, and the marrow in the bones,
The exquisite realization of health;
O I say, these are not the parts and poems of the Body only, but of the Soul,
O I say now these are the Soul!"

Walt Whitman

Baraka_Guru

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Just a friendly reminder to "stick it" to the topic and not one another. Play nice. Thank you.

Natural manhood

There's a lot of crap here, just thought answer this one interesting bit.

You want to know why men are afraid of effeminacy.

Long, long ago, in initial human tribes, they started to have "manhood tests" (what we call initiation rites) to induct the adolescents from the women's spaces into men's spaces. The 'third gender' space was for feminine gendered males and masculine gendered females (irrespective of their sexual preferences, though most transgendered males had sex with females.)

Passing the manhood test was extremely crucial for boys (the non-transgendered ones). It was indeed a matter of life and death for them. They were nothing without these men's spaces. Being part of male spaces is also a basic biological drive of mammalian males in every species. Third gender males showed symptoms of being so, quite early on in their childhood, and the parents used to bring up such boys as though they were girls, or rather a separate gender altogether.

The manhood tests became more and more cruel, torturous and even fatal. Boys had to endure being engraved live, being stung by thousands of venmous bees, jump from dangerous cliffs, and so on. Like today, they had to do all this without uttering even the slightest sigh, without showing the slightest sign of discomfort and certainly, without complaining. To utter a sigh meant failing the test.

Like today, then too, the feminine gendered males had no use for manhood or men's spaces, so they did not have to go through the tests. However, unlike today, the feminine gendered male was extremely valued as a category of people who had powers of male body and female soul.

However, there was not much left for the masculine gendered boy who failed the manhood test or didn't want to go through it. He would be banished from the tribe, and that certainly meant death. And in any case, a life devoid of honour, male bonding and access to resources.

At some point of time, male femininity became redundant and marginalized, and started to serve as the banishment zone for the masculine gendered male who failed the manhood test. Now, although, the feminine gendered male, even if marginalized, fitted well into the feminine space, it had little to offer to the masculine gendered male, who needed to be out there with other men. This banished male became extremely stigmatized for other men, and men in general started to fear and hate the 'feminine male category,' because it was their punishment zone. Slowly, as the ruling forces stigmatized this space more and more, in order to control men's lives, male femininity and feminine gendered males both became stigmatized for men.

Somewhere alongside, the ruling forces started forcing men to have compulsory and constant (year after year) -- but by no means, exclusive -- reproductive sex with women (because it wanted more and more children for its growing societies). Then they started to enforce the marriage institution that the men just hated (you still have the marriage jokes). The society started to demand that men marry and reproduce in order to qualify for social manhood, that the men so badly needed. Marriage and reproduction, and indirectly, sex with women, became the new 'manhood test' for men.

This is what has taken the shape of 'heterosexuality' in today's west, and men compete to prove their heterosexuality in order to qualify for social manhood. The entire thing has become extremely complex. The 'manhood space' is today known as 'straight' ... and the 'third gender' space that men have always hated, has, through extensive politics by the anti-man forces, become the 'homosexual' space, and the focus of the hatred of men has shifted from male effeminacy itself to sexual desire between men.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

Walt Whitman's case is interesting. He wanted to create a formal space for men (as part of the manhood -- now straight -- space itself) to love men. He actually, wanted to bring out this love, which had always existed secretly within straight male spaces, out into the formal social space, as the west set foot into the modern times and the oppressive Christian times gave way to the 'scientific' era.

Men needed to feel safe about manhood before they would accept this idea. But before this could happen, the Western third genders jumped up at this space created by Walt Whitman, and started to claim this love as a sign of 'third sex' or 'intermediate sex.' They soon started a movement through this, and one self-defined 'intermediate sex' after another started to join in this movement, later calling themselves 'men who are attracted to men.' They then created a separate category for this, on the pattern of the historical 'third gender' category.

Walt hated this idea. He protested. But no one listened to him. The men did not have the social space to support him without losing their manhood. The anti-man forces created by Christianity that ruled the Western society, gave validity and power to the 'third genders' to define themselves as 'men who love men.'

Thus, unwittingly, Walt Whitman became the source of the 'homosexual' category.

Reference: "A false birth," by Rictor Norton (available on the net).

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

Here is something that would be entirely news to you ...

You could be totally heterosexual and yet not be straight at all. The reverse is true as well.

In fact, originally/ /historically/ by way of nature, the more heterosexual you are, the more queer you are. Transgenderism and heterosexul orientation have a very close association, unlike what west preaches (occasional reproductive sex is not 'heterosexual orientation'). They both involve the merging of male and female. But, I don't have enough time to dwell on that.

So, don't assume that when I talk about straights, I'm including you as well. It should be clear by now, that I'm not talking about the western definitions here.

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

Why on earth would your society want to merge men and women? Is it natural? Is it biological?

Do other mammals practise it? Do other human societies, past or present (other than the west) practise it? Do men want it? Do women want it? Women only want it in the West because, these 'heterosexual' spaces are so pro-women, but they're so anti-men.

Here's news for you too ... Men and women are NOT the same. They're different. They need their different social spaces. Privacy. They have different needs, different potentials, different things they want from life. There has to be some interaction -- probably a lot -- to run the society, but it should not become so overbearing that we deny men and women their separate spaces.

Remember, the only 'heterosexual' spaces in the mammalian world are those where the female spaces are temporarily controlled forcibly by a handful of males. And the females hate it!!

History is witness to the fact that separate men and women spaces does not have to mean being an anti-woman society. In fact, only this can afford a truly pro-woman society, where women are respected by masculine gendered men, when women are not imposed upon men, either sexually or socially ... and both can enjoy their personal spaces.

The_Dunedan

SOURCE?!

SOURCE?

SOURCE?!

SOURCE?!

Once again with the "You only fuck women because society -makes- you fuck women: you REALLY want some hot, sweaty man-love up your ass!" crap. Either source this, support it, or drop it. It's insulting, it's incorrect, and it's bullshit.

SOURCE?!

Sources. Now. You're making what purport to be factual claims about an historical/literary figure from the English-speaking world about whom there exists an enormous body of primary-source information as well as contemporary and current commentary and criticism. Source this ridiculous claim or drop it. Your alleged "reference" by Mr. Norton, far from buttressing your position, denies it. The thrust of the article deals with the various literary means and authors, Whitman among them, by which and through whom various LGBT/Queer folks realized that they were as they were. It furthermore deals with the various terms/descriptors used by society and by LGBT/Queer folk themselves prior to the invention of the term "homosexual" and the associated social adoption of the understanding of its' meaning. None of this has anything to do with the existence of a "third gender," or some socially-repressed desire on the part of straight men to engage in sexual activities which by definition do not interest them. It does nothing to support any of your alleged points.

I don't even know where to begin.

telekinetic

Words mean things. If you continue to respond by attempting to redefine things, instead of using them correctly, and actually responding to the points I've raised, I am going to have to bow out of this conversation. I made a good faith effort to understand your point, and you reward me by continuing your childish term wrangling. Good luck communicating with anyone.

__________________
twisted no more

The_Dunedan

It's a neat trick, isn't it? When proven wrong, unilaterally change the definitions of the words which prove you wrong until they magically prove you right. Hey, it works for the Nostradamus freaks, so why not?

Natural manhood

Stop going on your own trip.

Noone here is hating either females or the feminine.

To ask for one's space as a man is not to hate the woman. To ask for one's space as a masculine person, is not to hate the feminine.

Respecting someone or a trait, should not have to mean that one should lose one's own nature/ individuality in order to accomodate the other. Respect can come only when personal spaces are clearly defined.

All I'm asking for is to create a space for the masculine gendered to bond with men (and it includes romantic/ sexual bonds), that is not mixed with or confused with male femininity. A space where a man doesn't have to break from the original men's identity/ space.

Why is this too much to ask for?

---------- Post added at 07:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------

Btw, you have asked for several sources. I'd definitely provide them.

However, I've already provided some important sources, which would partly or fully answer some of your doubts, especially about most straight men having a strong desire for other men. Do some work too, instead of just arguing without knowing anything. At least, read the sources that I give. I have even included the tests from those sources.

The_Dunedan

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.

Natural manhood

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.

The_Dunedan

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?

roachboy

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Idyllic

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)

__________________
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

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?

The_Jazz

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

__________________
"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

Cimarron29414

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.....

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

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

The_Jazz

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.

__________________
"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

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?

__________________
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.

The_Dunedan

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.

snowy

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.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Natural manhood

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.

The_Dunedan

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.

Natural manhood

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 ...

Cynthetiq

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.

__________________
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.

The_Dunedan

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.

Natural manhood

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

The_Dunedan

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.

Idyllic

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.

__________________
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.