Natural manhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Idyllic

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
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.

rahl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthetiq

---

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

__________________
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.

Natural manhood

Oh, so this came to banning pretty soon.

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

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

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

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

Here are a few sources, once again:

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

Sources:


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


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

"The term Homosexual" by Rictor Norton

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

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


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

"A false birth" by Rictor Norton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CLAIM II

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

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


Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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


"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rahl

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

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

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

snowy

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

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

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

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

Cynthetiq

---

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

__________________
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.

Natural manhood

It comes as a complete shock to me that you're a 'straight' ... There's hardly a straight guy I've met who so much believes in the concept of 'sexual orientation'. At best, they are indifferent to it. But secretly every straight man hates it.

The problem, like I said earlier, is with your society's definition. Straight means manhood. Plain and simple. It's about gender orientation, not about sexual orientation.

Furthermore, that all straight males (which means, masculine gendered, regular, mainstream, majority guys ... that they're heterosexual is a queer belief concretized by the western society ... heterosexuality is nothing more than a gender role for straight or masculine gendered guys).

My own personal experience of growing up straight in a non-western society, where liking men doesn't make you liable to be isolated in a separate category like a 'whore' (just like if you call a woman a whore in the west, all women come to her support and say they're whores too, similarly, if you called a straight gendered guy 'homo' for liking men, every male would stand up for him, and say they all like men. It's true!!).

I grew up hearing that sexual relations between men are wrong, but that every man has that desire, that all men are capable of it. Not only that, I experienced that universal male sexuality for men all around me, esp. in crowded buses and local ponds. Personal limits are not so strict in my society as in the west, and straight males actually feel each other up a lot in crowded places, esp. if they realise that you're game for it. And even if everyone else knows what you're up to, no one ever sees you as a different category. You remain one of the men. It doesn't matter whether you like women or not, everyone is supposed to like men. However, you need to get married and have children. Whether or not you like women. Manhood = reproduction, not desire for women.

AND, the effeminate males are considered of a separate category, a separate gender, "the third gender" and the western term 'homo' is taken to mean, third gender. So, its very interesting that an NGO reported in its workshop with men, that men consider a famous TV character who chases women all the time, but is effeminate and limpwristed as 'homo', no matter that he chases women, and two men who are regular, masculine guys, but have exclusive sex only with each other, are not seen as 'homos' but as 'men.'

I was doing a survey for an international agency on HIV/ AIDS attitudes, and a group of adolescents in high school wrote in front of "whether you think homosexuals should be banned." The boys talked amongst themselves, "No, I don't think they should be banned, They are good for sex." It turned out that they were talking about some effeminate guys who would lurk outside the school looking for sex with high school students. The point is, the 'homo' is the transgendered, 'whore' while normal guys have sex with men as well as with 'homos' and they're perfectly straight.

It's our definitions of straight and gay which are clashing here.

---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------

This shows either your ignorance or your bigotedness.

Which of the sources are you disputing. I have not given any 'opinions' as sources. The sources are important, scholarly or journalistic work of history or culture.

By the way, have your scientific or medical communities been able to prove that 'gay' as a category is a biological category, as it is claimed to be, or that, ... is 'homosexuality' as defined by the West, clubbing all kinds of male attraction for men into one lump, without considering their gender identity (not sex identity, mind you -- westerners keep confusing sex with gender), biologically backed, that somehow separates them from those males that like women, so as to validate making a separate category for them? Do all males who like men share some common biological markers related to sexuality? Are most males heterosexual and have no sexuality for males? Do only a rare, different and effeminate kind of males desire male, and the rest are repulsed?

How conveniently did western science assume that the straight identity of men reflected their true sexual aspirations (and that it excludes sexuality for men) and that there are no social reasons or pressures or conditioning or training of men to be heterosexual? And yet you talk about peer-reviews, as if it takes care of everything.

Western science has given validation to these beliefs without ever caring to prove them. In fact, western science has acted in a very dubious ways as far as male gender and sexuality goes.

It started by painting male sexuality for men as a mental disease that only some males are afflicted by. Then when the political pressure mounted, it took off 'disease' from its books and replaced it with 'anomaly.'

Now, if its actions have been creditworthy, then what made it change its stance on 'homosexuality'? Did it do it through valid researches or because of mounting political pressures? Also, Bruce Bagemihl in his research book has shown with evidence how biologists have deliberately, suppressed information on sexuality between males in the wild. Historians have been known to destroy evidences of sexual intimacy between males, and a misinterpretation of them is extremely common amongst scientific community and it all passes peer-review, because, when it comes to upholding male heterosexuality, those who control western society, know that anthing goes, and there are no limits to which one can go in order to distort the truth.

Source:

Biological exuberances
by Bruce Bagemihl
(I'm hunting for the online source)

Again, before accepting the political 'gay' category of the west as a biological one and then doing researches on it, western science didn't bother to first prove that 'gay' is indeed a biological category on its own, with people who have a certain kind of anamoly. It just made assumptions, and built an entire theory on it. Yet, till today, even after spending huge amounts of money on its reasearches, it has NOT been able to prove that there is any biological basis for 'sexual identities' or that they are indeed fixed.

All it has done is to find that those who define themselves as 'gay' have female like characteristics (sounds like third gender?), including parts of their brain, their speeches, their gait and so on.

Also, it is quite telling about how much conspiracy against men there is in the West and at such a wide scale, that something which is common knowledge in the non-West, that all men have a sexuality for other men, is seen as so unbelievable and like from outer space for western males.

I don't believe you Cynthetiq. You've been less than impartial and its clear cut.

Most of the sources, I've laid here, I've laid before. You and others repeatedly ignored it. I've done nothing new. I've just reposted them with some more quotes. I'd not given links earlier, because your site prohibits giving of links. however I'd specified that the sources are available online. It seems you apply rules arbitrarily.

Yet, its been me all along who has come up with 'facts' and peer-reviewed sources.

Can you name one person here who has refuted my claims with 'peer-reviewed journals or any sources at all -- or has refuted my assertions in any credible way,' except telling me in different ways that I'm wrong and the West is right?

Are you saying that no one can challenge the West and its brand of knowledge? Is peer-review a fool-proof process that means they cannot be wrong? Should they never be allowed to be challenged? What if there are two peer-reviewed approaches, diagonally opposite to each other? One which is popular and the other which is marginalised, but may be superior than the first?

If there is indeed a conspiracy, and the more I'm ganged up against in the way I am on western forums, the more convinced I am, of a western conspiracy against men, of the anti-men forces being extremely strong in the west.

I'll keep coming with more and more sources. As well as personal experiences.

---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 AM ----------

The entire 'whore' thing is supposed to be an analogy, to make you realise how being isolated as 'homo' hurts and restricts men's choices.

Christians in your society may be strong, but women still have won a lot of freedom for themselves. Only they don't want that same sexual freedom to extend to men. Any freedom that men get sexually has to be within the arena of heterosexuality. If they want anything else, they must leave the mainstream male space, and become someone else -- a different category altogether, something that has always been extremely stigmatized for men, at that.

Also, whore for you today does not carry the same implications as it would have in a past era, or in a non-western society, today. It is just a label that you can ignore. 'Homo' or 'gay' is not just an adjective. It has serious implications. You at once become a different species. A 'differnt' individual. Suddenly, every stigma, every stereotype that is typical of the third genders become attached to you. You are isolated from the men's spaces altogether. You psychologically are made to feel not part of the men. You become part of a different culture, an effeminate/ queer culture. How can you love another man with any dignity under such circumstances, if you're not feminine gendered?

If you go by the level of isolation in non-western societies, then even showing sexual interest or intimacy with even your husband in public is slutty, there is no question of showing any interest in any man you're not married to. And marriage is a one time affair.

Oppressive? Not, if you consider that men are forced to serve women sexually for obtaining manhood from the society. There is no space for men to say they don't want to have sex with women, without losing their manhood, and becoming third gender/ 'gay'.

The oppression of women was supposed to counterbalance the oppression of men. Men were forced to have sex with women. And women were forced to deny their sexuality. If you force men to be sexual with women (and leave men no choice) but give freedom to men, it becomes extremely oppressive for men. And I know of several ways in which straight males are suffering ... I hope I get to share some of those ways. The very first thing to realise is that the essence of straight is manhood, not heterosexuality, per se.

Also, its the same level of isolation that men who want to show any kind of intimacy with men face in the West. So, two manly males may not hold hands with each other without being ridiculed as 'gay.' And 'gay' is a huge slur for men (not for effeminacy of gays per se, but because of how male effeminacy is politicised and used as a threat space for men to deny manhood).

The non-Western suppression of female to male sexuality has a method to it. The western suppression of male to male intimacy has no purpose but to further the powers of the anti-men forces, by keeping men broken from each other.

---------- Post added at 01:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 AM ----------

Amaras

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

__________________
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky
Love is a verb, not a noun.
-My Mom
The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.
-Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

Natural manhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amaras

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

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

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

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

__________________
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky
Love is a verb, not a noun.
-My Mom
The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.
-Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

Cynthetiq

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
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.

LordEden

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

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



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

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

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

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

__________________
Vice-President of the CinnamonGirl Fan Club - The Meat of the Zombiesquirrel and CinnamonGirl Sandwich

rahl

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

Y chromosome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural manhood

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



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

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

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

I like Buddha too, and everything he says.

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

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

I'll try.

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

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

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

rahl

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

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

Natural manhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS REPRODUCTION THE BASIC PURPOSE OF SEX?

The answer is NO ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idyllic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
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

GENDER AND SEX

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

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

SEX

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

1. Male
2. Female
3. Hermaphrodite

GENDER

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

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

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

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

There are two main kinds of gender:

- Masculine
- Feminine

SEX AND GENDER IDENTITY

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

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

Source:
Most contemporary societies group gender identities as follows:

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

Sources for Third gender:

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

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

Third gender, Wikipedia

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

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

ring

rahl

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

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

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

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

Idyllic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
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.

Gina_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural manhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

uncle phil

Natural manhood, what are your bona fides?

__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.

rahl

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural manhood

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

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

Biological Exuberance: by Bruce Bagemihl

(an online review): excerpts:

rahl

Snowy has already posted on Animal Homosexuality.

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

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

Cynthetiq

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

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

__________________
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.

Natural manhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idyllic

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

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

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

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

__________________
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.

rahl

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

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

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

Natural manhood

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

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


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

ring

uh-oh.

The_Jazz

__________________
"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