Sexual Orientation is an oppressive, anti-man Western concept
 

Sexual orientation is a system of sexual seggregation, where the trait of sexuality between males, and anyone who expresses it is identified, and isolated through labelling and then banished into a separate group/ category of third genders (feminine gendered and transgendered males) called the 'homosexuals' or the LGBT.

The third genders that like men fit into this system, that forces men to lose their manhood if they chose to desire men, and these third genders (who self identify as 'homosexual') go on to celebrate their sexuality for men, claiming to represent the trait of men who like men, while the masculine gendered male (otherwise called 'straight' and wrongly called 'heterosexual' in the West) is left to struggle and hate his sexual desires for a man, since, this liables him to be excluded and isolated from the men's spaces (masculine male spaces).

The Western system of sexual orientation, supported and upheld by the 'gays' do not allow men to be intimate with another man without taking on the 'gay' identity which symbolizes losing social manhood and accepting social queerhood/ femininity. The gays as such act as pawns in the hands of the anti-man forces that run the Western world.

Um.... I think a whole lot of my gay friends, who see themselves as very masculine, and not girly or feminized at all, would object to your notion.

Also, why do you care what other people think about you?

No disrespect intended, but you seem very angry-- much more than a rather abstract and theoretical argument about cultural constructions of gender and sexuality would seem to warrant. I guess the question your post makes me ask is, what's happening in your life?

Thank you for answering Levite.

I used to be very angry at one time. However, I'm not angry anymore. Not that much. The above post of mine is totally objective and impersonal.

A little background of me: I have been working on the issues of men and manhood for about a decade primarily with mainstream men (straight in Western parlance) in a non-Western society. I've researched men and manhood issues all around the world, and the entire politics of it. Just wanted to share some of it with western people. No, hostility intended to anyone. I am just trying to expose a larger wrong doing against men.

What's going on in my life: I was working on liberating men from the traditional anti-men gender and sexual roles that operate on men in my country, and since men's spaces in my society are very strong, and the solidarity and intimacy between men (and men are not afraid to be even sexual with another man) very strong, men took to my ideas like duck to water. Then came forced westernization of my society, and men were driven to a corner. Just like men in the West are driven to a corner, primarily by feminists and gays. I'm not against women's rights nor against rights of the third genders, however, when they go against men's rights and spaces, that is when it bothers me. Today, men in my society, after years of westernization and heterosexualization, are broken from each other. They won't hold each other's hands anymore (at least in urban, westernized spaces), the anti-man forces have become extremely powerful (they will run you down if you hold hands with your friends). And today, I find it very difficult to organize men or to make them willing to work on their own issues. They are scared and isolated, and indeed too busy trying to fit in. If there is anger, that is where it is.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

Yes, they would. And I've had quite big fights with them on 'gay' discussion forums. However, I don't intended to fight here. (I'm a much changed man, and I'm going to test it here).

Seeing oneself as manly is different from actually having a strong male identity. Those who care for the gay identity, tend to see manliness or masculinity as something very superficial. Something, you can achieve just by pretending or putting on a few acts (and hence the term "straight-acting"). I tried to get in touch with several so-called 'straight-acting' males, and to my surprise I found most of them too feminine from the outset, even on the phone their voice was absolutely feminine. Yet, they insisted that they were very manly. Funny!!

The truth is that someone who has a strong male identity (that is how I define masculinity), will never be comfortable into the essentially third gender gay zone, no matter how the west defines it. Outwardly its defined as 'men who like men' but anyone who deals with the gay community knows instantly that its more about male femininity than about men liking men. That is why the masculine gendered males (whom I called the straight males or the straight gendered males or the straight males who like men) fight, suppress or hide their sexuality for men.

It is also true that in the West, things have been socially engineered to such an extent that male sexuality for men is totally isolated from the men's spaces, and so many masculine gendered males feel left out. They may join the gay zone superficially, but they never really relate with anything that the gay identity or space really stands for. They live there like outsiders, foreigners. Never really enjoying the gay bars or culture or magazines and stuff. They are there only because the western society forced them there. They are like mavericks. Only a rare percentage of masculine gendered males who strongly feel sexual for men, ever care to call themselves gay, in any case.

You cannot deny that the history and biology of the gay identity/ category cries out loud that its actually a queer space, third gender space, a feminine male space, not a space for men to like men.

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

You mean you'd be comfortable being known as a different gender than you actually are?

Why shouldn't one be bothered about what other people think about you? We're social animals aren't we? We live in a society, we're interdependant on each other. I do know that westerners live in a society where the distances between individuals have become too wide, personal spaces are too wide, and each person lives individualistic lives, broken from other people. But this kind of life is afforded only by immense wealth. Out where I live, people are more dependant on each other. We live in a closely knit society, where each is dependant on the other. What people think about each other is important.

Actually, the truth is, manhood is the most important issue for men all over the globe and modern west is no exception. Indeed, males have been, since time immemorial, going through hell in order to earn social manhood, with their bodies being mutilated live, they being stung by thousands of venomous bees, and do other painful things which have taken the lives of many, just in order to pass the manhood test. It's easy for the feminists and gays to claim that manhood and manliness are superficial, vain things. But men know how important it is. Unfortunately, the west has thrown out masculinity from its society, and it holds it either as artificially constructed or as a vice. So, there is no real understanding about what it actually is. In fact, even the men themselves don't understand the importance of manhood for men, even when it runs their lives. I guess this ignorance is because, the politics against manhood, in the west, has successfully redefined 'manhood' as 'heterosexuality' and so, manly males in the West are today as keen to be 'heterosexual' as they were in the past to have 'manhood.'

However, its also true that most men in the West itself worry about manhood and what others say about them -- even when its such an individualistic society -- and they hate to be called 'gay.' Break the connection between 'gay' and desiring men, and you'd see how straight males will start to acknowledge their own sexuality for men, without feeling less of a man.

Also, I think, if we personalise this discussion we'd miss out on the very important point I'm trying to make. That sexual orientation serves to seggregate men and is not a healthy thing for men.

Welcome Nm, great intro.

Thank you, Anonymous :)

Yes Indeed, welcome NM, we dont care what orientation you are, I happen to be a walrus, nobody cares. :)

So... Stereotypical gay men, right? You're saying they're duped into feminization at the hands of a segregational "orientonormative" culture? That's really interesting.

What about the guys I know who didn't come out until many years after their friends put it together, based on their behavior, style, etc? I literally have known men who didn't come to terms with their gayness for DECADES after everyone around them was crystal clear about it. I think (hope!) there's less of that happening now than there was 20 years ago when I was in high school and college, just because the world is so different now. They were ALREADY stereotypical in certain ways, long before they made any sort of choice or followed any sort of social prescription regarding their behavior.

I generally agree that the human tendency toward grouping and labeling is unfortunate. Our language defines. We're mostly unaware of that fact--we think our speaking is about describing objective facts in the world, unaware that in fact we're creating reality (literally) with our speaking.

What do you propose instead? You can't just rail against the notion of "orientation" and leave it at that. How should we view sexuality?

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

Welcome NM.

All I have to say at this point is we've come a long way since "sodomite" and "abomination."

But I have to ask: Where do lesbians fit in this criticism?

To be honest, I don't buy your argument. I see a lot of invective but not a strong point. I too have spent a lot of time studying gender and gender issues, as have a lot of people here. I'm also a person who prefers to not attach an orientation to myself, as I find it limiting. However, I find it hard to take part in the discussion you are trying to build here because women are excluded.

I don't think orientation is an anti-man concept, but I do think it is a constricting concept that keeps people, regardless of gender, from being what they truly could be if they stepped out of that box.

Hi, NM. I agree with what snowy is saying and feel it is worth repeating.

p.s. out of curiosity, do the men hold women's hands in public where you live, I think that sounds and portrays masculine and manly, what do you think?

Hi!

And, no.

I want to know more about the anti-man forces that run the western world. Are we talking a figurative thing here? Or is it an actual shadow government controlled by women wearing lots of flannel?

I'd say it's just as stifling as the stereotypes and pigeonholes from the breakfast club a brain, and an athlete, and a basket case, a princess, and a criminal. Each individual never gets an opportunity to be their best once you've labeled them. I don't care what the label is, see my sig for more labels.

;)

Just in case no one misses the points here ...

1. There is no such thing as sexual orientation ... not the way its seen in the West. Had it been, your not caring would have been appreciated a lot.

2. It's not about me. It's about what's happening in the larger society, and with men, and how in the western world men's lives are getting fucked up. Not that its not fucked up in the east. It's just hugely much more so there. That is what I wanted to bring up. Somehow, unfortunately, this keeps coming round to 'my sexual orientation.'

Sorry bro, but this is just not true. There is definately a sexual orientation. Some people transend it, but most people identify themselves as either hetero or homosexual. There are some Bi people out there too.

Did I say that? Not really.

However, your interpretation is also valid.

What I said though is this ... Male femininity is a reality. What the society does is to give the space to love men to the feminine gendered male, and so these things seem related to us. So much so that the feminine gendered space is relabelled 'homosexual' and the masculine males are asked to take up the feminine identity if they want to like men. The masculine males don't want that and so they rather fight with their sexuality for men, to avoid being forced with the feminine label or space.

And I'm not even talking about stereotypes here. The gay space is a feminine gendered space. It's always been so, since times immemorial. So, its not wrong to stereotype it as 'effeminate.' What is wrong is to say that 'gay' also includes masculine gendered male desire for men. It is not surprising that in the beginning of human civilization, the 'gay' feminine space was more of a 'heterosexual' space. And that is what heterosexuality is in nature, 'queer.'

However, what you're saying is also true. When the society, through social engineering, makes it seem that desiring men = femininity, then men are pscyhologically forced to believe so. And you're what you believe. Although, its ultimate result is that the masculine gendered male is scared off from desiring males.

There are other factors that feminizes males when they get in touch with their desire for men in the Western system. For one thing, when a vulnerable youth is isolated in the effeminate 'gay' category either psychologically or socially -- in fact, the moment his sexuality for men gets too developed, he would start isolating himself from the mainstream, masculine gendered male group because its artificially made extremely hostile to intimacy between males. This would deprive the youth of an opportunity to develop his nascent masculinity and even if he is not effeminate, he would appear less manly, less powerful and more vulnerable than the average 'straight' youth. Formally walking over to the gay category has an even more feminizing effect. But, the society wants it that way.

expand, specifically, with examples please. i,e, are you saying that in the east men have been having sex or sexualish relations in non-gender specific ways and now that the west has arrived the east must change because the west says if you have sexual feelings for a man then you must be "not manly" or "gay" or some other label that would seemingly reduce the non "gay" mans masculinity or manliness? By the way, some effeminate males are very manly, just as some homosexual men are very masculine. I'm not sure your question is clear, or to say the least, I'm not sure I understand it, please help me understand.

But of course I care, ask anyone. Did I not welcome thee? Just saying I care not about your orientation & I really didnt want to discuss your opinions regarding it. As your first post this may not have been the way to go, but whatever.

Kisses! :)

Oh, so your talking about a bisexual who does not want to look as his attraction to males as any form of homosexuality of effeminacy, but still wants to have sex with a man every once in awhile, o.k.

The 'gay" space is not an effeminate gendered space, it is a sexual orientation space and it seems to me until you stop with the whole "female" vs. "male" space especially with the debasing and negativity you place on that of the "female" space, your society will continue to be troubled.

You've been lied to about the west my friend, plan and simple.

These are the actual 'homosexuals' ... those who are feminine gendered males. The masculine gendered males are 'men' or 'straight males' whether or not they like women, or whether or not they like men.


Yet, grouping and labelling can be useful if (a) they are well intentioned, and (2) if they are based upon natural human distinctions. Neither of the above are true in the case of 'sexual orientation.'

What I'm proposing is to view male gender and sexuality in the way its always been viewed in the society before the concept of 'homosexuality' (and later 'heterosexuality' and 'sexual orientation' itself) was invented in the West. This is exactly the way male gender and sexuality is still being viewed in the entire non-Western world.
I'll elaborate on it soon, after the initial excitement over this dies down. :)

---------- Post added at 12:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------

Why, thank you :thumbsup:

It's exactly the Christian concept of sodomite and abomination, which was only interested in the 'sin' part of it, which clubbed 'men' and 'third genders' who performed sodomy under one category of sinners, which resulted in the Western concept of 'homosexuality.'

There is no such thing as a lesbian pal?;)

But, if you're talking about women in general, female gender or sexuality doesn't have a direct parrallel with male gender and sexuailty either in terms of biology/ nature or in terms of social aspects ... they are hugely different ... and there is no reason why we should always account for it as well, when we talk about male gender and sexuality.

Having said that, 'sexual orientation' seems less problematic for women than it does for men, for a variety of reasons, including that it is less exclusive, just a loose divison for women, not so much politicised and doesn't have enough repercussions for women. Furthermore, there is much more social acceptance, even celebration of it in the West. With the limited knowledge I have of female gender and sexuality, the stereotypes of same-sex sexuality in women having a co-relation with queer gender may actually be true to some extent as far as women are concerned, but not so for men. Although, my knowledge is not as deep about this.

And yet:

Not the west...... sorry. Again, another lie. NM do you intend on responding to women in this forum?

NM, with all due respect, I'm not sure I find your argument persuasive.

To the degree to which you are saying that rigid gender-based sexual identities are not innate to human beings, I agree completely.

But honestly, I have known too many people who are gay or lesbian or bisexual, and they are as manly and masculine or womanly and feminine as they feel they wish to be. Most of my gay and lesbian friends don't fit neatly into stereotypes, and they do not feel compelled or forced into socialized gender or sex roles.

Now, it is certainly true that understanding sexual orientation in terms of gay, straight, bi, lesbian, etc., or in terms of the Kinsey scale, is a Western idea. And you may be correct in that your culture (wherever you are) requires different ideas. But to me, that doesn't make a critique of how the Western World deals with sexual orientation, it makes a critique of your culture's need to create its own solutions, rather than embrace those of our culture. And if you wish to say that Western society can also sometimes be culturally imperialistic, and we need to quit that, I will also accept that as fair.

But really, I must say that, whatever your successes with the men in your society, I don't see your approach winning a lot of supporters in America. While I hope and agree that our societies are learning to be looser and more flexible about our constructions of gender and sexual identity, I think what you're describing is simply not the direction in which we are evolving.

And to be honest again, I'm not sure I concur with your arguments. You say that the kind of masculinity you describe is what existed "before the invention of words like homosexuality or heterosexuality." But in fact, just because the words were lacking doesn't mean that there was any mainstream social acceptance of male-on-male sexual intercourse, nor in the behavior of men as feminized and womanly. Perhaps that was so in your culture, but not in any of the Western cultures that I have studied. If anything, it was the willingness of people with sexual needs and identities not accepted by the main stream to come together, to speak out, to demand rights and freedom, that actually liberated people to pursue flexible and more undefined gender and sexual identities. You reference ancient Greece, but that was one culture. Even in the ancient world, there were different views of love and sexuality and what was deemed appropriate or normative.

In fact, your argument that the gay "space" is an inherently feminine gendered "space" seems all too likely to incense and infuriate gay men who feel comfortable with their masculinity, and don't see themselves as feminized or womanly. And when it comes down to it, you can't tell people that their construction of their own sexual and gender identity-- often struggled for with great sacrifice-- is simply wrong. Well, you can, of course, but I don't see you winning many friends that way, or changing many minds.

So, this thread has been 'banned' from the 'sexuality' forum ... why I may ask? Is it not about sexuality? Am I abusing anyone, any group? I'm just raising some issues from a non-Western perspective, and however put off some people maybe by it, there is always something to learn from other cultures.

Unfortunately, what I see is censorship from one of the most intolerant group that I have ever known -- the 'homosexuals' ... they just don't want to discuss anything that questions the ideology that has created them. That's some insecurity.

I think what alot of people are trying to say(might just be me?) is that the idea that an orientation doesn't exist simply is not true.

It was just moved, there is an http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ientation.html thread in the sexuality forum where you may want to post.

This thread became slightly OT because its usually customary to post in the new members forum first. Just sayin

:suave:I know. That is the general western view. However, don't you think one should be open to other ideas as well -- I'm not saying you should accept the other ideas, concepet and lifestyles, but listen to them, discuss them, argue with them, don't just brush them off without considering them or hearing them out -- they may have something of value for you, that you may not know at the outset.

The problem is 'sexual orientation' is an artificial ideology that the Western society is built upon. And like every other artificial and thus unnatural ideology, whether its communism or organized religions, it is also dependent upon propagating a particular set of ideas and assumptions ... and it must treat its basic ideology as a holy cow, which no one is allowed to question. Western spaces uaually don't allow anyone to question this ideology, and apply some form of censorship.

I know, I was too eager to start the discussion ... :shy: Time's running out!!

And, although, I was a bit taken aback initially by this uninformed moving of my thread, yet, I don't hate the new section under which the thread has been moved. In fact, I rather like it.:suave: I now think it was done bonafide.

I don't get what you're trying to say. The example you quote only goes to prove what I'm saying. That there was no concept of 'homosexuality' as something that only a few males had and that could be used to distinguish between males.

I'm not anti-woman. In fact, I'm pro-women. There are just a few key issues of approach and relations with men, where I don't agree with the feminist movement.

And, yes, I will respond to anyone and everyone who's interested to discuss this.

---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

I look forward to disagreements in a discussion.

I'm saying, even loose sexual identities in the way west sees it, doesn't make sense, apart from if one has an anti-man agenda,

Where do these innumerable gays live (let's stick to male sexuality. I'm making no claims about female sexuality)? I have already acknowedged that a couple of masculine gendered males do call themselves 'gay' because they like men, but that is more because they don't have any option. I have received so many emails from western males, who have thanked me for making them realise that they could like men without being 'gay' ... and not just as a vain political statement, but because 'gay' really means effeminate.

Go to any gay bar, any gay event, any gay parade ... what do you see primarily? These masculine gendered males are hardly ever visible. What are masculine gendered males doing in a transgendered space anyways? Who put them there? Do they like being there? Do they belong there?

Go to a straight event. How many straight events or bars or sub-cultures have drag queens? Why do you think that is? Why are queer heterosexuals part of LGBT, and not part of the 'straight' world, if straight means 'heterosexual'. The truth is, 'straight' doesn't really mean heterosexual. It means 'manly.' And 'gay' doesn't mean 'homosexual.' It actually means 'womanly' male. That is how feminine gendered heterosexual males fit there, rather than in the straight identity.

Some gays may not like being known as feminine, or they may think of themselves as 'masculine' however, what is important here is what identity they take. The truly masculine gendered struggles with his sexuality for men and hides it. Not for nothing. It's because, he senses that the 'gay' identity is anti to his masculine gender and is devoid of manhood. you can't take a third gender identity and then take offense when your masculinity is questioned.

A group of Californians can't go and start a category called "Americans who like men" and then claim that New yorkers who like men are also Californians.

Creating a society, where to like another man, you have to become part of the 'gay' category created by the society, is also like saying that to get in touch with god, you have to be a member of the church/ organised religion, or to be able to understand and comprehend this world, you have to become a member of the institution of science. These are individual rights, and organised bodies should not be allowed to monopolize them.


The reason I'm criticising the concept of 'sexual orientation' is not that my society doesn't have it. The reason is that 'sexual orientation' is not really and honestly 'sexual orientation' but it actually is 'gender orientation' camouflaging as 'sexual orientation.' Your 'sexual orientation' is the same as our 'gender orientation' ... with the 'manhood' category redefined in your society as 'heterosexual' and the 'third gender' category redefined in your society as 'homosexual.' I have document evidences of this, which I intend to share here, soon.

Westerners are not told this, and you'd be quite surprised to know that in your own society, in the past, there was only 'gender orientation' and no 'sexual orientation.' It was partly a misunderstanding and partly a conspiracy to redefine the 'third gender' as 'men who like men.'

Yes. That is because western males are broken from men. They've been intensely heterosexualized. And I'm not only talking in terms of their desires, but an entire attitude and outlook towards life. It's not that western men do not like what I say. They just have no space to say they like what I say, without losing their 'straighthood.' Others, see it as a western vs non-Western issue and make it a matter of defending one's culture.

I'm sorry, I don't see that happening. I see your culture become more accepting and tolerant of 'gays.' But, I don't see it allowing space to men to be intimate or sexual or romantic with each other, without having to be 'gay.'

To allow males to be sexual with another male, only if they agree to give up their manhood, and give up the mainstream space and agree to go to a 'gay' ghetto to do it, is not the same as to allow men to love each other just as 'men.'

Your society maybe congenial to gays loving men, but it is certainly not congenial to men loving men.

The immediate pre-homosexual position is pretty clear. The society just didn't acknowledge that men could fall in love with men or be sexual with them. But, the men's spaces knew that all the time that "ALL MEN HAVE A NATURAL TENDENCY TO DESIRE SEXUAL BONDING WITH A MAN." And, sexuality between males, though not formally acknwoledged was pretty common. It flourished within the safety of men's spaces.

Being sexual towards another guy just didn't make you different. However, manhood was very strongly linked to sexual performance with women, desire was not important.

There were three genders in the society. Man, woman and the third gender (those who were partly man and partly woman, including those who were males from the outside and had a feminine identity). Now, the society (wrongly) ascribed receptive anal sex with this group. However, what made them different from other men was not that they desired sex with men, but that they had a woman inside them.

This fact has been misrepresented to suggest that this group of effeminate males who sought promiscuous receptive sex from men, was 'men who like men.' And that the rest of the males (who were masculine and were defined as 'heterosexual,' just didn't feel sexual for other men, or that they all felt sexual for women.

I have evidences that it was the same in your culture. Queering of your society has misrepresented the facts and that is what you end up learning. However, what is important to learn is, how was this change from the old system to the new orchestrated? Who orchestrated it? Who had a say in it, and who did not? Were there any researches or scientific studies that was conducted before trashing out the earlier ways of living?

Yes, but what people? History cries out loud, that the people who coined the term and concept of 'homosexual,' those who related with the concept, and those who propagated it were all, 100% of them, 'third genders' and they openly described themselves as such. What right did they have to represent themselves as 'men who like men.' Did men who like men, really want to separate themselves from the others on the basis of sexuality? The third genders wanted it because they actually wanted a separate gender identity, which they confuse with a 'sexual identity' because the west doesn't recognize gender as a valid human trait. And because the West confuses manhood with 'sexual desire for women' and male femininity with 'sexual desire for men.'

Karl Maria Benkert was not even a physician, even when gays often misrepresent 'her' to be one. He openly called himself and others of his ilk, 'females soul inside male bodies' who desire men. That is exactly what the 'third gender' in our society means.

There is also historical evidences that the real men (straight men) who acknowledged their liking for men (all straight males have a hidden sexuality for men) ... hated the idea of a separate 'homosexual' being created by the 'intermediate sex.' But since what the intermediate sex was doing fitted competely well with the anti-man forces that wanted to discourage men from being sexual with men, in a society that was now being opened up, the ruling anti-man forces gave validity and power to the concept of 'homosexuality.' The men in any case had little voice in this matter, since it is artificially related with lack of manhood.


Yet, they were all more or less the same. From old Celtic cultures to Old Germanic and Viking cultures and coming to the east, from old Samurai cultures to old Arabian societies, even Islamic societies allowed men to be sexual and even romantic with men without having to be something else, as in 'homosexual.' Only the effeminate males who sought receptive sex were 'different,' and formed a 'different' category/ sexuality, not men who like men.

And third gender with men was never seen as 'homosexual' but a form of 'heterosexuality' because 'third genders' and 'men' are not the same gender orientation or identity.

Well, what about your sexuality and mine? How can you allow one group of people to falsely represent part or full of your sexuality, and claim it as theirs, so that you can't lay claim to your own sexual feelings without bowing down to their authority over it?

NM your argument, while kind of interesting, is just simply BS. Sexual orientation exists, like it or not.

A male can be "feminine" without having sexual feeling for other men. Just like "masculine" men can be homosexual.

The word "homo" meaning same, simply describes the type of sexuality a person has.
So does the word "hetero" which simply means other.

I don' care what research you've done. Nothing is going to change that fact.

I dislike groups, labels, stereotypes, demarcations, in general.

So, naturally, I do have a measure of sympathy for your desire not to be 'pigeon-holed' into an identity if you feel that it doesn't adequately define you. Particularly being defined by your sexual activity - that which most people are allowed to keep private (if they so choose). The whole idea of it runs counter to my sense of fairness and, since it is of no consequence to anyone else, a person should be able to define his or her self and have it be accepted. Granted, that is not the world we live in. Best case scenario, a man who has sex with both men and women but considers himself for the better part 'straight' is defined as 'straight with bisexual tendencies.' Or, perhaps 'pansexual,' depending on the nature of his activities.

That said, I'm a little lost as to what 'feminists' have to do with this issue. Then again, if it's true you are not responding to women on this thread, then that makes it pretty clear.

^^Hi mixedmedia, he is responding to women, yeah, let us help him understand that it is not just the male sexuality issue, it is the negativism of effeminate behavior that really seems the crux here, imo. I did think he would not respond as he replied to all welcomes from males but seemed to hesitate on welcoming the females, but that has changed. Thank you Natural manhood for allowing us to share in your conversations and debates, I promise you we females understand a lot about male sexuality, just as the males on this forum understand a lot about us females, and we all love learning more. :)


Hi, NM…..:) Thank you for responding.

Sexual Orientation is not a western “ideology” and the West is built upon its people, not its bedroom activities, period. If you know history than you know that at the time of our beginning we were puritanical……. so stop with the assumptions that the “west” treats the basic ideology of any one sexual inclination as allowable or unallowable, we have tried and will continue with our little successes in removing from power people who would propagate sexual preferences as a judgment or label.

As for the west not allowing anyone to question this “ideology” and apply censor, have you been reading the posts here? Do you truly understand what you are saying as opposed to what you are seeing and reading, there is no censorship here.

“Artificial ideology”, to a degree you are correct here, there is no ideology, or idea lifestyle in the west, and all lifestyles that allow for cohesion within our society are equal as long as they cause no physical harm to other people. Sexual orientation is not a label; it is a self acknowledged choice. Most people in the ‘west’ who accept the label, do so with pride, nobody forces them to be who they say they are!!!!!

What are your concepts of this, of human sexuality? Tell me what you think of when you think of a man who does not like to have sex with a woman at all, who prefers sex with other men only, do you have a name to describe these individuals other than an “effeminate man” because it is obvious based on your response here:
that you feel anything effemnatized is inferior. (one may need to read the entire OP and thread to understand my statement here)

What do you call a woman who refuses to have sex with a male because she is attracted to females exclusively?

One more for you NM, what do you do to men who have sex with other men, are they befriended in your country?

Let me start with, The Greeks held male same sex relationships in a higher regard than they did male/female relationships! This is a fact.
You see it would have been simpler for me to say “Homosexuality for the Greeks was profoundly accepted!” I am not labeling the Greeks, I am merely using a term that was created by a Hungarian to define a particular sexual act in my sentence.

I could have said that Greeks really liked sodomy, but that seems derogatory when in essence I am merely saying they found love and companionship in each others male arms (sexually). On the contrary I find homosexual to be just fine.

What I am saying is that same gender sex has existed since before the time of written history, that no demographic location has any “ownership” of natural inclinations, for that matter, as I stated earlier, the “west” did not create the terms homosexual, heterosexual, at all!

The “west” has done nothing except embrace, in time and to the best of our abilities, the different sexual inclinations of the human race and make it more understandable to our people that these inclinations are part of a natural world. We continue with the belief that sexual preference is a natural inclination and this reality, once learned, can and will reduce the homophobia that ignorance feeds on so we as a species can see beyond our genitalia and our physical sexual desire, as the reality of age dictates that who you share your bed with really doesn’t define “who” you are.

Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) you see the issues you bring forth are ones that the whole world deals with, it is not just the “west” and it is definitely not a new issue.

The terms homo, hetero, were used to replace the derogatory terms sodimite, and pederast (which defined an act that was seen as a sin) so that we may try to look beyond the physical act itself and see that the participant is still just that, a person, and that the act does not define the person, it helps for us to understand the inclinations are just and natural, outside the religious condemnation, so we view human sexuality as a preference, not an act, that is what these generalization do, but even we know they do not define a human.

What do you mean by anti-man agenda, you make it sound as though somebody is trying to remove “mans’ masculinity” and you leave it open to make the assumption (yes I used that word) that it is somehow the females and/or “effeminates” who are doing this.

And even if this were true, which it is not, what would be the agenda……., to remove masculinity form humankind? Do you think that women and homosexuals want to rule the earth effeminately? Funny, I’ve always enjoyed my masculine side, and I absolutely love a man who is powerful enough to protect me and yet feminine enough to hold me gently and strong enough in his own maleness to not fear me or his “friends” while he shows his care for me by holding my hand in public and being proud that I am his equal in humanity.

Distrust of women as members of a cohesive and functioning society seems to define a lot of eastern thinking, I’ve always wondered why that is, as you seem to wonder why the west think that all forms of physical male social bonding are viewed as homosexual activities.


Can you explain to me what anti-man means to you, please.


Don’t have an option…….. in the U.S. you always have an option to call yourself whom ever or what ever you wish, did you ever think maybe they call themselves gay because they ARE…. masculine or not, they are gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay!

A vain political statement is to say that ‘gay’ really means effeminate, and that with your negativity placed on the effeminate gender in general you imply that any effeminate human is less than a non-effeminate human.

So, feminine gendered males who are heterosexual are gay also, even if they prefer to have sex with women. I am beginning to see the pattern here, it’s not about sexuality, and it’s about being viewed as weak and effeminate, that is what makes you less of a man, to be and or act womanly, because women and feminism is…….. somehow……. less good?

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

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

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

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

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

While someone who lives in a society where sexual orientation has been artificially made into a reality through social engineering, may sincerely believe in it, especially, if he has himself built a strong sense of personal identity on its basis, and especially if he fits into the 'gay' identity well, the fact is 'sexual orientation' the way you know it, doesn't exist. like it or not.

Yes, and even transgendered males who like women are part of the GLBT side of the hetero-homo divide.

Saying 'masculine' men can like men is different from saying 'masculine' men can be 'homosexual.' The definition of 'homosexual' is wrong. It actually means an effeminate male who likes men.

That is what the homosexuals hope the world believes. But, the truth is everyone knows that 'homo' really means effeminate. Even if you're not supposed to say it so clearly. Even gays know that themselves.

Here are a few examples:

1. The phrase, "he looks so gay" doesn't really mean, he looks as if he likes men. It means he looks so effeminate.

2. The first time I met 'homosexuals,' I was aghast at the fact that they were so womanlike. They were even wearing dresses and make-up. When I pointed this out to the 'gay' Swedish acquaintance who had taken me there, who himself didn't look effeminate at the outset, told me indignantly, "you're so homophobic." It took me several years and research into the reality of 'sexual orientation' to realise how could not being comfortable with male effeminacy amount to 'homophobia.' Now, I know. I have learned to accept male femininity since then. However, the reality of sexual orientation I found out through personal experience (that it is actually gender orientation) has since been verified by examining western and other cultures, the past and biology as well.

3. When a masculine male is found to be liking men. The first thing that people say is, "but you don't look it." What they mean is, you don't look effeminate.

4. An openly effeminate male who likes men is often said to be "wearing his sexuality on his sleeve," by gays themselves, when he is not actually displaying his sexual feelings for men here, but his effeminacy, through his dress, moves, gait, etc.

5. When you ask someone if he is 'gay,' a masculine gendered male takes it as a statement questioning his manhood. And, in order to resurrect his manhood, the man will immediately display a sexual interest in women, whether he feels it or not. A sexual interest in women is seen as a sign of manhood, while a sexual interest in men is seen as a 'woman inside the male.'

6. The nature and extent of the stigma and stereotypes attached with 'gay' in the modern 'West' is exactly the same as they are with the 'third gender' category in the non-West and in the West before the concept of 'gay' was originated. Why is a gay male stereotyped as an effeminate male? Is it a false stereotype or is it seeped in reality? Where do stereotypes come from? Not from out of air? Why aren't straight males stereotyped as effeminate, when as you yourself rightly pointed out, many males who like women are effeminate?

I am glad life is not so simple that you make a definition and then the reality will distort itself to fit into that definition. It only seems to fit into the false concept of 'sexual orientation' created by the West, because the west has created an extremely artificial social environment for it, through its immense wealth and technology, including through distortion and suppression of facts.

Masculine males don't really look at themselves as having a sexual identity. It becomes important only when they have to contrast themselves with the 'gay' identified males, or when they have to protect their 'manhood.' just like acting effeminate is a way for gays to tell the world that they like men ... displaying a real or fake sexual interest in girls is a way for masculine gendered males that they're masculine gendered and not 'females inside male bodies' in a society which prescribes such roles for men.

Consider the following examples from the so-called 'gay' as well as 'straight' world:

What is a male who is not effeminate calls himself in the 'gay' world? Straight-acting. It is clear that the gay space, being an effeminate space, considers masculinity to be alien to souls who are gays, and if someone is behaving in a manly way, he is seen as being just pretending.

If you analyse the word 'straight-acting gay,' what is that 'gay' male really doing. Is he pretending that he likes women, in a gay-bar? No, he is just acting to be masculine. So, straight=masculine, not really a man who likes females.

Also, I've spoken to and analysed innumerable self-defined 'straight-acting' or 'masculine' gay males. There masculinity all seems to be either non-existing, or if existing, very, very superficial. For gays, being masculine means adopting a few vain 'masculine' ways or dresses, often devised to hook a date, because gays do like 'straight' (meaning masculine) males. There is no deeper understanding, appreciation or need for manhood.

It's interesting how masculine gendered males often call themselves 'heterosexual' and still have sex with men. What they actually mean when they say they're heterosexual is, that they are masculine, not effeminates. So, they can't be 'gays.' It's equally interesting, that gays have sex with straight males, and still consider them straights. Which means that straight is actually about males with manhood, or mainstream, regular, masculine gendered, 'normal' guys, as against the 'gays' who are seen as queer or effeminate, unmanly, male.

A Christian will never believe that the religious doctrine he follows could wrong. Neither would gays. However, a mature, fair society looks at facts and overall human rights, not how a small group of people would like to see this world as.

---------- Post added at 09:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

You have captured one aspect of the problem very well, and I congratulate you for that. The problem is worsened because, the space and identity that has been granted to man's sexual need for men, has been started by, represented by and populated mostly by people who have, at least socially, extremely negative traits, including effeminacy and lustful or promiscuous behaviour. These are the people who lend stereotypes to the trait of liking men, upon whom every male who acknowledges his sexuality for men is judged.

However, this is not the only aspect of the problem and being a woman, I should think that you may not understand the depth of the 'manhood' issue.

Feminists have allowed their movement in anti-man ways in several ways. E.g., by becoming an instrument for the destruction and heterosexualization of men's spaces. Somehow, women's rights can only be achieved by breaking men's spaces from men, and putting women into every men's spaces.

Feminists have also given protection and validity to the 'homosexuals' and their ideology. Feminine gender males and women have natural affinity, its true. However, I have nothing against feminine gender males if they define themselves as 'feminine gender males' or as 'third genders,' rather than as 'men who like men.'

---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 PM ----------

Womanhood is not so politicised and controlled through control of 'sexual orientation' as is the case with men and manhood. The issue of sexuality for men is not simply as that of 'sexuality' ... its first and foremost an issue of manhood, which, I'm sorry to disbelieve you, there is no way women can understand in its true depth. Men cannot have the luxury of treating and enjoying sex for its inherent value. Sex has been reduced to a tool for earning their manhood. And in fact, men will pretend to love people they can't stand, men will pretend to have sex with people they can't stand, if it can earn them social manhood ... and men will stay away from people their heart really longs for, if it comes in the way of earning social manhood. That is what the society exploits. Aware of any of that issue?

No. Effeminate male behavior is not negative. It's been made into a negative behavior. Male femininity is natural, healthy and desirable, even beautiful trait. Our societies have persecuted male femininity unjustly.

The issue is not negativism of effeminate behavior. Even if effeminate behavior was thought of as positive, there'd still be an issue here.

The issue here is of understanding that males can only be divided naturally into two categories: Males with a male identity, and males with a female identity. Sexual or any other preferences of any kind cannot be a ground for dividing men from men. Masculine males have a direct affinity with each other, and so do effeminate males with each other. Masculine males tend to unite, band and bond together, while feminine males tend to unite, band and bond together, irrespective of sexual, or food or film preferences.

The thing to realise is that, the concept of 'sexual orientation' is just a politics to propagate and stigmatize 'sexual desire for men' as 'effeminate' by redefining the two biological male categories of "masculine gendered" and "feminine gendered" males in terms of 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' respectively.

It's not that male effeminacy is bad. It's just that building a 'man liking man' identity on the 'effeminate male' identity is wrong. It's mixing of trait. Its mixing of issues. It suits only a few males who fit into this narrow confused space. And those who want to see sexuality between males stigmatize -- and these does include some women. Because, heterosexualization of straight men and their spaces, does invest a lot of power with women. And who hates power, especially if it comes easy.

Idyllic. I didn't even know you're a female, before you told me. I did not ignore any message. I was overwhelmed with messages, and since I'm too pressed for time (my father is in hospital), I decided to reply to only the ones that instigated me the most, apart from the very first ones. I was going to reply to your post soon.

I think men have a hard time unravelling women. It would be just interesting to know what you think about the whole issue, whether or not you understand it. Women are important 'stakeholders' on the issue, so your opinion counts. :)

Idyllic, I'll take up more later!!

NM, now your going to argue about what the definition or latin word for "homo/hetero" means? You beleive that you know the true definition and all 6+billion of us ignorant fools have had it wrong all this time?

I am a straight male, have been all my life. I have many "manly" qualities to me, and I also have a few "effeminate" qualities. Almost every single male I know has both. I can only guess that if you ever tried talking to an actual homosexual about YOUR definition of what it means to be gay, he would likely kick your ass for being so insulting to him.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

Totally false:thumbsup:

The rest of your post is just WAY too long to pick apart, but totally false will pretty much sum up it's entirety as well.

rahl, for the record, I came the conclusion that the OP is deeply closeted and trying to explain away his feelings. Homosexuality is pretty stigmatized in Indian culture.

i don't have much time at the moment, but it seems to me that at one level the thread is jammed up around a kind of equation between what is socially constructed (this is not precise...it's more complicated not like an erector set) and what's "real" or "exists" as if there are things that somehow just "are" that are "real" and other things that social formations name for themselves which aren't. i have no idea what these things that simply "are" would look like. and i doubt that you or anyone else could refer to those things, given that the medium that allows you to communicate is a primary medium for the social construction/positing that you're getting at.

from this viewpoint, any classification, any system of classification is not "real" because any system of classification leans on a previous history (or plural) of systems of classification/ways of thinking about classification, etc. and it's also pretty obvious that in binary thinking x implies not-x, presupposes it, is defined with reference to it.

so yeah.

recognition of constructedness, or historical contingency *can be* a way for people socialized into a particular social form to relativize what shapes their perceptions (again, this is too fast and it sounds loopier than i want it to) but relativizing these frames doesn't mean that the frames somehow cease to function.

so it's not like one fine morning anyone wakes up and thinks:

my god the way i think feel and everything else follows from the historical situation in which i live

and then gets to step outside that situation in the way that you can take off a hat and be out from under that hat.

so i'm a bit confused by the conceptual underpinning of all this.
that's what i think keeps tangling up the points that nm seems to want to make about sexual orientation and/or gender.

as for hetero/homo sexualities being functions of binary thinking...that's really close to tautological in its self-evidence, ain't it?
does it follow then that hetero/homo sexualities don't exist? not outside the peculiar assumption that pits "the constructed" over against some (imaginary) always-already there....

gotta go.

That's a typical gay thing to say, you know!!

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 AM ----------

Wow ... I wish you could put it more simplistically. Too many "hi-fi" (technical?) and basically I don't know what you're talking about.

I guess what you want to say is that if I am claiming sexual orientation to be socially constructed, then all human identities are, to some extent socially constructed. And that the fact remains that there are people who prefer men over women or vice versa, and whether or not we divide the society on those lines, this division will always be there.

My answer: Sexual orientation is not only socially constructed. It's constructed in an invalid way. It doesn't have solid cultural, historical or biological grounds. It's intention is not valid. Its application is not valid. It's results are not valid (it shows most males as exclusively heterosexual, a few as homosexual and even rarer as bisexual -- which is natural human male sexuality turned upside down!!) -- and results are the ultimate test of the validity of any human concept.

The concept of sexual orientation suits only a particular class of males who like men, who are different from other men, not on account of their sexuality for men, but on account of their gender orientation. I have done immense work with whom the gays call 'straight' males, and its a fact that 'straights' do not have a problem understanding this, Its only the gays, being too seeped in the 'gay ideology' that they don't want to see anything else. Unless gays take off their tainted glasses they won't see the world for what it actually is.

Wrong assumptions: The very assumptions that the concept of sexual orientation is based on is wrong. Its based on the invalid assumption that "most men are primarily attracted to women." and only a small percentage of men ever have a sexuality for men. Another wrong assumption is that the default sexuality of men is towards women, and sexuality for men happens as an anomaly.

It's also based on the wrong assumption that males who like men do so because they have a female soul/ biology inside them. In fact, it is this and this assumption alone that makes plausible the making of a separate category for homosexuality. In fact, the entire concept of homosexuality was constructed keeping in mind an invalid representative group -- of intermediate sexes, of females inside male bodies, who indulged in lustful sexual behavior with men, treating their anuses like vaginas.

Any concept that is built upon these 'third genders' that seeks to apply to 'men who like men' is going to be faulty from the start.

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

Well, you're kind of right, except that its not only just me. I am backed by the entire world population (except your claimed 6 billion -- which is a wrong figure, considering, a huge percentage of men in the West do not believe in 'sexual orientation' but they are powerless in front of a strong culture. Only the gay identified, including the closeted ones, are ever so intent on the 'sexual orientation' stuff) ... and I'm also backed by the entire world history ... and your modern science has turned the rules of science upside down in order to forcibly 'prove' 'sexual orientation' to be real, but it has not found anything else than the fact that the gay identified males are "females inside male bodies." So, even your modern science is 'indirectly' with me.

Fine, fine!!:shakehead: ... you can keep your sexual orientation thing. Gosh, I've never seen a straight guy take my attack on sexual orientation so personally and getting so worked up about it.

Note: The concept of sexual orientation has been invented by the queer, and it serves only the queer (its nothing but a mask for his effeminate gender orientation). For the regular, straight gendered male, its nothing but a burden, a pressure, something that was enforced upon him, yet he has to abide by it. They will quietly follow it because they have no choice. But they will never fight for it!!

Also, I'm talking about larger, macro issues here. That a few 'gay' identified males maybe masculine or many consider themselves to be masculine is besides the point. I may consider myself to be a parrot, and I maybe allowed to live in my delusion, but when we talk about larger issues, we have to confront the reality.

All males have some masculine and some feminine qualities in them. We're talking about the masculine or feminine gender that is so strong that the male experiences it as an identity. It's when the feminine in a male becomes so strong that it does not fit in the masculine male space, is when the male starts to seek another identity from straight gendered, regular, 'normal', males, whatever his sexuality may be.

The main parts of my post very strongly show with real life examples that 'gay' means effeminate, not 'man's desire for men' and that 'straight' means manly, and not 'man's desire for women.' The examples are easily verifiable.

So, if you're just going to reject it summarily, without first disproving my examples or giving counter examples, then you're just not being honest.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------

No one naturally experiences sexual preferences as an identity. sexual preferences are just sexual preferences. They don't make you any different than the other man.

When you like a man or a woman, you don't think, "I'm a homosexual man getting attracted towards a homosexual man." You may think of yourself as a 'girl in love with men, even when you're a male (and that is what being 'gay' is all about!). If 'sexual orientation' was real, homosexual males should have been attracted only to 'homosexual' identified males. There should not have been any cross sexual attraction between straight and gay males.

All over the world, being a man is so strongly about relating with other men, and men go to such a great extent to be "like the rest of the men." That is the basis of the peer-pressure amongst men. Men will smoke only because "men do it." They will race cars, only because "men do it." The community feeling is pretty strong amongst men, and men would sacrifice so much of themselves to sustain the community. It's foolish to assume, that under such strong feelings to be "one of the guys" -- a man who's one of the men would ever want to have another identity from men just because he likes them, ... especially an identity, that breaks him apart from the other guys in such drastic ways, that too, in an environment which is so hostile and so misrepresentative of such desires.

The fact that he likes them would make him want to be a part of them even more, unless he likes effeminate males.

It's also no surprise, that while the straight space is so hostile to effeminate males who like men, it quietly gives space and acceptance, even protection to the 'straight-gendered' male that acknowledges his preferences for men, keeping in mind the 'guy-codes,' of course.

Let's face it. The males who claim to want to have a 'separate' identity and space from the 'men' may claim they're doing it because they like men. But the fact is that they're doing it because, they don't feel they're one of the men. And this is why, even queer males who like women are part of the LGBT, not of the straight space. They are doing it because of their gender orientation, not because of their sexual orientation. If there sexual identity is involved at all, its a 'feminine male sexuality for men" not "male sexuality for men." The real difference is 'masculine'-'feminine' not whether you like men or women.

And this is why most men would rather disown their sexuality for men, rather than be considered 'different' and be set apart from the rest of the men. The effeminates on the other hand celebrate the 'different' category and take up 'desire for men' as an identity, in a society which so clearly considers such desire as a mark of an inner hermaphrodic soul.

I'm not going to bother quoting, because there's just too much back and forth to cite.

What it seems to boil down to, as far as I can tell, is that NM, you don't necessarily dislike homosexual sex acts per se, nor do you necessarily dislike labels; you simply prefer your own labels, and feel threatened or uncomfortable with the labels and the social sexual expressions of some gay men.

To respond to your question about where I've met "all these" gay men who don't have any problems being gay and masculine, the answer is: all over. California, New York, Minnesota, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Ontario Canada, Washington DC, Chicago, Miami, London, Tel Aviv.... Pretty much anywhere I've ever made gay friends.

Given that, what I still don't understand is why what you're complaining about matters, or even matters to you. Orientation, gender...whatever. If you're complaining about the gay or GLBT identity "box" being too restrictive, how is it any better to have an apparently equally restrictive set of "gender" boxes, whether there are two or three of them? Maybe "masculine" and "feminine" are just more flexible categories than you think they "ought to be." Maybe "masculine" does or could mean something other than what you think it "should" mean.

As for whether sexual preferences constitute an identity, I think identity is created whenever people with similar ideas, tastes, and lifestyle choices come together to live in a community: when gay liberation began, that's what happened. Did it have to be that way? Probably not. Is there anything wrong with the fact that that's how it is? Again, probably not. Also, identities can be created as a result of being oppressed by others: gay people throughout the past 2,000-odd years of Western history were oppressed by straight people, so an identity was created. The fact that today's gay people, who are much less oppressed, choose to embrace that identity and reclaim it as a positive just doesn't strike me as in any way problematic. I just don't see what's to care about.

And finally, I'm sorry, but-- at least when it comes to Western civilization-- your notion that society was somehow free of sexual identities or preference labels, and that everybody just knew and accepted that "manly, masculine men" had sex with other "manly, masculine men" is completely erroneous. I minored in European History, I did extensive Western History work for my Master's, and I have taught both European and American History: I know a little something about the topic. I have never seen anything-- not a single thing-- that indicates any phenomenon remotely resembling what you describe. I admit, the history of other places in the world is not my field: I've done some reading on the subject, but I'm prepared to accept the notion that things might have been different there. But as for Western Civilization...no, I'm sorry, I would need to see extensive supporting evidence before accepting such a theory.

No offense, but I see that as a clever attempt to bring the entire discussion into the narrow confines of the western ghettoization, and breaking my attempt to liberate the discussion from these confines, and bring it into the world of reality (from the western world of abstracts and mislabels).

Besides, you also keep trying to bring down the entire discussion down to me personally, as if I'm raising all this issue because somehow I'm not comfortable with my sexuality and the rest is just fine -- when I'm actually talking about macro issues here, and there are huge problems with the way things are structured in the society, especially for men. These are issues that affect the entirei straight male population in the world (and by straight I mean straight gendered).

And now about labels. I am against labels that are not based on reality, and are part of politics against men. When labels are used by a society in order control human lives forcing them to go against their nature or in order to misrepresent human traits, then they should better go.

I'm only for the very basic labels. Labels that are rooted in biology. Like one's gender identity. However, even within these more natural labels, the kind of polarization that is seen in western society should be avoided. So, the label 'man' may denote men with a male identity, but it should still have space for male femininity.

Then why do I see gays cribbing about there being not enough masculine guys in the gay community?

Also, what do you think about this article:

Why Can?t You Just Butch Up? Gay Men, Effeminacy, and Our War with Ourselves

(You can google this article on the net. I couldn't post the link).

Excerpts from this article written by a gay for the gays:

Note that the masculine males are psychologically trained to be heterosexual by artificially attaching masculinity with heterosexuality. The effeminate males are under no such pressure, so they happily go on to celebrate their desire for men.

Clarification: Being 'arty' may be seen as being effeminate in the West, but its not 'biologically' necessarily a feminine trait. There's feminine art and there's masculine art.


Because, I'm concerned about 'men' and this is an issue that affects men deeply. Because men have been broken from other men, and 'sexual orientation' is the biggest weapon that the modern society has to do this. Without intimacy between them, without male bonding, the man is isolated and vulnerable. Love between men is as much as a biological reality as is competition between them, and they balance each other out. The West has thrown away love between men in the 'gay' zone outside of mainstream, straight spaces and that leaves men with just cut throat competition amongst themselves. That's pretty unhealthy and harmful for men, who are also, now totally dependant on women for all their needs -- social, emotional, physical ... everything. And thus they become prone to be exploited by women. And prone to being exploited in the society generally. And that is what's happening in the world today.

a. It's not really me who is insisting on the 'gender' box. I would rather have no other identities than the ones that can be seen from the outside -- man and woman. But the reality is that there are several other biological identities, and feminine gendered males are a biological identity separate from 'men.' I would still gladly take them in as 'men' ... except that the feminine gendered males themselves are intent on a different identity.

So, in a society that doesn't really acknowledge their femininity the gays would then shift their focus on 'male desire for male' if that is considered close to having a 'female inner identity.' And for males with not so extreme femininity, who like men, a different identity, that accomodates their femininity, but the label says a less stigmatize thing (male desire for men) works practically the best.

So, in short, its my strong experience that feminine gendered males will always insist on a separate identity from men, and that is why I am insisting on the 'third gender' category. It's not for nothing that even the most original human societies based completely on human nature had this gender identity, as well as most non-Western society still have the 'third gender' identity. It's real. It's biological. It's not fabricated or useless like the 'sexual orientation.'


Masculinity and femininity are qualities that all of us have. Indeed, a native American saying goes, "All men are born with a small vagina and all women are born with a small penis." But, its also as much of a truth that we experience one of them as being our identity. Things are less complicated if I'm a male and my inner-sex (gender) is also strongly male. But when I have an inner sex which is strongly female, then I see myself as a different gender than men. I don't see myself as a man. I see myself as a woman, only my body is not female. You can't put me in the same category as males who have a strong male identity.

There are several people who have rather equal amounts of masculinity and femininity. But, they can usually fit themselves in the 'men's identity if it is not so constrictive about excluding male femininity. Unfortunately, the western men's spaces, though essentially queered (through heterosexualization) demand extreme outward masculine behavior from men, and this forces a number of males who would otherwise fit into the 'men's category, out from it. Especially, if they like men exclusively, because they've an option.

NM, you say that I am personalizing the issue, which is, you say, really objective and macrocosmic. Except that I have never heard anyone else make your argument before, and it doesn't really appear to be an issue that concerns or has even occurred to anyone I have ever met.

The article you cite wherein certain gay men bemoan a perceived lack of butchness in their community and an overabundance of swish is, first of all, an opinion rendered by the author about his community as he personally perceives it. It is no more persuasive of an objectively factual social phenomenon than an article in Vogue about the sudden prevalence of bridesmaid dresses being worn to Manhattan clubs is indicative of women worldwide suddenly choosing to wear nothing but bridesmaid dresses. There are trending phenomena in every community. At the turn of the 90s, I recall my gay friends in San Francisco bemoaning the pervasiveness of butchness, and how they missed the good old fashioned queens. These things come and go. Second of all, just because one article says there aren't enough butch gay men doesn't mean homosexuals are all effeminate and manly men need to learn to have sex with each other without categorizing themselves.

Do you have sociological studies? Anthropological studies? Historical documentation? Anything from a peer-reviewed journal?

You seem angry that your opinion is shut out of the gay world, but I don't see why that doesn't just mean gay people don't agree with you, and choose to perceive things differently. And unless you're gay, I don't know why it makes a difference.

Yes, I know you say that somehow manly men not being able to go around having sex with one another without somehow being gay destroys male intimacy and bonding. But I don't know how that is so. I have many male friends with whom I have a deep and intimate connection. And I have never desired to have sex with them, or felt that the connection would be so much better if only we could just have sex and yet somehow not be gay. I don't know that I have ever encountered anyone who did think that way.

Frankly, it sounds like you have love and sex and intimacy and gender identity all tangled up in a huge snarl. None of those things actually must always be entwined with any of the other things.

I think masculine, manly men can have deep, intimate connections with each other. They can be vulnerable and open with each other. There is nothing gay or straight about that. It just is.

I also think masculine, manly men can have sex with each other. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's also homosexual. If you prefer to not have a label and refuse to embrace the identity that comes along with the term "gay," fine. But it doesn't change that a man having sex with a man is, purely in clinical biological terms, homosexual activity.

I don't mean this in an attacking or offensive way, but it seems to me that the more we all get into this conversation, the further away from any recognizable reality your arguments get. Which makes me think that at base, this is something personal. If someone tells me that cucumbers are fruits and not vegetables, but are called vegetables for communist reasons, and that people everywhere are crying out for relief from the oppressiveness of having their produce labeled and categorized instead of just being the fruits or vegetables they are (or in some cases, a combination, the fruigetable, a third type of produce that communist grocers don't want you to know about, but everyone knew about before communism), but no one seems to understand the horror of the situation, even vegetarians...I'm going to end up thinking that this is not really about society and the politics of produce, this is about a certain individual's own issues with cucumbers.

I don't intend to be mean, or deliberately disrespectful. But I'm getting to the point of feeling like this is less a debate about social philosophy, and more about you needing to convince someone, anyone else that your issue with men, masculinity, and homosexuality is really external and objective.

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


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


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


Excerpts:

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

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

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

Excerpts from review at "the Free Library at Farlex"

Quote:

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

Book overview at google books:

A revolution in gender relations occurred in London around 1700, resulting in a sexual system that endured in many aspects until the sexual revolution of the 1960s. For the first time in European history, there emerged three genders: men, women, and a third gender of adult effeminate sodomites, or homosexuals. This third gender had radical consequences for the sexual lives of most men and women since it promoted an opposing ideal of exclusive heterosexuality. In Sex and the Gender Revolution, Randolph Trumbach reconstructs the worlds of eighteenth-century prostitution, illegitimacy, sexual violence, and adultery. In those worlds the majority of men became heterosexuals by avoiding sodomy and sodomite behavior. As men defined themselves more and more as heterosexuals, women generally experienced the new male heterosexuality as its victims. But women--as prostitutes, seduced servants, remarrying widows, and adulterous wives-- also pursued passion. The seamy sexual underworld of extramarital behavior was central not only to the sexual lives of men and women, but to the very existence of marriage, the family, domesticity, and romantic love. London emerges as not only a geographical site but as an actor in its own right, mapping out domains where patriarchy, heterosexuality, domesticity, and female resistance take vivid form in our imaginations and senses. As comprehensive and authoritative as it is eloquent and provocative, this book will become an indispensable study for social and cultural historians and delightful reading for anyone interested in taking a close look at sex and gender in eighteenth-century London.


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

Here are a few clues:

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

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

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

2. THIS IS HOW THE CONCEPT OF HOMOSEXUALITY ORIGINATED:

(a) The Term Homosexual, by Rictor Norton

Excerpts:

Quote:

The one person most responsible for the creation of the labels to be used in the discourse about homosexuality was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825–95). He was a German law student, secretary to various civil servants and diplomats, and a journalist – he was not a medical doctor. In May 1862 his acquaintance Johann Baptist von Schweitzer, active in the Social Democracy workers’ movement, was arrested for ‘public indecency’. Ulrichs wrote a defence and sent it to Schweitzer, but it was confiscated by the authorities. Ulrichs, who had been sexually attracted to men since his early teens, decided that now was the time to solve this ‘riddle’. In November 1862 Ulrichs told his relatives of his intention to publish a study of ‘The Race of Uranian Hermaphrodites, i.e., the Man-Loving Half-Men’. Ulrichs's ‘scientific’ inspiration was contemporary embryology, which had discovered that the sex organs are undifferentiated in the earliest stages of the development of the foetus. By analogy, homosexual desire was just as ‘natural’ as this containment of the opposite sex within the developing embryo. He believed that the ‘germ’ of the female sex could be retained in the fully developed male, creating a kind of psychic hermaphrodite or half-man: a feminine direction of the sex drive within a masculine sex. (This direct linking of sex organs to direction of sex drive is a common non sequitur.) After some refinements he settled on the phrase anima muliebria virili corpore inclusa – a feminine soul or mentality confined within a masculine body.

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

Excerpts:

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from Homosexulity in the Nazi party:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:eek: - :shakehead: - :expressionless:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me ask you this:

What do you want from us?

LISTEN TO THIS VERY, VERY CAREFULLY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what am i not seeing?

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

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

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

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

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

Freebirthing, anyone?

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

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

damn I wonder just how that Jenny Hatch is doing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me help you,

It is understood:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NM, define the "anti-man" agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's OP?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're probably a 'gay' chauvinist!!

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

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

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

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

what do you understand by valid?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Is this good timing or bad timing to mention Rishathra?


Rishathra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idyllic has the upper hand anyway. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, let's look at it mathematically:

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

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

This would make your own definition of Homosexual, as

Homosexual= the penetrated

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

You're contradicting your own definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Yes NM you have really said that.

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

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

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

They already do.

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

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

No, a homosexual person is a person who has chosen to accept that moniker to describe their personal sexual preference, they like sex with the same gendered partner. That’s simply their choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not what I said ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what you said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

THEREFORE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


True.

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

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

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

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

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

And what is it?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.'

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.

Move to Italy.

I have nothing else to offer,
sorry.

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?

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.

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” :eek: fuck that, dude, I kick yo’ ass, :p 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).

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.":rolleyes:

Another effeminate statement from you!!

"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

---

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

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.

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.

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. :thumbsdown:

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?

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.