Natural manhood

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.

levite

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?

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

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

Natural manhood

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.

Anonymous Member

Welcome Nm, great intro.

Natural manhood

Thank you, Anonymous

DaveOrion

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

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

ratbastid

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?

Daniel_

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

Welcome NM.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Baraka_Guru

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?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

snowy

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.

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

Idyllic

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?

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

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

FuglyStick

Hi!

And, no.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

Martian

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 wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Cynthetiq

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.

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

Natural manhood

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.'

rahl

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.

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

Natural manhood

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.

Idyllic

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.

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

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

DaveOrion

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!

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

Idyllic

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.

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

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

Natural manhood

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

DaveOrion

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

Natural manhood

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.

Idyllic

And yet:

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

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

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

levite

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.

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

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

Natural manhood

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.

rahl

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.

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

DaveOrion

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

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

Natural manhood

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 ... 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. 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?

rahl

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.

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

mixedmedia

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.

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

Idyllic

^^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

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

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

Natural manhood

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!!

rahl

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

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.

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

The_Jazz

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.

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

roachboy

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.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Natural manhood

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!! ... 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.

levite

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.

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

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

Natural manhood

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.

levite

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.

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

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