I invite all the masculine gendered males here to join me...

Discussion on what it means to be straight acting, whether it's good, bad or indifferent.

Moderators: selective_soldier, furface

Postby masculinity » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:31 am

Effeminate behaviour and passive sex are extremely stigmatized traits that just throw you out of the straight race for manhood, which is a matter of life and death for men. These are queer traits.

It is clear that Homosexuality is primarily about effeminate, passive sex, as all of the intense stigma and stereotypes related with homosexuality have to do with effeminacy and passive sex.

Why should men who are not interested in effeminate behaviour and passive sex (at least openly) be forced to accept a system that classifies them together with those who are effeminate and into passive sex, when their interest in men is clearly different, and originally belongs in the straight identity?
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Odeh » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:31 pm

There IS a subset of guys in the West who don't accept that system..they
are invisible and operate under the radar..they mostly have regular guy
associations..many like sports and bodybuilding...they know very little if
nothing about the gay subculture...

Socially they move in the straight world and with the internet and personal
ads they meet other guys without physically going into the gay spaces...
like bars or gay events.

Rather than dive into the gay world they meet guys one on one and they
seem not to have the particular baggage many in the gay world carry when
it comes to male relationships..

I guess its like the down-low guys or the guys in Brokeback Mountain..
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby masculinity » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:38 pm

Odeh wrote:There IS a subset of guys in the West who don't accept that system..they
are invisible and operate under the radar..they mostly have regular guy
associations..many like sports and bodybuilding...they know very little if
nothing about the gay subculture...

Socially they move in the straight world and with the internet and personal
ads they meet other guys without physically going into the gay spaces...
like bars or gay events.

Rather than dive into the gay world they meet guys one on one and they
seem not to have the particular baggage many in the gay world carry when
it comes to male relationships..

I guess its like the down-low guys or the guys in Brokeback Mountain..

Thank you for that information, and I think, instead of strengthening the anti-man, heterosexualized, 'gay' identity, masculine males should strengthen such systems like you've mentioned.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:01 pm

FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABOUT 'GENDER' AND NOT REALLY ABOUT SEXUALITY...

Homosexuals start feeling different from other boys right in their childhood, even before their sexuality develops. They relate with girls and their toys (dolls, etc.), rather than with the stuff that boys play with. They don't relate with the boys and so want to stay away from them.

Straight males who like men do not feel this different from other boys during their childhood. They have exactly the same childhood patterns as other straight males.

When homosexuals grow up, their non-relating with the boys also develops further and they just can't share the same identity as the boys/men. So, traditionally they've been taking the third gender idenitity (which says you're both a male and a female at the sametime). In heterosexual societies, this third gender identity is confused with a sexual desire for men and called 'homosexuals'. So, homosexuals end up thinking their feelings of being 'different' from men is because of their sexuality -- confused by what their society has told them.

They just can't accept that there are males, who go like men, but don't go through that feeling of being 'different' from other boys... who just feel like one of the them, and relate with them perfectly,... and that these boys when they grow into them, hate to be segregated from the rest and huddled with the 'different' boys, because they are all supposed to like men.

And that is why straight males fight with their sexual feelings for men, rather than accept the 'homosexual' label.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:04 am

Masculine male sexual need for men is not a 'sexual minority', and neither is penetrator status of men... it has been forcibly made so by the system of segregation on the basis of 'sexual orientation' practiced in the Western society.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Evidence that Gay=third gender, and Straight = Masculine

Postby masculinity » Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:56 am

Evidence from western society that as far as practical usage of the terms 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' is concerned, irrespective of the formal definitions and the claims of homosexuals...

Homosexuality is actually Queer male sexuality for men.
and
Heterosexuality is Masculine male desire for men.

What does it mean to be straight

Its clear that males who claim they are masculine and gay are either lying or not ready to face the real issues.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:43 am

Another thing that is seriously wrong with the concept of 'homosexuality'

What if I made a group on facebook of people who like potatoes and call those people 'potatophilics' then invite everyone to join it. Some people who like potatoes may join it, others may not care...

But, if this group becomes considerably popular, does it still give the potatophilics the right to say that you cannot like potatoes unless you're a member of our group?

Gays claim you cannot like men unless you're part of the gay community.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby mijopaalmc » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:39 am

masculinity-

If gender is an objective category
    why do some culture have only two genders, while others have three, four, or more?
    why do some cultures have gendered categories that are only temporary?
    why do some cultures have gendered categories that apply only to some segments of society?
User avatar
mijopaalmc
Newbie
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:04 pm
Location: Walla Walla, WA

Postby masculinity » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:33 am

mijopaalmc wrote:masculinity-

If gender is an objective category...


mijopaalmc wrote:
    why do some culture have only two genders, while others have three, four, or more?


Male Gender has been extremely heavily politicised throughout the past four or five thousand years. Because Male Gender is about manhood, which is the single most important thing in a masculine male's life. And hence, those who rule the society have been manipulating manhood (male gender) in order to force man to channelise his sexual energies solely into reproduction.

This politics is the reason why the third gender became heavily politicized too (and stigmatized) to serve as a punishment zone for men who failed to conform to manipulated manhood norms.

In nature there are about six human genders. But since this maybe complicated... most societies came to classify human gender into three parts -- man, woman and third gender, the third gender becoming a common space for people with all kinds of gender combinations that did not fit the masculine male and feminine female spaces.

However, its only the modern Western society, which has taken this politics and manipulation to the extreme by redefining the male gender space (manhood) completely in terms of arbitrarily fixed sexuality (heterosexuality), and the third gender space in terms of 'homosexuality'. The concept of sexual orientation was not possible without refusing to grant acknowledgement to human gender, because then you can't work with a binary gender system. That is why the modern western society, and its science conspired to do away with the human genders altogether and confused them with 'sexual orientation'.

However, this is just a conspiracy, and before the concept of sexual orientation came there were three genders in the West.

mijopaalmc wrote:
    why do some cultures have gendered categories that are only temporary?

I don't know what you mean. Can you give me an example?

mijopaalmc wrote:
    why do some cultures have gendered categories that apply only to some segments of society?

I don't know what you mean so if you can give me examples.

I know this happens in the West... only the heterosexuals are divided into straight heterosexuals and queer heterosexuals, while for the 'homosexual' category there is no formal division between straight and queer.

But then this is arbitrary, double standards and part of the politics against men. This is what I'm raising my voice against.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Odeh » Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:56 pm

Saw a program once here in the U.S they now have a gay national
network channel on television..24 hours a day, 7 days a week 365 days a
year..

Now one program what was about the "gay" sports teams who played
other "gay" teams and "straight" teams...Now these were the regular
rough sports rugby,basketball, football.."gay" being assumed liking men,
"straight" being assumed liking women..

Now from appearances if no one had said what their sexual orientation
was who knew?..they were all masculine appearing and acting...

It made me think that this is really about gender...if everybody likes rugby
why do you need a seperate "gay" rugby if everyone is there to play rugby? by instinct I felt this was an artificial division in that situation..

Knew someone (white american) who was stationed in West Africa
he liked men and women..and was attracted to black people..he adjusted very well to the culture there in which masculine men were very intimate
and he was normally masculine..

However, when he came back to the U.S., he felt like a fish out of water
and it was very hard to adjust back to American culture..The closest thing
he could find to what he experienced there was the black gay space here.

So it dawned on me this is really about gender and male intimacy issues not "sexual orientation" and that male intimacy is thrown to the gay area
and only allowed to express itself there.

So you might have a lot of actually straight guys in the gay space who
really don't belong there but it is an easy outlet..sexual orientation is too
fickle and complex to permanently classify people by...
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby solat » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:47 am

masculinity wrote:
mijopaalmc wrote:
    why do some cultures have gendered categories that are only temporary?

I don't know what you mean. Can you give me an example?


Fa'afafine. I've known a few that have been temporary.
User avatar
solat
Moderator
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:03 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby masculinity » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:13 am

solat wrote:
masculinity wrote:
mijopaalmc wrote:
    why do some cultures have gendered categories that are only temporary?

I don't know what you mean. Can you give me an example?


Fa'afafine. I've known a few that have been temporary.


Fa' afafine as an identity has been badly messed up by the westerners, and the Westernization/ Christianization of the Samoan Society (see Redefining Fa'afafine: Western Discourses and the Construction of Transgenderism in Samoa, by Johanna Schmidt). It has today become a 'homosexual' identity, whereas, in the past, most Fa 'afafine were 'heterosexuals' by Western definition.

I have never heard an account that you can be part-time fa ' afafine or be one for one part of your life and then change over to the 'male' identity.

However, if it were so, then my respect for these cultures will increase further, for they would have shown the maturity to allow fluidity in human identities.

Although, theoretically, I do believe that since gender is also a continuum, there would always be some people who would fit into both the worlds and may switch sides at different times of their lives. One's Gender orientation may also change with time. We don't know, but it's very likely, and if the society acknowledges and accomodates that, it shows its maturity.

I know that in India, there are some part time Hijras, who live married lives and have children, but for 15 days (or so) once a year, they go to a Hijra festival in Tamil Nadu, where they live as a Hijra. It doesn't negate the validity of the Hijra identity.

In fact, although the core of the third gender, gay community are the transgendered/ transexuals, the majority is filled by males who can only be called 'meterosexuals', i.e. who have both masculinity and femininity in sufficient amounts and they can fit into both the 'straight' and 'gay' worlds. And, if the straight world wasn't so repressive about male femininity and if it gave space to male sexuality for men, many of these 'gays' would have been 'straights'. These are people who can fit into both the worlds (I'm taking 'gay' and 'straight' as strictly gendered spaces, but I know that in reality, there is also the sexuality angle).

Just because there are people who would fit into both the worlds, doesn't mean that these gender identities are invalid. Gender orientation may also be in a spectrum, like sexuality, however, unlike sexuality, Gender lends itself into social identity, in a way, that sexuality by itself just cannot. In the West, they have just redefined the third gender (that is the same as fa' afafine space) as 'homosexuals'. Otherwise, it would never have worked.

And just imagine, can you expect masculine males to be fa' afafine just because they love men? But that is what the concept of homosexuality forces men to be, by cleverly playing politics with gender identities (and redefining them in terms of sexuality).[/url]
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:39 am

Odeh wrote:Saw a program once here in the U.S they now have a gay national
network channel on television..24 hours a day, 7 days a week 365 days a
year..

Now one program what was about the "gay" sports teams who played
other "gay" teams and "straight" teams...Now these were the regular
rough sports rugby,basketball, football.."gay" being assumed liking men,
"straight" being assumed liking women..

Now from appearances if no one had said what their sexual orientation
was who knew?..they were all masculine appearing and acting...

It made me think that this is really about gender...if everybody likes rugby
why do you need a seperate "gay" rugby if everyone is there to play rugby? by instinct I felt this was an artificial division in that situation..

Knew someone (white american) who was stationed in West Africa
he liked men and women..and was attracted to black people..he adjusted very well to the culture there in which masculine men were very intimate
and he was normally masculine..

However, when he came back to the U.S., he felt like a fish out of water
and it was very hard to adjust back to American culture..The closest thing
he could find to what he experienced there was the black gay space here.

So it dawned on me this is really about gender and male intimacy issues not "sexual orientation" and that male intimacy is thrown to the gay area
and only allowed to express itself there.

So you might have a lot of actually straight guys in the gay space who
really don't belong there but it is an easy outlet..sexual orientation is too
fickle and complex to permanently classify people by...

That's a fascinating observation.

One of the member of my masculine male group from the US narrated this to me yesterday. There was a straight Asian guy in his gym, which was actually a gym of the Asians, with a few white men in it, who was very open about flirting with both guys and girls. It was because in the non-western nations till a few years ago, most men were supposed to have a sexuality for men, apart from a sexuality for women, and to flirt with both genders was considered especially masculine (but if you were feminine, you'd be thought of as 'gay' and desiring passive sex)... so there was space in the Asian culture to flirt with boys, as long as it was not exclusive, and you got married when time comes and had children.

My white friend often was irritated by his open display of sexual interest in men, because he felt both uncomfortable and threatened (that they both may be considered 'gay', since they hung out together).

But, when my friend met the same guy after a few years, he found that that the guy had totally changed... now he did not flirt with guys at all, and only did so with girls. He had become completely heterosexualized. My friend figured that he might have had a bad experience in the US, because of his straight openness about sexuality between men, since in the West, its not 'straight' to do that, but 'queer'.

Apparently, what was straight, masculine (in fact, macho) and mainstream in his culture, was not so in the US. Is it something good about the US? Is it really more open and free than Asia? Is the entire concept of 'homosexuality' really good for 'man's desire for men'? or only for the third gender/ effeminate/ passive male desire for men?
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Odeh » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:46 pm

That is a very interesting concept separate sexuality for each gender...
I think the Asian guy grew out of his male flirting and the American male
culture with its gay stigma "helped" him grow out of it..he got Americanized.

One friend related to me that his cousin came to visit him in New York
from Syria..They both went to the gay section of the city and saw men
holding hands there...

The Syrian guy said "I didn't know American men had the same custom
we had I only thought we Arabs did that"....It was completely lost to him
that the men were holding hands because they were gay couples...

I would say America is an open society where it wants to be open..For instance there is a current popular song out by a woman called "I kissed
a girl" played on the mainstream stations..it is considered trying something
new..

A guy who made a record like that would be regulated to the gay channel
I mentioned and shown with the gay music videos...But at the same time
we just elected our first president of color here...(open where it wants to be open)...

I think in traditional non-western cultures where men and women can't make physical contact... in the West men and men can't make physical
contact except in gay areas..

I had met someone once who had recently arrived from Nigeria to study
at a University here..as I was friends with his cousin we automatically
became friends...(there is a big group concept in West African culture
(not me more we concept)...

So he invited me to go the movies one day and had only been in the U.S. one week..so as we are walking to the movie he takes my hand...I
understood the custom so I let it go for awhile..but then I told him that
two men can't hold hands in America they will think we are gay and will
beat us in the street..

He said.."I am your friend I don't understand what you are talking about"
what does this "gay" mean?...If that is the custom here..I won't do it...

This idea "only gay men hold hands" was totally beyond him...

This male flirting..I had Iranian friends who were good for that one they
would invite me to all-male drinking parties we would take turns dancing for each other and with each other in their homes...one Iranian friend
wanted to do maasti with me...I did not associate this behavior with being gay just being free like children...even though we were all adults..

Now the average American straight guy would NEVER do that that would be gay..or blame it on the beer...
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby masculinity » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:56 am

Odeh wrote:That is a very interesting concept separate sexuality for each gender...

1. It is actually not that great... because there are so many genders (at least three), the entire sexual orientation concept if applied honestly would create a lot of chaos (there would just be too many combinations). However, since the West has muddled man to man desire with the 'homosexuality' with its roots in male transgenderism (and the two have become inseparable), and the gays are intent on not letting go of this system, then it is only in the interest of masculine males to redefine 'homosexuality' as feminine/ passive male desire for men, rather than men's desire for men.

2. Feminine male desire for men and masculine male desire for men were never considered the same thing or the same sexuality in any of the cultures earlier. I mean Alexander would not be considered a 'catamite', Never... To call someone a catamite was to take away his honour, and it was reasonable to kill someone for saying that. But to desire men was not a dishonour, as it was the basis upon which the greek society was built upon.

Non-Western world, even today, considers masculine male desire for men to be a part of the 'normal', regular, straight male repertoire of desires. While it is the feminine/ passive male desire for males that is considered third sex or queer.

3. The ideal situation however, is, when there is only gender classification/ segregation without any sexuality element in it. So, masculine males are 'Men' whoever they may prefer... and feminine males are 'third gender', whoever they may prefer sexually. That is the way it was originally, as can be seen from various tribal communities.

Odeh wrote:I would say America is an open society where it wants to be open..For instance there is a current popular song out by a woman called "I kissed
a girl" played on the mainstream stations..it is considered trying something
new..

1. The Western society is playing a conspiracy against men (actually, it has only taken to the extreme the conspiracy which all societies play against men). And as part of this conspiracy, which is meant to weaken men, while men are being broken from other men (e.g. through the concept of sexual orientation), women are being given social space to be intimate with other women. It only shows the agenda of an extremely heterosexual, anti-man society, that America and the West represent.

2. Being selectively open is actually not being open at all. Half a truth is worse than a lie. While in the beginning of the modern era, the West started to give more and more sexual freedom to male-female sex, the natural scope of which is limited (as can be seen from mammalian behaviour in the wild), it also started to come down heavily on male to male sexuality. But since it was giving freedom to male-female sex on the basis of 'sexual openness', it could not really deny it to male-male sex. That is when it came up with the concept of 'sexual orientation', so that while it can be seen to give freedom to men to have sex with men, it made it almost impossible for masculine men to access that, since this freedom to men was given only in the 'queer' space, which is extremely stigmatized for men. Once this system was introduced into men's race for manhood, men promptly gave up sexuality for men and became exclusively heterosexuals.

2. It is not only being open about where you want to be open, it is also about thrusting something into existence which is not there naturally, and giving it enormous social space and power -- so that people force them selves to follow that behaviour (like exclusive heterosexuality).

Odeh wrote:A guy who made a record like that would be regulated to the gay channel I mentioned and shown with the gay music videos...

1. That is the general idea of associating man's sexual desire for men with the group of effeminate, passive males -- this helps you to sideline male to male intimacy into a marginalised space, and not allow straight people, especially young straight people access to it -- especially psychologically (You can see, how the straight identity will not associate itself with effeminate heterosexuals, who have to share an identity along with the gays as LGBT -- don't you see the conspiracy clearly here?).

2. I remember seeing on FTV, when they were showing almost naked men in a particular time slot, a caption would repeatedly say, that "women as well as some men liked the show". It was so stupid to say 'some' men -- but it showed the reluctance of the western world to even make it appear remotely that men in general can ever, even remotely enjoy such a show. It was more an attempt to block straight men psychologically to enjoy that show -- that 'some' men means the 'homos' is not lost on even young American kids.

Of course, the gays are happy with this arrangement, because they are effeminate and passive males basically, but for masculine gendered males this means oppression and a denial of social space to desire men.

Odeh wrote:But at the same time
we just elected our first president of color here...(open where it wants to be open)...

The Western society can be open in the other areas, but never in the area of male gender and sexuality. Especially, Heterosexuality -- with its great homo-hetero divide is the basis of the modern western society. And like any oppressive system, this system requires a censorship of truth, of all voices that dare to challenge this system... and although the US will accept and give freedom to terrorists, it will never allow a voice to those who challenge the heterosexual system.

Odeh wrote:I think in traditional non-western cultures where men and women can't make physical contact... in the West men and men can't make physical contact except in gay areas..

I don't think you can compare a 'lack of freedom' for open physical contact between males and females in the non-West with the oppression of straight male to male intimacy in the West for the following reasons:

1. Male-female sex has been given enormous social space, power and huge social benefits, long, long ago, with the emergence of the institution of marriage. Of course, most Westerners will not see this as giving any 'special benefits' because they are conditioned to see it as the most natural thing. But the facts are the facts and it can be shown through evidences from the wild as well ancient human societies.

The most important part of this power to male-female sex was to make it compulsory for males to submit to female sexuality, in order to be called a man. Because, otherwise he was punished by banishing him into the queer zone. (even today men can't say no to women, without feeling less of a man in the US itself)

This made men extremely vulnerable vis-a-vis women and gave huge powers to traditional women over men. But this power was invisible and never acknowledged because acknowlegding it would be to give away the game. However, because the society did not mean to unnecessarily hassle men, more than was necessary, it made certain checks on male-female sexuality, because it realised that otherwise, there would be gross misuse of the exrtaordinary powers and benefits bestowed upon it, especially upon the women.

That is why it put regulations on male-female display of sex, and especially on female sexuality for men. Male-female display of sex is still a matter of display of power for men. Have you ever displayed a sexuality for women in public (or even in private)? And have you noticed how macho it makes you feel from inside, and it shows in your behaviour? It is the social power bestowed to male display of sexuality for women doing its work here.

However, when you remove these regulations, like it happened in the West, male-female sex then becomes 'heterosexuality' and starts to abuse its enormous powers which are now unhindered. Then, like a monster it goes about to drive every other forms of human intimacy and bonds out of the mainstream... which it wants all for itself.

2. Male-male sex has long been banished for the most parts from most parts of the world... especially in the modern world... except for superficial 'masti' part. It was however, the fact that men's spaces had been strong, there were regulations on open display of male-female intimacy and especially upon female sexuality, that men secured for themselves the space to be socially intimate and partially sexually too, through masti. Now, stronger male to male sexual bonds survived in the mainstream, amongst straight men, in the disguise and safety of this widespread straight male intimacy -- without being acknowledged (and this non-acknowledgment of it gives the gays the power to say that straight men are exclusively heterosexual).

To deny men to even hold hands would be to totally oppress male to male intimacy, however to put regulations on male-female public intimacy is justified on the grounds that it has been accomodated, singularly, by driving out male to male sexuality altogether from social institutions (remember till the Greek times there was straight male marriage to men).

Odeh wrote:Now the average American straight guy would NEVER do that that would be gay..or blame it on the beer...

I will give you ample evidence that it still thrives in the American world, where the men's spaces get strong. In fact, straight men manage to create some space for it, inspite of all odds. But gays will never know that or be allowed access to it, because they are the third gender.

And here's more evidence than you can handle... :)

videos on ALL MEN HAVE A SEXUAL NEED FOR MEN
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:28 am

Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Odeh » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:08 am

Saw your videos!!...Very interesting!...Some observations.. In the U.S. as
far as the guys in the hotel...I never considered that any type of sexual
activity..just guys being guys playing around...and here in the U.S. it is the
same as the guys do on the campus in their frat houses...

The same with the soccer players..I always considered that normal and never thought of it in a sexual way...

In my mind..I just thought that is what team sports guys do and frat guys
do...

The Turkish wrestling..I just thought of that as wrestling...

Now the group pictures..here in the U.S. you might have some guys
embrace for the photos then you may not it depends on the individual

but with the guys sitting around close to each other...I don't think most
American guys would be laying that close to each other..

What was interesting was with the guys in the hotel..I noticed pictures of
women on the walls...

Now the girls trying to make the guy take his shirt off using the gay threat
on him...I told a woman off one time she tried to use a trick question to make me slip and say I was in a gay bar...I caught it and said "You people are obsessed with "gay" maybe something is wrong with you shut the hell up."

Now the guy on Oprah who was married..I have a lot to say about that and I will get back when I get my thoughts together...
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby masculinity » Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:02 pm

Odeh wrote:Saw your videos!!...Very interesting!...Some observations.. In the U.S. as
far as the guys in the hotel...I never considered that any type of sexual
activity..just guys being guys playing around...and here in the U.S. it is the
same as the guys do on the campus in their frat houses...

I think you've never been in a situation like this, nor perhaps can you see the suppressed sexuality that finds expression in non-acknowledged way in this. I have been in situations like this often... and I know that straight men, whenever and to whatever degree they get the freedom will go sexual with each other...

You don't find anything sexual in guys trying to strip another, wanting to see him naked? That's really strange coming from a country where to even hold another guy's hand is considered gay.

I think the problem with you and many other men here is that you don't really get the straight way of expressing such sexuality for men... You have to be in such situations with other straight men to understand these mechanisms. I can narrate at least thousand such straight situations from my life... What the western guys are doing here is exactly what the concept of Masti is all about. It's just not accepted as such in the West, because there is not even that space for straight men. So, it is done in the name of playing pranks... but do you see, that it goes on all across the globe.

Please understand, that straight men need an excuse to express their sexuality for men, an excuse that can mask their sexual need, because they must not acknowledge this need in any way -- because that would make them 'gay'.

Like I said, I can narrate at least thousand such straight situations/ interactions from my life... and I have often explored this unacknowledged touching and masti thing further to test its limits... and I can tell you, as long as you don't acknowledge things... you can take this to such deep extent, that perhaps even these straight men didn't know was possible... I mean did you not read a few of my expriences on crowded Indian buses? I have often explored such straight disguisedly sexual interactions in my social environment like in my different work places... please read my experiences on another thread... In my last office by around this time last year..., I was involved in some way with almost all of the young and good looking straight guys in the office. And, they would go to any extent to which I wanted to take the thing... as long as it was unacknowledged. Being a 'relationship' guy (and I never really have sex, because none of these relationsihps could actually go as far as sex for various reasons, but there was everything else), I would end up being emotionally involved with these guys, and almost in all of these cases the other guy got emotionally involved too. One of them even went as far as offering to leave his girlfriend, indirectly, (when I found out he was having a secret affair with one of my colleagues). But, in all such situations, the thing unfortunately ended, when because we got so deeply involved and there was a strong jealousy angle on both the sides, that it was not possible for me to go on without verbalising and acknowledging the bond. And I have acknowledged our relationships with several straight men, often writing long letters to them narrating everything. This is when their limits end. They would get intensely involved as long as you don't acknowledge, but the moment you do, they would not want to go further .. first they'll try to ignore the acknowledgment... and if you insist on acknoweldging and claim that they have also been sharing the sexual desire for you... they'd just leave, even when its extremely painful for themselves. They tried to ignore it even when I presented them with letters acknowleding our intense relationship, and pretended that they read nothing and would want to go on as before... they impress upon you that they don't appreciate verbalizing because it is against the 'man-code', there is just no social space to do it. But, for me, things would have come to such a point, where verbalizing wasd important, so I would insist, and when I'd get irritated in the end I'd just break the relationship. The straight men would try not to break the relationship as long as they can save it.

It has been the same story over and over and over again, at least a dozen times... each time I pushed this 'straight' touching stuff further... and this happened every year with a new guy... and I chose the straightest and the most handsomest guy in my environment, after indirectly rejecting the secret offers of the others... I've seen the straight men get more and more and more involved, and then struggling with intense emotions and desires, they never wanted to see in them.

You must understand that straight men, even when they are extremely instensely involved with a guy, will not talk about or acknowledge their desire for him openly. They will express their flirting, their lust, their jealousy, their hurts, their complaints, their cajoling, their fights -- everything silently... indirectly... without ever talking about it. But, when you're in relationship with a straight guy, you know it... its like only you two know what's going on, but he will never talk about it even with you... (I'll post some of the incidents in the following posts).

I think the problem is that you expect these guys to show their sexual desire for men openly... you will only accept that these men have a sexual desire for men, if they hold hands with each other and kiss each other or say I want to have sex with you... it just doesn't happen that way with straight men in heterosexualized societies. It shows a lack of understanding of the pressures that straight (i.e. masculine) men go through in heterosexual societies and in the manner in which straight men give expression to their remaining sexual need for men (after killing off the rest). And it shows a blind belief in the artificial straight and gay boxes created in the West.

Why do you think frats do those things to each other, strip them, make them do sex, sexually humiliate them, have sex with them and what not? Aren't straight men supposed to turn up their noses at the thought of seeing another guy naked?

Why do you think the US army would want to strip Iraqi boys whenever they could? Sexuality is not only about kissing and being openly mushy, when there is no space for such positive sexual expressions, men often give vent to it negatively or in disguised manner..

I was basically enlightened about this universal male sexuality for men, and how it is expressed in such seemingly non-sexual ways and situations on the buses in India... where almost 100% of young straight men would feel up other guys as part of this seemingly non-sexual touching, but at the same time trying to make it seem casual. The more traditional areas you go to, the more open this touching becomes. E.g. in outer areas of Delhi, if a good looking straight guy standing next to you felt that you liked his touch, he would easily come round to placing his hands in such a way (I'm giving a real example, something like this happens in almost every such situation) that it will touch your crotch... I'd get an erection often, and the touching would go on... If I would not want to let him do that (because I was often in a relationship with a straight guy and didn't want to be disloyal to him), I'd try to get out of that situation, without it seeming rude (because men don't like being spurned in this way by other men)... I'd move away slightly, but this time place my elbow upon his crotch in such a casual way (as I'd now be standing on a lower step while he'd be on the upper step, so that my elbow, if placed rightly will touch his crotch... (but no one will acknowledge what is going on). I won't imagine using my hands, because in my part of westernized Delhi, using hands is considered 'gay,' it seems more casual when you use your elbow, and is within the straight limit, (as long as nothing is acknowledged). In the non-westernized parts, the men are more available, and you probably can verbalize a bit and the two of you can go off to have sex -- as innumerable accounts of gays I've counselled tell me -- but if you do, you'd most probably be seen as 'gay', while they will be the 'men' (straight men don't go farther than this touching and feeling up quietly in crowded places -- there is just no social space as 'striaght' men for anything further -- and that is why I, as a straight man have not been able to do it too). Only 'gays' acknowledge and verbalize. But in westernized parts, if a gay male were to turn around and ask him if he'd be interested, he'd look at me funny and say, I must be out of my mind. Although, in practice, there are a few straight males too, who seem to be very open.

The amazing part is I am not considered 'gay' for indulging in all these 'sexual' touching (but what looks harmless from the outside) and even in the deeper romantic relationships with the straight men. None of the several straight guys I got intensely romanticallly involved with (and the involvment was equally strong on both the sides) ever thought of me as 'gay', since I was masculine and one of them. Doing what I was doing was straight behaviour as long as it was not acknowledged -- not even to each other, not even to self -- so that it doesn't seem 'gay' (you see, straight men just hate to do anything that is considered 'gay', and although, getting romantically involved is also 'gay', but I put them in a difficult situation, that they'd never expected they'd find themselves in -- by getting them inadvertently involved in an intense romantic relationship, only because ALL MEN HAVE A SEXUAL NEED FOR OTHER MEN -- they never expected me to do this, since I'm one of them, they expected me to follow the 'man-code' -- however, once involved, they'd go on as long as this romantic bond was only acknowledged as 'friendship' -- never considering either of us as 'gay') ... they'd never want to be alone with me, always setting up for us to sleep together with a group (something I hated). I also found them fighting hard with their emotions for me, and deliberately crushing any intimacy that had inadvertently built up.

However, they would only consider me 'gay' when I'd acknowledge our relationship... but in fact, even then, not till they saw me as being uninterested in girls. Almost all of them have told me that they need to 'see' girls because otherwise they won't be considered men. Like this guy I asked to stop seeing girls as long as he was 'friends' (lover) with me, remarked, "You want me to even stop looking at girls... you want them to think I'm a namard (a non-man/ half-male, half-female/ queer)."

After consciously experiencing such immense sexuality for men amongst straights (most straight men do it subconsciously), I don't ever believe any straight man when he says he never had any sexual feelings for men -- although, it is possible that in heterosexual western societies, he never met a man that would want to provoke the suppressed need for men in him. When men do not go through that experience, it helps them to have a strong heterosexual identity hateful of male to male intimacy. I think, a lack of a strong latent sexual need for males is only possible in transgendered guys (which is opposite to what the West preaches).

The guy that I had the most intense relationship with... and the most open... he came round to accepting that he loves me, but that I'm the only guy that he has ever felt attracted to... but that was when he was extremely vulnerable, being almost in love with me... he couldn't get out of that situation because we were living together for a month... he was so extremely attracted to me that he would get an erection, whenever I even touched him intimately or was in close contact with him (like sitting together on a bike). I was forcing him to acknowledge his attraction for me, even after he told me he loves me... he said he started to love me only now that we were together, but I wanted him to accept that he was in love with me since the beginning (because, I suspected that he may have been messing around with girls even after meeting me). He wouldn't accept that. Then he left me for ten days to go back to his town (he had come to live with me for a year from another town), promising to come back... but he never did. Well, he did come back when I forced him to, but he was not the same person. In the time, that he spent without me, he fought his emotional dependency on me and managed to bring himself himself to a state where he could negotiate with me to have a relationship with me without having to acknowledge his desire. When he came back he said, he has never liked me and that he doesn't like any men at all. But he kept trying to make very open signals that he wanted to be sexual. And I kept insisting that he accepts that he likes me. It was when he told me that he had had sex with a girl, after meeting me (however that was in the months that we had separated), that I finally put an end to our bond... I just couldn't take it. He left, but even while seeing him off onto the train, I kept fighting with him and pointing out all the things that he did to me, all our sexual and romantic instances that were unacknowledged... and claiming that he did love me...

His words still resound in me loud and shrill, whenever I hear a straight man say the same, "I HAVE NO SEXUAL INTEREST IN MEN", "I DON'T LIKE MEN," ...

If I had not been in an intensely romantic relationship with him, I would have believed him, like most gays tend to believe straight men when they claim the same. In fact, when he said this he seemed so convincing that at least for one moment it seemed that he was telling the truth. Anyone who heard me, except me, would be sure that he is telling the truth, and that I'm in the wrong... and forcing him to accept a need he is not 'naturally' capable of having, since he is straight.

But I knew the truth. I had seen the part of him that probably even he didn't knew existed in him before he met me, I'd aroused his suppressed sexual need for men, that ALL MEN HAVE BY NATURE, but are forced to suppress and not let develop by heterosexual societies, especially by threatening to send them to the queer group through the system of 'sexual orientation'.

Yet, even when we knew we were seeing each other for the last time, as I saw him off on the train and fought over whether he likes me or not, he asked me to go back on a cab, and not in a bus. Because buses were too crowded, and we both hated the other to be touched by others, even casually in the crowd.

Surprisingly, this intense jealousy and possessiveness, that westerners, especially gays can't relate with, has been a feature of all my straight bonds -- but never acknowledged or expressed directly in words.

I have lost lover after lover in this fight between society and NATURAL NEED OF ALL MEN. The traditional Indian society was oppressive for men enough, but when they started to heterosexualize/ westernize our society, after letting in multinationals, foriegn money and especially western media, which started to force the concept of sexual orientation on us, and claiming that gays are the ones who have sexual interest in men, not straight, normal, regular men, it was then that I knew things are going to get extremely bad.

I can't date gays... because I know gays are not men, and I want to be with a man, in a true man-to-man bond. A man who is part of the men's group, not the queer group. And, almost all of my straight lovers felt the same about the queers (although, I'm sure there are many who like queers). And since the Western society has taken away my space to do that... it makes me angry, and have devoted my life to fighting this system of sexual orientation which makes this oppression of men possible. I have seen my straight lovers in intense pain, torn apart by their social conditioning and the threat of being banished into the 'queer' zone on one hand and their intense sexual/ romantic involvement with me on the other. There is still a lot of space to have sex with men, unacknowledged, after you've proven your interest in girls and bashed 'gays' a bit, but not to have a committed, loyal, romantic bond with them. And I don't want just sex.

Odeh wrote:The same with the soccer players..I always considered that normal and never thought of it in a sexual way...

In my mind..I just thought that is what team sports guys do and frat guys
do...

Unless we learn to see the various ways in which sexual need for men comes out, when there is no other valid space, only then can we appreciate the true depth of such needs that straight guys have, and only then can we really understand the true nature of oppression of straight men.

I think, this inability to see sexuality in these intimacies is that (apart from the fact that it is disguised, indirect and not acknowledged, and the men doing it have 'heterosexual' labels and lifestyles), is that for men, including gays, who relate sexuality between men only with anal or oral sex, fail to see that sexuality can be expressed much more intensely in various other ways. For me, (and I guess for most other straight men as well), for instance, I have never wanted to indulge in any kind of anal or oral sex (and its not a cultural or religious abhorence, its just natural)... my sexuality for men, revolves around seeing men naked, touching them, being physically and emotionally intimate with them (actually, I want just one), mutual masturbation, feeling them up and such stuff (actually, I do feel bad talking about this... like a whore or a 'gay', but I guess, its important to say this). I do see, all the religious injunctions that apply to homosexuals as irrelevant to me personally... as well as all the laws against homosexuality, which the homosexuals are fighting all over the world -- because they only stigmatize anal or oral sex. (I'm not making the point that anyone who indulges in anal/ oral sex, even passive sex is necessarily 'homosexual'). In fact, the truth is homosexuality doesn't refer to merely sexuality between men. It actually refers to passive as well as anal/ oral sexuality with men, which I'm not into. So, my problem is actually, when my open interest in men is confused with homosexuality, and I have to share their stigma, which is unfair.

I mean I have seen men exploiting or at least sexually touching other men in such seemingly non-sexual situations, such as medical situations... including when a previous lover broke a leg... and was admitted in the emergency and had to be taken care of for everything... e.g., when everyone kept thrusting their hands into his underwear to lift him, when its a completely unacceptable thing to do, when they only needed to lift him by his belt... and he kept protesting, because I was around and he knew how it will rip my heart apart... (because I so wanted to see him naked, but it was almost impossible for me to do that, and we had to work so hard for some kind of sexual intimacy together -- and now almost everyone was getting something that was so priced -- he was extremely handsome, and there is almost no nudity between men).

The problem is also, that straight men disguise their expressions of sexuality for men, and medical situations provide a very good disguise... that others, e.g. gays, women, and those who see sex as only anal/ oral or an acknowledged process... or those who have not gone through a male bonding process as an equal, for whatever reason... very well fail to see, because they don't expect to see it, which is further obscured by a 'straight' identity... which creates a great illusion behind which such expressions of straight men's sexuality for men are rendered totally invisible -- and straight men actually need this invisibility... and they take great pains to create this invisibility, e.g. by bashing the 'gays' to have a more real looking 'heterosexual mask.'

Odeh wrote:The Turkish wrestling..I just thought of that as wrestling...


The blog is not saying that the Turkish wrestling is an evidence of universal male sexuality for men. (But it does show that real men are not afraid of intimacy with men). I am sure, it is not in the blog url that I gave you. Its on a different blog, about masculine male traditions... to show that masculine male traditions in the past have always involved a lot of physical contact, the kind that is considered 'gay' in the West.

Odeh wrote:Now the group pictures..here in the U.S. you might have some guys
embrace for the photos then you may not it depends on the individual

but with the guys sitting around close to each other...I don't think most
American guys would be laying that close to each other..

The pictures are taken from sources that talk about how men used to be a lot intimate with each other in pre-sexual orientation US. I think though, you're confusing the blog about male sexuality for men with the blog that shows non-sexual men's spaces and bonds.

Odeh wrote:Now the girls trying to make the guy take his shirt off using the gay threat
on him...I told a woman off one time she tried to use a trick question to make me slip and say I was in a gay bar...I caught it and said "You people are obsessed with "gay" maybe something is wrong with you shut the hell up."

The point is, do you realise what kind of pressures straight men live under to have sex with women... and to disown a sexual need for men, to be heterosexual that is, if they are to remain a man, if they are to remain in the race for manhood? Because, if they don't, the society has built mechanisms, where people -- like women, gays and some others -- will immediately isolate and stigmatize them as 'gay'. The feminine gendered gays may not have a problem with this, but for masculine males it is a fate worse than death.

How fair is it to take the 'heterosexual' facade of straight males as 100% genuine, unquestioningly? As if it represents the genuine sexual need of straight men, just as the gay identity represents the sexual need of the 'gays'. The gays chose their identity... the straights have no choice. 'Gay' is not a choice for them -- not because it involves men liking men, but because it is about being queer, not men.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:08 pm

The concept of 'homosexuality' and the 'homosexuals' are based upon the 'heterosexual ideology' and are an integral part of it. The heterosexual ideology believes that human male is primarily, exclusively and innately heterosexual, except for a few 'abnormalities' (these abnormalities basically refer to 'effeminate males' -- since the concept of homosexuality is based upon them -- and they today use more politically correct terms for this abnormality -- sexual minority, 'alternate', 'different', etc.).

The effeminate, third gender males believe this heterosexual ideology, that equates masculinity with liking women and femininity with liking men, because it suits their own experience of desiring men. They are O.K. with being a considered 'different', 'alternate', etc... but masculine males are not comfortable with this entire system.

Just to understand how much the homosexuals are part of the heterosexual agenda, just suggest on a gay forum that heterosexuality may not be as natural, or that men are not really geared for emotional intimacy with women and see how the homosexuals get rubbed the wrong way. And nothing threatens the gays and their identity more than the suggestion that All men may have a sexual need for men -- because, then their 'difference' is automatically null and void. You would think that a population that is supposed to represent men's sexual need for men -- even if they find it unbelievable, would at least not be agitated by this suggestion.

However, the fact is that the homosexuals DO NOT represent man's sexual need for men, nor are they Men who like men. They are queers who like men, and they will keep tainting men's sexual need for men in their own queer colour.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Odeh » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:44 pm

I wonder if this hetro ideology might influence the average American mind
in that that mind considers intercourse or oral as "real sex" and other
expressions as playing around? That is why in the videos..my initital react
tion was they are playing around...

Were any of the guys actually raped? as that is a criminal offense...

Now this thing on Oprah..the subject in question the regular guy leaves his
wife because he likes guys...I find it interesting that the man is sitting between 2 effeminate gay guys and a woman..and that these guys seem
to have been brought on as experts on the topic to both the man in
question and Oprah...

My thought was what do these guys possibly know that can help this man?
It would have been more logical to bring on another regular guy who left
his wife because he likes guys..I would think another regular guy would
have similiar life experiences the subject can relate to..
Odeh
Member
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:11 pm

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:44 pm

Odeh wrote:I wonder if this hetro ideology might influence the average American mind
in that that mind considers intercourse or oral as "real sex" and other
expressions as playing around? That is why in the videos..my initital react
tion was they are playing around...

Actually, in the accounts of my experiences above, the most important insights about straight male love for men were about the current love of mine... But, I cut those portions out, as I'm very superstitious and thought writing about him would affect the course of my love, which was at a very crucial stage, after nearly nine or so months.

I finally lost him to the cruel world again. The anti-man society won again, and I lost again. I really loved him, but he loved me too, but he just won't cross the social line of gay and straight and acknowledge that love.

Odeh wrote:Were any of the guys actually raped? as that is a criminal offense...

Again, I think when you say 'rape' it seems you're talking about anal sex... I think it hardly ever gets to that point. The idea is to see the man naked... to touch and feel his penis... I think straight male sexuality for men often comes down to that, and whatever need they may have for anal or oral sex is not given any vent usually.

But, I know that there are three things men really enjoy doing to men:

- Watch him naked, watch his dick, touch his dick.

- masturbate him

- Sexually humiliate him by doing the above in public.

The third thing seems to give a huge kick to straight men (including myself)... and it is because of the way straight men and their bodies are treated in the society... and because of what the roles of manhood force a man to do with their bodies and sexuality...a lot of sexual lust comes to hinge on this... and this is a regular feature of many straight male to male interactions... indeed, there is a whole industry around Forced male nudity of all kinds... including medicals, hazing and strip searches... things that are not outwardly about sexuality, but they give ample space and 'cover-up' to be sexual with men in the above three preferred ways.

In fact, this is the reason, why in all my straight relationships with men, we were both intensely jealous of the other being touched even medically by a man (or worse a woman)... because, straight men realise, how such situations are unacknowledged 'sexual' spaces.

Odeh wrote:Now this thing on Oprah..the subject in question the regular guy leaves his
wife because he likes guys...I find it interesting that the man is sitting between 2 effeminate gay guys and a woman..and that these guys seem
to have been brought on as experts on the topic to both the man in
question and Oprah...

My thought was what do these guys possibly know that can help this man?
It would have been more logical to bring on another regular guy who left
his wife because he likes guys..I would think another regular guy would
have similiar life experiences the subject can relate to..

Very valid observations.

The problem is, the West is blinded by the concept of homosexuality, which considers the man's sexuality for men to be the same as those of the two queens sitting on both the sides of the man.

And the homosexuals are made to feel by these strong social forces that they do represent all male sexuality for men... that there is no difference between their need for men and a (straight) man's need for men.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby vbksound » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:58 pm

Odeh:
the Oprah episode is a perfect example of how the west ignores the gender element in "sexual Orientation" and goes on as if "gay" just means any man who happens to like a man.
No. anyone who has been to a gay bar knows that most of the men there move and act like women, and this is the most significant thing about them, not what they do in bed. Any westerner who brings this up is shouted down as "promoting stereotypes," and presented with a few unusual minority cases where the stereotype is defied, as if that settles it.
The only acceptable space to discuss these basic differences is in jokes about 'that looks gay" or whatever.
Gay is a de facto transgender Identity.
User avatar
vbksound
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Rockville MD

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:20 pm

vbksound wrote:Odeh:
the Oprah episode is a perfect example of how the west ignores the gender element in "sexual Orientation" and goes on as if "gay" just means any man who happens to like a man.
No. anyone who has been to a gay bar knows that most of the men there move and act like women, and this is the most significant thing about them, not what they do in bed. Any westerner who brings this up is shouted down as "promoting stereotypes," and presented with a few unusual minority cases where the stereotype is defied, as if that settles it.
The only acceptable space to discuss these basic differences is in jokes about 'that looks gay" or whatever.
Gay is a de facto transgender Identity.


In fact, I think its funny that all males are called 'men' in the West. The traditional society made a distinction between masculine males and feminine males by calling the first 'Men' and the second "third gender'.

Now, the West may have obliterated that clearcut gender difference, but in practise, the difference is very much there, and so the males, who are now all "Men", nevertheless get divided, sometimes formally, sometimes informally, into 'lesser men' and 'Real men', 'gay' and 'straight', etc.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:25 pm

masculinity wrote:
vbksound wrote:Odeh:
the Oprah episode is a perfect example of how the west ignores the gender element in "sexual Orientation" and goes on as if "gay" just means any man who happens to like a man.
No. anyone who has been to a gay bar knows that most of the men there move and act like women, and this is the most significant thing about them, not what they do in bed. Any westerner who brings this up is shouted down as "promoting stereotypes," and presented with a few unusual minority cases where the stereotype is defied, as if that settles it.
The only acceptable space to discuss these basic differences is in jokes about 'that looks gay" or whatever.
Gay is a de facto transgender Identity.


In fact, I think its funny that all males are called 'men' in the West. The traditional society made a distinction between masculine males and feminine males by calling the first 'Men' and the second "third gender'.

Now, the West may have obliterated that clearcut gender difference, but in practise, the difference is very much there, and so the males, who are now all "Men", nevertheless get divided, sometimes formally, sometimes informally, into 'lesser men' and 'Real men', 'gay' and 'straight', etc.

If you disregard something natural and real, it will come back disguised as something else... just like in the West, Gender has come disguised as 'sexuality' in the form of 'Sexual Orientation', and the 'gay' and 'straight' division.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:34 am

Males have always been divided into two genders. Since the dawn of the human civilization, this division has been on the basis of the male's gender, i.e., inner sense of being a male or female.

A male with a masculine gender was a 'man', while a male with a feminine gender was 'third gender' (i.e. male from outside, female from inside).

The modern West has sought to deliberately confuse this gender difference by saying gender doesn't exist and is only a social construct, while attributing the gender differences between males to 'sexuality' or 'sexual orientation'. Thus the West is basically saying that some males are 'different' (read effeminate) not because of their inner sex or Gender, but because of whom they like sexually.

Thus the earlier 'manhood' or 'man' group is now allocated to 'heterosexuality', while the feminine male gender is confused with what they term as 'homosexuality'. This confusion is not a mistake, but a deliberate politics, meant to discourage masculine males from forming same-sex bonds and intimacies, in order to empower 'heterosexuality'.

In the pre-modern times, this politics was played with masculine males basically in order to pressurize their sexual energy solely into reproduction. But in the modern world, where the world no more need more population, the motive behind this politics is to help the Forces of Heterosexualization which have become extremely powerful during the past few thousand years, due to the disempowering of men (breaking men from men) because of the obsession of societies with reproduction.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

PreviousNext

Return to Straight Acting Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron