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

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

Postby masculinity » Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:34 am

It's as simple as that:

- All men have a sexual need for men, especially those in the straight space.

- Straight is not about liking women, but about being masculine, regular, mainstream male.

- Being masculine, in nature, is not about liking women, but about liking men. (Gays also like men, but their liking is superficial, only limited to the 'sex' part, promiscuous, and non-serious, while romantic bonding between two men is more solid, constant and lends itself to long-term, actually lifelong bonding).

- Gay is not about men likingliking me men, but about queers liking men.

- Queer is not about sexuality, but about being feminine gendered.

- If Queer heterosesxuality is not part of 'straight' but of GLBT, then it automatically follows that Straight men who like men can only belong in the Straight group, and not the LGBT.

- Straight men have no natural phobia against male-male sexual or social intimacy. On the contrary, they are inclined towards it. The phobia is socially engineered by the Western heterosexual society, and most of it is just, plain pretense, while the rest is a social phobia or distaste, which ironically, exists alongwith natural attraction towards men.

- As long as men's spaces are strong, that is, it is not heterosexualised by bringing women into it (who have a lot of social power over men, since men cannot say 'no' to them sexually, without losing their manhood/ straighthood), men do not allow the forces of heterosexualisation to isolate man-to-man sexuality from amidst its spaces as 'gay', or 'queer' or 'homosexual'. It's only when the men's spaces are destroyed that men become isolated and weak, and the trait of man to man sexuality is then driven out of men's spaces (where it has been thriving in privacy for ages), and thrown into the third-sex, queer, "homosexual space". While the third sex, 'homosexuals' are only too happy to claim it all as their own, and resist any attempt by straight men to reclaim any of it back.

- that the concept of sexual orientation is invalid, oppressive, anti-man, Western, without any historical or biological basis, and the real division of people is not between "heterosexual" and "homosexual", but as "men", "women" and "third sex". And this goes for all societies -- even the Western ones, which have wiped out the concept of the third sex.


KEEPING ALL THE ABOVE THINGS IN MIND, I INVITE ALL MASCULINE GENDERED MALES HERE TO COME AND JOIN ME BY DISCARDING THE 'GAY' IDENTITY HENCEFORTH, AND ADOPTING THE STRAIGHT IDENTITY.

(a) It's important to take on the straight identity, and not just discard the 'gay' idenitity, because, the forces of heterosexualisation, including the gays, will keep isolating you as not part of the 'straight' male group, as 'gays' who are not 'comfortable with their sexuality'. If you call yourself straight, they will have no power to impose the gay identity on you.

(b) Remember, you're taking the straight identity, because it actually means masculine gendered (or predominantly masculine gendered) and it doesn't actually mean heterosexual (even if defined as such). So, taking on the straight identity doesn't mean you have to have relationships with women or leave those with men. You can be exclusively into men, and be more of straight than any other straight guy. That's the way its always been.

(c) Remember, to be masculine, you don't have to be chest beating macho. You just need to be normal, non-feminine guy, who doesn't relate with the queerness or effeminacy of the 'gay' space, and feels more at home in the straight space. Also remember, that due to the immense social femininity of the 'gay' identity, in many otherwise masculine males with a slightly more femininity, their natural femininity may be highlighted into focus, making them feel either less masculine or giving them some mildly feminine traits, which may make them feel different than straight men. However, had it not been for the social femininity imposed through the gay identity, they would not have been 'different'. If you feel, you're one of them, then too, you are welcome to join me.

Do visit my website at:

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
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 qwertz » Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:34 pm

I would rewrite it as follows:

It's as simple as that:

- All men have a sexual need for men.

- Masculine is not about liking women, but about following ones deepest instincts and not the badest societal "instincts".

- Being masculine, in nature, is not about liking women, but about avoiding societal deformations, especially the anti-male-to-male-sex societal deformation. It is about accepting promiscuous and fetishistic sex between men as well as the most romantic sex and lifelong bonding between men.

- Gay is a concept originated in a certain context (the American context, not at all the Western context).

- Queer is good as long as you feel good in it in the context where you live.

- Queer is not male-to-male love or sex. It has its own merits, but has nothing to do with male-to-male love or sex.

- Masculine men have no natural phobia against male-male sexual or social intimacy. On the contrary, they are inclined towards it. The phobia is socially engineered by monotheism imported in the West from the East, and most of it is just, plain pretense, while the rest is a social phobia or distaste, which ironically, exists along with natural attraction towards men.

- As long as men's spaces are strong, that is, it is not "heterosexualised" (= not mixed up) by bringing women into it (who have a lot of social power over men, since men cannot say 'no' to them sexually, without losing their "manhood/straighthood"; only the very strongest males have no need to prove their "straighthood"), men do not allow the forces of "heterosexualisation" to isolate man-to-man sexuality from amidst its spaces as 'gay', or 'queer' or 'homosexual'. It's only when the men's spaces are destroyed that men become isolated and weak, and the trait of man to man sexuality is then driven out of men's spaces (where it has been thriving in privacy for ages), and thrown into the "third-sex" (in India the hijras), "queer, homosexual space". While the "third sex", 'homosexuals' or 'hijras' are only too happy to claim it all as their own, and resist any attempt by masculine men to reclaim any of it back.

- the concept of sexual orientation is invalid, oppressive, anti-man, without any historical or biological basis, and the real division of people is not between "heterosexual" and "homosexual", but as "men" and "women".


(a)Never talk about "gay" or "straight". "Heterosexual" and " homosexual" do not exist. They are illusions created by monotheistic religions. Monotheistic religions, as mishaps of phallic religions forcing to worship a masculine god, have no other choice than repressing male-to-male love and sex. The only desire of monotheistic religion is to turn phallic worship into a total abstraction.

(b) Remember, you're taking the masculine identity, because it actually means gendered as you are (or predominantly masculine gendered) and it doesn't actually mean "heterosexual" (even if defined as such).

(c) Remember, to be masculine, you don't have to be chest beating macho. You just need to be normal (you can be feminine if you want to; showing feminity in a macho world is typically masculine).


I think I could agree with you if you wouldn't use the words "West" or "Western" , "gay" or "straight", "heterosexual" or "homosexual" in your texts. They are abstractions created by an abstraction(=monotheism), which was imported in the West and has nothing to do in the West whatsoever (if it had had any roots in the West, it wouldn't have collapsed in the West like it has since the last two centuries).
qwertz
Member
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:58 pm

Postby darkwolf » Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:23 pm

first off id have to say the rewrite is much better, and second, it is a good idea but as long as monotheistic religion is around and in control of most things, which it seems to be slowly being dethrowned. your goina have the titles, man-man gay man-woman straight. plain and simple. personally i dont let it bother me. when ya let things like that bother, thats when the trouble starts. they can call me names all they want, ill just smile at them and tell them to have a nice day, cause in the end, i know im goin to be goin to a better place while there burning in what ever hell they believe in. thats the way i see it, so call me gay, queer, whatever. i know who i am and thats all that matters, im not quite sure if this is even where you wanted this post to go but thats just what i got from it.




as a side note, i started reading some of your other posts and id have to say, you have some interesting beliefs and ideas. the thing is you seem to put the blame of all this on western socilism or whatever, truth be told, this was started by the catholic church. they are the reason why being "gay" is wrong. it has nothing to do with this country or region. no i dont know exactly what areas you consider "western" but thats just my idea. with this whole all men are straight unless they have the effeminate so there fore they are gay or third sex. being gay is being whether your male or female you are attracted to the same sex. i believe that everyone has some amount of "gay" tendoncies no matter how much they protest, which goes aloung with what your saying. but to say that if your masculin your straight, that doesnt matke sense, this may be part of your labeling that you talk about but thats the way society is, and its not goin to change...ever. i wouldnt want to be considered straight. i am gay thats who i am. i dont follow labels but at the same time we all have labels. even if we dont care about them. i dont go around screaming im gay at the top of my lungs i dont even bring it up, if someone asks ill tell them but other words who cares. i hope you take no offense to this what so ever, but the way your trying to spread your word is a lot like someone trying to start a cult. im not saying thats what your doing, it just looks that way in my eyes. ive seen people bring up points tha i may or may not agree with but if its not with your ideas 100% then you go back and repreach what you already said before. i mean no offense and hope you dont take it as such, this is just how i see it.
User avatar
darkwolf
Newbie
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:51 pm
Location: middletown, dela-where?

Postby masculinity » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:04 am

qwertz wrote:I would rewrite it as follows:

It's as simple as that:

- All men have a sexual need for men.

- Masculine is not about liking women, but about following ones deepest instincts and not the badest societal "instincts".

- Being masculine, in nature, is not about liking women, but about avoiding societal deformations, especially the anti-male-to-male-sex societal deformation. It is about accepting promiscuous and fetishistic sex between men as well as the most romantic sex and lifelong bonding between men.

- Gay is a concept originated in a certain context (the American context, not at all the Western context).

- Queer is good as long as you feel good in it in the context where you live.

- Queer is not male-to-male love or sex. It has its own merits, but has nothing to do with male-to-male love or sex.

- Masculine men have no natural phobia against male-male sexual or social intimacy. On the contrary, they are inclined towards it. The phobia is socially engineered by monotheism imported in the West from the East, and most of it is just, plain pretense, while the rest is a social phobia or distaste, which ironically, exists along with natural attraction towards men.

- As long as men's spaces are strong, that is, it is not "heterosexualised" (= not mixed up) by bringing women into it (who have a lot of social power over men, since men cannot say 'no' to them sexually, without losing their "manhood/straighthood"; only the very strongest males have no need to prove their "straighthood"), men do not allow the forces of "heterosexualisation" to isolate man-to-man sexuality from amidst its spaces as 'gay', or 'queer' or 'homosexual'. It's only when the men's spaces are destroyed that men become isolated and weak, and the trait of man to man sexuality is then driven out of men's spaces (where it has been thriving in privacy for ages), and thrown into the "third-sex" (in India the hijras), "queer, homosexual space". While the "third sex", 'homosexuals' or 'hijras' are only too happy to claim it all as their own, and resist any attempt by masculine men to reclaim any of it back.

- the concept of sexual orientation is invalid, oppressive, anti-man, without any historical or biological basis, and the real division of people is not between "heterosexual" and "homosexual", but as "men" and "women".


(a)Never talk about "gay" or "straight". "Heterosexual" and " homosexual" do not exist. They are illusions created by monotheistic religions. Monotheistic religions, as mishaps of phallic religions forcing to worship a masculine god, have no other choice than repressing male-to-male love and sex. The only desire of monotheistic religion is to turn phallic worship into a total abstraction.

(b) Remember, you're taking the masculine identity, because it actually means gendered as you are (or predominantly masculine gendered) and it doesn't actually mean "heterosexual" (even if defined as such).

(c) Remember, to be masculine, you don't have to be chest beating macho. You just need to be normal (you can be feminine if you want to; showing feminity in a macho world is typically masculine).


I think I could agree with you if you wouldn't use the words "West" or "Western" , "gay" or "straight", "heterosexual" or "homosexual" in your texts. They are abstractions created by an abstraction(=monotheism), which was imported in the West and has nothing to do in the West whatsoever (if it had had any roots in the West, it wouldn't have collapsed in the West like it has since the last two centuries).


Quertz,

Thank you for taking all this effort.

There are a couple of basic problems with this rework though,

a) You're saying that Gender, i.e. masculinity and femininty is nothing but a social construct... and that it doesn't have a biological basis, so anyone can be masculine by doing certain thing and not doing others, or be femdinine for that matter. But this goes against what I know.

All you're doing is giving a definition to 'masculine' and 'feminine' that would suit the gays. However, this is not what I mean.

My invitation is not for gays who fit in snuggly in the 'gay' space/ identity. My invitation is for those who are misfits into this space/ identity.

b) You're also saying that the basic problem with 'gay' is religion's opposition to it, and there's no problem with the concept of sexual orientation or that of 'homosexuality' itself. By doing this you have diluted the essence of what I want to say.

The real problem here is not religion or religious prosecution, especially in this day and age... in any case, for us in India Christianity is not a problem because we are not Christians. And Hinduism does't say anything against it.

The real problem is the concept of 'gay' itself... It is not Christianity that gave us the concept of 'homosexuality' that seeks to isolate male-male sexuality from the mainstream men's spaces into the third sex spaces.

The real culprit is the Western institution of Science.

c) By West, I mean the modern, post industrialisation, post heterosexualisation North America and Western Europe. The forces of Heterosexualisation are completely in control here and they are using the enormous power they have got through economic and technological progress to restructure the society by destroying men's spaces and heterosexualising them. This makes men's spaces weak and then they can't protect man-man sexuality which is then driven out of the straight space through the concept of 'sexual orientation'.
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 Sep 08, 2008 7:07 am

darkwolf wrote:first off id have to say the rewrite is much better, and second, it is a good idea but as long as monotheistic religion is around and in control of most things, which it seems to be slowly being dethrowned. your goina have the titles, man-man gay man-woman straight. plain and simple. personally i dont let it bother me. when ya let things like that bother, thats when the trouble starts. they can call me names all they want, ill just smile at them and tell them to have a nice day, cause in the end, i know im goin to be goin to a better place while there burning in what ever hell they believe in. thats the way i see it, so call me gay, queer, whatever. i know who i am and thats all that matters, im not quite sure if this is even where you wanted this post to go but thats just what i got from it.




as a side note, i started reading some of your other posts and id have to say, you have some interesting beliefs and ideas. the thing is you seem to put the blame of all this on western socilism or whatever, truth be told, this was started by the catholic church. they are the reason why being "gay" is wrong. it has nothing to do with this country or region. no i dont know exactly what areas you consider "western" but thats just my idea. with this whole all men are straight unless they have the effeminate so there fore they are gay or third sex. being gay is being whether your male or female you are attracted to the same sex. i believe that everyone has some amount of "gay" tendoncies no matter how much they protest, which goes aloung with what your saying. but to say that if your masculin your straight, that doesnt matke sense, this may be part of your labeling that you talk about but thats the way society is, and its not goin to change...ever. i wouldnt want to be considered straight. i am gay thats who i am. i dont follow labels but at the same time we all have labels. even if we dont care about them. i dont go around screaming im gay at the top of my lungs i dont even bring it up, if someone asks ill tell them but other words who cares. i hope you take no offense to this what so ever, but the way your trying to spread your word is a lot like someone trying to start a cult. im not saying thats what your doing, it just looks that way in my eyes. ive seen people bring up points tha i may or may not agree with but if its not with your ideas 100% then you go back and repreach what you already said before. i mean no offense and hope you dont take it as such, this is just how i see it.


Hi,

I think what Quertz has done by reworking it is to make what I'm saying fit into the 'gay' ideology, so that gays can relate to it. But that is not my intention. I have no intention of creating another gay space.

If we were to go by what he has reworked, without challenging and rejectxing the gay identity, then the forces of Heterosexualisatiion, including the gays will easily write us off as people who are not comfortable with their sexuality and who can't accept themselves -- which is certainly not the case.

My invitation is not for gays, but for masculine gendered males who feel they are misfits into the 'gay' identity and space.
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 Sep 08, 2008 7:18 am

darkwolf wrote:the thing is you seem to put the blame of all this on western socilism or whatever, truth be told, this was started by the catholic church. they are the reason why being "gay" is wrong. it has nothing to do with this country or region.


a) Like I pointed it out earlier, the main problem here is not that religion considers a sexual interest in men to be bad.

In fact religion never really talked about a sexual ineterest in men. There was no such concept in those days. Before the West made popular the concept of sexual interest in men, through the concept of sexual orientation, the main point of persecution was 'receptive anal sex' and being 'feminine gendered', and not sexual interest in men per se.

Sexual interest in men by other masculine gendered males was considered a bad thing, but never something that makes a man 'different' from others. All men were seen to be capable of this vice, whcih was considered to be masculine rather than feminine.

Men could easily like other men in their men's spaces without any religious persecution. They formed long term bonds, and indulged in sexual activities with each other without ever being called gay for this..

In my own country, all you had to do for being called a man was to get married and have children. You did not have to like women at all. You could just do it as a social duty. That is what was important.

No one cared if you had sexual interest in women. And a sexual interest in men was considered universal, that men should nevertheless guard against, because otherwise who would like to go to women.

Almost 100% of straight men participated in some kind of sexual bonds with other men in the pre-heterosexualisation West. With the introduction of the concept of 'sexual orientation' and of 'homosexuality' or 'gay', the very nature of liking other men has been stigmaitised, Especialdly, since it involves a) isolation and removal from the striaght men's group, and b) into the third sex group.


And that is the real problem.
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 Sep 08, 2008 8:10 am

darkwolf wrote:..... with this whole all men are straight unless they have the effeminate so there fore they are gay or third sex. being gay is being whether your male or female you are attracted to the same sex. ..... but to say that if your masculin your straight, that doesnt matke sense, this may be part of your labeling that you talk about but thats the way society is, and its not goin to change...ever. i wouldnt want to be considered straight. i am gay thats who i am. i dont follow labels but at the same time we all have labels.


I think you don't really get what I'm trying to say here.

You will not get what I'm trying to say, unless you come out of the limiting definitions created by the Western society and enforced first on its own people and then on the rest of the world.

The way they defined and classified men into straight and gay, is totally wrong and unprecedented. I've so often analysed why this is wrong, so I wont' do it here again.

Men who are classified as straights don't fit into these definitions. But they still have a lot of sexual thing for other men. They hate the way the society has classified men, but they are helpless because they don't have a voice in these matters. Just discussing these matters will makek them 'gay' and they're extremelky afraid of being 'gay'. They'd do anything to avoid the label.

And you know why that is? Because Gay is the same as Third Sex. Before 'gay came men were afraid of being third sex or Hijra or namard or berdache adn all that.....

Only, Gay is much more restrictive. When there was just the threat of Third sex, men had to disown receptive anal sex, but all straight men indulged in sex with other men that did not involve anal sex.

However, Gay encompasses any sexual interest in men, so now any kind of sexual interest in men is now inaccessible to men. They can't do it withotu losing their straight identity.

And, yes, you may not like it and that straight may be defined as heterosexual, but its a fact that its actually the mainstream masculine gendered male space, where people are just forced to be heterosexual. now men have two choices, either accept compulsory, constant and exclusive heterosexuality by disowning their sexual interest in men or be known as unmanly, third sex 'gays'. And almost all masculine gendered males take up the former option.

After all, the word straight acting doesn't mean that one is acting heterosexual..... it means one is acting masculine. isn't it. Why is it so difficult for you gays to understand?

And that the term gay actually means a third gender identity. I mean you don't have to do anything but go to any mainstream space and they will tell you that. Why, even science says you are third gendered. I mean look at all those theories that say you have brains that are more like women's than like men's and so on and so forth.

Gays themselves treat the term as meaning 'third gender' or 'feminine gendered'. I mean what does the term "he looks gay" means. It obviously means he looks feminine. Otherwise how can you tell someone's sexual interests just by looking at him.

The concept of 'gay' concretises the notion being propagated by the Forces of Heterosexualisation that liking men is an unmanly, third sex thing. So men disown it and this is how straight becomes synonymous with heterosexual. And femdinine guys claim whole of it, and this is how gay becomes synonymous with 'sexual interest between men'.

How can you not diferentiate between Men who like men and 'third sex who like men', when you make that differentiation between straight men who like women and 'third sex who like women'.

I mean its not for anything that today you have terms like 'straight gay' and 'Queer heterosexual'. Its primarily because Western ideas are so stupid and mismatched that you are having all these confusing and seemingly contradictory identities.

I mean if queer = man who likes men, then how can you have Queer heterosexual? Obviously queer doesn't mean men who like men but means feminine.

And ditto with straight.

You may forcefully define a term according to what suits you, as the western society has done, but people will not be able to stop its real sense from coming into its actual usage.

ABOUT LABELS: Its right that we all have labels, however, if an Indian is labelled as 'American' he is bound to have a problem.

The problem is not only that there are labels (Really, why was a label needed when every man has same-sex needs..... it shows the basic assumptions behind the concept of sexual orientation are wrong...... after all you don't have lables for men who have two eyes -- why, because normally you have two eyes..... rather in India we have a label for someone who does'nt have two eyes (Kana))... but the problem is that the labels are wrong, misplaced, based on wrong assumptions, wrongly used and have wrong motives behind them..... the motive being to isolate same-sex behaviour from men's spaces.
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 edu999 » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:39 am

Do you make any distinction between men who like men ONLY versus men who like men BUT ALSO LIKE WOMEN?
User avatar
edu999
Moderator
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:31 am
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Postby masculinity » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:49 am

edu999 wrote:Do you make any distinction between men who like men ONLY versus men who like men BUT ALSO LIKE WOMEN?


No, sexual orientation is completely immaterial, especially when deciding our identities. It doesn't matter whether you're into men or women or third sex or any combinations of them. What matters is who you are, not who you love.

And who you are is determined by your gender identity: You're either a man, a woman or a member of the third sex (i.e. partly male and partly female, of which there are several ways to be).

So, gay for me iideally includes a feminine gendered male who is exclusively into women.
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 edu999 » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:04 am

So you're describing two completely different things, then.

I would argue that sexual preference has little to nothing to do with your definition of gender identity. And in "the West" that you seem hell-bent on saying has invalid ideas, "gay" used to describe sexual preference (i.e. predominantly or exclusively same-sex) as opposed to gender identity (outside of sexual preference, that is).
User avatar
edu999
Moderator
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:31 am
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Postby masculinity » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:28 am

edu999 wrote:So you're describing two completely different things, then.

I would argue that sexual preference has little to nothing to do with your definition of gender identity. And in "the West" that you seem hell-bent on saying has invalid ideas, "gay" used to describe sexual preference (i.e. predominantly or exclusively same-sex) as opposed to gender identity (outside of sexual preference, that is).


I don't think there's any contradiction here.

1) I'm saying sexual preference has nothing to do with gender identities.

2) Gay in the West is used to define what the west calls sexual preference.

3) What I'm also saying is that Sexual preference is a peculiarly Western concept and a faulty one at that.

You should also remember that:

a) the concept of Gender identity and Sexual identity cannot exist side by side, otherwise there'll just be too many identities to handle. So you have Man, woman and third sex and then man who is attracted to men, man who is attracted to women man who is attracted to third sex and so on and so forth. This is also redundant.

b) There are basic problems with the way sexual preference is defined in the West. E.g. it doesn't take into account third sex when defining sexual preferences. So a man's sexual preference for men is counted the same as a third sex's sexual need for men, and that becomes a problem, especially because it makes that distinction when defining sexual need of male for a woman. So it is held different than a feminine male's sexual need for men (transgendered male is counted as LGBT, not straight).

Similarly, the assumptions upon which the concept of sexual preference is based is wrong. Thus, it wrongly assumes that male sexual interest for men is limited to gays, when its a universal male phenomenon. In fact, the motive for creating a system that differentiates men on the basis of who they love is troublesome -- because it is used to 'punish', 'discourage' and 'threaten' men with being banished from the mainstream masculine men's spaces.

That the concept of sexual preference and 'gay' had been devised to discourage men from bonding sexually with men is clear from the fact that before the concept was developed hundred percent of straight men used to indulge in sexual relationships with men. And at least within the men's spaces, men had no qualms about accepting their sexual need for men. And men used to be very intimate publicly with each other. Male friendships used to be idolised. Today, no straight male worth his name would own up to a sexual need for men. Leave alone a sexual bond, straight men are even scared to touch each other's hands in public or go to a movie together. Thanks to the association of same-sex intimacy with the third sex, effeminate 'gay'.

Which brings me to the point that before same-sex attraction was associated with homosexuality or 'gay', it was considered a masculine trait that all straight men were capable of getting into.
Last edited by masculinity on Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 edu999 » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:34 am

masculinity wrote:b) There are basic problems with the way sexual preference is defined in the West. E.g. it doesn't take into account third sex when defining sexual preferences. So a man's sexual preference for men is counted the same as a third sex's sexual need for men, and that becomes a problem, especially because it makes that distinction when defining sexual need of male for a woman. So it is held different than a feminine male's sexual need for men (transgendered male is counted as LGBT, not straight).


Uhm... no, you're mistaken. You mentioned it yourself... LGBT... so we DO make distinctions, otherwise, if you were correct, "LGBT" would simply be "G".

masculinity wrote:Thus, it wrongly assumes that male sexual interest for men is limited to gays, when its a universal male phenomenon.


Oh, really? Do you really believe that every male is sexually attracted to other males? Universally? Why? What is the societal or cultural imperative that would make this universally true? What is the evolutionary or biological imperative that would make this universally true? Ancient Greek or traditional Indian customs of adult males buggering adolescent boys don't count as valid reasons.
User avatar
edu999
Moderator
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:31 am
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Postby masculinity » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:23 pm

edu999 wrote:Uhm... no, you're mistaken. You mentioned it yourself... LGBT... so we DO make distinctions, otherwise, if you were correct, "LGBT" would simply be "G".


I'm not mistaken dude. The term third sex is a very wide term and people who are half-male and half-female come in various forms -- from hermaphrodites, intersexed people, transsexuals, transvestites, feminine males, masculine females, etc. In some cultures, there are as many as six different gender identities, which apart from man and woman is meant to accomodate these various forms of third gender.

edu999 wrote:Oh, really? Do you really believe that every male is sexually attracted to other males? Universally? Why? What is the societal or cultural imperative that would make this universally true? What is the evolutionary or biological imperative that would make this universally true? Ancient Greek or traditional Indian customs of adult males buggering adolescent boys don't count as valid reasons.

Believe, i have been living it (the universality of male to male sexual need. And I'm not talking about adult male doing it with boys -- I haven't even seen it (although, i don't see why it would not count?). I'm talking about male eroticism -- in fact much more -- I have seen straight men falling in love with another man -- and struggling with their feelings...
It was only after I was convinced of the universality of male sexual need for men that I started looking for its evidences elsewhere, because, western education had taught me that male sexual need for men is limited to gays.

Of course, the first thing I studied was our society's attitudes. While the formal society just didn't talk about it and considered it non-existant, informally, within men's spaces, it was believed that all men have a sexual thing for men. We even had a name for it (unfortunately, the thing has almost died in teh past 5 years after our country's forceful heterosexualsiation and the bringing of the concept of 'gay'.) -- its called masti.

I remember an older man telling me, "if we started to talk of man to man sex favourably, then all men would start having sex with other men and no one will go to women". That was the general feeling prevalent amongst men of older generation who had seen strong men's spaces. In fact, similar notions existed in the WEst before men's spaces were destroyed and the misinformation spread that sexual attractjon of men with other men are limited to gays. Gays are different because of their feminine gender, not because of their sexuality for men. But in the West, there is such misinformation, and straight men hide their sexuality for men so strictly that gays think they are the only people who like men, and its their exclusive characterisitic.

Apart from my immense experience of growing up and working amongst this sea of same-sex sexuality -- and I'm talking about the straight space, I hated to go to the gay space... in fact I've had several deep entanglements with my straight friends... I also studied ancient human societies, tribes, and of course mammalian male behaviour in the wild. And they all say the same thing: amongst mammals, its the sexuality for men that is constant, long lasting, and in many cases exclusive, something that can't be saidi for male sexual attraction for women.

If you want I can talk about each one of these separately.
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 darkwolf » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:43 pm

back in the old days of the greeks and such, there were male + male relationships and they were seen as a good things. especially if you were royalty and the such, but then once the catholic church came in that is when it all changed, they put it in the bible that man on man relations is against god and therfore a sin. and when that happened that is when it was unnatural for men to lie with each other. and it just spread from there to what her have today.you can ask any straight gay friendly man that they have no interest in other men, they could be lying in fear of reprocautions from the public of simply that they dont have enough feminine behavior in them to give them the urge. there have been hundereds of study of why we are the way we are, from a "gay gene" to the more male siblings you have the greater chance of you being gay. this whole all men are straight even if you lie with men is not true. these terms were created with the rise of prejudice set down by the church and then adapted as time evolved, gay used to mean happy. when you are gay you are in touch with your feminine side, you say that i dont accept a new definitions that you talk about, i am very open minded about new things, specially those that dont come from the us. not that i dont like it hear, but it is highly controlled by the church and i am again st the church, no one has the right to tell me how to live excpet me. would you be able to post a site or something that gives more information on what your preaching. cause so far this all seems to be your personal opinion, and i would like to know if that is all it is or if you have any evidence of this besides saying that there is.
User avatar
darkwolf
Newbie
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:51 pm
Location: middletown, dela-where?

Postby masculinity » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:41 pm

darkwolf wrote:back in the old days of the greeks and such, there were male + male relationships and they were seen as a good things. especially if you were royalty and the such, but then once the catholic church came in that is when it all changed, they put it in the bible that man on man relations is against god and therfore a sin. and when that happened that is when it was unnatural for men to lie with each other. and it just spread from there to what her have today.you can ask any straight gay friendly man that they have no interest in other men, they could be lying in fear of reprocautions from the public of simply that they dont have enough feminine behavior in them to give them the urge. there have been hundereds of study of why we are the way we are, from a "gay gene" to the more male siblings you have the greater chance of you being gay. this whole all men are straight even if you lie with men is not true. these terms were created with the rise of prejudice set down by the church and then adapted as time evolved, gay used to mean happy. when you are gay you are in touch with your feminine side, you say that i dont accept a new definitions that you talk about, i am very open minded about new things, specially those that dont come from the us. not that i dont like it hear, but it is highly controlled by the church and i am again st the church, no one has the right to tell me how to live excpet me. would you be able to post a site or something that gives more information on what your preaching. cause so far this all seems to be your personal opinion, and i would like to know if that is all it is or if you have any evidence of this besides saying that there is.


I think we agree on quite a lot of things here, but there are a few things you will not understand if you're feminine gendered. At least not understand so easily.

One thing is that What church did was significant. However, it only continued and added to a conspiracy which was already going on.

In earlier times, when men and women lived compeltey separately, men met women for sex only once a year or so. And there were no marriages between men and women. Then the rulers needed more people as civilisations progressed and they decided to force men into procreation by manipulating manhood and third sex.

So, first they made reproduction compulsory for manhood (and not sex with women per se). That was the first blow to men's spaces and to man-man bonds. The next big blow came when they made receptive anal sex a thing for the third sex (catamites, berdaches, etc.) and by the times of the Greeks, even though men could love each other without being third sex, and have sex too, they couldnt indulge in receptive anal sex without losing their manhood. So they practised sex through thighs. And the age difference that existed between partners helped too (by making the younger guy be the receptive partner

Church's blow came as the third big blow. But it didn't stop at that.

The final big blow came from Science, which made all kinds of sexual interest in men as 'thrid sex', -- they were of course studying a group of transvestites that were known as "mollies" and "gay" (gay was used as a word for a male aprostitute of lose character, with feminie flamboyancy), and they based their defintions of 'men' who like men on the basis of these people of third sex. And so was establioshed the concept of 'homosexuality'.

I have found it again and again that feminine gendered males who like men (gays) have extreme problem accepting that stragiht men have intense sexual need for other men. It is against everything they have learned and experienced. Because straight men too would show this aspect of their personality only to other straight men (even when they deny it at the same time, they will indulge in it with another straight man, but quite unlike how gays do it). Straight men will never flirt with feminine guys, not in the way they do with another straight guy. With a gay guy, they'll just treat that person like sh*t, or like women and say they just want to fu** them or something. With a straight man they will show their softer side, their emotional aspect of sexuality.

And it is again what feminine males experience, and so they imagine that for everyone, a sexual interest in another male would be feminine. But its not true. Its feminine for you becasue you are basically feminine. Even if you had a sexual interest in women, you would find it feminine.

Your belief that same-sex feelings = feminine = gay is reinforced by the heterosexual society, because it suits their conspiracy against men. But it just ain't true.

Look at all these heterosexual queers and you'd know what I mean:

http://video-on-heterosexuality-is-queer.blogspot.com/
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

Wrongly portraying man's sexual need for men as 'diffferent'

Postby masculinity » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:42 am

They started portraying man's sexual need for men, and men who were seen to have this need as different.

How they achieved it was, they showed third sex that loved men as 'men who loved men'. That is, by deliberately ignoring the gender differences between the third sex and men (when it came to sexual need between men), they confused their (feminine male's) sexual interest and their femininity in the minds of the world.

Everything about the third sex is different from men, even when they have the outer body and sexual organs of a male.

The way they walk, talk conduct themselves, relate with each other and with the world -- it's all different from men. So, naturally, their sexual interest in men would be different from men too. But, what the Forces of Heterosexualisation suppressed with equal force was the fact that the third sex was also majorly into sexual interest in women, and that their sexual interest in women was different in essence from that of men too. It doesn't make 'men who like women' different from normal men.

Right now, the Westernisd forces of Heterosexualisation are busy doing the same manipulation in India. I was just now watching the movie 'partner' on TV, where a 'gay' (a feminine, limp wristed male) was singing "Aadmi hoon aadmi se pyaar karta hoon" (an old Hindi song that goes I'm a man and I love a man). However, this was never seen earlier to be applying to the third sex. It talk about a general love of mankind, in any case. But what I felt like asking the 'gay', Are you really a man? I mean Its only the westernised gays that consider them a 'man', because they think man is the same as male. And they accomodate their gender difference in their 'gay' identity, since the society confuses their sexual need for men as emanating from their femininity.
The desi (vernacular, local) 'gays' have no qualms about calling themselves third sex, and they don't want to be called a man. Neither are they considered 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

Re: Wrongly portraying man's sexual need for men as 'difffer

Postby ProMale » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:23 pm

masculinity wrote:They started portraying man's sexual need for men, and men who were seen to have this need as different.

How they achieved it was, they showed third sex that loved men as 'men who loved men'. That is, by deliberately ignoring the gender differences between the third sex and men (when it came to sexual need between men), they confused their (feminine male's) sexual interest and their femininity in the minds of the world.

Everything about the third sex is different from men, even when they have the outer body and sexual organs of a male.

The way they walk, talk conduct themselves, relate with each other and with the world -- it's all different from men. So, naturally, their sexual interest in men would be different from men too. But, what the Forces of Heterosexualisation suppressed with equal force was the fact that the third sex was also majorly into sexual interest in women, and that their sexual interest in women was different in essence from that of men too. It doesn't make 'men who like women' different from normal men.

Right now, the Westernisd forces of Heterosexualisation are busy doing the same manipulation in India. I was just now watching the movie 'partner' on TV, where a 'gay' (a feminine, limp wristed male) was singing "Aadmi hoon aadmi se pyaar karta hoon" (an old Hindi song that goes I'm a man and I love a man). However, this was never seen earlier to be applying to the third sex. It talk about a general love of mankind, in any case. But what I felt like asking the 'gay', Are you really a man? I mean Its only the westernised gays that consider them a 'man', because they think man is the same as male. And they accomodate their gender difference in their 'gay' identity, since the society confuses their sexual need for men as emanating from their femininity.
The desi (vernacular, local) 'gays' have no qualms about calling themselves third sex, and they don't want to be called a man. Neither are they considered men.

Dude, I absolutely LOVE your posts! I have been saying these sorts of things for YEARS, but the gays just get pissed over it.

Keep posting! :-)
ProMale
Newbie
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:58 pm

Re: Wrongly portraying man's sexual need for men as 'difffer

Postby dracuscalico » Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:30 am

ProMale wrote:Dude, I absolutely LOVE your posts! I have been saying these sorts of things for YEARS, but the gays just get pissed over it.

Keep posting! :-)


Something is fishy here. How could you have been a member since June and been completely unaware of masculinity's posts all this time? It lists you as a newbie too which is odd because I have only been here since August and I'm not listed as a newbie.

Since I joined 2 months later than you and have gotten burned out on masculinity's behavior along with everyone else here, your sudden enthusiasm is somewhat suspicious as he sure could have used your help when he was getting bashed and ostracized from the rest of the group.
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Re: Wrongly portraying man's sexual need for men as 'difffer

Postby masculinity » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:04 am

ProMale wrote:
masculinity wrote:They started portraying man's sexual need for men, and men who were seen to have this need as different.

How they achieved it was, they showed third sex that loved men as 'men who loved men'. That is, by deliberately ignoring the gender differences between the third sex and men (when it came to sexual need between men), they confused their (feminine male's) sexual interest and their femininity in the minds of the world.

Everything about the third sex is different from men, even when they have the outer body and sexual organs of a male.

The way they walk, talk conduct themselves, relate with each other and with the world -- it's all different from men. So, naturally, their sexual interest in men would be different from men too. But, what the Forces of Heterosexualisation suppressed with equal force was the fact that the third sex was also majorly into sexual interest in women, and that their sexual interest in women was different in essence from that of men too. It doesn't make 'men who like women' different from normal men.

Right now, the Westernisd forces of Heterosexualisation are busy doing the same manipulation in India. I was just now watching the movie 'partner' on TV, where a 'gay' (a feminine, limp wristed male) was singing "Aadmi hoon aadmi se pyaar karta hoon" (an old Hindi song that goes I'm a man and I love a man). However, this was never seen earlier to be applying to the third sex. It talk about a general love of mankind, in any case. But what I felt like asking the 'gay', Are you really a man? I mean Its only the westernised gays that consider them a 'man', because they think man is the same as male. And they accomodate their gender difference in their 'gay' identity, since the society confuses their sexual need for men as emanating from their femininity.
The desi (vernacular, local) 'gays' have no qualms about calling themselves third sex, and they don't want to be called a man. Neither are they considered men.

Dude, I absolutely LOVE your posts! I have been saying these sorts of things for YEARS, but the gays just get pissed over it.

Keep posting! :-)

Thanx buddy... i know that men have known this all along in the West too, but they didn't have the voice to say it, and the gays wouldn't let the few who said it be heard.
I mean they even sidelined such prominent people like Michel Foucalt and Alfred Kinsey who kept protesting against the concept of dividing men on the lines of 'sexual orientation'.
But you can't keep the truth down forever, can you? Now thanx to globalisation the concept of sexual orientation is now facing the reality. You can't have such a division in a society where men's spaces are strong, because all men are into other men, so who do you isolate? And, fortunately, more than half the world is still non-heterosexualised. You need a lot of resources to heterosexualise a society, and most of the world doesn't have that kind of money.
Thankfully.

Only, I can only post more stuff when there's a discussion, otherwise they'll close my forum saying its a blog.
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 fratpad » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:49 pm

Masculinity:

Since when was "masculinity" a form of "gender"? I posted this elsewhere, but you can't just make up new definitions of already-existing words. At least I can't; perhaps you work for Merriam Webster's or Bartleby's.
fratpad
 

Postby masculinity » Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:11 am

fratpad wrote:Masculinity:

Since when was "masculinity" a form of "gender"? I posted this elsewhere, but you can't just make up new definitions of already-existing words. At least I can't; perhaps you work for Merriam Webster's or Bartleby's.

Dictionaries are made by those who control the society, and the Western society has for long been under the control of Forces of Heterosexualisation.

The definition of masculinity I'm quotiing is a global one -- when US definitions are forced on other parts of the world, the distorted meanings of these words are going to be rectified by other cultures.

In any case, even as children we were taught that there are three kinds of genders in English Language: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral.

This made perfect sense to us, and it tallied with the three genders prevalent in our cultures: Masculine, Feminine and the third gender or neutral gender.

This was the same in all Indo-European societies, except that in the West, the Christian societies manipulated the genders of people in the society and bannished the third gender from people's perception; however, the correct definition of gender remained unaltered in the language.

The Western Christian society pronounced that males may not be feminine and that it was a sin. So, they wiped out the very notion of gender (i.e. inner sex irrespective of one's outer sex) from cultural reckoning. Thus masculine became synonymous in the West with Male, and Feminine with Female, and the concept of men being feminine as a natural trait was wiped from the society. While the third or neutral gender were wrongly defined in terms of "men who are sexually attracted to men" or homosexuals. In other words, their feminine gender was defined in terms of their sexuality, creating total confusion.

The feminine males just started to be viewed as abnormals -- a condition thought not to be natural, but brought on by environmental factors (much like man's sexual need for men). In other words, the Western society has for long confused GENDER with SEX.

The English dictionaries in fact confuses masculinity with sexuality (heterosexuality) to the extent of defining 'masculine' in terms of reproduction and copulation, which is again bulshit. The most macho male god of ancient India, who even today is held as the symbol of masulinity stayed away from women and copulation (he is still said to be alive).

The English language has been manipulated by the Forces of Heterosexualisation is all I can say.
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:29 am

POINT TO PONDER:

Gays have been created by the society, by forcing men to disown their interest in intimacy with men, and letting meterosexual males in large numbers to become representatives of "men who like 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 » Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:11 am

This is a response to Fratpad's post at this page:
http://straightacting.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=13106&start=25
fratpad wrote:I can call myself African American, Native American, or an alien from outer space, but the truth is, I'm a white human male. Words have definitions for reasons: it contributes to structure and communication. While it would be nice sometimes to make up my own words and spread them around, thus creating my own language, I doubt anyone would take me seriously.

Western definitions are always so ridiculous and meant to advance the propaganda of the powerful group. Take the racial classifications for instance. I live in Asia, so as an Indian I should be an Asian. But no, for Americans Asian means Mongloid. So, then I'm labelled a south Asian.

I am brown. Brown is a colour between black and white. However, since, the power rests with whites, and they would want to keep it pure, so i'm classified as 'black', instead of white or brown.

There are lots of Indians who are extremely fair in complexion (like Nehru or Indira Gandhi) but they're still classified as 'blacks' in America -- why, because the names which are supposed to be based on their colour is not about the actual colour of the people, but, it is about politics and what suits those who rule the West. The rest just have to follow suit.

Then again, if races were to be divided on the basis of the colour of the skin, then Japanese are as white as Europeans. But, they are labelled as 'yellow' not white. Again, becasue it suits the Americans, who are powerful today.


fratpad wrote:So, while I can claim that I'm predominantly homosexual, masculine, and that I like an occasional fling with a woman, that doesn't make me strictly straight. It makes me bisexual. Just as, if I was predominantly heterosexual, masculine, and liked an occasional fling with a male, that would also make me bisexual.

a) These are just what the West has defined. I have often pointed out how these definitions have been manipulatively fixed by the Modern West... which has invested a huge amount of resources to create gays to fit into categories fixed by it. These classifications are only valid in highly heterosexualised, Westernised, unnatural and artificial social spaces. In most of the 'normal' world, these definitions just don't make sense.

And in the West, those who have to pay the price to uphold these definitions are those classified as 'straights', becasue they have to give up their sexual need for men, which gays has been allocated to the feminine guys (gays).

b) You may define yourself as predominantly masculine, but the identity you choose will actually tell more about you, things that you are not willing to reveal or are not even aware of.

So, if you go around with a feminine, third sex identity of 'gay', and say you're masculine -- no one but gays themselves are going to believe you. Actually, even gays will not really take you seriously, and you would be time and again referred to by a girly name.

I mean, if you're really predominantly masculine, then the inherent femininity of the gay identity will automatically bother you. You may not be conscious about it, but it would. Like it has bothered several other men I have spoken to on these forums itself.

fratpad wrote:Words have definitions. The definition of gay in the context of this conversation is: men who have sex with men. Bisexual is: men who have sex with men and women. Heterosexual: men who have sex with women. (We could also get into a discussion about women who like women, which, by the logic above, if the word gay were applied to them, would automatically make them masculinized, regardless of whether that's true. Has anyone seen Ellen's wife?) In defining the word gay, masculine and feminine has nothing to do with it. They are their own words, with their own definitions.

Do you remember the story of the frog who sat in its Well and said, well, the world is as is defined by the four walls of this well, and that's it.

You may want to believe in that definition of gay, but this definition is manipulated. You might want to ignore history... but how can you ignore the present. Just get out of the 'gay' well and see how your own western world sees you. You are seen as effeminate, third gender people, because that's the identity it is. Its a reality that manipulating formal definitions won't wipe out. Straight men would rather die than be called 'gay'. I mean this is exactly how third gender was treated before 'gay' came into being. The only difference it before they invented the concept of gay, only receptive anal sex was considered 'third gender' and was practised by effemiante guys. The concept of gay has stigmatised, and wrongly so, the entire spectrum of man to man sexuality as third gender, which were earlier all part of straight.

There are enough evidences that like in India, before the Gay identity was cooked up, almost all straight men in the West used to have sex with other men, even form strong bonds between them, and that marriage was seen only as a social duty.[url][/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

GAY = THIRD GENDER

Postby masculinity » Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:08 am

Gay is only an extension of the third gender space. It represents the extreme politics of the FoH to wrongly redefine gender identity/ spaces in terms of sexuality.
Third gender, has for long been a discredited and much feared banishment zone for men. Gay in westernised societies does the same function. What other proof do you need that it is built to serve the same purpose, except that third gender could isolate only feminine males who had receptive anal sex, while the concept of gay can be used to isolate the entire spectrum of male to male sexuality.
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 » Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:11 am

What has happened is that with the introduction of the concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality, the Forces of Heterosexualisation have redefined manhood

as a sexual interest in men (with straight = heterosexual), actually its a definition made by the gays, who want to have complete control over man to man

sexuality, not by straights.

With, this a man is not considered a masculine man, unless he has a woman next to him. And this makes men very insecure without the company of women, and that explains the straight rush for women.

Just look at all the advertisements on TV after Indian's heterosexualisation. Even an advertisement on male underwear always has a woman in it. The fear

being generated is, if there's not a woman in your life, you won't be considered a man.

And likewise, lack of manhood is defined in terms of a sexual interest in 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

Next

Return to Straight Acting Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron