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 » Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:07 am

The word homo is severely stigmatized for straight men to be useful for denoting male sexual desire for men anymore... anyways, even technically, it is only valid as long as you continue to deny the third gender its existence, and forcibly count them as 'men'.

Once we recognize that there is a difference between straight-male-desire for-men, and queer-male's-desire-for-men, just as there is a difference between straight-male-desire-for-women and queer-male-desire-for-women, then it is clear that the term 'homosexuality' is become too much synonymous with 'queer male sexuality for men'. And, this gives it such huge stigma for men, that straight men will never feel free to identify their sexual feelings for men with this (and let's assume theoretically, that this is not what the Western society really wants).

Therefore, if at all men's sexuality for men need to be differentiated with men's sexuality for women, then the word 'homosexuality' should not be used for the former.

Besides, there is this issue of confusion. If you call 'moon' as 'sun', then you have to find another name for 'sun' because, otherwise it will create a lot of confusion.

A good way to turn the stigma on to 'heterosexuality' is by using the words 'homo' and 'hetero' to denote Gender orientation, instead of 'sexual orientation'. Then a Queer male will be called, "Heterogendered", because he has 'male' body and 'female/ feminine' gender -- two opposites. While the masculine, male will be called "homogendered". And then see how the stigma turns around. The word "hetero" would become severely stigmatized for men overnight, while the word 'homo' would assume power and a much coveted manhood/ straight status.

Similarly, the day you break the artificial social connection of manhood with heterosexuality, and tie it with liking men, you'd see, how in a matter of few years, men would stop shunning men, all their HUGE, uncontrollable sexual interest in women would fade into thin air, and they would all start swearing by a natural, deep-rooted, constant sexual need for men, that they swear they always had all these years.
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 Dec 28, 2008 4:05 am

Sexual orientation is in fact changeable, its Gender Orientation which is unchangeable for the most part. This is how the heterosexual identity has been made possible -- by forcing people to transfer all their sexual needs towards women, through innumerable psycho-social mechanisms.

Heterosexuality involves overcoming the natural barrier that exists between masculinity and femininity, that is naturally there between males and females. This natural barrier or repulsion is only absent in queer males or queer females... queer males tend not to have a natural resistance to women, and ditto with queer females. (Queer here means third gender, not 'homosexual').

In masculine males, this natural repulsion to women is only overcome during the short period when the men are 'in heat'. This happens rarely in nature, as most of the sexual needs of men are fulfilled with other men. It is during this short period -- the mating period -- that the masculine male loses his natural barrier and approaches the female, but as soon as his state of 'trance' is over, his natural repulsion to females returns.

Heterosexualization involves overcoming this natural repulsion or resistance to women by masculine males, through innumerable social mechanisms and conditioning. And this is not possible without queering men, which means developing a man's feminine side. This is made possible through various social mechanisms which force men to 'queer' themselves, ironically, in order to get social manhood and power. Men will do any thing for social manhood, even give up their natural manhood and adopt queerhood.

Of course, its not only men who are queered as part of heterosexualization. Women meet them half-way, as they are queered too -- i.e. they are 'masculinized'. And since men are attracted to power, once heterosexualized they get attracted to these socially powerful women. But in the process, men get pretty disempowered, vulnerable and broken from each other -- as individuals and as a group. Something they realise only once they fall out of women.

As also, that this heterosxualization process never totally queers men. Most of the heterosexuality that we see in the society is a pretense, a forced heterosexuality, which is nevertheless cherished by masculine males because they deep down, through conditioning associate it with 'manhood'. It is not easy to work out that conditioning out of them, especially as long as the society is being controlled by the Forces of Heterosexualization.

So, how do you liberate straight men, who don't even want to consider being liberated...? who believe that the oppressive mechanisms of man's oppression are actually doing them a great service by heterosexualizing them.
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 Cachasa » Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:40 am

Part of me says that I should not risk indulging you and this idiotic line of thought. But your above posts disgust me.

one example:

Heterosexualization involves overcoming this natural repulsion or resistance to women by masculine males, through innumerable social mechanisms and conditioning. And this is not possible without queering men, which means developing a man's feminine side. This is made possible through various social mechanisms which force men to 'queer' themselves, ironically, in order to get social manhood and power. Men will do any thing for social manhood, even give up their natural manhood and adopt queerhood.


Truly disgusting...


Really, Masculinity your thoughts are unbelievably offensive and misogynistic. You are a misogynist!
The very idea that gender roles and gendered behavior are inherent characteristics of an individual is ridiculous. People (for whatever reason) CHOOSE gender roles and and gender behaviors. They are not born with them. Men do not "naturaly want more masculine power". That ideological frame work is a social construct.


Your so called "thoughts" have absolutely NO BASIS in scientific fact or current academic thought. The idea that sexual orientation is changeable is has been rejected by every reputable academic psychological organization. Including the APA and the CPA.
Cachasa
Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Shilo Manitoba Canada

Postby dracuscalico » Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:40 am

The thoughts about orientation NOT being changeable by those organizations was due to peer and political pressure, much like most "current theory" of any era, like the world being flat, or the Sun rotating around the earth, or it being the woman's fault that she's bearing daughters instead of sons. These things iron themselves out in time.

Regarding being misogynistic, wouldn't that be a "straightacting" trait since gay guys love their "DIVA's ? 8)
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby masculinity » Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:47 am

Nature/ biology has created two kinds of males and they will remain into separate spaces/ identities -- that's human nature. These two types of males are:

a) Masculine males.
b) Feminine males

If the society recognises the Gender differences, then the two categories will be:

Masculine males = men (of whatever sexual preferences)

Feminine males = Third gender/ two spirited (of whatever sexual preferences)

If the society plays politics with gender identities, and refuses to accept gender differences as natural, and uses the same labels "man" for both masculine and feminine gendered males, then the categories will change as follows (remember, the basic essence of the males who comprise them will be the same, i.e. masculine gender/ feminine gender)

Straight men
Gay men

But, this gender difference will always remain, even if it is misunderstood in terms of 'sexuality'.[/code]
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 Cachasa » Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:42 pm

Again, more BS with no legitimate scientific support whatsoever... :roll:

Are there any genetic markers for feminine or masculine behaviors?...No. Because the very definition of what is and is not a masculine or feminine behavior is culturally determined and varies over time and across cultures.


Also, the APA and CPA changing their stances was of course due to peer pressure that's how science works. Peers come up with new ideas and (ideally) data to support them. Then in the face of the new evidence, opinions change.

And being misogynistic is not a "straightacting" trait. A real man has learned to respect and appreciate women as equals. A lesson, Masculinity obviously missed out on...
Cachasa
Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Shilo Manitoba Canada

Postby CollegePepper » Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:22 pm

^In Masculinity's Eastern Culture it is very common to look down upon women.

It's interesting to see how he exerts all this energy telling us that we in the Western World are blinded by our culture, and at the same time he is a living breathing stereotype of HIS culture and their dishonor, disdain, and disrespect of women.

Masculinity suffers from a severe case of Cognitive Dissonance.
CollegePepper
Member
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:10 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:59 am

Dude can't deal with who he is, and wants the rest of the world to do it for him.
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby masculinity » Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:13 am

Evidence that in the eighteenth century there were deliberate attempts in the West to define the femininity of the third sex in terms of a "sexual desire for sodomy" per se, without differentiating between masculinity and femininity and without differentiating between the penetrator and the penetrated.

"... the word "sodomy" seems to have a rather broader meaning, i.e. sex of any sort between males. Indeed, in Cocker's English dictionary of 1724 sodomy is defined simply as "male venery", which is really as abstract as the modern synonym "male homosexuality". Incidentally, the word "catamite" is sometimes just a synonym for "sodomite", and was not always restricted to one who submits to sodomy. There are also some other surprises. For example, the word "molly" appeared in a Swedish/English dictionary in 1762, where it is simply defined as a sodomite, a buggerer, without effeminate connotations."

excerpted from: Homosexual Terms in 18th-century Dictionaries

This was the precursor to the concept of 'homosexual', and a move inspired by Christianity which saw both the 'man' and the 'third sex' involved in sodomy as sinners and to be persecuted, without distinguishing between the two.

Also, note how the meaning of 'sodomy' itself was deliberately confused by the likes of 'Cocker's English dictionary' to mean any kind of sex between males.

Till today, a sexual desire for males is confused with anal sex.

But, this confusing of a sexual desire for males with both (a) effminacy and (b) Sodomy was unprecedented in human history, and didn't affect the rest of the world, till the modern West imposed its concept of homosexuality/ heterosexuality upon the non-west through globalization.
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 04, 2009 5:32 am

Adoption of Heterosexuality by the Straights, as an identity, is a direct result of adoption of Homoasexuality as an identity by the Third Sex.
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 09, 2009 10:53 am

The entire question about segregating males between two categories has been of who's a man, and who's not.

The earlier, most basic distinction was based on natural gender.

The males who innately felt to be females, were classified as 'third gender' and not 'men'.

The others were 'men'.

Then the distinction shifted from natural gender to what was socially defined as the roles of men and third gender.

This role hinged on being the penetrator or the penetrated. It was (wrongly) held that the it is the female role to be penetrated, and hence only the third gender were allowed that, and it was extremely stigmatized for men. The situation continued for more than two thousand years, and this distinction between men is practised till today in all non-western socities -- which don't divide males on the basis of homo-hetero, but on the basis of active and passive. The active is 'man' or 'straight', and the passive is 'third gender' or 'gay'.

In the west, the roles of men and third gender were further misdefined, and men were now supposed to desire only women, while all kinds of male desire for men was thought of as effeminate and hence belonging to the 'third gender'.

Men were no defined as 'heterosexual' or 'straight' males, and the third gender were defined as 'homosexual' or 'gay' males.

However, the crux of the two categories remain as that of 'men' and 'third gender', or 'men' and 'non-men' or 'men' and 'queer', and straight or heterosexual males are widely thought of as being the real men, while gays are considered to be effeminate, queers.

It is true to a large extent, because mostly, only effeminate males take on the 'gay' identity while the masculine males don the 'straight' identity, that may not reflect their true sexuality but it reflects their masculine gender, which is more important 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 Cachasa » Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:05 pm

SHUT UP!!!!! You uneducated, unscientific, mysoginistic, blow hard!!!!!!


Your little statements are full of SH/T!!!!! They're nothing but a bunch of irrelevant, factually untrue, misogynistic drivel!!!


I REPEAT SHUT UP!!!! YOU SICKING MISOGYNIST!!!!


GO HATE WOMEN, WESTERN CULTURE AND STRAIGHT ACTING MEN, SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!!!!!
Cachasa
Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Shilo Manitoba Canada

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:05 pm

Hear, hear!

I'd only add, Masculinity :roll:, that the Case Studies you're so fond of quoting as evidence are not "evidence." They are ANECDOTAL, and using ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE is a classic logical FALLACY!

But then, to judge from your postings as a whole, you have no idea what logic is, anyway. (HINT: "Logic" is NOT defined as "The semi-lucid, infantile ramblings of whiny little bitch.")
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby dracuscalico » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:42 am

No one has explained to me what flaming on a board is. Is this it?
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:01 am

Pazuzu P. Sasquatch wrote:Hear, hear!

I'd only add, Masculinity :roll:, that the Case Studies you're so fond of quoting as evidence are not "evidence." They are ANECDOTAL, and using ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE is a classic logical FALLACY!

But then, to judge from your postings as a whole, you have no idea what logic is, anyway. (HINT: "Logic" is NOT defined as "The semi-lucid, infantile ramblings of whiny little bitch.")

We're not discussing on a scientific or academic conference here... We're discussing human lives... and nothing reveals human lives more than anecdotes... however, its wrong to say that I have only used anecdotal evidences, I have provided lots of academic and scholarly work.

Science has its own agenda, it works for the powerful who control the scientific institution -- and they are the people who want to push this 'homo-hetero' divide... and we have agreed on this very forum, that science is trying to mislead people on the issue of male gender and sexuality, e.g. by claiming that there are no real bisexuals, and bisexuals are actually 'hidden' gays.

But tell me, when science had said that 'homosexuality' is a disease, did the gays wait to speak for themselves, till science changed its mind. No, they didn't. The gays started to organize themselves and then forced Science to change its mind.

But till that time, thousands of homosexuals kept shouting, we are for real, our feelings are for real, our feelings are innate... but no one listened to them... because the society and the science had their own agenda.

And today you as gays are in power, and you're doing just the same as anyone in power -- abusing that power, feeling threatened when its challenged -- and you're dismissing, just like them, the claims of 'gender' (i.e. masculinity and femininity of males being an innate feeling, which renders sexual orientation invalid), as being just social constructs, and thus of no merit, and of being just anecdotes, even if they're based upon years of work with men.
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:25 am

Pazuzu P. Sasquatch wrote:But then, to judge from your postings as a whole, you have no idea what logic is, anyway. (HINT: "Logic" is NOT defined as "The semi-lucid, infantile ramblings of whiny little bitch.")

You mean like this: :wink:

Cachasa wrote:SHUT UP!!!!! You uneducated, unscientific, mysoginistic, blow hard!!!!!!


Your little statements are full of SH/T!!!!! They're nothing but a bunch of irrelevant, factually untrue, misogynistic drivel!!!


I REPEAT SHUT UP!!!! YOU SICKING MISOGYNIST!!!!


GO HATE WOMEN, WESTERN CULTURE AND STRAIGHT ACTING MEN, SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!!!!!
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 dracuscalico » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:29 am

Cachasa wrote:SHUT UP!!!!! You uneducated, unscientific, mysoginistic, blow hard!!!!!!


Your little statements are full of SH/T!!!!! They're nothing but a bunch of irrelevant, factually untrue, misogynistic drivel!!!


I REPEAT SHUT UP!!!! YOU SICKING MISOGYNIST!!!!


GO HATE WOMEN, WESTERN CULTURE AND STRAIGHT ACTING MEN, SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!!!!!


Here's the deal. Chances are that telling him to shut up is not going to get you far, because it is HIS thread. If you don't like what he's saying you can always avoid the thread. He used to give these opinions, hijacking all the other threads, then he got confined to only a few. If he is staying in his corner, and not bothering everyone else on the other threads, is it really fair to come over to that corner just to dispute him?

I was through with him a long time ago and quit speaking to him. I might look at the thread, to see what other people are saying, but I don't speak to him directly. It's not worth the argument.
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:44 am

I can't remember the last time I've actually read one of his posts beyond seeing who it's by, to be honest. He does need to be reminded what a dumbass he is, though, and I'm not too selfish to do that for him now and then.
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:21 am

dracuscalico wrote:Here's the deal. Chances are that telling him to shut up is not going to get you far, because it is HIS thread. If you don't like what he's saying you can always avoid the thread. He used to give these opinions, hijacking all the other threads, then he got confined to only a few. If he is staying in his corner, and not bothering everyone else on the other threads, is it really fair to come over to that corner just to dispute him?

I'll tell you why the queers get worked up... because (a) I'm not speaking in the air, I am speaking out of work and research experience, there is strength in what I'm saying, and I have evidences, and (b) What I say affects the very identity of 'homosexuals' and is especially very troubling to the effeminate gendered, but masculine-acting, who are the backbone of the 'homosexual' identity. They're afraid of the 'straight' identity, because amongst straights, there really femininity gets too obvious. Here, they are the boss, amongst the more feminine queens, and they can actually think of themselves as masculine, plus, the 'homosexual' identity is silent about their effeminacy, and also gives them the chance to indulge in passive sex, without worrying about their manhood status.
Last edited by masculinity on Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:25 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 masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:25 am

Pazuzu P. Sasquatch wrote:I can't remember the last time I've actually read one of his posts beyond seeing who it's by, to be honest. He does need to be reminded what a dumbass he is, though, and I'm not too selfish to do that for him now and then.

To tell you the truth, I'm expecting opposition, fierce opposition from the queers... and it makes my day actually... 8)
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 Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:27 am

P-f-f-ft. . . fuckin' loser. . .
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby masculinity » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:43 am

Pazuzu P. Sasquatch wrote:P-f-f-ft. . . fuckin' loser. . .

You're right I'm a loser. I have lost a lot... I've lost my love, I've lost my identity... I've lost a 'normal' life, and most of all, I've lost my men's spaces and my culture and values, all because of the West, its powers and its ideas of male gender and sexuality, and especially because of the 'homosexuals'. That is what makes me burn and provide the fuel for opposing it so adamantly, sitting so far from there.
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 Pazuzu P. Sasquatch » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:50 am

I'm misty. . . :(
When I was driving once, I saw this painted on a bridge: "I don't want the world. I just want your half."
Pazuzu P. Sasquatch
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:58 am
Location: Troy, Ohio

Postby Cachasa » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:34 pm

dracuscalico wrote:
Cachasa wrote:SHUT UP!!!!! You uneducated, unscientific, mysoginistic, blow hard!!!!!!


Your little statements are full of SH/T!!!!! They're nothing but a bunch of irrelevant, factually untrue, misogynistic drivel!!!


I REPEAT SHUT UP!!!! YOU SICKING MISOGYNIST!!!!


GO HATE WOMEN, WESTERN CULTURE AND STRAIGHT ACTING MEN, SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!!!!!


Here's the deal. Chances are that telling him to shut up is not going to get you far, because it is HIS thread. If you don't like what he's saying you can always avoid the thread. He used to give these opinions, hijacking all the other threads, then he got confined to only a few. If he is staying in his corner, and not bothering everyone else on the other threads, is it really fair to come over to that corner just to dispute him?

I was through with him a long time ago and quit speaking to him. I might look at the thread, to see what other people are saying, but I don't speak to him directly. It's not worth the argument.



You're absolutely right and for a while I really did consider ignoring him.
If you look at most of my other posts (except for the ones in this thread):oops:, I'm not a very confrontational and I'd like to think that I'm pretty polite.

But then I thought about this thread in a different way...

If you had a gross offensive member, we'll say his name is, "RacistSAguy"

and he creates a thread about, "how blacks and black culture lies to itself to create a feeling of adequacy in spite of the fact that they are naturally economically inferior to whites and their superior cultural paradigms. Such as the whites 'natural' a value on education" I don't think that it would just be ignored. Sure there is some primitive antiquated illegitimate "research" to make a claim like that but...It would not be acceptable.

That guy would rightly get flamed ,marked as a racist and his thread would probably be deleted.

So that's why I got so angry at this guy and his threads/posts. Just because he tends to focus on the groups :women, SA men, effeminate men and Western culture using illegitimate antiquated "research" doesn't make it OK and less worthy of a strong visceral reaction by other members or deletion for that matter...

If I've come off looking like an asshole in this thread with my other posts. I'm sorry, but I just can't tolerate Masculinity's prejudiced garbage.
Cachasa
Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Shilo Manitoba Canada

Postby masculinity » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:43 am

Cachasa wrote:But then I thought about this thread in a different way...

If you had a gross offensive member, we'll say his name is, "RacistSAguy"

and he creates a thread about, "how blacks and black culture lies to itself to create a feeling of adequacy in spite of the fact that they are naturally economically inferior to whites and their superior cultural paradigms. Such as the whites 'natural' a value on education"

Can you prove that I am spreading hatred against anyone here? The issue here is forcing identities on people by misdefining them. If blacks were to define 'black' as to include, let's say, Indians, and Indians feel they are 'different' from blacks, then even when American whites and blacks both feel that Indians are black, Indians still have the right to dispute that claim. It doesn't mean that Indian guy disputing this is racist or anti-black.

Cachasa wrote:I don't think that it would just be ignored. Sure there is some primitive antiquated illegitimate "research" to make a claim like that but...It would not be acceptable.

Aren't you the one who cries about 'scientific evidences'. Now if you're going to summarily reject the authoritative researches as 'antiquated' and 'illegitimate' just because they don't tally with what you want to think, it doesn't sound very rational or fair.
When you ask for scientific evidences, you should know what to do with them if you don't like them. I am not saying that the researches are always true. The researcher are also humans and can falter. However, when someone authoritative or an expert says something, then you have to give reasons for rejecting his theory.
You have not given any reasons for rejecting the researches I have provided. Nor explained my work or personal experiences.

Cachasa wrote:Just because he tends to focus on the groups :women, SA men, effeminate men and Western culture using illegitimate antiquated "research"

Let's see how much ground does your accusations hold:

1) Am I anti-woman?
What are the statements of mine that you construe as being anti-women. I think these are the ones:
a) That I claimed that it is Queer to seek intimacy with women beyond vaginal intercourse.

Now, if it is ok to say it is queer to seek intimacy with men, not caring about how much that stigmatizes such intimacy, why is it unacceptable to say that about male-female intimacy?

I know why, because, a lot of the heterosexualization and anti-man stuff is forced on society in the name of being pro-woman... it is ok to be anti-man if it helps give women power. And to challenge that is being anti-woman, even if that takes away your rights.

2) I talk about men only spaces.

Now, in the West, they talk about women only spaces as something that women really need. You have women only schools, gyms, recreation centres and so on. This, when the heterosexual spaces are really very sensitive to the needs of women, but are actually hostile to the needs or privacy of men. But, when men ask for their own spaces, they are being anti-women, women-haters. Or even queers.

To heterosexualize men's spaces is seen as a prerequisite for giving women power. It's nobody's concern if it harms men, or if men really need these spaces. Because, the motto of a heterosexual society is anyway, that men should not need another men for anything at all, and that they should fulfill all of their needs -- including, social, emotional, sexual, physical, spiritual and intellectual needs with women. If you can't, you're Queer.

Also, if it is not ok to ask for men's only spaces, why is ok to ask for 'homosexual' only spaces, or 'heterosexual' only spaces? Is Sexual segregation any better than sex segregation?

3) Am I anti Gay (i.e. anti SA and effeminate?):

I claim, with evidences, that 'gay' is about being SA and effeminate, but that man to man desire is much wider and so the definition of 'homosexuality' needs to be changed.

Does it automatically mean I'm anti-SA and effeminate? Because, I want to have my difference recognized or that I want to claim my real identity as straight -- if at all there are grounds for which?

The truth is I'm not against male effeminacy at all. I think its a beautiful thing and something that makes life complete (unless its the vulgar kind seen in gay circles). I'm just against equating male femininity with man's sexual desire for men, and then segregating it from the straight space -- that the concept of homosexuality is all about.

3.) Am I against Western Culture?

Only, if the Western culture comes to my house and forces itself on me in a way that I don't want, or before engaging me in a discussion or before taking my permission,... then I have the right to complain... it doesn't mean I'm against the West per se...
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 2 guests