Becoming a Whore?

[duendy]

The problem isn't with women who like to sleep around as much as men, the problem is when the girl finds the term "slut" offensive, when she shouldn't. Hell, you can call me a slut, manwhore, or whatever you want and I'll thank you for the compliment.

- N

ask yourself WHY you'd feel so smug.
isn't it cause being seen to be sexually promiscuous as a male is more accepted by patriarchal culture?

 

[Buddha1]

sorry Buddha1, i do not agree with your tughts about 'sluts'...in fact it pissess me right off

it is men who concot this scenario. why is it wrong for women to enjoy sex? and sleep around? or haei got u wrong? please explain

It is hard to explain, but I'll try!

To understand my point of view you will have to see and observe the world from my standpoint and point of reference.

The oppression of (masculine gendered) men is directly related with pressures of social masculinity that force men to exaggerate their sexual need for men, to have sex with women and to suppress their sexual need for men. It is for this reason that women have been given the power to decide who is a man and who is not.

No one is more capable of using that power and to destroy men than the sexually aggressive heterosexual woman --- who thinks it is her natural right. In the traditional society, her powers were kept under control, for being openly desirous of sex was considered unacceptable for women, and women could exercise this power over men only in limited circles.

The heterosexual society gives such women total freedom and men complete vulnerability before them. They are the first ones to cry 'homo' if they see men being close with other men, or a man who doesn't submit to her demand for sex.

Now heterosexual women are very amenable with 'homosexuals' (It's a mutual admiration and support!), and are all for their rights, because that is a separate group and they don't see them as a threat to their power base (which is invisible, but real!). But they can't stand masculine gendered men in the mainstream, who don't submit to their sexual subordination or show an attraction for another male. They are the first ones, together with the real 'hetero' males (a minority) to marginalise same-sex behaviour.

You have seen how 'heteros' put pressures on men to submit to women's sexual expoitation. A society which doesn't even recognise the sexual exploitation of men, and doesn't think there is anything wrong with the compelete heterosexualisation of society will only exacerbate the oppression of men by allowing freedom to the 'sluts'.

I don't know if I"m making myself clear.

 

[john smith]

To understand my point of view you will have to see and observe the world from my standpoint and point of reference.

But what is your stand point, or point of reference?

I don't know if I"m making myself clear.

Not to me your not. :m:

 

[Buddha1]

But what is your stand point, or point of reference?

From a masculine gendered/ straight (not heterosexual) point of view. From someone who has worked extensively with straight men and know the real issues involved.

Not to me your not. :m:

It will only make sense if you:
- are not part of the vested interest group.
- if you are you are still capable of viewing things objectively.
- you 've been following my threads on male gender and sexuality.

 

[Buddha1]

.....being seen to be sexually promiscuous as a male is more accepted by patriarchal culture?

That statement is only partly true.

This statement, which is often propagated by the heterosexual society is only true if one believes the heterosexual viewpoint that man is primarily and exclusively interested only in women, and has no sexual need for men at all. For male promiscuity, in a heterosexual society is exalted and accepted only if it is vis-a-vis women. So you should qualify your statement accordingly, otherwise it misleads.

However, male promiscuity does include (even in the heterosexual west, but I guess to a much lesser degree in the US than in Europe) 'active' penetrative sex with another man or a transgendered male, and almost all other kinds of sex with another man if there are proper excuses (like a supposed lack of girls or being drunk, or a socially acceptable occasion like hazing!).

 

[Kotoko]

One who has/wants to have sex with many different people, regardless of sex or gender, with disregard for their own personal honour or the honour of those they are sleeping with is a slut.

Until you start applying the value differently to each gender because of their gender, the definition stays the same. When we apply our value systems i.e. Males are less likely to be considered sluts because in the society in the U.S., it is a rite of passage and even encouraged for males to "sow their seed" before settling down to get it out of their system. But females who experiment with their sexuality and sleep around before settling down are considered "damaged goods" and not worth marrying. It is this way because, like it or not, the majority of the United States is Christian based morals/values. Women should be virginal, and men do not have to be so. It is much less pronounced in Europe, and much more pronounced in the Middle East and Asia excluding the more progressive places like China and Japan.

Your statement that male promiscuity includes having sex with another male, is not accurate and not relevant. Men who use anyone, male or female as an object to eject their sperm into and not a living feeling human being, are sluts. The same could be said for females who do the same thing, although that scenario in the female gender is less likely. Women tend to be more emotional about their sex, and it is done to make themselves feel more wanted or boost self-esteem, or to make someone jealous, or to sabotage a current relationship, or in worst case scenario, cover some old wound such as rape/abuse with good feeling sex to make it go away or to bring their self-esteem down more.

 

[Buddha1]

One who has/wants to have sex with many different people, regardless of sex or gender, with disregard for their own personal honour or the honour of those they are sleeping with is a slut.

Until you start applying the value differently to each gender because of their gender, the definition stays the same. When we apply our value systems i.e. Males are less likely to be considered sluts because in the society in the U.S., it is a rite of passage and even encouraged for males to "sow their seed" before settling down to get it out of their system. But females who experiment with their sexuality and sleep around before settling down are considered "damaged goods" and not worth marrying. It is this way because, like it or not, the majority of the United States is Christian based morals/values. Women should be virginal, and men do not have to be so. It is much less pronounced in Europe, and much more pronounced in the Middle East and Asia excluding the more progressive places like China and Japan.

Your statement that male promiscuity includes having sex with another male, is not accurate and not relevant. Men who use anyone, male or female as an object to eject their sperm into and not a living feeling human being, are sluts. The same could be said for females who do the same thing, although that scenario in the female gender is less likely. Women tend to be more emotional about their sex, and it is done to make themselves feel more wanted or boost self-esteem, or to make someone jealous, or to sabotage a current relationship, or in worst case scenario, cover some old wound such as rape/abuse with good feeling sex to make it go away or to bring their self-esteem down more.

Much of what you've said belongs in an ideal world. But alas we live in an unequal world with the reality not always being what it appears.

Also, men and women are neither equals nor the same. Although this fact I don't see necessarily applying here, not directly at least.

Different sexual mores are not basically a handiwork of Christianity as you assume. The seeds of it were sown way back at the start of the marriage institution, when the society wanted to force men and women into marriage and they developed different social mechanisms for men and women for this purpose.

With men the issue was to force them into sex with women --- because by nature it happens with much less frequency and intensity. So their pressures developed accordingly. There pressures basically sought to block male sexual attention from men and to divert it towards women. That is how 'sex with women' became a big deal --- and a test of manhood, a matter of honor. And not participating in it became a great dishonour which almost amounted to being outcast from the 'men's' group.

Men were also offered several sops, including ownership of the 'wife' and children, and a guarantee that the woman will bear his sperms and carry on his lineage. All this made the man feel very important indeed, and the society too encouraged him to have a huge ego.

With women (in nature a majority of whom seek sex with men but not an emotional bonding --- and this sex is limited to only what is required for procreation) the issue was to ensure that they had sex only with men so as to ensure the male lineage. Of course, women too were blocked from their natural urge to form sexual bonds with other women --- but this was easy to achieve since it was easy to use external force on women. With men the pressure was mostly internal.

We share the same sexual mores to this day. Although heterosexual societies have changed the pressures of women to a great extent. The pressures of men have been intensified.

Yet the society doesn't even need to force men into marriage anymore! Today, the pressures exist for their own sake. Their objective today is to feed the power base of the 'vested interest group' --- the group that has learned to thrive on the ancient social mechanisms of oppression.

 

[kazakhan]

The problem isn't with women who like to sleep around as much as men, the problem is when the girl finds the term "slut" offensive, when she shouldn't. Hell, you can call me a slut, manwhore, or whatever you want and I'll thank you for the compliment.

- N

My own mother still occasionally calls me a slut even though I've been married for ten years. My girlfriends used to also called me a slut often enough, I always took it as a complement, especially when they came back for more

 

[duendy]

It is hard to explain, but I'll try!

To understand my point of view you will have to see and observe the world from my standpoint and point of reference.

The oppression of (masculine gendered) men is directly related with pressures of social masculinity that force men to exaggerate their sexual need for men, to have sex with women and to suppress their sexual need for men. It is for this reason that women have been given the power to decide who is a man and who is not.

No one is more capable of using that power and to destroy men than the sexually aggressive heterosexual woman --- who thinks it is her natural right. In the traditional society, her powers were kept under control, for being openly desirous of sex was considered unacceptable for women, and women could exercise this power over men only in limited circles.

The heterosexual society gives such women total freedom and men complete vulnerability before them. They are the first ones to cry 'homo' if they see men being close with other men, or a man who doesn't submit to her demand for sex.

Now heterosexual women are very amenable with 'homosexuals' (It's a mutual admiration and support!), and are all for their rights, because that is a separate group and they don't see them as a threat to their power base (which is invisible, but real!). But they can't stand masculine gendered men in the mainstream, who don't submit to their sexual subordination or show an attraction for another male. They are the first ones, together with the real 'hetero' males (a minority) to marginalise same-sex behaviour.

You have seen how 'heteros' put pressures on men to submit to women's sexual expoitation. A society which doesn't even recognise the sexual exploitation of men, and doesn't think there is anything wrong with the compelete heterosexualisation of society will only exacerbate the oppression of men by allowing freedom to the 'sluts'.

I don't know if I"m making myself clear.

yes you are. and as you sai it is YOUR POINT OF VIEW. itis not mine. hope i am clear also.

of course over the time i've been here, i have gelled with SOMEinsightsof yeours, example being materialistic science. but in thi instance i notice women and homoseexuals yet agin being blamed for 'man's' troubles

it seems quite a mission of yourse this subject. for i have noticed it being rased by you in even threds where its a different subject.
i feel this:
pepple are as they are. if a bloke is gay and feels totally Gay. it is for NOone to tell the they aint right, and need help etc. that is wrong.
if a bloke feels otally into women. again it is absurd to tell them they really have secret desires for males but wont admit it. as it is for te gay b;oke if you claim they really want women also. NO. they feel like they feel. it is noone's right to chalenge their sexuality, UNLESS it impinges on others' freedom
usually very women-loving men are very cool about homosexuality. ie., they are at ease with Gays. so i see no harm with that. if they dont fancy males. leav e it!

as for women wo love sex. many feminists wuld really challenge you on your...patriarchal view about how 'proper culture' would keep tem in check. for that idea IS patriarchal. the idea that only males can be promiscuous, and efe ENJOY sex.

so i am afriad i have to say Buddha1, you views seem to me patriarchal. it is all centred around males and THEIRneeds.

 

[Buddha1]

yes you are. and as you sai it is YOUR POINT OF VIEW. itis not mine. hope i am clear also.

of course over the time i've been here, i have gelled with SOMEinsightsof yeours, example being materialistic science. but in thi instance i notice women and homoseexuals yet agin being blamed for 'man's' troubles

I have not blamed women and homosexuals. Not in the way you think. But why do you think its only men who need to take the blame.

I've stressed it again and again, and I think you're ignoring it, that both men and women had to make sacrifices and were given priviliges in their own way --- in order to pressurise them into patriachy (the marriage institution!). Just because man's powers are visible and his oppression is not doesn't negate his oppresion. And just because women's oppression is visible and her powers are not, shouldn't negate her powers either.

When you think I'm blaming woman I am actually opposing lifting her pressures and giving her outer powers (much more than she ever sacrificed in the first place!) when no one cares about the oppression of men becasue it is invisible. And that his oppression is infact intensified. This violates the social balance and makes men really vulnerbale and isolated.

The role of the homosexual becomes important because he has appropriated the social space for male-male bonds, leaving little option for men --- but that is another story.

it seems quite a mission of yourse this subject. for i have noticed it being rased by you in even threds where its a different subject.
i feel this:

If you're talking about male gender and sexuality, yes it is a mission. But I've not lost my objectivity and I am basically looking to discuss my observations, analysis, ideas, opinions and values with others with an open mind so as to find out the real truth.

pepple are as they are. if a bloke is gay and feels totally Gay. it is for NOone to tell the they aint right, and need help etc. that is wrong.
if a bloke feels otally into women. again it is absurd to tell them they really have secret desires for males but wont admit it. as it is for te gay b;oke if you claim they really want women also. NO. they feel like they feel. it is noone's right to chalenge their sexuality, UNLESS it impinges on others' freedom

That is a heterosexual/ homosexual/ woman's point of view. It is also an individualistic standpoint --- and though looks cool as an attitude towards individuals, has no relevance here --- when we are talking about larger issues. You are basically denying that men are under an intense pressure to be 'heterosexual'. There is no way to look behind what is going on behind men's masks if we were to respect their masks even for the purpose of this discussion. I have seen what goes behind those masks, because I'm part of that group, and I want to bring that out. There is no other way than to talk about the 'behind the masks' man. Your 'politically' correct approach is not very helpful here. It also reflects a total lack of understanding of men's issues. And don't forget that I'm not challenging individuals about their sexuality --- unless I see reason to. And when there is a reason to suspect (e.g. when it is used as a power statement to disarm the oppostion), then I limit myself to pointing out that there is often a different reality behind the mask. This is done as a strategy and it has worked so far.

usually very women-loving men are very cool about homosexuality. ie., they are at ease with Gays.

Yes for sure. Women are very cool with homosexuality. But they are not cool at all with masculine bonds or even the idea of it. They are at ease with gays --- and share quite a lot with them --- but they don't want masculine men to like men --- that makes them insecure. So all those fag hags will be the first one to cry 'homo' when a masculine gendere man spurns their advances or shows interest in another man.

so i see no harm with that. if they dont fancy males. leav e it!

If you think that I have been forcing men to admit that they have a sexual need for men, then you're sadly mistaken. I don't think you've understood the basics of the issues that I'm raising.

as for women wo love sex. many feminists wuld really challenge you on your...patriarchal view about how 'proper culture' would keep tem in check. for that idea IS patriarchal. the idea that only males can be promiscuous, and efe ENJOY sex.
As for feminists, they are part and parcel of the heterosxual world! They are just there to ensure a greater share of power within the heterosexual system. They don't oppose it. The same is the case with homosexuals.

so i am afriad i have to say Buddha1, you views seem to me patriarchal. it is all centred around males and THEIRneeds.

I don't support marriage, so I cannot be patriachical! :m:

 

[Buddha1]

My position vis-a-vis sexually aggressive (heterosexual) women is this:

There can be no freedom for men within the heterosexual system. The heterosexual system is basically and intrinsically anti-men. Sexually aggressive women are one of the primary beneficiaries of the heterosexual system. Therefore, I cannot be expected to view them favourably.

I see homosexuals, feminists and heterosexual males in more or less a similar fashion. Because they are all part of the heterosexual system. They are all based on the heterosexual ideology.

I'm willing to change my views if someone can show me why!

 

[Buddha1]

Your statement that male promiscuity includes having sex with another male, is not accurate and not relevant.

Believe me you're a woman and you have no way to know or understand what goes on inside the minds of men. This only another man can know. But then he is supposed to keep it a well guarded secret (esp. from women and homosexuals). I happen to disagree! and for a purpose.

As far as male promiscuity is concerned, in my society, most definitely a desire to have sex with men is seen as: the man is brimming over with sexual desire (hormones). It is not seen as something that comes in the way of marriage (with us marriage and procreation is important, sex with women is not of much use on its own --- barring the peer-group!).

I can see that the west has more or less the same values --- even after decades of heterosexualisation. I remember a post made by a 'heterosexual' poster who bragged about 'fucking homosexuals' and 'getting sucked by men'.

 

[Buddha1]

as for women wo love sex. many feminists wuld really challenge you on your...patriarchal view about how 'proper culture' would keep tem in check.

Where are all those feminists? How come Sciforums don't have them? I'd love to discuss things with them, and see them challenge me!

 

[duendy]

when i say 'patriarchal' i mean that, but also basically i mean a fear of Nature. so forme a celibate ascetic monk is patriarchal...it is part of that mindset which fears Hature, for very aniceintly Nature was conceptualized as being female.

please dont assume me politically correct. that to me is false coporate shite,and double speak. i try and speak from the heart. u should have gotten that frpm me by now dude

look. the 1950s had the psychiatric establishment doing all kinds of horrors to Gay men claiming theyweren't really Gay

i see no idfference wid your attitude. by patronizingly telling people they dont know who they are

Leary had similat attitude, and tried to 'imprint' Aby Hoffman with LSD to become 'straight'...it din't err work

it also is very un-tA TO TRY FORCE PEOPLE TO BE WHAT THEY FEEL THEY ARE NOT. TO ONE CAN GENTLY HINT

A GOOD EXMAPLE. THERE ARE THEORIES THAT THE LATE kURT cOBAINE was really Gay, yet he had been oppressed to deny it, andthis married and had a baby. well it would have been nice for him to not feel guilt about sex with males....a it would other males

also if a male who is hetero is totally ito women ad doesn't attack Queers, good luck to him. iw women love the company of gay males, good luck to them. if women want lots and lots of sex. that is their right. sex is fun. ofcourse they ned 'take care' adivice. but so do males

it is wrong wrong to call them sluts

but in another way, being 'slutty' cn be a part of their character they might liketo explore. why not

to really understand te male conception of WOMAN. you need to explore about thier suppression of te Goddess/ how they keep the submissive aspect, ie, Virgin Mary, and demonize the wilder sexual woman who will not be submissive, such as 'Lilith'. this mythis narative reveals very profoundy the underying fears and motives of men

of course i dont only see wome as vitims in patriarchal cultue. but many men not into that trip LOVE wild strong women. it turns em on

 

[Buddha1]

Women tend to be more emotional about their sex, and it is done to make themselves feel more wanted or boost self-esteem, or to make someone jealous, or to sabotage a current relationship, or in worst case scenario, cover some old wound such as rape/abuse with good feeling sex to make it go away or to bring their self-esteem down more.

The best emotional bonds women share is with other women.

In heterosexual societies women are under pressure to have boyfriends and to date. They feel incomplete without it. And there is an intense competition amongst peers about getting a boyfriend and winning dates. That makes them feel worthwhile.

But the best sexual bonds women have is also with other women. When there is perfect understanding, acceptance and equality. Of course the society has blocked them from this need, though in heterosexual societies women are reclaiming it slowly, and it is coming out of the 'lesbian' prison. (of course the term lesbian doesn't have the same negative connotations for women as the word 'homosexual' has for men!).

 

[Buddha1]

when i say 'patriarchal' i mean that, but also basically i mean a fear of Nature. so forme a celibate ascetic monk is patriarchal...it is part of that mindset which fears Hature, for very aniceintly Nature was conceptualized as being female.

I have no fear of nature. Neither does natural masculinity fear nature. I think your concept of patriarchy is a bit misplaced.

It is also wrong to believe that masculinity is negative and fears nature. Or that nature is feminine --- that I totally disagree with. If anything the nature would be either neutral or hermaphrodite.

For the very ancients too, nature (or more precisely god) was seen as a hermaphrodite.

please dont assume me politically correct. that to me is false coporate shite,and double speak. i try and speak from the heart. u should have gotten that frpm me by now dude

Alright Pal!

look. the 1950s had the psychiatric establishment doing all kinds of horrors to Gay men claiming theyweren't really Gay

i see no idfference wid your attitude. by patronizingly telling people they dont know who they are

Leary had similat attitude, and tried to 'imprint' Aby Hoffman with LSD to become 'straight'...it din't err work

it also is very un-tA TO TRY FORCE PEOPLE TO BE WHAT THEY FEEL THEY ARE NOT. TO ONE CAN GENTLY HINT

A GOOD EXMAPLE. THERE ARE THEORIES THAT THE LATE kURT cOBAINE was really Gay, yet he had been oppressed to deny it, andthis married and had a baby. well it would have been nice for him to not feel guilt about sex with males....a it would other males

I think you're again displaying a total lack of understanding of the issues that men face.

Let me illustrate the point you've raised with an example.

There is a pressure on men to be masculine. But there is no pressure on men to be feminine. In fact the society is hostile to the idea.

So you can't compare what appears to be masculine on a similar footing with what appears to be feminine. Because a lot of 'masculinity' will be a pretense precisely becasue of the pressures. But the femininity will be totally genuine (at least in the mainstream society, in the gay world it is exaggerated!).

The same is true of so-called heterosexuality and homosexuality. The division of society along these lines also complicates the matter. And though homosexuals, especially the true ones are honest and clear about their choice, it would be a mistake for them to make the same assumption about the other side, because they don't know the issues that men on the other side face.

also if a male who is hetero is totally ito women ad doesn't attack Queers, good luck to him. iw women love the company of gay males, good luck to them. if women want lots and lots of sex. that is their right. sex is fun. ofcourse they ned 'take care' adivice. but so do males

it is wrong wrong to call them sluts

but in another way, being 'slutty' cn be a part of their character they might liketo explore. why not

I have already expressed my reservations about the issue above.

to really understand te male conception of WOMAN. you need to explore about thier suppression of te Goddess/ how they keep the submissive aspect, ie, Virgin Mary, and demonize the wilder sexual woman who will not be submissive, such as 'Lilith'. this mythis narative reveals very profoundy the underying fears and motives of men

I disagree Duendy. You make out men to be the stereotypical culprits. It is not the reality!

of course i dont only see wome as vitims in patriarchal cultue. but many men not into that trip LOVE wild strong women. it turns em on

Yes, heterosexual men!

 

[Buddha1]

when i say 'patriarchal' i mean that, but also basically i mean a fear of Nature. so forme a celibate ascetic monk is patriarchal...it is part of that mindset which fears Hature, for very aniceintly Nature was conceptualized as being female.

The feminine in males has been really, really victimised. But if you think the female in itself has been meted out the same treatment you are not totally correct. Women, received several important powers in the patriachal society --- that more than compensate for everything they lost.

Also, masculinity itself has received a pretty shabby treatment by the civilised society. Indeed, the civilised society had no place for natural masculinity since the beginning and saw it as a threat. Unless and until it imprisioned natural masculinlity of men, they could never have been imprisioned in the patriarchical/ marriage institution. So the civilised society practically banned natural positive masculinity from its spaces.

Of course it did not just disappear. It survived in negative and mutilated forms. And this is how it got a bad name. Masculinity is seen as something negative, destructive and exploitative. But it is not the real, positive form of it.

Also, the society kept using superficial and often negative images of masculinity as ideals for men --- in order to keep them clamouring for social masculinity, the society's only means of controlling men. In the absence of their natural masculinity men too became heavily dependant on 'social masculinity'.

So you see, females or femininity in males have not been the only sufferers. Someone's suffering has been recognised and someone's hasn't been. It's the latter who has paid the worst price.

 

[Buddha1]

i see no idfference wid your attitude. by patronizingly telling people they dont know who they are

it also is very un-tA TO TRY FORCE PEOPLE TO BE WHAT THEY FEEL THEY ARE NOT. TO ONE CAN GENTLY HINT

Most men are aware of their same-sex feelings and hide it. Some express it through hostility towards such feelings. Other suppress it for 'social masculinity'.

The first group is the majority and keeps quiet when such issues are raised.

The second group is sometimes encountered in such discussions --- as in the outside world.

It is the last group which is vocal in such discussions.

Of course there are men who are confused --- because the society has confused them.

The few real really heterosexuals ones don't see it as a power issue, even when they believe that everyone is 'heterosexual' like them. They are neither aggressive about the issue, nor do they use their 'heterosexuality' as a weapon. And it is the same on such discussion forums as in real life.

And where have you seen me forcing someone to believe that he has a sexual attraction for men?

 

[hug-a-tree]

How 'bout if she fucks 405,236 men in two HOURS, is she then a whore?

Baron Max

I wouldn't say so. I'd say she has super powers.

 

[duendy]

you tend toreveal to me Buddha1, in this thread and in others, that you are not so au fe with mythology.....one thread i thought was gonna be good u started youseemed to just forget about

but thepoint. yu dont dig that the concept of the Earth being feminine, hence 'Mother Earth' is w idely spread/global anceint one.....Obviously the association is that Earth is home, it nurtures, and is reponsible for the birth of all forms of life

so the patriarchal mindset, which includes monotheism and mystical schools, andEastern metaphysics, desigen their doctrines to denigrate BOTH woman AND Nature. if you dont get ths crucial cue, then your shit's bound to be limited in scope of insight, in my opinion

women hafve NOT had any good deal out of the patriarchy. ae you mad?? they have been demonized. not solong ago the Curch theologians eve wondeed wheter women had SOULS. compare wit Rene Descartes' same absurd idea that animals are mere machines

Also with Nayture. we are living in the lEGACY OF cARTESIAN DUALISM, IN THat materialistic science has the idea that Nature is dead/insentient

do you see a pattern here? I do. it is that when a power decides to degrade another, first it must 'dehumanize' it/...and/or dis-spirit it, in order to feel superior towards it and then have power-over

so we have Woman, Nature, Gays, peoples of a darker skin tone.......all degraded by silly beliefs from a male mindset

why should it have come from males?

a good plausiable reason is that unlike woman who isfeeling-connecxted with Earth process due to her periods, conception, childbirth and nurturing, usually males haf not felt so, and so certain of them have ganged togther and deliberately decided to take power-over. and to eventually escape what they haveunderstood to be a Feminine trap. for when you look at th etymology of the Eastern concept of 'Maya' you see it drives from feminine associations, ie MA-meter, measure, and Mama

let me qicikly add. this mindset is not ALL males. it is eliyes whove split their beings in two. mind/'logic' versus body/emotions. the latter always, in patriarchal myth etc., with femininity and the former with masculinity