Satyr said:
What is being expressed is the FULL NATURE of HUMANITY, not some imagined or supposed BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE.
Masculinity and men
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
What is being expressed is the FULL NATURE of HUMANITY, not some imagined or supposed BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE.
You really need to understand men a lot!Giambattista said:
Satyr is very, very frustrated.
His sense of 'masculinity'/ 'manhood' has been hurt. Nothing hurts a man more than being called a 'girl'! Even though the man may actually be feminine.
He will say a lot of things ostensibly to 'hurt' me, though he is more acting like an annoyed cat scratching her claws in utter frustration. You are playing into his trap, if you react!
You have to stop taking the hetero-princess seriously! If you start discussing 'homosexuality' (sic) here, you're just walking blindly into his feminine traps!Giambattista said:
One thing I'm sure of is that he is a 'heterosexual' alright! I wouldn't be too proud to say that someone like him too may have sexual need for men. In fact, I can proudly assert that a typical man with sexual feelings for women will be like him. And that says a lot!
Satyr said:
Well, since humans NATURALLY evolved to have such complex emotions, certainly NATURE must have had a purpose?
If bonding, which is EMOTIONAL (at least for humans, hopefully) is to facilitate BREEDING and PROCREATING, why something so inefficient as EMOTION?
After all, emotions have caused distraught mothers to kill their own children. Or fathers to behead their girls on suspicion of rape, in order to uphold personal honor.
If emotions evolved simply to facilitate procreation (and keeping a certain genetic identity alive) WHY ON EARTH WOULD THOSE EMOTIONS CAUSE A PERSON TO KILL THEIR OWN OFFSPRING???
Oh! "Well, the offending children were seen as impractical from a biological standpoint (a subjective observation, might I add), and so the parent simply terminated them in order to make room for more VIABLE offspring!"
OH! IS THAT HOW SIMPLE IT IS? So, honor, which is a subjective, emotional, HUMAN concept, suddenly dictates what is biologically viable???
THAT is what emotion does. There is no other example in nature of the complexity of human emotions. Certainly if emotions evolved simply to facilitate procreation, they could do a much better job of it, eh Satyr, you cloven-hooved one?
Exactly! We only have to look to bacteria and their meiosis for a perfect example of EFFICIENT reproduction, WITHOUT the vagaries of HUMAN "LOGIC" and EMOTIONS to obstruct the perfect replication of genetic lines, let alone the imperfections of any kind of social interaction or bonding.
It is these SAME emotions that cause men and women to fall in love with each other. It is these SAME emotions that cause men to fall in love with other men, or women with women. It is these SAME emotions that cause men to abuse the ones they claim to love. It is these SAME emotions that tell one person that heavy metal is awesome, and another says that it's lame, but classical music is awesome, or the Talking Heads are a righteous musical creation.
These SAME EMOTIONS also tell certain people that they should prevent NATURAL procreation from occuring, because it is "wrong" or unsupportable etc.
The lower lifeforms have no qualms to this proliferation of life and reproduction that are observable or ascertainable.
Bacteria don't need emotions to reproduce, and guess what, they do it with far more efficiency than humans could ever dream of. They don't need sexuality (only asexuality, and hence, no bonding) and they have no definable concerns for their offspring.
If emotional bonding is meant merely to facilitate procreation, it's doing a VERY POOR and INEFFICIENT job of it. I'm sure, though, that you're aware of that.
Of course, I have this feeling that you're merely being sarcastic towards Buddha1, and that is why you made such ill-founded remarks.
Emotion does not always facilitate procreation. Often it HINDERS it.
If an insane or depressed mother can drown her PERFECTLY VIABLE children in a bathtub (because of emotion), how does that support the bearing of offspring, or the continuance of her genetic heritage?
Unless you can prove that she KNEW they were all infertile, and she was making room for other, more viable offspring.
And keep in mind they don't have to be hearing voices to do such things. People can also kill themselves (or others) because of unresolved problems, emotional or other. Some people who see nothing but empty biology in a hollow universe can be driven to suicide for the lack of meaning. That is emotion. How many animals kill themselves because of a lack of higher meaning in their lives? And I'm not referring to animals trapped in small cages.
Does this biological imperative they supposedly have give them this meaning?
I personally fail to see how that is biological efficiency when emotions can make someone kill even THEMSELVES. And I thought preservation of life was right before procreation on the big To-Do list that controls us all. Why do emotions override that? Or is that somehow preservation?
So, how many women has the cloven-hoofed Satyr bedded? How many times has this heterosexual god Pan had intercourse ("natural" no less), where birth control was used to disrupt the normal cause-and-effect course of natural reproduction? How is that any different from homosexuality, when heterosexuals practice birth control? Not? If that's your answer, then you're correct. If you can't understand that, I guess you may also have trouble adding 2 and 2 together. What do you think?
Last edited:
Buddha1 said:
Well, I BELIEVE I just addressed his sarcastic (or otherwise) comments succinctly and properly. I'll let others be the judge of that.
Buddha1 said:
Mmmm! I LOVE kittycats! MEOW MEOW MEOW! I'm a kittycat! MEOW MEOW MEOW!
Felines, honestly, are beautiful and sensuous! They're sleek and sexy! I ALWAYS involve myself with every cat I come across!
If I go out a walkin, and I see a cat within earshot, I don't hesitate to meow in its direction, in the hopes that it heeds my beck and call, and comes to commune with me.
Dogs are nice, sure. But cats: they's my people!
Let's get back to the original question.Buddha1 said:
IS PHYSICAL STRENGTH AND POWER A PART OF NATURAL MASCULINITY:
It seems people in the west know little about masculinity (and femininity). I guess that is because their society has obliterated the concept of gender orientation, and made them obsessed with sexual preferences.
Analysis of the above question:
1. There are many men who are not physically so strong, but certainly seem and feel more masculine than others.
2. There are many men who are phsically very strong, but not very masculine.
3. Lack of physical strength (e.g. losing it through a disease) however, may make one vulnerable, especially in situations that may challenge his 'social masculinity' --- thus putting him in touch with his natural femininity.
4. Similarly, if one is endowed with lots of physical strength and a strong body, it can help him get 'social masculinity' --- which will be good for the development of his natural masculinity.
From the above it is clear that:
Physical power and strength (including a strong muscular body) is not the essence of natural masculinity. But it makes a lot of difference for masculine gendered men in order to earn 'social masculinity' and to develop their natural masculinity.
Especially in nature, it helps a lot to be physically strong, where there is a strong connection between masculinity in males and physical power.
To remind you of the other factors that we have to analyse if they are part of genuine masculinity or are artificially decreed masculine by the society, here is the list:
Here is a list of social masculinity in males:
1- being powerful and strong
2- being virile
3- having sex with women.
4- big dick
5- fucking males
6- getting oral sex from males
7- outdoor sports
8- being adventurous
9- being bold/ courageous
10- being brave
11- being intelligent
12- being practical
13- being logical
14- willing to fight physically
15- being a man of words
16- uncaring about getting old.
17- uncaring about looks
18- body building
Here is a list of social femininity in males:
A- crying
B- Getting fucked by a male
C- Giving oral sex to a male
D- Giving oral sex to a female
E- being too cosy or emotional in a relationship with a female.
F- yoga
G- nurturing and looking after babies/ children
H- indoor sports
I- being creative
J- interior decoration
K- colour sense
L- being emotional
M- dancing
N- cooking
O- make-up
P- Jewellery
Q- avoiding physical scuffles
R- being a coward
S- not keeping his words
Here is a list of social masculinity in males:
1- being powerful and strong
2- being virile
3- having sex with women.
4- big dick
5- fucking males
6- getting oral sex from males
7- outdoor sports
8- being adventurous
9- being bold/ courageous
10- being brave
11- being intelligent
12- being practical
13- being logical
14- willing to fight physically
15- being a man of words
16- uncaring about getting old.
17- uncaring about looks
18- body building
Here is a list of social femininity in males:
A- crying
B- Getting fucked by a male
C- Giving oral sex to a male
D- Giving oral sex to a female
E- being too cosy or emotional in a relationship with a female.
F- yoga
G- nurturing and looking after babies/ children
H- indoor sports
I- being creative
J- interior decoration
K- colour sense
L- being emotional
M- dancing
N- cooking
O- make-up
P- Jewellery
Q- avoiding physical scuffles
R- being a coward
S- not keeping his words
Xerxes said:
That they are! And your comments about Bach were uncalled for. HA!
Buddha1 said:
Make a wish!
Dear Buddha, do you realise this was a response to someone in this thread? And that it seems like everytime you ask me to move that topic to a different thread, you start discussing that same topic? Or other people do?
Do we REALLY have to use such crude language in a public forum? Is such vulgarity necessary? I KNOW EVERYBODY'S DOING IT, but that doesn't mean EVERYBODY SHOULD!!!
Buddha1 said:
Colour sense??? As in, Queer Eye for What Can't be Seen by the Straight Guy? Who suggested that one?
For a minute there, I thought this a reference to women being able to distinguish certain shades of red better than men.
Buddha1 said:
If a man feels strong but is actually physically weak, is he being lied to by himself? Is this NATURAL, or SOCIAL masculinity he is experiencing (or not experiencing)? What again is the definitive difference??? It's escaping me at this time.
How does a man "lose" his natural femininity? You told me that this had happened to you. How does something like that become irretrievable? You certainly don't talk like you've lost all of your feminine energy all time! You sure it's not just playing hide and go seek? Look more carefully?
What about looks? Apparently, women are supposed to... AH! So, it's number seventeen, is it?
17- uncaring about looks
So, women (or femme gay boys?) are supposed to look pretty and petite, and men are supposed to be rugged and burly and perhaps even ugly?
Obviously, I'm exaggerating, just to get your attention!
But, I have heard that bit of "wisdom" more than once, that men are very unkempt (or SHOULD be, unless we need to stroke our suspicions :bugeye: ) and leave it up to the women to be attractive, and somehow the women just find that rugged natural look irresistible, while men fall head over heels for something so... UNnatural? Well, I can't help it if the feminine beauty ideal is so aided by cosmetic technology! But that's another issue entirely, thank goodness!
Okay, Buddha1! You work with men all the time, or at least claim to! What do YOU observe about their preening and grooming habits?
How important is it to them, REALLY? You have this psychic sense of what men are REALLY thinking, after all. What does this have to do with inner and outer, natural and social masculinities? Is one type of dress or grooming characteristic of one or both? Or does the overall effect it has on them determine whether this is natural or social?
I personally am a mixture of both. I'm not careless, but I could sometimes care less!
17- uncaring about looks
So, women (or femme gay boys?) are supposed to look pretty and petite, and men are supposed to be rugged and burly and perhaps even ugly?
Obviously, I'm exaggerating, just to get your attention!
But, I have heard that bit of "wisdom" more than once, that men are very unkempt (or SHOULD be, unless we need to stroke our suspicions :bugeye: ) and leave it up to the women to be attractive, and somehow the women just find that rugged natural look irresistible, while men fall head over heels for something so... UNnatural?
Well, I can't help it if the feminine beauty ideal is so aided by cosmetic technology! But that's another issue entirely, thank goodness!Okay, Buddha1! You work with men all the time, or at least claim to! What do YOU observe about their preening and grooming habits?
How important is it to them, REALLY? You have this psychic sense of what men are REALLY thinking, after all.
What does this have to do with inner and outer, natural and social masculinities? Is one type of dress or grooming characteristic of one or both? Or does the overall effect it has on them determine whether this is natural or social?I personally am a mixture of both. I'm not careless, but I could sometimes care less!
Last edited:
And in your opinion, does excessive devotion to body image or narcissism generally indicate a more feminine character/personality? Is this a hidden feminine element that approaches the surface wherever it feels safe? Is this natural or social femininity being displayed?
Is this a common characteristic for gay men? I have heard that gay men are very meticulous about their looks.
Cause, or symptom??? :bugeye:
Is this a common characteristic for gay men? I have heard that gay men are very meticulous about their looks.
Cause, or symptom??? :bugeye:
I told you, if you respond to trolls, you're falling into their trap. But if I have to do it, I try to take it to another thread.Giambattista said:
I only discuss that part of male sexuality here that relate to masculinity or femininity.
Giambattista, the heterosexuals are losing their postition here. That really makes them mad. I mean they grown with the idea of heterosexuality being 'masculine', powerful and superior. That they can't defend it on this forum is really frustrating. So they resort to using crude language.Giambattista said:Do we REALLY have to use such crude language in a public forum? Is such vulgarity necessary? I KNOW EVERYBODY'S DOING IT, but that doesn't mean EVERYBODY SHOULD!!!
It is really interesting, but sad. Sexual need for men (and sex with men) has been denigrated a lot by making expletives, abuses and cliches around it. First the society stigmatises it by depriving it of social masculinity and burdening it with social femininity. Then it enforces that stigmatisation by devising it into abuses and slangs.
In real life, these slangs really hurt and do what they're supposed to do --- to force men to hate their sexual feelings for men. Can you make a list of such slangs/ abuses?
- up your ass
- fuck you!
- bugger
- hold my dick (in my society)
- and of course words like 'faggots' which primarily refer to feminine gendered males.
(What are the other such slangs!)
The very act of 'being fucked' has been denigrated since medieval times. Then any sexual desire for men is 'forcibly' equated with 'being fucked' in order to stigmatise the whole array of male-male sexuality.
So, when you can't defend your position using logic, you resort to using these slangs which have always had such 'stinging' power, and have always scared masculine gendered men. Only this time they won't work, because it is 'heterosexuality' which is 'on the run'!
- Status