Masculinity and men
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
THE PRINCIPLE OF WHAT IS MASCULINE AND WHAT IS FEMININE?
That is if a masculine person adopts them it will become masculine, and when a feminine person adopts them it will become feminine.
Of course the society too ascribes artificial masculine or feminine gender to these neutral things, in order to discourage or encourage their use by each gender. And men and women do try to conform to that. So if pink is associated with feminine, men will shy away from pink. But that doesn't make pink a feminine colour in itself. In fact a masculine man can make pink colour look pretty masculine.
It is the same with the lipstick. Because likpstick or the colouring of one's lips is considered a feminine thing, men in general avoid that. On the other hand gay men and transvestites may take to lipsticks just to assert their feminine gender identity.
But a naturally masculine man can make lipstick look pretty masculine by putting it on in a way that enhances his masculine features. Of course he will have to get past the social femininity obstacles first.
And with the answer for this I'd like to present my theory or principle that most activities and things are gender neutral. It is the gender within us that makes those things masculine or feminine.Buddha1 said:
That is if a masculine person adopts them it will become masculine, and when a feminine person adopts them it will become feminine.
Of course the society too ascribes artificial masculine or feminine gender to these neutral things, in order to discourage or encourage their use by each gender. And men and women do try to conform to that. So if pink is associated with feminine, men will shy away from pink. But that doesn't make pink a feminine colour in itself. In fact a masculine man can make pink colour look pretty masculine.
It is the same with the lipstick. Because likpstick or the colouring of one's lips is considered a feminine thing, men in general avoid that. On the other hand gay men and transvestites may take to lipsticks just to assert their feminine gender identity.
But a naturally masculine man can make lipstick look pretty masculine by putting it on in a way that enhances his masculine features. Of course he will have to get past the social femininity obstacles first.
Now we come to the most important questions. The crux of mascuilnity. Sex with women. And the crux of social femininity --- sexual desire for men. I think for the purpose of this discussion, we must make a difference between a sexual desire and a need to form sexual/ emotional intimacy.
So are the following masculine or feminine?
- Sex with women?
- Sex with men?
- Sexual intimacy with men?
- sexual intimacy with women?
So are the following masculine or feminine?
- Sex with women?
- Sex with men?
- Sexual intimacy with men?
- sexual intimacy with women?
What's going on here? :bugeye:
Buddha1 said:
None of those items are either masculine or feminine.
How can you justify that?
Sex with women has been considered the basis of masculinity, the essence of being a man for ages now. Even science supports it.
And the heterosexual society as well as the science clearly tells us that homosexuals have the brains of women. And that they are weaklings, effeminate and unmanly.
Sex with women has been considered the basis of masculinity, the essence of being a man for ages now. Even science supports it.
And the heterosexual society as well as the science clearly tells us that homosexuals have the brains of women. And that they are weaklings, effeminate and unmanly.
Why do you persist in claiming that homosexuals are freaks and perverts? Are you not happy about your self image?
Science doesn't give moral evaluation of nature.
Science doesn't give moral evaluation of nature.
I'm sure that is a very scientific insult!spuriousmonkey said:
Spuriousmonkey I'm sorry to say but you even fail to make me even in the slightest angry with your insults.Social masculinity is about society and its role. We are discussiong Social science here. And we are analysing social notions for how truthful they maybe. Human nature can't be explained by science alone. It can be best explained by a combination of science and philosophy.spuriousmonkey said:
Buddha1 said:I'm sure that is a very scientific insult!
Social masculinity is about society and its role. We are discussiong Social science here. And we are analysing social notions for how truthful they maybe. Human nature can't be explained by science alone. It can be best explained by a combination of science and philosophy.
You accused science of making a moral stand on homosexuality twat. And now you backing out? Do you forget in 3 seconds what you were thinking 4 seconds ago?
a.) Science never takes a moral stand. It just takes a false stand masquerading as 'scientific' fact.spuriousmonkey said:
b.) I have consistently opposed the existence of homosexuality. therefore your accusation is false from the start.
Twat Twoot Tweet
whatever.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Heterosexuality is decidedly masculine, in all its aspects, for those men engaged in heterosexual activity.Buddha1 said:
Heterosexuality is decidedly feminine, in all its aspects, for those women engaged in heterosexual activity.
There is nothing to defend here. Heterosexual activity is an important aspect of masculine behaviour. You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate in what way this established view, reflecting the reality of biology, is any way false, contrived or controversial.
It has not gone unnoticed Bhudda1 that your attitude to women is primitive. It seems clear from your many posts in many threads that you do not value women; you seem them as an underclass; you consider them wholly subservient to men; you think they lack any significant intellectual ability. This is evident not from what you say about them, but from what you do not say about them. For the most part they simply do not figure in your comments, for they are, in your mind, unimportant and unworthy of consideration.
Buddha1 said:
95% of men have a sexual need for men, but that is not homosexual?
I thought that science does not accept anything without evidences. How many peer-reviewed papers (or any paper for that matter) proved that heterosexuality is masculine?Ophiolite said:
Well to be fair, the western society doesn't even recognise gender as biological.
You are forgetting that I devoted an entire thread to "heterosexuality is queer", wherein I provided hordes of evidences to suggest that heterosexuality to the limited extent that it is present in nature (whether in birds, mammals or humans) is feminine.
By the way, when you say 'heterosexuality' please specify whether you mean sex for reproduction or sex for bonding, because we are discussing them separately here.
Ophiolite said:
So you think to say that women and men are different is to be anti-woman. Or to discuss that women too have been instrumental in the oppression of men is being anti-woman. In that case all those men and women who say that men have been suppressing women are anti-men too.
Why do you apply different standards for men and women?
If you can't understand that simple thing after so much explanation, then you don't deserve to be a biologist.spuriousmonkey said:
But I'll take that opportunity to impress the point again.
The most important answer to the above is that 'Homosexuality' for all practical purposes refers to the "sexual need of feminine gendered males for men".
I'm talking about the fact that 95% (to 100%) of all males have a sexual need for men. Most of these men are masculine gendered males, and so the term 'homosexuality' or 'gay' or 'queer' doesn't apply here.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
And, once again, we (I believe I speak for many here) do not accept that your defintion of homosexual is a useful one. A homosexual relationship is one in which noth partners are of the same sex. Screw (excuse the pun) the gender, or any other term you are applying. Men having sex together are homosexuals. End of story.
If you wish to progress with your argument you would do well to come up with some novel terms that do not fly in the face of accepted terminology. You can still have your theory, just don't misapply terms. It pisses people right off.
If you wish to progress with your argument you would do well to come up with some novel terms that do not fly in the face of accepted terminology. You can still have your theory, just don't misapply terms. It pisses people right off.
I don't care if the vested interest group is pissed off.Ophiolite said:
Why should that stop me from exposing their lies.
If you disagree with my objections to your definitions you should be able to answer the points I raise. That is the true spirit of science. Not your f***ing "peer-reviewed papers".
- Status