Masculinity and men

[leopold]

3. This one really annoys me. Your definitions of gender and sexuality are, it seems to me, the reverse of what conventional sexology uses. In short, it is as if you were to insist that black is that very bright mix of all colours, and white is the total absence of colour. Talking about the same thing, but reversing all convention. Really pisses me off.

i have also noticed this buddha
i have directly questioned you about it
in response you say why should i go by western definitions
you can talk of airplanes and we of mudholes and neither of us will get nowhere
compromise buddha, but like a lot of other people you probably consider that as "kissing ass"

 

[Buddha1]

it all depends on how you are raised
your parents have a huge role on how you feel about yourself

i do not feel "pressure" from society about my sexuality
if i want to suck dicks i will
if i want pussy i'll get it
if i want to jack off i will

Now, we are talking about the power of the individual.

An individual, with all the good intentions and courage is completely helpless before institutionalised manipulation, suppression and pressurisation.

We are talking about fighting the system here, and it is an impossible task for an individual. He may still fight but it will have enormous social and emotional costs for him/ her.

The most he can do is --- especially if he fits in with the 'main' roles, is to suppress/ hide/ ignore the parts that don't fit in, and pretend that he is a 'perfect' man in order to lay claim to the 'social power'.

 

[Buddha1]

i have also noticed this buddha
i have directly questioned you about it
in response you say why should i go by western definitions
you can talk of airplanes and we of mudholes and neither of us will get nowhere
compromise buddha, but like a lot of other people you probably consider that as "kissing ass"

My definitions of gender and sexuality are based upon direct observation, and careful analysis after getting a glimpse behind the 'social masculinity' facades (including that of heterosexuality) that men are heavily armed with.

What do you mean compromise --- compromise with the truth? never!

But what I am willing to do is to discuss this threadbare --- both my definitions, definitions of the traditional societies and those of the western heterosexual world.

What Leopold and some others are doing is to avoid a discussion. They want a discussion only based on western definitions and concepts --- certainly not a hint of compromises.

Why do you guys avoid a discussion? Why do you leave as soon as your argument becomes weak? Why do you still make the same statements that you could not support earlier?

 

[Avatar]

An individual, with all the good intentions and courage is completely helpless before institutionalised manipulation, suppression and pressurisation.

Excuse? It's not a criminal offense to have sex with the same gender.
And it's not that in job interviews someone asks for the sexual preferences,
they don't even have the right to do that under EU law.
What helplessness are you talking about? Well, maybe one wouldn't become a catholic priest, but that's more to do with religion, not society as such.

 

[leopold]

we talking social taboos here or what

 

[Buddha1]

this might be your problem buddha, you see something on t.v. and then apply it to the real world
i have had a similar experience with a "failure" and i saw no need to "beg".
if anything i was pissed because i didn't get any pussy

You mean the incident has no relevance to ground reality? That it was a pure work of fiction?

I only used the T.V. example because Ophiolite is steadfastly denying that any such pressures exist in the western world (he has been disproved earlier on this!).

 

[Avatar]

Maybe you'd have more success and better results if teaching men how not to mind society and follow their own will instead of that they should like to hug penis.

Then you'd get not offensive replies from men who have no wish to hug penis, and those who do - shall be freed to do.

 

[Buddha1]

Excuse? It's not a criminal offense to have sex with the same gender.
And it's not that in job interviews someone asks for the sexual preferences,
they don't even have the right to do that under EU law.
What helplessness are you talking about? Well, maybe one wouldn't become a catholic priest, but that's more to do with religion, not society as such.

If you didn't notice we are talking about social masculinity pressures as a whole here, and not just those relating with suppressing one's sexual need for men.

 

[Buddha1]

Excuse? It's not a criminal offense to have sex with the same gender.
And it's not that in job interviews someone asks for the sexual preferences,
they don't even have the right to do that under EU law.
What helplessness are you talking about? Well, maybe one wouldn't become a catholic priest, but that's more to do with religion, not society as such.

Well, for someone who is perfectly happy with girls, this may not mean much, But for someone who feels a misfit in girls company he may feel like fish out of water if he is excluded from the male group because of his sexual interests in men --- considering that 95% of men have a sexual need for men. (for a discussion of this please go to the respective thread, not here!)

 

[Buddha1]

Maybe you'd have more success and better results if teaching men how not to mind society and follow their own will instead of that they should like to hug penis.

Then you'd get not offensive replies from men who have no wish to hug penis, and those who do - shall be freed to do.

I think your problem is that you can't think beyond heterosexual, homosexual.

 

[leopold]

My definitions of gender and sexuality are based upon direct observation, and careful analysis after getting a glimpse behind the 'social masculinity' facades (including that of heterosexuality) that men are heavily armed with. ]
define gender and sexuality as you beleive them to be

[What do you mean compromise --- compromise with the truth? never!]
i never suggested otherwise

[But what I am willing to do is to discuss this threadbare --- both my definitions, definitions of the traditional societies and those of the western heterosexual world.]
the "west" is not a strictly heterosexual world

[What Leopold and some others are doing is to avoid a discussion. They want a discussion only based on western definitions and concepts --- certainly not a hint of compromises.]
western society is all i know. science is science there is no west, east, south, or north

[Why do you guys avoid a discussion? Why do you leave as soon as your argument becomes weak? Why do you still make the same statements that you could not support earlier?/QUOTE]
i am not avoiding anything. without an understanding of the definitions it is impossible to discuss anything.

 

[Avatar]

I think your problem is that you can't think beyond heterosexual, homosexual.

I wasn't even thinking about that! You're the one that keeps repeating these terms in threads.
And "hug penis" is just a sweet aphorism for men liking other men for whatever reasons. Hugging is not a sexual act, if you didn't know.

So, if you like, read it as this:
Maybe you'd have more success and better results if teaching men how not to mind society and follow their own will instead of that they should like intimate or less intimate company of other males.

Then you'd get no offensive replies from men who have no wish to spend more time in men's company, and those who do - shall be freed to do.

 

[leopold]

You mean the incident has no relevance to ground reality? That it was a pure work of fiction?

I only used the T.V. example because Ophiolite is steadfastly denying that any such pressures exist in the western world (he has been disproved earlier on this!).

first of all define ground reality

 

[Buddha1]

Maybe you'd have more success and better results if teaching men how not to mind society and follow their own will instead of that they should like to hug penis.

Then you'd get not offensive replies from men who have no wish to hug penis, and those who do - shall be freed to do.

I'm not telling people anything like that.

I'm striking at the toot of 'heterosexuality' because it is based on false assumptions, and this I know because of my work experience --- one wrong assumption being that it is a majoritarian trait.

I have carefully analysed the ways in which men themselves keep the social pressures and the heterosexual power base in place --- often unwillingly, but sometimes willingly. One of the ways is by continously denying things like a sexual interest in men. I have also analysed how to distinguish a genuine denial from a 'false' one.

It is important to expose this behaviour because unless this is done, the false and oppressive heterosexual power base will not be weakened. Especially, because a heterosexual status, and a lack of interest in men is more often than not a power statement --- something that has an extremely 'scaring' effect on other men. The signs of a genuine exclusive interest in women and one that is obviously for power purposes are also distinct and there are ways to tell.

There are several other issues related with men's sexual behaviour and attitudes which require a detailed discussion.

And you don't really know what men really want? You just take them at their face value. I know men enough not to do that?

I'm not on this board passing my time like some of you are. And it is not a fun venture for me. I very seriously and honestly want to share what I have observed in my work. Nothing less, nothing more.

 

[Avatar]

I'm not telling people anything like that.

Then you should work more on your skill of expression and presentation of ideas, because to outside observers (hey, I talk with other people from this forum too) it looks like you're doing exactly that.
People (men) think you are telling them to and that it's natural for them to want "hug" other men, and if they don't then they are not really manly or are repressing some natural urges or something.

 

[Buddha1]

So, if you like, read it as this:
Maybe you'd have more success and better results if teaching men how not to mind society and follow their own will instead of that they should like intimate or less intimate company of other males.

Accepting that the above is said in good stead, let me tell you this.

Men are not like that --- they are not individualistic. To be part of the male group is utterly important for them. This is one of the reasons why social masculinity works. You have to understand the real needs and aspirations of men, and the exact ways in which their manipulation works to be able to decide what would work for them.

You don't expect men to live isolated lives -- fighting the social system designed to alter their beahviour --- and be happy about it. They'd rather die --- literally.

 

[leopold]

you once refered to yourself as a girl with hairy arms or somesuch
frankly i could care less if you can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch.

 

[c7ityi_]

Answering the above questions will highlight the difference between social masculinity and natural masculinity.

There's no easily detectable difference between social and natural masculinity. Masculinity is like the male body but in mental form.

In other words, does this mean that men with big penises will be more masculine and those with small penises will be less masculine?

It depends on the mind. The mind is neither male or female, only the body is. That's why there are women who are masculine and men who are feminine.

 

[Avatar]

Accepting that the above is said in good stead

Of course it is.

Men are not like that --- they are not individualistic.

What, all 95% of them?

To be part of the male group is utterly important for them.

I had no idea, thanks for clarifying.

You don't expect men to live isolated lives -- fighting the social system designed to alter their behaviour --- and be happy about it. They'd rather die --- literally.

Weird, strange and funny characteristic.

 

[Buddha1]

Then you should work more on your skill of expression and presentation of ideas, because to outside observers (hey, I talk with other people from this forum too) it looks like you're doing exactly that.
People (men) think you are telling them to and that it's natural for them to want "hug" other men, and if they don't then they are not really manly or are repressing some natural urges or something.

I'm only saying what I've observed. And if I observed 95% fighing their sexual need for men, I'm bound to conclude that the majority have them. I've also tried to see how masculinity and femininity are tied to sexual needs.

The heterosexual power base is based on the lie of sexual need for men being 'alternative', 'feminine' (not manly) and a 'minority'. And the other part that sexual intimacy with women is 'masculine'. The vested interest group thrives on this artificial masculinity. It is extremely important to strike at this, if I ever hope to liberate men.

If my observation is any indication, then I would expect men who claim to be heterosexual to 'prove' that it indeed is masculine --- for they have enjoyed this false masculinity for too long --- by depriving its real stake-holders.

In any case, this thread will also look at the issues of masculinity and femininity of heterosexuality/ homosexuality/ and male-male straight bonds. It is not easy to hide the truth, and if 'heterosexuality' is indeed masculine there should be ways to prove it.