you twat...you edited your post.
Masculinity and men
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
this is from a peer reviewed book buddha
· "The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK04A01
i have proven you wrong buddha admit it
· "The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK04A01
i have proven you wrong buddha admit it
this is from the same source buddha
A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."
(W. D. Erickson, "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters," Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83.)
A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."
(W. D. Erickson, "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters," Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83.)
MASCULINE TRADITIONS
For thousands of years, masculine gendered men had found partial or full solace from the marriage institution in warrior traditions (like the Samurais, martial arts, akhadas, etc.) or in spiritual traditions (like monks and ascetics --- e.g. the Sufis). Often these traditions had open or secretive masculine sexual bonds (that looked intense friendship bonds from the outside) as part of their rituals --- or in other ways gave space for giving vent to same-sex feelings.
Sometimes these traditions were a combination of both warrior culture and spirituality.
Spirituality and asceticism attracted masculine gendered men (especially those that had little sexual need for women but couldn’t live a fake life) for another reason --- when they found their needs and desires had absolutely no socially acceptable/ acknowledged space in the society, they lost all interest in social life and were drawn to asceticism or to seek out the real meaning of life (Buddha?).
For thousands of years, masculine gendered men had found partial or full solace from the marriage institution in warrior traditions (like the Samurais, martial arts, akhadas, etc.) or in spiritual traditions (like monks and ascetics --- e.g. the Sufis). Often these traditions had open or secretive masculine sexual bonds (that looked intense friendship bonds from the outside) as part of their rituals --- or in other ways gave space for giving vent to same-sex feelings.
Sometimes these traditions were a combination of both warrior culture and spirituality.
Spirituality and asceticism attracted masculine gendered men (especially those that had little sexual need for women but couldn’t live a fake life) for another reason --- when they found their needs and desires had absolutely no socially acceptable/ acknowledged space in the society, they lost all interest in social life and were drawn to asceticism or to seek out the real meaning of life (Buddha?).
FORCIBLY PAINTING MALE-MALE BONDS AS FEMININE
The heterosexual society forcibly paints male sexual bonds as ‘feminine’. It’ll question the masculinity of masculine gendered men who do acknowledge their same sex needs. It will even question the masculinity of ancient pillars of manhood if they displayed an over interest in men (e.g. the movie on Alexander the Great).
Whenever someone has to apply force to influence a particular notion (including religion) you can be sure that there is something wrong with the notion.
The heterosexual society forcibly paints male sexual bonds as ‘feminine’. It’ll question the masculinity of masculine gendered men who do acknowledge their same sex needs. It will even question the masculinity of ancient pillars of manhood if they displayed an over interest in men (e.g. the movie on Alexander the Great).
Whenever someone has to apply force to influence a particular notion (including religion) you can be sure that there is something wrong with the notion.
Gender is biological and it can be seen
Gender can be seen. It reflects in your eyes. It pours out from it. You can’t hide it.
As a man told me when he met this ‘homosexual’ man, that he saw a strong woman in him just by looking at him. He said he saw it in the gay man’s eyes.
This gender --- both masculine and feminine can also be photographed. You can look at a photograph and tell a person’s gender. You may need a little practice though.
The first time I met a gay man, I was just out of my teens. Actually at that time I couldn’t tell the difference. He was so feminine…I met him in a summer job. I had no idea that there were men who behaved like women. A few years later, when I started working, I met him in a gay group. I was astonished that this guy was so feminine. But earlier I could just not tell. I think maybe so many years of work has made me an expert in identifying gender.
Gender can be seen. It reflects in your eyes. It pours out from it. You can’t hide it.
As a man told me when he met this ‘homosexual’ man, that he saw a strong woman in him just by looking at him. He said he saw it in the gay man’s eyes.
This gender --- both masculine and feminine can also be photographed. You can look at a photograph and tell a person’s gender. You may need a little practice though.
The first time I met a gay man, I was just out of my teens. Actually at that time I couldn’t tell the difference. He was so feminine…I met him in a summer job. I had no idea that there were men who behaved like women. A few years later, when I started working, I met him in a gay group. I was astonished that this guy was so feminine. But earlier I could just not tell. I think maybe so many years of work has made me an expert in identifying gender.
How is natural gender manipulated to scare masculine men off same-sex bonds?
I have also seen undercurrents of feminine gender pouring out --- although momentarily --- from the most fierce, macho men --- when they are struggling with their same sex needs.
What happens is that, like we discussed, everyone has some femininity in them, even if they are very macho. (Note that in masculine gendered men their same-sex feelings are an integral part of their natural masculinity). Yet due to social manipulation men tie their same sex feelings along with the minutest femininity that they have, before they suppress both of them together deep within them. When accidentally a macho man comes in touch with his same sex feelings, and they suddenly come out unexpectedly, pop comes out the femininity along with it too. Thus he is unexpectedly, involuntarily and forcibly put in touch with his natural femininity which comes into focus momentarily. And we know how stigmatized femininity is for men, especially when associated with same-sex feelings.
Here is how it works:
Same-sex needs have a strong ‘social femininity’ attached with them, and it hangs in the air. Just like displaying opposite sex desire can suddenly make you feel very powerful because of strong psychological association with social masculinity.
Thus the same-sex needs, if they get out, make even the most ‘straight’ and macho guy feel extremely vulnerable --- even with the little femininity that he never knew he had.
The strong ‘social femininity’ (i.e. fake femininity that is imposed by the society, and does not exist in the person) that is imposed on the man --- even when no one is looking --- acts as a magnet that draws out the ‘scattered’ little femininity that the masculine man has and focuses it at one place, making it seem stronger than it is.
It can be understood in another way. For a few moments a micro thin layer of femininity envelopes the masculine gender of the man, as a result of the ‘magnetic’ action of strong ‘social femininity’.
The small amount of femininity in the masculine gendered male is also made to psychologically appear much stronger by the strong ‘social femininity’ effect, i.e., his own little femininity + the strong social femininity confuses him, causing panic.
This unexpected outburst of femininity that the man never knew existed catches him by complete surprise. He feels extremely vulnerable and self-deprecating. An extreme self-hatred and fear can engulf him. He hates the idea of having femininity within him. This reinforces in him the psychological relation between same-sex needs and femininity. And thus he hates his same-sex feelings even more --- gets even more determined to fight them, finish them off --- with all his masculine might.
Little does he realize that it actually is his same-sex needs that are the source of his natural masculinity.
I have also seen undercurrents of feminine gender pouring out --- although momentarily --- from the most fierce, macho men --- when they are struggling with their same sex needs.
What happens is that, like we discussed, everyone has some femininity in them, even if they are very macho. (Note that in masculine gendered men their same-sex feelings are an integral part of their natural masculinity). Yet due to social manipulation men tie their same sex feelings along with the minutest femininity that they have, before they suppress both of them together deep within them. When accidentally a macho man comes in touch with his same sex feelings, and they suddenly come out unexpectedly, pop comes out the femininity along with it too. Thus he is unexpectedly, involuntarily and forcibly put in touch with his natural femininity which comes into focus momentarily. And we know how stigmatized femininity is for men, especially when associated with same-sex feelings.
Here is how it works:
Same-sex needs have a strong ‘social femininity’ attached with them, and it hangs in the air. Just like displaying opposite sex desire can suddenly make you feel very powerful because of strong psychological association with social masculinity.
Thus the same-sex needs, if they get out, make even the most ‘straight’ and macho guy feel extremely vulnerable --- even with the little femininity that he never knew he had.
The strong ‘social femininity’ (i.e. fake femininity that is imposed by the society, and does not exist in the person) that is imposed on the man --- even when no one is looking --- acts as a magnet that draws out the ‘scattered’ little femininity that the masculine man has and focuses it at one place, making it seem stronger than it is.
It can be understood in another way. For a few moments a micro thin layer of femininity envelopes the masculine gender of the man, as a result of the ‘magnetic’ action of strong ‘social femininity’.
The small amount of femininity in the masculine gendered male is also made to psychologically appear much stronger by the strong ‘social femininity’ effect, i.e., his own little femininity + the strong social femininity confuses him, causing panic.
This unexpected outburst of femininity that the man never knew existed catches him by complete surprise. He feels extremely vulnerable and self-deprecating. An extreme self-hatred and fear can engulf him. He hates the idea of having femininity within him. This reinforces in him the psychological relation between same-sex needs and femininity. And thus he hates his same-sex feelings even more --- gets even more determined to fight them, finish them off --- with all his masculine might.
Little does he realize that it actually is his same-sex needs that are the source of his natural masculinity.
Buddha1 said:
This social femininity threatens to throw the man from his high social pedestal of social masculinity and power, into the seemingly infinite bottoms of disgrace and dishonor that social femininity in practical terms entails.
Yet ironically, there is no way a man can get in touch with his natural masculinity that the society has snatched from him, unless he disowns social masculinity and even allows himself to fall in the dark scary depths of social femininity, which can follow as a result.
For then only can he be inspired to invoke his natural masculinity --- and if he can endure psychologically the hardships, his natural masculinity will see him out of this darkness --- and endow him with a wonderful, magical masculine power, whose source is not outside of him --- but within him, within his nature.
It will give him a power that the society cannot take away from him. Thus the society loses its power to manipulate him through ‘social masculinity’.
But its hard work, and only those who have the real thing can dare to try it. For disowning social masculinity may bring with it extreme social punishments --- including ridicule, social disgrace and ‘out casting’ (e.g. as in labeling ‘gay’ and the resultant loss of social masculinity). However, the power of natural masculinity can see you through every hindrance --- and win back your lost honor. In the end you’d be the real champion.
The other and better way to do it is, if there is help available in the form of a masculine gendered, straight/ non-gay space that provides a safe space to develop your natural masculinity by bonding with other men --- which is non-existent in the western world as of now.
GENDER, SEXUALITY AND MALE OPPRESSION
Unless you accept, understand and appreciate gender (both masculine and feminine) as natural/ biological, you will never understand the true nature of human sexuality, nor the true nature and extent of man’s oppression. Nor how this oppression works!
Unless you accept, understand and appreciate gender (both masculine and feminine) as natural/ biological, you will never understand the true nature of human sexuality, nor the true nature and extent of man’s oppression. Nor how this oppression works!
A cultural difference between definitions
In my society, because there is no concept of people being different on the basis of ‘sexual orientation’ --- because they have a more realistic view of human sexuality……. the guy in the picture will be known as ‘homo’ in my country, even though he is exclusively heterosexual. ‘Homo’ in my country is a gender identity (transgender identity to be precise!).
And obviously our definitions are much closer to nature.
In my society, because there is no concept of people being different on the basis of ‘sexual orientation’ --- because they have a more realistic view of human sexuality……. the guy in the picture will be known as ‘homo’ in my country, even though he is exclusively heterosexual. ‘Homo’ in my country is a gender identity (transgender identity to be precise!).
And obviously our definitions are much closer to nature.
Sex with women and masculinity
Is sex with women masculine on its own?
Is it the essence of manhood (called straighthood in heterosexual societies)?
Is this what makes a person a ‘man’?
And then there are the following corollary questions:
Lack of sexual interest in women
Is a lack of sexual interest in women a lack of masculinity/ manhood/ manliness?
Does not having sex with a woman or not desiring sex with a woman or not being ‘able’ to do sex with a woman make one a lesser man?
Is the above a sign of femininity?
Is sex with women masculine on its own?
Is it the essence of manhood (called straighthood in heterosexual societies)?
Is this what makes a person a ‘man’?
And then there are the following corollary questions:
Lack of sexual interest in women
Is a lack of sexual interest in women a lack of masculinity/ manhood/ manliness?
Does not having sex with a woman or not desiring sex with a woman or not being ‘able’ to do sex with a woman make one a lesser man?
Is the above a sign of femininity?
Answer --- sex with women and natural gender
In the thread “95% of men have a sexual need for other men” we discussed how men who are exclusively heterosexual could be perfectly feminine. They can even be transsexuals.
Some posters on this forum who say they are exclusively heterosexual have said that they don’t feel very masculine.
Surely, there is no direct connection between sex with women and natural masculinity.
Then what is it that makes ‘sex with women’ seem so macho and manly a quality?
In the thread “95% of men have a sexual need for other men” we discussed how men who are exclusively heterosexual could be perfectly feminine. They can even be transsexuals.
Some posters on this forum who say they are exclusively heterosexual have said that they don’t feel very masculine.
Surely, there is no direct connection between sex with women and natural masculinity.
Then what is it that makes ‘sex with women’ seem so macho and manly a quality?
Buddha1 said:
Sex with women and natural gender
It is ‘social masculinity’ and the immense social power that accompanies this that makes it seem so ‘naturally’ masculine. And of course it is all the macho guys who are shown as going after girls in the movies and popular culture that adds to the image.
Of course this immense social power acts psychologically like a magnet on one’s gender and brings out one’s natural masculinity --- even if it is not present in adequate amounts.
The natural masculinity, even if it is tiny --- for the time being envelops one’s natural femininity and is quite visible to others --- it especially pours out from the eyes and can be photographed too.
The natural masculinity, which may be tiny but now in-focus, when combined with the immense ‘social masculinity’ makes the individual believe he is really masculine, even macho --- like he is the ‘real’ man.
Others believe that too, but time usually let’s the ‘real’ man know that his masculinity is hollow --- and it’s the woman who controls his life, while he submits meekly.
The immense social power (attached with social masculinity) arising out of a display of male-female sexual desire has its source in the very foundations of our society. In its history, in the marriage institution, in its beliefs, values, mores, folk-lore, mythologies, legends, religion, education system, laws, language, peer-pressures, literature, arts and culture, media, movies and even science (e.g. Darwinism).
It flows from having the numerical strength. It flows from being thousands of years old.
Yet it’s all man- made, created painstakingly during the past couple of thousands of years. There is nothing natural about this masculinity.
Today we have the basic ‘heterosexual’ infrastructure (including the marriage institution) and we don’t have to work so hard to uphold these immense lies. But since it’s an unnatural phenomenon (that sex with women is masculine) it requires continuous social reinforcements and propaganda, and continuous distortion and censorship of truth. Yet it can be shattered by a simple challenge like this one here.
Sex with women --- Gender alters our perception
Although, few people are immune from believing this lie (that sex with women is masculine), it seems from my interaction with people that feminine gendered men (esp. true homosexuals) and women are more inclined to believe this lie than masculine gendered men.
When you talk to masculine gendered men, they readily take to the idea that the masculinity attached with male-female sex is artificial --- because they relate with the information. True homosexuals have a hard time believing that or relating with that because they have never felt the pressures of social masculinity. And they believe that the masculine gendered men who pretend to be ‘heterosexual’ are really so.
Although, few people are immune from believing this lie (that sex with women is masculine), it seems from my interaction with people that feminine gendered men (esp. true homosexuals) and women are more inclined to believe this lie than masculine gendered men.
When you talk to masculine gendered men, they readily take to the idea that the masculinity attached with male-female sex is artificial --- because they relate with the information. True homosexuals have a hard time believing that or relating with that because they have never felt the pressures of social masculinity. And they believe that the masculine gendered men who pretend to be ‘heterosexual’ are really so.
LACK OF SEXUAL INTEREST IN WOMEN
Now let’s examine the social position that a lack of sexual interest in women makes one a lesser man, a sissy. To put it more academically that it represents a ‘deficiency’ in men --- a critical deficiency that separates them from masculine, virile, real men.
Or that it is a quality more closely associated with feminine gendered males.
The fact that the only social group that admits not having a sexual need for women is the homosexual group --- which is essentially a community of transgendered men (as further validated by various ‘scientific’ studies on homosexuality (sic)), further lends credence to this immense lie.
We are all programmed to see a man who is seen as not having a sexual need for men as ‘deficient’, weak or ‘lacking’ in critical essence of manhood. We view animal males in the same light.
Of course we have seen that a sexual desire for women doesn’t necessarily make one masculine and thus there is no direct connection.
But this belief and the social propaganda is so strong that we need more direct proof to change people’s perception about lack of sexual desire for women and its link with lack of manliness.
Now let’s examine the social position that a lack of sexual interest in women makes one a lesser man, a sissy. To put it more academically that it represents a ‘deficiency’ in men --- a critical deficiency that separates them from masculine, virile, real men.
Or that it is a quality more closely associated with feminine gendered males.
The fact that the only social group that admits not having a sexual need for women is the homosexual group --- which is essentially a community of transgendered men (as further validated by various ‘scientific’ studies on homosexuality (sic)), further lends credence to this immense lie.
We are all programmed to see a man who is seen as not having a sexual need for men as ‘deficient’, weak or ‘lacking’ in critical essence of manhood. We view animal males in the same light.
Of course we have seen that a sexual desire for women doesn’t necessarily make one masculine and thus there is no direct connection.
But this belief and the social propaganda is so strong that we need more direct proof to change people’s perception about lack of sexual desire for women and its link with lack of manliness.
LACK OF SEXUAL INTEREST IN WOMEN LACK OF MASCULINITY BUT NOT PRESENCE OF ‘FEMININITY’
Quote: Or that it is a quality more closely associated with feminine gendered males.
Of course lack of masculinity is not considered as bad and denigrating as the presence of femininity in men.
In other words a ‘lack of masculinity’ is not considered the same as a ‘presence of femininity’ in men.
It’s kind of an intermediary social status.
Therefore it is not surprising that in my counseling sessions, men would rather accept being ‘impotent’ (as their reason for avoiding marriage, e.g.) than admit being ‘gay’ --- since ‘gay’ represents femininity which is the worst possible status.
In other words, lack of sexual interest in women is really bad, but not as bad as having a sexual interest in men.
Quote: Or that it is a quality more closely associated with feminine gendered males.
Of course lack of masculinity is not considered as bad and denigrating as the presence of femininity in men.
In other words a ‘lack of masculinity’ is not considered the same as a ‘presence of femininity’ in men.
It’s kind of an intermediary social status.
Therefore it is not surprising that in my counseling sessions, men would rather accept being ‘impotent’ (as their reason for avoiding marriage, e.g.) than admit being ‘gay’ --- since ‘gay’ represents femininity which is the worst possible status.
In other words, lack of sexual interest in women is really bad, but not as bad as having a sexual interest in men.
Buddha1 said:
Of course in the past religions propagated this view. The society portrayed (as can be found in several religious documents) a lack of ability to ‘fuck’ women as being equivalent to impotency, a deficiency --- of being equivalent to being a ‘eunuch’. Actually in those days lack or presence of a sexual desire for women was not an issue. There was no concept of a ‘lack of sexual desire’ as such. There was instead a concept of “lack of ability to have sex with women”. Manhood was not a question of whether you liked having sex with women or not. It was a question of ‘proving’ one’s manhood by having sex in marriage, whether you like it or not. For this, it was enough if you had sex just once with your wife in your entire lifetime, provided you produced a ‘son’. Of course one could escape this test by following a valid social excuse --- e.g. pursuit of spirituality.
The same notions carry on in most traditional societies all over the world even today. Any man who can achieve an erection is supposed to get married and reproduce. No one really cares about what you like sexually and it is not an issue. You can very well enjoy having sex with men. Actually sex is supposed to be something you can enjoy with both men and women --- and both were bad, the latter more so, unless it was in marriage (a public display of male-female affection was frowned upon!). No one asks you if you like women or the particular woman you’re getting married to. If you can achieve an erection there is no excuse for not getting married and producing a child. If you avoid getting married they always suspect that you are deficient, in that you cannot achieve an erection. If you get married but cannot produce a son, even then your manhood will be suspect.
Of course you could make a socially valid excuse for not getting married, but men would never accept not having a sexual need for women, even the enlightened spiritual men wouldn’t do it.
Of course religions wanted to pressurize men into marriage so that they could procreate. They were immensely motivated to propagate such notions.
It’s quite possible that the pre-Christian/ ancient world propagated this view too (including the Greeks). We know e.g. that Alexander the great had no sexual interest in women but he married some women, probably because of social pressures. This was in a society that celebrated male-male love as the most masculine virtue.
But then the ancients needed to survive as civilizations too. And that made it imperative to force men into sex with women.
Today science is desperately trying to keep up that pressure on men. Darwinism is going strong, inspite of evidences to the contrary, because it is supported by a strong societal view, which is rooted in thousands of years of mispropaganda. Old habits die hard.
Darwinism basically asserts that the basic biological purpose of a male is to mate with the female. The masculine, virile and dominant male is supposed to compete for and mate with the shy, hesitant female. The aim of a male in life is to mate with the female. Darwinism asserts that the very existence of male is to mate with females. When it doesn’t, it means something is lacking. The male is ‘defective’ --- either psychologically or biologically. Even ‘natural selection’ in males is governed by ‘(hetero)sexual-selection’.
As a corollary, if a male does not mate with the female, his existence is meaningless, biologically speaking. He is redundant, dispensable for the species.
Even the dictionary meaning of a ‘male’ is defined accordingly --- someone who produces sperms for reproduction.
But then language is no proof of the validity of a ‘term’ or its usage. It only represents the values and mores of a society.
- Status