<img width="225" height="293" src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y260/bubblepics/not_this.jpg">
Last edited:
Masculinity and men
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
Initiation into manhood
From the earliest times man had to endure pain to ‘prove’ he is a man, that basically got him an entry into the male herd! He endured actions which and were excruciatingly painful, could sometimes prove to be fatal. In the modern times the physical pain was replaced with emotional pain --- of killing one’s sexual need for men --- the basis of his herding mentality, and thus crippling the man altogether and robbing him of his gender (masculinity).
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Normal human beings are crap at objectively assessing the location of their own assholes. I believe you are proud to be a normal human being. All hail Bhudda1: mediocrity personified; common sense made carnate; vessel of the blindingly obvious; all hail.Buddha1 said:
I guess that is how religious and scientific people mislead them so often.Ophiolite said:
It's true however that man has lost many of his natural capacities to understand nature --- his own and outside of him. And science has only complicated matters for him.
THE MISFORTUNE OF MASCULINE BONDS
Masculine bonds between men have no historical base, no social base, no customary base, no ritualistic base, no philosophical base, no mythological base no religious base, and no ‘scientific’ base. It lacks all the strength that comes from those powerful human institutions. All the strength that comes from being repeated again and again, century after century. All the strength that come from trillions of humanity all over the globe openly and proudly participating in them. All the strength that comes from being celebrated and glorified in countless folklores, legends, mythologies, novels, plays and films. All the strength that comes from being ‘blessed by the gods’.
Masculine bonds have been violently removed from all the powerful human institutions and kept out of them till they lost all connections whatsoever with them.
Last edited:
THE OPPRESSION OF MASCULINE BONDS
Masculine same-sex bonds have been portrayed as being non-existing on the one hand but at the same time banished as the most unpardonable of sins against god, most unnatural of deeds, the most unmanly of acts, the worst possible dishonour, the worst punishable crime and the weirdest thing to ‘be’ (in heterosexual societies it ‘progressed’ from something you do to something you ‘are’ ).
All that masculine sexual bonds have for themselves, something they have not lost, is their connection with the most basic nature of men. With the natural masculinity of men.
But then the nature of men has very little value in today’s world.
Indeed as western observers themselves say, masculinity has been made redundant after the industrial revolution.
Therefore, reclaiming that power (of forming masculine bonds) and giving it an honourable place in our lives is not an easy task, even if we could get past the hostility/ opposition of the vested interest group and make men accept it by providing them a safe environment.
Masculine same-sex bonds have been portrayed as being non-existing on the one hand but at the same time banished as the most unpardonable of sins against god, most unnatural of deeds, the most unmanly of acts, the worst possible dishonour, the worst punishable crime and the weirdest thing to ‘be’ (in heterosexual societies it ‘progressed’ from something you do to something you ‘are’ ).
All that masculine sexual bonds have for themselves, something they have not lost, is their connection with the most basic nature of men. With the natural masculinity of men.
But then the nature of men has very little value in today’s world.
Indeed as western observers themselves say, masculinity has been made redundant after the industrial revolution.
Therefore, reclaiming that power (of forming masculine bonds) and giving it an honourable place in our lives is not an easy task, even if we could get past the hostility/ opposition of the vested interest group and make men accept it by providing them a safe environment.
Last edited:
DILEMMA OF MASCULINE GENDERED MEN
I was watching this movie. A girl was trying to seduce this handsome guy who was sitting with a ‘well-wisher’ male. When the girl left, the well wisher says, “this girl wants to meet you tonight by the sea”.
The man says, “I don’t want to meet her. I don’t love her.”
The well-wisher says, “ Well you don’t love her. And you don’t love that other girl. Then whom do you love?”
The man says, “I don’t love any girl!”
The well-wisher says, “Well, you’re young and you’re a real man.” You have to love a girl! It’s very important for your reputation.”
It was meant to be a funny dialogue, but it more or less sums up the dilemma of masculine men (the real straights).
I thought this was a discussion forum and not 'buddha's blog'.
Coming to terms with sexuality?
Not Really!
This applies to masculine gendered men:
The real issue with men is gender and not sexuality.
Men manipulate and change their sexual behaviour and attitudes only because ‘gender’ is artificially tied to sexuality.
The real issue in acknowledging one’s sexual feelings for men is NOT “coming to terms with one’s sexuality”, but coming to terms with the forced wrong social gender (femininity) that accompanies this.
And coming to terms with being labeled ‘gay’ and isolated from the mainstream, when you don’t share a thing with the ‘gays’ or the ‘gay’ culture.
And coming to terms with a lower social status --- that of a lesser man.
Last edited:
GENDER IS IMPORTANT, NOT SEXUALITY
In other words it is coming to terms with one’s imposed ‘social femininity’ that accompanies acknowledging one’s feelings --- even to oneself.Buddha1 said:
For when you acknowledge your own sexual feelings for men, to yourself, this would invariably involve:
(a) stopping to struggle with these feelings,
(b) removing the psychological barriers that prevent such feelings from coming out,
(c) bringing such feelings into the realm of the conscious, from the subconscious.
This would invariably also bring into focus the little femininity that is tied and buried with these feelings.
And this is the scariest scenario for most men identifying as ‘straight’.
As they say, it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie.
And that is why it makes sense to press the ‘no, never’ button on the “Do you have any sexual need for another man” poll. Afterall, the same-sex needs are well suppressed and hidden underneath layers and layers of psychological barriers --- where we don’t need to acknowledge them, even to ourselves.
Pressing the ‘no, never’ button will help us consolidate our ‘straight’ identity even better --- for never has it been so much threatened as on this forum. It’ll act as another psycho-social barrier that will sit on these feelings --- so they have no chance to erupt and come into focus.
Pressing the ‘no, never’ button will be a great weapon in our subconscious and conscious struggle against same-sex needs that is an integral part of every man’s secret self. Nothing boosts self-denial than a public acknowledgement of being free from this liability on social ‘manhood’.
Doesn't it say in the rules you can't 'bump' your own thread, Budha doing a lot od bumping, and not just with other guys ay?
Quoting myself is my way of expanding on something I have already said --- either as an afterthought or because adding it earlier would complicate the post. It is my style.Theoryofrelativity said:
I don't see why it should trouble the others except those who want to pull me down by any means they can think of.
Does that mean that what I'm saying is affecting people and their power base? Does sounds like success!
Buddha1 said:
I haven't actually read ANY of your stand alone posts, so cannot comment on their content. I expect this applies to most.
Buddha1 said:
You wore us down to a level that we stopped caring. You may call that success if being ignored is your highest goal.
gratz.
- Status