What is masculinity? What is femininity?

What is natural masculinity and how is it different from social masculinity?

What role does masculinity play in a man's life? How does it affect men's lives? Do the social notions of masculinity and femininity (social masculinity and social femininity) harm men? How?

How is social gender manipulated to control the lives of men, especially their sexual lives?

Wow, ye're asking for an entire college course, a full year at least, in sociology and pschology ...and on a discussion forum?! :)

Baron Max

What is Bhudda1ism? What is Bhudda2ism?

What is natural Bhudda1ism and how is it different from social Bhudda1ism?

What role does Bhudda1ism play in a poster's life? How does it affect posters' lives? Do the social notions of Bhudda1ism and Bhudda2ism (social Bhudda1ism and social Bhudda2ism ) harm posters? How?

How is social gender manipulated to control the lives of posters, especially their dreams of Bhudda1?

Ha! I knew it, yet another Buddha1's penisland thread.

For others less stressed about these things: a light porn, striptease and sex news video-cast: http://www.mskitka.com/categories/KITKAST
Quite good! :)

/sneers @ how he is "ruining" masculinity of men in this thread

What is masculinity? What is femininity?

me))))interesting questions.

What is natural masculinity and how is it different from social masculinity?

me)))))well, social masculinity is based surely on---NOT SHOWING EMOTION< FEELINGS< which includes not crying of course. THIS social masculinity is imposed on the male youth. and it is therefore no surprise that the highest suicide rates are wit young men
NATURA masculinity would NOT be tat. it qould be males not being ashamed of feelings,of senusality. this would of course include eroticization. a much moreopen erotic capacity, not just with women, other males, but with all of Nature

What role does masculinity play in a man's life? How does it affect men's lives? Do the social notions of masculinity and femininity (social masculinity and social femininity) harm men? How?

me)))))))VERY much, harm, as i have briefly explained above. ....his attitude also breeds facsism. This mindwset ha never really gone nywhere. it is ASSUMED it was just part of Italian and Germanic history in early partsof 20 century--which of course affected the world, but it is always with us as long aspatriarchal domination keeps its power-over philosophy

Thispatriarchy promotes social masculinity. it promotes cut throat business, war mongering, obeyance of authority no matter what instance, and the suppresion of sexuality and psychedelic experience.
To seriously challenge it one must explore its history!

How is social gender manipulated to control the lives of men, especially their sexual lives?
via 'family values'--ie the patriarchal familiy unit with social-masculine daddy at the top= 'God' and/or materiaistic science

Duendy, don't encourage him.

Duendy, don't encourage him.
ophiloite, its YOU i dont want to encourage.....

I don't need encouragement. My verbosity is autocatalytic.

What is Bhudda1ism? What is Bhudda2ism?

What is natural Bhudda1ism and how is it different from social Bhudda1ism?

What role does Bhudda1ism play in a poster's life? How does it affect posters' lives? Do the social notions of Bhudda1ism and Bhudda2ism (social Bhudda1ism and social Bhudda2ism ) harm posters? How?

How is social gender manipulated to control the lives of posters, especially their dreams of Bhudda1?
Ophiolite, give me one reason why I shouldn't treat you like a troll. I've been taking you seriously, inspite of your eccentricities --- only because in the beginning you seemed a serious debater, and once you guided me (for which I'm still grateful!).

But apart from these two instances you've done nothing that would deserve you the respect I hold for you.

And to think that you'd pretended to be 'scientific' all along, insisting on 'peer-reviewed papers' all along. And that you'd been 'ignoring' people, rather childishly, for their supposedly 'misbehaviour' with you.

In this post you have shown a poor attempt at sarcasm --- and you'd get no better than fools like Avatar to support you. Obviously, you don't have a great sense of humour.

Are you an odd ball?

Ha! I knew it, yet another Buddha1's penisland thread.

For others less stressed about these things: a light porn, striptease and sex news video-cast: http://www.mskitka.com/categories/KITKAST
Quite good! :)

/sneers @ how he is "ruining" masculinity of men in this thread
Avatar, what bothers me about you is not that you're an asexual transvestite. But that you've a disgusting disrespect for men and their issues. And you must poke your nose.

Since Ophiolite is here, let me bring over the discussion about 'pressures of social masculinity' from the thread "Is Gender Orientation Biological".

Ophiolite had asked for proofs that men in the west face pressures of social masculinity. And when I gave him several external proofs, including socio-scientific studies by Universities --- he in his typical style made himself scarce (not a masculine trait!). You'd expect him not to meddle with the issue anymore. But what do you know, he shows his face again, unperturbed to act as a troll.

Ophiolite, there is more to being a man, than procreating!

But, Buddha1, aren't you yourself a social influence on men's masculinity, by telling them that real men hug penis? :rolleyes:

p.s. I loved that post about me! :D save-as

Another evidence that men in the west face pressures of social masculinity --- including to perform (hetero)sexually:

Today, I saw a sit-com on the Star world (produced for BBC). The programme was titled "Coupling" (I think). I'm sure some of you would have watched it too. There was this guy who had a 'failure' (failed to get an erection) when he was sleeping with his date. He became extremely distressed at this. He felt really hurt and down. He begged his date not to tell anyone that he had a 'failure'.

Surely, men in the west very much feel the pressures of social masculinity. the issue now is what makes people like Ophiolite strongly spread lies and seek to stop truth from being discussed, by maintaining that there are no such pressures.

Today, I saw a sit-com on the Star world (produced for BBC). The programme was titled "Coupling" (I think). I'm sure some of you would have watched it too. There was this guy who had a 'failure' (failed to get an erection) when he was sleeping with his date. He became extremely distressed at this. He felt really hurt and down. He begged his date not to tell anyone that he had a 'failure'.
And yet 'sex with women' is not an integral or important part of natural masculinity --- in fact it is not a part at all. It was made part of social masculinty only to force men to procreate, by creating social pressures, a couple of thousand of years ago. But all along till the modern times, the society was ambiguous about it --- and all macho traditional customs and spaces insisted on men keeping away from women in order to preserve their masculinity.

Oh, but why do you think that men need that glorified and defined by you masculinity?
It's not that it's an integral part of being alive or enjoying life.

But, Buddha1, aren't you yourself a social influence on men's masculinity, by telling them that real men hug penis? :rolleyes:
You're giving me too much importance. I am just one vague person. Whatever power my posts have is the power of speaking the truth.

People will only be affected with what I'm saying if they can relate with it.

Are you an odd ball?Decidedly. I am known to my contemporaries as the Professor, with all the stereotypical connotations one would expect. Right wingers think me a communist. Socialists are sure I am in the pocket of big business.

Bhudda1, I am treating your current posts with a dismissive contempt for at least four reasons:
1. You have not played the debating game fairly. I, and others, have refuted your so called evidence, and you have denied this.
2. You have disregarded the data we have submitted in support of conventional views.
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.
4. You spew things out with no co-ordination, no systematic presentation of your ideas. No structure. I have to deal with imbeciles at work who struggle to bring structure to their work. Do I really have to put up with it when relaxing.

On the plus side you are, I suspect, well meaning and genuinely want to convince others of your hypothesis. It's just that you are so completely wrong it is painful to witness. I guess that is reason five.

..., there is more to being a man, than procreating!

Hmm, like what exactly? Please explain.

Baron Max

Oh, but why do you think that men need that glorified and defined by you masculinity?
It's not that it's an integral part of being alive or enjoying life.
We are just discussing here. But discussing an issue that means life and death for men. Does that make this thread relevant?

I've never insisted on me doing the definitions. By all means participate and bring points of views sustained by logic/ evidences. I've decided to make a summary of the main points raised in the thread at the end of each thread and let people decide for themselves.

Ophiolite, there is more to being a man, than procreating!
You seem very hung up on this 'being a man' thing. I have generally been more concerned about being a human. I don't think I have thought sex was the be all and end all of existence since I was a teenager. That was a very long time ago.
Had you asked me outside of this context 'what does it mean to be a man', I should have automatically thought the question meant, 'what does it mean to be human' and would have responded accordingly.
Procreation would have been quite low down the list.

Hmm, like what exactly? Please explain.

Baron Max
I think it will come out gradually from a discussion.

For one thing, being straight forward, fair and to an extent even honesty --- these are qualities associated with positive natural masculinity.

Does that make this thread relevant?
Not for me, I'm an asexual transvestite, remember, but that's a subjective view; so carry on, it's probably subjectively very important for penisland utopists unable and too weak in mind to tell their wives that they like to play with naked men more.

But discussing an issue that means life and death for men. You see. You are at it again. Life and death for which men? In what way is this issue (I'm not even sure which issue you mean, so you have a chance to work a fast one here) life and death for me? I fail utterly and completely to see. Show it to me. Open my eyes to the truth. (Yes, its sarcasm. I'm using it to help convey how absolutely you fail to convey something of significance for me - and nothing remotely approaching life and death. Boredom and bemusement perhaps.)

In what way is this issue (I'm not even sure which issue you mean, so you have a chance to work a fast one here) life and death for me?
Then you probably are not a man according to Buddha1's standarts and definitions ;)
Or maybe you're an asexual transvestite like I supposedly am

You seem very hung up on this 'being a man' thing.
Obviously, for two reasons:
a. Masculinity is my area of work.

b. It is the single most important factor that affects the lives of men --- whether they are masculine, feminine or meterosexuals. It just affects each of them differently.

I have generally been more concerned about being a human. I don't think I have thought sex was the be all and end all of existence since I was a teenager. That was a very long time ago.
Had you asked me outside of this context 'what does it mean to be a man', I should have automatically thought the question meant, 'what does it mean to be human' and would have responded accordingly.
Procreation would have been quite low down the list.
I don't see in you that concern or empathy for the fellow human being. You decidedly seem keen only to protect the established western notions --- that are obviously your power base.

I've never actually split in two and gone my separate ways, so I don't think I am asexual.
I have worn a kilt, on account of being Scottish, so I could be mistaken for a transvestite. It can also be confusing in public lavatories: one sees the sign on the door, a man with a kilt. To be sure one checks the words. Yes, that's correct. It says "Laddies"; and I'm surely a fine Scottish Lad. Next thing you know the police have you in an arm lock and your struggling to remember your solicitor's phone number. Very upsetting.

It is the single most important factor that affects the lives of men --- whether they are masculine, feminine or meterosexuals. It just affects each of them differently.
Oh, then please do tell how it affects me, I'm genuinly interested.
Here's all the facts you probably need:
I'm a 22 year old law student, have two sisters, one sucks, the other is awesome, live in Eastern Europe, like all kinds of art and music, write not such a bad poetry, all my best friends are females, some are artists. Enjoy my free time reading books about mythology and history, exercise in martial arts, work as a taekwondo referee in local tournaments, run a forum in Latvian on culture and society and hike whenever possible, hang out in oriental and indian tea houses, am a vegatarian, enjoy wearing jewlery (except gold) and like wearing leather clothing. Oh, and don't have a girlfriend and don't think about getting one. Absolutely no thoughts about getting a boyfriend either. Have a chow-chow breed dog, but we are just friends.

What is masculinity?

Hard and big.

What is femininity?

Soft and small.

If the mind identies itself with the body, it becomes like the body.

I've never actually split in two and gone my separate ways, so I don't think I am asexual.
I have worn a kilt, on account of being Scottish, so I could be mistaken for a transvestite. It can also be confusing in public lavatories: one sees the sign on the door, a man with a kilt. To be sure one checks the words. Yes, that's correct. It says "Laddies"; and I'm surely a fine Scottish Lad. Next thing you know the police have you in an arm lock and your struggling to remember your solicitor's phone number. Very upsetting.

:D :D Thanks, you made my day! :D

Oh, then please do tell how it affects me, I'm genuinly interested.
Here's all the facts you probably need:
I'm a 22 year old law student, have two sisters, one sucks, the other is awesome, live in Eastern Europe, like all kinds of art and music, write not such a bad poetry, all my best friends are females, some are artists. Enjoy my free time reading books about mythology and history, exercise in martial arts, work as a taekwondo referee in local tournaments, run a forum in Latvian on culture and society and hike whenever possible, hang out in oriental and indian tea houses, am a vegatarian, enjoy wearing jewlery (except gold) and like wearing leather clothing.
Avatar, instead of asking me that question, you should --- if you were honest --- try to find out the answer yourself.

For instance, if you're asexual have you been pressurised to show sexual interest in women? Now you don't deny that these pressures exist?

Hanging out only with women cuts out a lot of peer-pressure thing that happens in a male-only or even in a mixed-sex group. If the girls see you as one of their own --- they may not expect the gender roles that they would expect from other men. They may even feel its o.k. if you don't have sex with those that find you attractive, for the same reason.

I guess the girls that you've mentioned as your only pals, are limited in number and are your close pals, who know you inside out and don't expect you to fit into social masculinty roles. For there are many girls out there who would look at you as some kind of wierdo!

Have you ever asked yourself why you avoid male company? Is it because you want to avoid the ensuing peer-pressures?

For instance, if you're asexual have you been pressurised to show sexual interest in women?
Never. Sometimes some relatives ask if I have a gf, I say that I don't and that I have no need for one, and it ends with that. Nobody has ever told me to get one or that I must have one.
As for asexual I don't know, I like and have nothing against kissing and the like, I'm just not an emotional type, romantic relationships don't offer anything that I'm interested in.
I guess the girls that you've mentioned as your only pals, are limited in number and your close pals
Not really, I like to hang out with girls in general, do that with many from my martial arts club.
For there are many girls out there who would look at you as some kind of wierdo!
Maybe and probably they do, but they still like to hang out with me, invite to parties, etc.
Have you ever asked yourself why you avoid male company? Is it because you want to avoid the ensuing peer-pressures?
No, it's because most males are boooring, watch footie, etc., but most girls like to do fun and crazy things, that males think as not appropriate for their oh so serious selves. You know, like going to a zoo and acting like wild monkeys by the cages, asking people for bananas. :D

No, it's because most males are boooring, watch footie, etc., but most girls like to do fun and crazy things, that males think as not appropriate for their oh so serious selves. You know, like going to a zoo and acting like wild monkeys by the cages, asking people for bananas. :D
So you think most guys want to act what is "appropriate" for them. Does this not mean that they are under the pressures of these 'expectations'. Social Gender is nothing but the expectations placed socially/ artificially on men because they are males.

It is probable that you're an exceptionally 'detached' human being who doesn't give the society or what they think a damn and lives his life according to his will. But the majority is not like that.

Hard and big.



Soft and small.

If the mind identies itself with the body, it becomes like the body.
Good starting point for a discussion.

Hard and big is considered a 'proof' of masculinity --- and thus comprises 'social masculinity'. But does it also comprise natural masculinity?

Similarly, soft and small is considered lack of 'masculinity' --- though not quite 'social femininity'. But does this also signify lack of natural masculinity?

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

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

Does this not mean that they are under the pressures of these 'expectations'.
Maybe it does, but does it have to do anything with expectations of masculinity?
I haven't asked anyone. The usual reply that I get is "That's just stupid" or simply "What?!". So I haven't searched for dragons with any males.

Maybe it does, but does it have to do anything with expectations of masculinity?
I haven't asked anyone. The usual reply that I get is "That's just stupid" or simply "What?!". So I haven't searched for dragons with any males.
Why is there this big mental block in discussing these issues? What good is an 'open' and 'free' society if you can't discuss such things? What good is knowledge and science, if it is still stigmatised to discuss men's issues? How much longer do men have to wait to be heard?

Today, I saw a sit-com on the Star world (produced for BBC). The programme was titled "Coupling" (I think). I'm sure some of you would have watched it too. There was this guy who had a 'failure' (failed to get an erection) when he was sleeping with his date. He became extremely distressed at this. He felt really hurt and down. He begged his date not to tell anyone that he had a 'failure'.

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

In other words, does this mean that men with big penises will be more masculine and those with small penises will be less masculine?
:D You know, I have no idea what penis I have. I have no idea what's considered big or small, measured it or spent any time looking at penises of other males.
Maybe it has to do with some chemical balances in brain or somewhere else, like testosterone or something.

Why is there this big mental block in discussing these issues? What good is an 'open' and 'free' society if you can't discuss such things? What good is knowledge and science, if it is still stigmatised to discuss men's issues? How much longer do men have to wait to be heard?
Hey, hold there, it's not that I didn't dare to ask or something, I simply wasn't interested for the reasons, a no is a no, everyone is free to choose what to do.
If you want I'll ask someone your question next time I receive such an answer.

Maybe it does, but does it have to do anything with expectations of masculinity?
Well, I have, and I found out that this is the driving social force for men. And since I am a man and relate strongly with other men, I can't but do something about it. You can't see your own people being divided, exploited and enslaved --- when you know what's bothering them.

When you get the kind of insight into an important 'secret' like I have --- the only thing you can think of is --- God, I don't want to die with this information. I must share it with others --- even if I can't really bring any changes in my lifetime.

Really, it becomes the only reason that you're living.

Surely, men in the west very much feel the pressures of social masculinity. the issue now is what makes people like Ophiolite strongly spread lies and seek to stop truth from being discussed, by maintaining that there are no such pressures.
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

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"

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'.

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?

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.

we talking social taboos here or what

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!).

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.

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.

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!)

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.

[QUOTE=Buddha1]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.

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.

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

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.

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.

So, if you like, read it as this:
[i]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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


this is wrong buddha. a persons personality is determined by how their parents raise them. i personaly do not "conform" to anything.

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.
So you agree (and you knew all along, even if subconsciously) that manliness, and masculinity are important issues for men --- enough to take cudgels with me for.

i love you buddha
i want to hug you
said in a public forum

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.
If you're not deliberately making this up, then you mistunderstood my post.

I didn't say that, Satyr said that. I just quoted him to remind him.

well?

If you're not deliberately making this up, then you mistunderstood my post.

I didn't say that, Satyr said that. I just quoted him to remind him.
my bad, sorry

o you agree (and you knew all along, even if subconsciously) that manliness, and masculinity are important issues for men --- enough to take cudgels with me for.
No, I don't think I did. Or maybe I didn't pay any importance to it. I don't really care about social problems of men if they have any (and you say they do).

define gender and sexuality as you beleive them to be
My definitions are based on observing the 'nature' of men, which is many a times different from what they say or act.

GENDER: Gender refers toInner-Sex (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51098)

One's Gender identity comprises of the predominant inner-sex.

A male inner-sex and the corresponding energy is known as 'masculinity', and and female inner-sex and the corresponding energy is known as femininity.

Gender like sexual feelings are also a continuum, and most people have both masculinity and femininity. But the predominant Gender is felt as an identity --- in that people see themselves as their inner-sex, relate with others with reference to their inner-sex, rather than their outer sex, and people also do the same. Therefore it makes sense to make the Predominant Gender into a social identity, which is not the case with Sexuality.

SEXUALITY:
Well, if you really ask me, there is no such thing like 'sexuality' in nature or in non-western cultures.

I once wrote a book in my vernacular language, and use a literal translation for the word 'sexuality' Believe me, nobody understood the word 'sexuality'. There is no concept of looking at the sexual aspect of life as separate from the other aspects of one's life or personality.

No western scholar has yet been able to define sexuality --- not even masters and johnsons who wrote an entire chapter on sexuality --- without defining it clearly.

The concept of 'sexuality' is also a result of an intense suppression of sexual needs of people by Christianity. Since other cultures did not experience such intense suppression, they did not have the concept of sexuality. But that's a point for another discussion.

I think, it would be best if you could give me your own definition (or one that you've read) of sexuality.

Gender is felt as an identity --- in that people see themselves as their inner-sex, relate with others with reference to their inner-sex, rather than their outer sex, and people also do the same. Therefore it makes sense to make the Predominant Gender into a social identity, which is not the case with Sexuality.
To go by one western interpretation of the word 'sexuality' --- i.e. so-called 'sexual orientation', it serves no useful purpose to establish a social identity on the basis of sexuality or to divide the society along its lines.

Because human beings don't naturally see or feel their sexual needs as an identity. Sexuality just refers to an interest which does not translate into an idenitity naturally, unless the society creates intense artificial environment that forces you to identify as such.

alright buddha
from a poor dumb 'ol boys point of view
i was born male my gender is male

sexuality is what i do with my dick, be it fucking tomatos or vaginas or hands or other men, in short it is whatever makes me "cum"

the "west" is not a strictly heterosexual world
Surprisinlgy this is true, even when if you go by the image the media builds -- it is unbelievable.

This lady from the U.S. who was working on AIDS with young men (not particularly 'gay' men) told me in a conference that in the group that she has observed (which was latino, economically poor group), men did not really see themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, and many men indulged in sex with men without seeing themselves as homosexual.

That was a surprise for me, but it also shows that the entire concept of 'sexual orientation' is a creation of the 'middle class'.

science is science there is no west, east, south, or north
It's not important for this discussion's sake, but since you raked this up, Science did originate in the west, and whatever we know of it, we have learned from the west. Science often goes in the face of traditional wisdom, and often challenges it.

alright buddha
from a poor dumb 'ol boys point of view
i was born male my gender is male
Are you saying this is the western understanding of the term gender?

Gender is a word (like several other important words) which is used ambigously for different things.

Gender and sex are used interchangeably, but that's ridiculous. If they were one and the same thing, there would not be need for two terms.

Surely, many males have a penis but they may feel slightly or predominanlty a female. Which means that there is something in them which tells them they have a female in them.

sexuality is what i do with my dick, be it fucking tomatos or vaginas or hands or other men, in short it is whatever makes me "cum"
I think that's an incomplete definition of sexuality. Women, for instance, don't always want to 'cum' when they want sex.

And sexual need is not all about 'cumming' whether for men or for women. There are a lot of other things like emotional involvment, love, crush etc., etc.

As far as 'cumming' part is concerned, then the penis is so made that anything can make it cum. You can rub it against the wall or against a pet and come. In that case it is no use talking about 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'.

It's not important for this discussion's sake, but since you raked this up, Science did originate in the west, and whatever we know of it, we have learned from the west. Science often goes in the face of traditional wisdom, and often challenges it.
i hate to say it but you are right now practising "western" science.
you have put forth a theory and are now searching for the evidence to support it or disprove it.
when you find such evidence then you revise your theory to fit what you found.

first of all define ground reality
Ground reality here refers to what actually people go through or experience or feel.

i can see you are going to be difficult


[QUOTE=Buddha1]Are you saying this is the western understanding of the term gender?

yes

Gender is a word (like several other important words) which is used ambigously for different things.

no gender means the sex you are born male or female

Gender and sex are used interchangeably, but that's ridiculous. If they were one and the same thing, there would not be need for two terms.

see above

Surely, many males have a penis but they may feel slightly or predominanlty a female. Which means that there is something in them which tells them they have a female in them.

you are talking about homosexuality


I think that's an incomplete definition of sexuality. Women, for instance, don't always want to 'cum' when they want sex.

okay

And sexual need is not all about 'cumming' whether for men or for women. There are a lot of other things like emotional involvment, love, crush etc., etc.

okay

As far as 'cumming' part is concerned, then the penis is so made that anything can make it cum. You can rub it against the wall or against a pet and come. In that case it is no use talking about 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'./QUOTE]
yes rubbing your dick on a wall to make it "cum" would be in my opinion sex

i hate to say it but you are right now practising "western" science.
you have put forth a theory and are now searching for the evidence to support it or disprove it.
when you find such evidence then you revise your theory to fit what you found.
When in Rome do as Romans do.

I don't have to be so 'bound' with 'evidences' and 'procedures' when I'm talking to people in my own country, especially with the 'commoners'. You can actually speak to their 'heart', though you also use logic --- and the spirit of science without losing touch with the human angle.

i feel i might have misled you

when you spoke of a man feeling female inside, that is not homosexuality
what do you mean by a man feeling female?
by wanting to bear children?
a coward?
what?

Buddha1: Surely, many males have a penis but they may feel slightly or predominanlty a female. Which means that there is something in them which tells them they have a female in them.

Leopold99: you are talking about homosexuality
If you are talking in terms of 'sexual orientation' then I mean both homosexuality and heterosexuality, because the essence of both of them according to me are dominated by feminine gendered individuals.

But to be fair, here I'm not talking about 'sexual orientation'. E.g., I'm talking about a male's feeling of being feminine whether he likes women or men or both.

see my last post

i feel i might have misled you.
I appreciate your honesty. But this also tells us about our pressures, biases and social-training.
when you spoke of a man feeling female inside, that is not homosexuality
As a matter of fact it is. But it is a long story. The homosexual identity basically belongs to the feminine gendered male. This is one of the strongest reasons why I say that the word homosexual should not be used for masculine gendered men who openly like men.
what do you mean by a man feeling female?
by wanting to bear children?
a coward?
what?
Let me tell you about femininity in males through an extreme example.

I and my colleague once interviewed an American Transexual male (she had become a woman now). Right from his childhood, he felt he was a girl, not a boy -- and he was attracted exclusively to women. He felt suffocated by his male body. As he grew up his feeling of being a female trapped inside a male body grew. It was not that he felt coward or insufficient or something. Those are social definitions of male femininity, meant to denigrate it. Natural male femininity has its own strengths --- besides its really beautiful.

In 2000 I attended a workshop on masculinity (when I was being trained), where we were asked to get in touch with the femininity inside us through some exercises. But try as I might, I couldn't do it. I thought I had no femininity in me, and admittedly, I felt rather proud of me (today I know this is no reason to feel proud). But as I analysed things, I figured that I, like other men, have been suppressing whatever I thought was feminine, systmatically since my childhood. Today, I'm unable to get in touch with it. It however, is a biolgical thing and by losing it we lose an important source of inner-power.

To take a slightly lesser example of femininity in men, you can take the example of 'homosexuals'. They often exaggerate their femininity. But even in the more refined gays you can notice a certain 'femininity' which is difficult to describe. Although it is very beautiful.

I guess, to understand and appreciate femininity in men you need to work over a number of biases and understand the essence of gender --- these are things which cannot be done without outside held --- e.g. workshops.

no gender means the sex you are born male or female
The dictionary lists genders as 'masculine', 'feminine' and 'neutral'. If outer-sex and gender were the same, don't you think it would be ridiculous to call a skirt clad guy with make-up and a 'gait' 'masculine' because he has a penis.

no gender means the sex you are born male or female
The usage of the word Gender to refer to 'sex' has been recent, See link (http://www.answers.com/topic/gender), and made popular by the feminist movement. But the original intent of Gender -- and the one that we need for this discussion is different.

Gender in the west actually refers to the social roles of men and women. These are roles that are expected of them by virtue of their sex. So a man would be expected to follow the male gender roles.

This view assumes Gender to be a psychological or social construct, rather than a biological one. It assumes that all Gender is orchestrated by the society. This definition of gender is also of fairly recent origin.

yes, for a man to feel like a female they would be a transexual

for a man to copulate (screw) another man would be homosexual

and like you i can not feel feminine.

sounds like you need to talk with a known transexual which i am not

yes, for a man to feel like a female they would be a transexual
It seems you know very little about gender. Transexual is the extreme case of femininity. Not every predominantly feminine male is transexual. And like I said all of us have some amount of femininity in us --- that doesn't make us 'transexuals'.

for a man to copulate (screw) another man would be homosexual
Even though I have also noticed this difference, but I would not put it this way --- that straight (non-heterosexual) men tend to desire non-penetrative sex with men --- they often care about mutual masturbation and stuff, and generally don't think much of copulation. On the other hand homosexual (feminine or meterosexual) men tend to care a lot about copulation) It's my observation so far, but I need more data.

An interesting finding is that truly heterosexual 'straight' men (whether they are in the straight group because of their 'heterosexuality' or are really masculine is another debate) also tend to care for anal sex --- both with men and women, and this is yet another striking similarity between the true 'heterosexuals' and 'homosexuals'.

Actually, in my opinion true heterosexuals and true homosexuals should be classified in one gender group, while the straight group should be a seperate gender group --- based on masculine gender, not on sexual preference.


and like you i can not feel feminine.
I know even the idea that their is femininity in you seems too scary. But that is because the society has denigrated it too much. And yet it is a fact that all of us have it, some less some more.

At least at the theoretical level, I have started talking about finding out and accepting the femininity in oneself --- however small or big, as an important source of inner-strength.

sounds like you need to talk with a known transexual which i am not
I've done my initial talking. I have read about others. I know it would be great to talk to them more, but in my country transexuals live in separate groups and don't share their secrets with others.

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!).
Retract this immediately or I shall report this post. You are deliberately maligning my position.
1. I am stating that I am personally unaware of such pressures on myself or on others and have asked you repeatedly to provide evidence for them that constitutes more than just saying they exist. I am open to the possibility that such pressures exist: I have repeatedly asked for evidence. It has not been forthcoming.
2. You have not disproved it earlier.

You claim to want a debate, yet you have utterly avoided the points raised in my last post to you. You continually ignore points that come to close to the mark, then later claim you have refuted them. This is dishonest and must stop.

One of the ways is by continously denying things like a sexual interest in men. .You don't suppose there is a teeny weeny possibility that this continual denial is related to the fact that most men don't have a sexual interest in other men? No! :confused: That is really too far fetched to be given any credence whatsoever.

For someone who says they want to discuss the issues, you seem very adept at avoiding the important questions:
This was posted three or four pages ago. I am still awaiting a response.

You see. You are at it again. Life and death for which men? In what way is this issue (I'm not even sure which issue you mean, so you have a chance to work a fast one here) life and death for me? I fail utterly and completely to see. Show it to me. Open my eyes to the truth. (Yes, its sarcasm. I'm using it to help convey how absolutely you fail to convey something of significance for me - and nothing remotely approaching life and death. Boredom and bemusement perhaps.)

Let me just remind you of our recent discussion on the other thread (Gender orientation is biological):

Ophiolite: Are you living in a time warp? The attitudes and pressures you are describing are straight out of the fifties or earlier. What country do you live in? Somewhere in the east, you say. Remarkable.

Buddha1 asks for clarification

Ophiolite: These are two examples from your previous post, but they made me realise many of your posts were filled with the same description of outmoded attitudes, that are going the way of the Dodo and the dinosaur.

Ophiolite: You are describing pressures and views that are in a declining minority in the west. So where are these views still in vogue? That is what is puzzling me.

Buddha1 gives a long explanation of his views

Buddha1 (providing external evidence):

PRESSURES OF SOCIAL MASCULINITY:

Here are external links for ya:

- Crime aqainst nature: Psychologist's play focuses on growing up male in America (http://www.jmu.edu/jmuweb/general/news/general_2001117134329.shtml)

- Social pressures on men are ingrained, says study (http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/sfnews/1996/Oct3/davison.html)

Boys and men (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:UKHvdUuy5BkJ:www.fpa.org.uk/news/policy/PDFs/Boysandmenpolicystatement.pdf+pressures+of+masculi nity&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

- UNFPA status of world population 2005 (http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/english/ch6/chap6_page3.htm)

- An interesting personal account of a woman living in the west (http://www.queerbychoice.com/pekky.html)

Ophiolite: .....You are either living in a time warp, or are immersed in a culture that has little connectivity with the West of today. Are they showing the Maltese Falcon at the Odeon this weekend?

There is not even an acknowledgment of the evidences/ links I have provided. But that is typical of Ophiolite and some others. When he loses an argument, he just slips off. Doesn't have the guts to admit he could have been mistaken.

Let me just remind you of our recent discussion on the other thread (Gender orientation is biological):

Ophiolite: Are you living in a time warp? The attitudes and pressures you are describing are straight out of the fifties or earlier. What country do you live in? Somewhere in the east, you say. Remarkable.

Buddha1 asks for clarification

Ophiolite: These are two examples from your previous post, but they made me realise many of your posts were filled with the same description of outmoded attitudes, that are going the way of the Dodo and the dinosaur.

Ophiolite: You are describing pressures and views that are in a declining minority in the west. So where are these views still in vogue? That is what is puzzling me.

Buddha1 gives a long explanation of his views

Buddha1 (providing external evidence):

PRESSURES OF SOCIAL MASCULINITY:

Here are external links for ya:

- Crime aqainst nature: Psychologist's play focuses on growing up male in America (http://www.jmu.edu/jmuweb/general/news/general_2001117134329.shtml)

- Social pressures on men are ingrained, says study (http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/sfnews/1996/Oct3/davison.html)

Boys and men (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:UKHvdUuy5BkJ:www.fpa.org.uk/news/policy/PDFs/Boysandmenpolicystatement.pdf+pressures+of+masculi nity&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

- UNFPA status of world population 2005 (http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/english/ch6/chap6_page3.htm)

- An interesting personal account of a woman living in the west (http://www.queerbychoice.com/pekky.html)

Ophiolite: .....You are either living in a time warp, or are immersed in a culture that has little connectivity with the West of today. Are they showing the Maltese Falcon at the Odeon this weekend?

There is not even an acknowledgment of the evidences/ links I have provided. But that is typical of Ophiolite and some others. When he loses an argument, he just slips off. Doesn't have the guts to admit he could have been mistaken.

And what does Ophiolite do next?

On another thread discussing "Masculinity and men" he rakes up the same old debate again (as if I never provided any evidences or instances) about pressures for men being a whiff of my imagination.

Sample this:


Ophiolite: You see. You are at it again. Life and death for which men? In what way is this issue (I'm not even sure which issue you mean, so you have a chance to work a fast one here) life and death for me? I fail utterly and completely to see. Show it to me. Open my eyes to the truth. (Yes, its sarcasm. I'm using it to help convey how absolutely you fail to convey something of significance for me - and nothing remotely approaching life and death. Boredom and bemusement perhaps.)

At the same time he also accuses me of this on the thread:

Ophiolite:

1. You have not played the debating game fairly. I, and others, have refuted your so called evidence, and you have denied this.
2. You have disregarded the data we have submitted in support of conventional views.

At the same time he also accuses me of this on the thread:

Ophiolite:

1. You have not played the debating game fairly. I, and others, have refuted your so called evidence, and you have denied this.
2. You have disregarded the data we have submitted in support of conventional views.

Now I'm sick and tired of providing evidences to Ophiolite when he does't even care to acknowledge them --- leave alone analyse them.

And worse of all complains about me not providing any evidence on other threads.

Imagine he accuses me of being 'unstructured'.

You don't suppose there is a teeny weeny possibility that this continual denial is related to the fact that most men don't have a sexual interest in other men? No! :confused: That is really too far fetched to be given any credence whatsoever.
None at all!

I would more readily believe that pigs might fly.

After having seen what goes on behind the masks of men, after having worked with them on these issues for 10 years, you want me to disbelieve what I saw, and believe what the 'heterosexual' society tells us.

I have also seen (and shown) how men lie about their sexual need for men. They do it for different motives. Primary motives are to remove their vulnerability and/ or as a power statement. I know that 99% (in my society --- and a rough estimate) of men do that. In your society the figure may be 90 - 95%.

When I discussed this issue on the thread "95% of men have a sexual need for men", there was a heated argument for 5 or 6 pages --- lasting about a week (I don't remember if you were there). And then I provide my first evidence. And then like magic, everyone disappears for a couple of days. There is complete silence which is acknowledged on the thread. Another poster gives some more evidences of this.

This is when Ophiolite and others start their politics to have the thread merged with others into an unreadable and massive mess --- so that they don't have to encounter statements like "95% of men have a sexual need for men" which are a sore in their eyes.

It would be interesting to study why they can't deal with it, when as they say this is not the truth. Why does it rattle them then? Why is what I'm saying perceived as such a threat to 'heterosexual' identity, if you sincerely believe its naural?

The post above, timed at 8:45 am GMT is the first instance in which I have seen the links Bhudda1 claims to have previously posted. They constitute the second instance only, that I am aware of, of items offered as evidence by Bhudda1. I shall study them now.
In the meantime, please tell Bhudda1 how the issue, whatever the hell it was, is a 'life and death issue'. You have not addressed that.

For someone who says they want to discuss the issues, you seem very adept at avoiding the important questions:
This was posted three or four pages ago. I am still awaiting a response.

You see. You are at it again. Life and death for which men? In what way is this issue (I'm not even sure which issue you mean, so you have a chance to work a fast one here) life and death for me? I fail utterly and completely to see. Show it to me. Open my eyes to the truth. (Yes, its sarcasm. I'm using it to help convey how absolutely you fail to convey something of significance for me - and nothing remotely approaching life and death. Boredom and bemusement perhaps.)
I've already responded to a similar post by Avatar. It's not for me to tell you how you're affected by these pressures. If you're honest you'll know yourself. Such personal things cannot be proven this way or the other.

Afterall, you have continuously shown yourself to be unobjective, dishonest and biased. If you can deny that pressures exist for other men, when there are 'external evidences' all over the net, how easy will it be for you to deny anything that I may speculate about you.

A quick scan of the links you have provided shows that they discuss (not prove) that there are pressures on men today. I don't believe I have denied that. What I am denying are some of the specific pressures (e.g. smoking is seen as a very masculine attribute) and the causes of it (heterosexuality is unnatural). I can see nothing in the material you have presented that would cause me to change my view. Please tell me where in these links specific support is given to one of your identified pressures, or to the cause of that pressure.

Afterall, you have continuously shown yourself to be unobjective, dishonest and biased. .
Afterall, you have continuously shown yourself to be unobjective, dishonest and biased. .
Afterall, you have continuously shown yourself to be unobjective, dishonest and biased. .
Afterall, you have continuously shown yourself to be unobjective, dishonest and biased. .
Afterall, you have continuously shown yourself to be unobjective, dishonest and biased. .
Afterall, you have continuously shown yourself to be unobjective, dishonest and biased. .
Afterall, you have continuously shown yourself to be unobjective, dishonest and biased. .
Afterall, you have continuously shown yourself to be unobjective, dishonest and biased. .
Bad move.

They constitute the second instance only, that I am aware of, of items offered as evidence by Bhudda1. I shall study them now.
Correction.....it is one of the few instances (not 2nd) when I have provided external evidences for my assertions.

But that does not invalidate the hundreds of other evidences I've talked about (to take a recent example, the T.V. show instance) for which although I have not given external links (for some none exist), but they are easily verifiable --- even on the net.

You can't dismiss an evidence just because there is not a link attached to it. You can only dismiss an evidence by showing how it is wrong.

In the meantime, please tell Bhudda1 how the issue, whatever the hell it was, is a 'life and death issue'. You have not addressed that.
The truly straight men would rather die, than lose his social manhood. Part of this is social, part natural. If he lives he will lead a very stressful life. It's the same all over the world.

Men who get the 'straight' status, just for their heterosexualtiy, without deserving or really knowing what being 'straight' actually mean, will not understand this phenomenon.

There ought to be external evidences of what I'm saying, let me search on the net.

Meanwhile here is one evidence from a discovery channnel programme several months ago about Greek masculinity. According to the commentary:

"Men used to enter into fierce physical combats in order to 'prove their manhood'. These combats used to be deadly. They often resulted in one (or sometimes both) the competitors dying or being crippled for life. They used to be no-holds barred fights.

And the rewards. The winner used to be regarded as the Alpha male. And he would get the sexual attention/ company of the best of (male) youth."

A quick scan of the links you have provided shows that they discuss (not prove) that there are pressures on men today. I don't believe I have denied that. What I am denying are some of the specific pressures (e.g. smoking is seen as a very masculine attribute) and the causes of it (heterosexuality is unnatural).
That you consider all of my assertions --- one and the same thing (heterosexuality is not natural) is not my fault. For me they are quite different though related issues. They are NOT one issue. That is why I had created separate threads to discuss each one of them.

I don't intend to provide you one link that 'proves' or hints at everything I have said at one place.

In the above instance I did not intend to prove that 'heterosexuality is unnatural' (that has already been proven!). I intended to show you that men do go through intense pressures --- even in the west. Intense enough that even a heterosexual society has to talk about them.

I can see nothing in the material you have presented that would cause me to change my view.
No amount of evidences or truth will make a biased person with vested interests change his views. On the other hand to an honest and objective reader even a logical discussion and a heart to heart talk is sometimes enough.

Please tell me where in these links specific support is given to one of your identified pressures, or to the cause of that pressure.
Admittedly, I too have not gone through them. Here is one such support by a straight woman (Link here (http://www.queerbychoice.com/pekky.html) :

"People talk about female sexuality being more fluid than male. I rather see this more as a social construction than something from female brains, or female hormones, or whatnot. I do think that male sexuality is just as fluid, but because of social pressures of masculinity, it is not expressed."

Here is one such support by a straight woman (Link here (http://www.queerbychoice.com/pekky.html) :

"People talk about female sexuality being more fluid than male. I rather see this more as a social construction than something from female brains, or female hormones, or whatnot. I do think that male sexuality is just as fluid, but because of social pressures of masculinity, it is not expressed."

I have seen men struggle with themselves and go to such pains to give secretive, silent, subdued, camouflaged and indirect expressions to their sexual need for men --- expressions that are so superficial (sometimes as superficial as touching someone's crotch accidentally), and men go through such pain to accomplish that. Same men who use their 'heterosexuality' as a shield. Including men who have (in their own words) reacted violently when approached by men they did not like or fem gays, by claiming a lack of interest in men.

For men to desire it so much (evidenced by the pains they take) and still not being able to be open about it or to give any meaningful expression to their sexual need shows that they are operating under an extremely heavy pressure.

In the meantime, please tell Bhudda1 how the issue, whatever the hell it was, is a 'life and death issue'. You have not addressed that.
Here is a personal account of a heterosexual poster from the west that supports both my points:

- That the pressures of masculinity in some cases are matters of life and death.

- that there is an intense pressure to suppress one's sexual need for men that works specifically on straight men.

Here are excerpts from a post by VossistArt (Link here (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=812397#post812397) ):

"Im strictly heterosexual, thats how I feel but im pretty sure why i am. i was brought into the world and exposed to loving heterosexual parents only. at the youngest of ages,when running around with other boys, and the subject, or any event or action suggestive of homosexual behaviour came up, it was always reacted to with repulsion, even anger and sometimes physical hostility. it was decided in the groups of boys i ran around with that homosexuality or bi-sexuality and the possiblility of being tagged with either orientation, was like a fate worse than death."

In the meantime, please tell Bhudda1 how the issue, whatever the hell it was, is a 'life and death issue'. You have not addressed that..
Here are a set of other posts from a discussion thread titled "woman rapes man" that shows the extent of pressures of fake social masculinity that straight men operate under.

Men allow themselves be sexually exploited because they are scared of pressures of social masculinity. And they will denigrate a man who seeks to speak against this exploitation. Men are routinely sexually exploited in the west --- which is nothing short of 'rape', but has state or social sanction from the heterosexual society which couldn't care less about the plight of men.

Here are the excerpts and the link: (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=908469#post908469)

Hey, we're guys. We think about sex twelve times a minute. We can barely control ourselves. We'll use any excuse to have illicit sex. We'll do it with any woman who is not certifiably butt-ugly and even then it's ok if she turns the lights off and wears nice perfume. A lot of us are so horny that they don't even think about STDs. Throw us in prison and a good percentage will start screwing each other. Some of us are so depraved that they'll screw their own daughters.

So I ask you: What kind of a one-percenter idiot complains about a woman, any woman, doing it to him?

We've got a reputation to uphold, one that we've been cultivating for thousands of years. This guy could blow it for us
That said, I think this is a pretty bullshit case. Who doesn't like recieveing a blowjob? At the very least, this fag european could have sucked up his feeling and dealt with how he felt betrayed by her. Except he got a blowjob. Which doesn't make any sense that he's reacting like this.

I could understand a lawsuit if she was being a tease and didn't put out. But this makes NO sense.
Because we all know men like sex regardless of circumstances.
You can't rape the willing. Every man is willing to get a blow job. There must be a wife or girlfriend behind this. She sees lipstick on his johnson. He says, it must have happened while I was asleep. I was raped! She says, you were raped huh, then call the police. So he does.
I once had a blowjob I didn't want. So I elaborated, and she said "Whats the matter, you don't like blowjobs?", and since I'm a man with alpha-male tendencies, anti-faggot agendas and all that, I was like fuck it, suck it then.
HAH.. No like blowjob?
My theory is that the guy was insecure and did not want to reveal his shriveled mushroom cloud dick. And as the brain was taking a time out sleeping and could not spout the usual "you are worthless, you disgust me, you smell like piss etc" soundtracks for eroticism, the penis (I call mine the hellhound, or the octagon) miraculously got erect and the situation escalated into this huuuuuge pile of perplexity.

Notice how they run down someone who chose to speak up (in real life it translates into peer pressure). They have an immense power and what they say really denigrates the individual and robs him of his social masculinity. Their power comes from intense pressures of social masculinity.

I remember an incident in my country, where much against the values of our society, as a result of forced heterosexualisation of our society, young men who applied for army were made to strip in front of a female officer who checked their genitals. It was a harranguing experience for these young men. But they couldn't say no or complain about it. For they would only make themselves a laughing stock.

On the contrary, in another incident when a female army aspirant was asked to strip in front of a male doctor, she not only refused made a big hullaballoo about it and the media as well as feminist organisations hailed her as the champion of women's rights.

Bhudda1 - refer to my post, six or seven posts back. I said "Bad Move". I have pm'd you explaining exactly what I meant by that. If your subsequent posts have been directed towards me you have been wasting your time.
I do not approve of your debating techniques, as they involve persistent use of lies or self delusion. I have a life to get on with. Your nonsense is adding nothing to it.

Ophiolite

Bad move.
Common Ophiolite. Stop this hide and seek game!

Everytime, you start losing an argument you quit on one pretext or another, a la Spuriousmonkey.

Is this a strategy?

If you quit now please don't oppose the contention that there is an intense pressure on straight men to be heterosexual in the west, or that it is a matter of life and death for men, again. And please don't claim that I have not provided evidences of the issue or that you've provided a sufficient rebuttal of my evidences.

I take this as an unopposed proof (and henceforth will quote this thread as evidence) that:

- Men in westernised societies face extreme pressures of social masculinity.

- An important, in fact basic part of this pressure is to be heterosexual.

- Some of these pressures assume the importance of life and death for men.

So, once again......

What is masculinity?

Someone said: Big dick and a hard erection.

Let's make a list of what is considered 'masculine' and then examine each one of them separately.

So, once again......

What is masculinity?

Someone said: Big dick and a hard erection.

Let's make a list of what is considered 'masculine' and then examine each one of them separately.
in prepatriarchal mythology, the male principle was its fetilizing thrusting aspect---a in erection, symbolized as the son/lover/consort of the Goddess

Dionysos was such a 'son' of the Goddess in the oroginal myth, and it's intersting his depction is one of an ambiguity between male and female---ie., effeminate, yet very powerful too

Okay some people say that if your a real man, you don't cry over anything...
Yeah there's the big dick thing too, but yeah, that's something else.
Masculine men when they work out they use weights, they don't do yoga.
uh...They don't wear make up...
they don't care more about the way they look then there girl friend
they don't think anyone thinks their rotten ugly, even if they are.
They only shake their fathers hand, and never kiss/hug him
never say "mommy"
tend to lie to girls in order to get them in bed.
thinks the women are better off left at home.
has all high tech things.
owns at leasat 30 copies of playboy
the list goes on and on. I'm not saying I agree with these, but that's some of the things that people think about masculine men.

in prepatriarchal mythology, the male principle was its fetilizing thrusting aspect---a in erection, symbolized as the son/lover/consort of the Goddess

Dionysos was such a 'son' of the Goddess in the oroginal myth, and it's intersting his depction is one of an ambiguity between male and female---ie., effeminate, yet very powerful too
Effeminate is a negative term. I think you should use feminine.

feminine men....

are gay
wear pink shirts
shave their butt
love their mother
like anal sex
order their furniture from ikea
are artistic
are sensitive
cry a lot
spend a lot of time in front of the mirror.


(in other words, can we cut out the stereotypes)

Effeminate is a negative term. I think you should use feminine.
YES, you are right......i am rather pointin to then--describing eg., the mythical character of Dionysos, an abiguity of maleness femaleness

something that intrigues me, and i by no means am singling these pople out, but take Jamaica. i alsways sense that black males are ideed very sensuous, right....in that many can really get into riddim, love music, some of which is very erotic-inducing......YET, altho there apparently is much homoeroticism amongst males there, actual homosexuality is SO taboo may males who are called homosexual have been murdered, andmany have had to flee as refugees...........thoughts on this?

(in other words, can we cut out the stereotypes)
Not before we have examined them thoroughly to determine which ones of these 'social masculinity' symbols tally with 'natural masculinity', and hence are real and should be kept, and which have nothing to do with (or even contrary to) natural masculinity.

Because we now know that there are two kinds of masculinities:

1. The real one granted to us biologically by the nature. (Pl. refer to Is gender orientation biological? (http://)). This is known as 'natural masculinity', and we are born with it. It is inside us, and once we develop it no one can take it from us.

Natural masculinity is a real source of energy/ power. A power which is natural and useful.

2. The western definition of 'masculinity' which refers to the social roles artificially fixed by the society for males. This is the artificial or fake masculinity, and it does not necessarily tally with the natural masculinity described above. We call this 'social masculinity'.

This social masculinity is granted by the society, and its source is outside us. Therefore, it can be taken away by the society --- thus making us heavily dependant on the society, if we are removed from our natural masculinity.

Social masculinity is a superficial power, as it has no intrinsic value. But it can do severe harm.

Our job now is to distinguish between the real and the fake ones.

in prepatriarchal mythology, the male principle was its fetilizing thrusting aspect---a in erection, symbolized as the son/lover/consort of the Goddess

Dionysos was such a 'son' of the Goddess in the oroginal myth, and it's intersting his depction is one of an ambiguity between male and female---ie., effeminate, yet very powerful too
Well, I could have used this information in (now defunct) thread "Heterosexuality is Queer".

I guess, since we are discussing social masculinity, it would be useful to discuss 'patriarchy' here. I think the term patriarchy is valid only in the context of male-female social bonds --- that is 'marriage'. But it is improbable that marriage always existed amongst humans.

Why do you say the above is 'pre-patriarchical' myth? Was that before marriage system came?

It is again a half-truth that what you refer to as patriarchy benefits men, or that it was started by men.

The society gave men several sops in order to buy his freedom and take him away from his natural instincts to bond with other men. Giving him social ownership and credit for procreation was the biggest sop. For, in terms of nature, procreation is a strong power that only women have, and that men will always envy.

But for this man has had to pay a heavy price, and he is still paying. Inspite of the benefits of patriarchy, men did not willingly give up their freedom to join the 'marriage' institution. Rather he had to be forced into it through severe penalties. Social masculinity --- rather the denial of it, and the ensuing enormous consequences was the most important force that is still being applied.

Well, I could have used this information in (now defunct) thread "Heterosexuality is Queer".

me]]]]]]]]]]better late than never then

I guess, since we are discussing social masculinity, it would be useful to discuss 'patriarchy' here. I think the term patriarchy is valid only in the context of male-female social bonds --- that is 'marriage'. But it is improbable that marriage always existed amongst humans.

me]]]]]]]]]]true

Why do you say the above is 'pre-patriarchical' myth? Was that before marriage system came?

me]]]]]]]]]]well the Dionysian religion existed within a very strict patriarchal system in anceint Greece where women were treated as property. Hence the reason for its popularity.
I believe it was the last vestige of a religion that can be termed PRE-patriarchal--ie., belonging to e Goddess Stream. I also usually use the term 'patriarchal very broadly' to include belief systems that denigrate, fear, dominate, and wish to escape Nature , and that equate Nature soley with the Feminine. This belief is also shared in Eastern metaphysical philosophy where there is similarly a desire to escape the phyysical body and Nature, and where Hature is seen as feminine. For example their term 'MAYA'--which etymologically denotes the female/Mother !

It is again a half-truth that what you refer to as patriarchy benefits men, or that it was started by men.

me]]]]]]]]well it benefits an ELITE of men, ad was startted/propaganderized and enforced by an elite of men, not women, obviously.

The society gave men several sops in order to buy his freedom and take him away from his natural instincts to bond with other men. Giving him social ownership and credit for procreation was the biggest sop. For, in terms of nature, procreation is a strong power that only women have, and that men will always envy.

me]]]]]]]]]some researchers have thought that it was when men discovered teir role in procreation is when they began dominating. i am not suo sure about this. for it the assumption people had no idea they procreated. rather patrarchy may have been nforced by a dominating mindset which believed in a sky god, and that the Earth was feminine and lesser than

But for this man has had to pay a heavy price, and he is still paying. Inspite of the benefits of patriarchy, men did not willingly give up their freedom to join the 'marriage' institution. Rather he had to be forced into it through severe penalties. Social masculinity --- rather the denial of it, and the ensuing enormous consequences was the most important force that is still being applied.
Yes, maen AND women have paid a very heavy price for this belief, as have other species, and Nature itself!

well the Dionysian religion existed within a very strict patriarchal system in anceint Greece where women were treated as property.
If we look at the greek society from the point of view of a heterosexual society, yes women were treated like property. The majority did not have the freedom to be like men.

But perhaps, they did not want to be like men. I saw a programme on Greek society on the Discovery channel last year. The commentator said, that even though the average Greek woman was confined within her house and family for most of the time, she was really content and did not have much to complain. A woman's basic drive is afterall to nurture and bring up her offspring --- and she is the happiest in the safety of her home.

It seems the Greek society did have a space for women who did not want to do that --- for women who wanted to be like men. There have been female gladiators and warriors in the Greek culture. It would have been impossibel in a society that did not allow women freedom to be like men.

I think today's heterosexual women want to be like men (heterosexualiyt is queer! :) ) only because they are being brainwashed from an early age --- and forced/ trained/ encouraged to be like men.

You may disagree with this and I may be wrong --- so do feel free to disagree and even challenge. It will help the subject, and I always welcome such discussions whether with friends or with opposition.

And even the average women had their chance to go wild --- e.g. in the festival of Dinosysus.

Perhaps the best fun of life is in doing the very basic natural things like bringing up your children if you're a woman.

Yes, maen AND women have paid a very heavy price for this belief, as have other species, and Nature itself!
If women lost their outer power and became properties, men lost their inner strength (their natural masculinity) and became slaves of social masculinity. Both men and women have suffered. It is unlikely that men would have done this to themsleves, least of all elite men.

It would be interesting to speculate on who is responsible for this, though.

Yes, maen AND women have paid a very heavy price for this belief, as have other species, and Nature itself!
Hinduism is a patriarchial society, but Goddess worship is extremely strong there. And so was it in the ancient Greece and Egypt --- which were both patriarchal societies. So I think patriarchy in itself has little to do with not worshipping god in a female form. I think it has more to do with monotheism.

well it benefits an ELITE of men, ad was startted/propaganderized and enforced by an elite of men, not women, obviously.
The men who thrive on 'heterosexuality' in the western heterosexual society today, were not elite just a few decades ago (I'm assuming that the pre-heterosexual western society was somewhat similar to the traditional non-heterosexual societies of today --- though this is not completley true).

They were certainly not the elite till the times of the Greek, where they actually were considered wimps. In fact many of the men who claim to be 'heterosexuals' today would, in the greek society, compete with other men to win over boys and try to prove their utter disability in forming intimacy with women (although they would still prove that they can have sex with women).

Those whom you call elites have become elites today only after the heterosexualisation of the society. In fact most masculine men who are at the helm of this 'eliteness' today have trained themselves to be 'heterosexual' against their nature, so that they can stay ahead in the competition for manhood.

The more common ones just use the immense power that comes from a 'heterosexual' status, without having to lift a finger.

To sum up, it was not the elite men of today who are responsible for this state of affairs --- nor for patriarchy. They have just been immensely benefitted.

well it benefits an ELITE of men, ad was startted/propaganderized and enforced by an elite of men, not women, obviously.
At the outset, and certainly from the outside, women would look to be the losers, especially if you look from the modern masculinised heterosexual woman's point of view.

But there are things to be considered. E.g., women are the ultimate beneficiaries of the heterosexual society. Now a heterosexual society is the logical topping (ending?) of a process started several millenium ago to promote male-female sex under the marriage institution.

If we look at the traditional societies, it's the men who have always been wary of and resisted marriage (look at all the marriage jokes; and in my counseling with men, they often seem reluctant to get married), while women have always looked forward to it. Certainly what seems obvious is not so obvious. Women do seem to benefit from the marriage institution, even when its patriarchal, and men do seem to lose.

Surely, women tend to lose outer power, but they don't seem to be too worried about it. Most women seek security more than freedom, and marriage provides them that amply. They want a secure institution where they can raise their youngs safely and properly. She doesn't care if the man gets to give children his name. She is not interested in social identities and power politics associated with them. She easily allows men to fight amongst themselves on these, while she quietly and securedly raises her young.

And when they introduced the marriage system for the first time (it would have been very very gradual process) women though they would have resisted it would have taken well to the idea, because it does give them protection.

It is difficult to say that they are really the losers after all. What appears is not always what it is.

some researchers have thought that it was when men discovered teir role in procreation is when they began dominating. i am not suo sure about this. for it the assumption people had no idea they procreated. rather patrarchy may have been nforced by a dominating mindset which believed in a sky god, and that the Earth was feminine and lesser than
The suppression and denigration of femininity in males is definitely related to the marriage institution and the efforts to force men into it. Like the suppression of masculine bonds, the persecution of femininity in males is part of the mechanism built to pressurise men to direct their sexual energies exclusively towards procreation --- although the reasons for targeting it are different from those for targeting masculine bonds.

The challenge now is to determine how (and if possible when) it happened, and why femininity in males was targeted at all? And to get at the truth, we have to look beyond what the heterosexual society tells us about human gender and sexuality --- including its history and science.

If we look at the greek society from the point of view of a heterosexual society, yes women were treated like property. The majority did not have the freedom to be like men.

But perhaps, they did not want to be like men. I saw a programme on Greek society on the Discovery channel last year. The commentator said, that even though the average Greek woman was confined within her house and family for most of the time, she was really content and did not have much to complain.

me]]]]]]]]]and theres a saying which goes: you only know how oppressed you were when it stops

A woman's basic drive is afterall to nurture and bring up her offspring --- and she is the happiest in the safety of her home.

me]]]]]]]]]well, B1, thats a bit of a generalization dont you think? how can you speak for ALL women. jut becaus one is a woman doesn't mean one is spcifically maternally-inclined. nor does being a man demand you like beer and football

It seems the Greek society did have a space for women who did not want to do that --- for women who wanted to be like men. There have been female gladiators and warriors in the Greek culture. It would have been impossibel in a society that did not allow women freedom to be like men.

me]]]]]]]is imporatnt o note that the Dionysian Mysteries welcomed women and slaves----ie., the marginalized ad everely oppressed. the religion offered them wild orgiastic freedoms of expression. welcome release from the stifling order of Apollonian-dominant, Greek, patiarchal, culture

I think today's heterosexual women want to be like men (heterosexualiyt is queer! :) ) only because they are being brainwashed from an early age --- and forced/ trained/ encouraged to be like men.

You may disagree with this and I may be wrong --- so do feel free to disagree and even challenge. It will help the subject, and I always welcome such discussions whether with friends or with opposition.

me]]]]]]]]]]its a complex subject for sure. mainly because we are all different. it is wrong to say to a woman or man--'you should be this or that, cause this is what your gender does'--as you know. forexample--say a woman likes playin football. years back it would havebeen untinkable. it was a 'man's game'. yet women rhat play it LOVEit, and why not. i agree with you on this: with the dded pressures of going into a man's world of business affiars, along comes what men hate and are oppressed by, which is possibly a reason many more women are drinking more, as a form of escape from thispressure. YET compare with when they were soley dependenton the man-of-the-hpuse who could beeat them up cause he 'owns' them.....we have to look at ORHER ways. this is what we're exploring about. it aint a OR b......but....

And even the average women had their chance to go wild --- e.g. in the festival of Dinosysus.

Perhaps the best fun of life is in doing the very basic natural things like bringing up your children if you're a woman.
like i said. yes for tos who do. but if not they are gonna harm the child. i personally feel it waa the suppression of womens communal togtherness that made many women resent being isolated mothers bringing up kids. it is a V ER Y and, how hard, task to bring up kids on your own without help from community. an old African saying: it takes a village to raise a child

If women lost their outer power and became properties, men lost their inner strength (their natural masculinity) and became slaves of social masculinity. Both men and women have suffered. It is unlikely that men would have done this to themsleves, least of all elite men.

me]]]]]]]my theory is, is ta it wasn't MEN who did it--cause many men were victims of the patriarchy as were women. so i tend to think it was an elite whose dliberate intention was to subjugate women, and men, so as to havepower over. and they did this through deluding themselves their logical function which actually was/is IRrational, was superior to both their body/feelings and Nature--telatter which tey associated with the Female, whilst the heavfens were the male

It would be interesting to speculate on who is responsible for this, though.
continuuing. i believe that in the prepaatriarchy women WEREaware of the heavenes, and star systems but that when a particular oppressive patriarchal mindset studied the stella world they somehow associated it with what they beliefed was the male mind---as in being closer to a 'spiritual' course which becomes, of course--the 'he-God' of monotheism

Hinduism is a patriarchial society, but Goddess worship is extremely strong there. And so was it in the ancient Greece and Egypt --- which were both patriarchal societies. So I think patriarchy in itself has little to do with not worshipping god in a female form. I think it has more to do with monotheism.
EVEn in very ancinet shamanic culture we can see the gleamings of the patriarchal mindset!....we hear tales of the splicing of te Serpent ---for example the shamanic Bon Po culture which was assimilated by the Buddhists ahd which became Tibetan Buddhism. theformer had already dissected an eariler Goddess culture......wit Greeks it wa their subjugation otf te Titans and then their building up of Olympic religion withte patriarchal Zeus on top...in Egypt we have the upstart 'god-king'....so it's all man on top

In Hinduim we have the enormous inluence of the Upanishadian Advaita Vedanta with its 'One' vs a 'Many' where the latter is termed 'MAYA'---ie,m the belief that Nature and human feelings are illusion

so, in othr words a fear of Nature is prominent in ALL these belief systems. a fear of WILD Nature. you will see a pattern where te original Hoddess is spliced into certain characteristics. so for example in Hinduis we haveher wilrd dark aspect, KALI singled out.....whereas originaly she was just an aspect of Goddess
see how wit monotheism similar apporach happens , where 'God' is all-goodness, and light and so there has to be created an arch demon, 'Satan', the 'Devil'...etc

mAt the outset, and certainly from the outside, women would look to be the losers, especially if you look from the modern masculinised heterosexual woman's point of view.

But there are things to be considered. E.g., women are the ultimate beneficiaries of the heterosexual society. Now a heterosexual society is the logical topping (ending?) of a process started several millenium ago to promote male-female sex under the marriage institution.

If we look at the traditional societies, it's the men who have always been wary of and resisted marriage (look at all the marriage jokes; and in my counseling with men, they often seem reluctant to get married), while women have always looked forward to it. Certainly what seems obvious is not so obvious. Women do seem to benefit from the marriage institution, even when its patriarchal, and men do seem to lose.

me]]]]i ca see the only benefit for owmen to marry, especially in the past, was social shame if they didn't. i cant see how they whould happily choose to be property. and i cant see why men would not WANT such culture-given power

Surely, women tend to lose outer power, but they don't seem to be too worried about it. Most women seek security more than freedom, and marriage provides them that amply. They want a secure institution where they can raise their youngs safely and properly. She doesn't care if the man gets to give children his name. She is not interested in social identities and power politics associated with them. She easily allows men to fight amongst themselves on these, while she quietly and securedly raises her young.

me]]]]]]]]but like said. all that is so genralist, and simplistic, wit respect. it is like listening to women who wear the veil in Islam rave on how mucy trhey luuureve to be covered up. to walk around in scorching sun covered in black material from head to foot. womehow their shouts of joy dont ring true

And when they introduced the marriage system for the first time (it would have been very very gradual process) women though they would have resisted it would have taken well to the idea, because it does give them protection.

me]]]]]]]]as does prison from the pouring rain and lack of food.....but

It is difficult to say that they are really the losers after all. What appears is not always what it is.
it is extremely complex. we are talking about oppression all round and people fighting to survive. we have to look directly at the source of opression i feel

The suppression and denigration of femininity in males is definitely related to the marriage institution and the efforts to force men into it. Like the suppression of masculine bonds, the persecution of femininity in males is part of the mechanism built to pressurise men to direct their sexual energies exclusively towards procreation --- although the reasons for targeting it are different from those for targeting masculine bonds.

me]]]]]towards pro-creation as a mean or a patriarchal-warring culture to have planty of workers and soldiers to keep its power going on!

The challenge now is to determine how (and if possible when) it happened, and why femininity in males was targeted at all? And to get at the truth, we have to look beyond what the heterosexual society tells us about human gender and sexuality --- including its history and science.
YES. i am very very veeeery aware of it imposing MIND CONTROl on one an all. in its war on drugs--its mental health scam, its manipulation of the masses towards consumerism and war (see Edward Bernays), its dumbing-donw in education, its Big Media propaganda-indoctrination....all its sevret activities. all tis is mind control. it --the patiarchal mindset, seeks to control, even the bodymind, even Nature.
Sooo, to explore tis 'demans' one begins allowing the freein UP of one's mind. notice how the marterialists here FEA such a pocess. not only for teir 'antagonists' but for theselves. they see such ...freeing..... as chaos. a living THREAt to their sureities of measure, and 'future' measurement, which will assure them they were 'right' all along...

1. The real one granted to us biologically by the nature. (Pl. refer to Is gender orientation biological?). This is known as 'natural masculinity', and we are born with it. It is inside us, and once we develop it no one can take it from us.

Gender orientation isn't biological.

Gender orientation isn't biological.
Well, we are discussing it on the above mentioned thread and all the evidences point to