Masculinity and men

[Buddha1]

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:

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

 

[Buddha1]

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.

 

[Buddha1]

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.

 

[duendy]

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

 

[hug-a-tree]

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.

 

[Buddha1]

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.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

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)

 

[duendy]

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?

 

[Buddha1]

(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?). 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.

 

[Buddha1]

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.

 

[duendy]

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!

 

[Buddha1]

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.

 

[Buddha1]

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.

 

[Buddha1]

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.

 

[Buddha1]

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.

 

[Buddha1]

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.

 

[Buddha1]

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.

 

[duendy]

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

 

[duendy]

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