The Feminization Of Man

[Buddha1]

I see nothing wrong with the fact that man is oppressed and feminised in the west. The other part of his analysis I don't agree with.

This should read:
I agree that it is a fact that man is oppressed and feminised in the west.

 

[Buddha1]

Or as a way to have some fun at the expense of another whose opinion is so stupid, only satire - did I spell that right?- can be used to make him interesting.
My only other option is dismissing you totally.

Someone who is too eager to consider others as fools or uses a lot of baseless accusations or abuses isn't likely to be very bright himself. He is just trying to cover his own inferiority complexes. Get real and discuss like a man!

And this fact is what makes you so, wonderfully, you and exposes your motives and psychological needs.

It’s not oppression and feminization that bothers you. You actually like it.

What bothers you is that this feminization is not happening fast enough to satisfy your immediate psychological needs, due to resistant instinctive remnants from an environmental past you would like to believe were all artificial, and you wish for a future where humanity is a hermaphroditic species and where sex is simply a recreation and a way of "bonding" and finding belonging and safety.

In other words: You’re [deleted].
Unable to live up to some primitive notion of maleness you attempt to reinterpret it by claiming it’s a social invention and thusly easily reversible.
My! the studpidest analysis I've seen so far. You're really, really insecure about being a man.

I really don't see the point of getting personal here. Are you really incapable of having an intelligent debate on larger issues that you have to get down at throwing baseless accusations, motives and abuses in order to win a point?

In other words: You’re [deleted].

I don't think abusing is allowed by the rules of this forum as a means of argument. I hope the moderator will do something about it.

Thing is homosexuality, in mammals, is mostly used as a method for establishing social harmony, where the independence and natural dominance of maleness is usurped by making him take on a more feminine social psychology, or it is used as a symbolic display of dominance, where the penetrator establishes authority over the penetrated, reminiscent of more natural sexual roles.

Proof, once more that the feminine type is more conducive to social groups and so all characteristics of femininity are nurtured and become communally desirable.
Maleness, as it participates in the psychology of both males (mostly but not always) and females (to a lesser extent) is a genetic mutation that has run its course and is quickly becoming obsolete.
Even in past environments, maleness is often excluded or minimized in its participation. A far too volatile element to be controlled and made productive to the whole.

Perhaps you should return to posting baseless and self-seeking satire. You are worse at discussing things intellectually.

As an advice, try not taking things personally here. We are all discussing larger issues. Grow up!

What part?

Frankly I have not read his link. From his small post in the beginning I agree in principle that man is forcefully feminised, oppressed and subjugated in order to 'heterosexualise' him. Homosexualisation of the male is part of the same process. It's his implied insinuation, reflected from his post, that sees 'heterosexuality' as masculine and includes male-male sexual bonds in his definition of homosexuality that I don't agree with.

 

[Buddha1]

'Maleness' is not a genetic mutation by definition. Sex is controlled by the whole chromosome, not individual genes.

He doesn't know much about anything. All he knows are stereotypes.

 

[Satyr]

Help

Xerxes

Sex is controlled by the whole chromosome, not individual genes.

Yes, and mutations occur when multiple genetic alterations offer enough of an advantage to take hold and they, in turn, result in major changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_(genetic_algorithm)


Bed-ah1

He doesn't know much about anything. All he knows are stereotypes.

ster•e•o•type P Pronunciation Key (st r - -t p , stîr -)
n.
1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.
3. Printing. A metal printing plate cast from a matrix molded from a raised printing surface, such as type.

Says nothing about a “stereotype” being correct or incorrect. Only that it’s an “oversimplification” of a type and "formulaic".

A “stereotype”: A type or idea or image that exaggerates certain defining characteristics in order to amplify their participation in what defines the idea or type or image and explains the idea or type or image in its totality.
Formulas are what man does.

Man simplifies everything. It’s part of the abstracting mechanism of the brain. Even memories are simplified down to their defining elements, the details lost in time, so as to facilitate storage.
Science does no less than stereotype nature in order to understand it.

Now if I’m being accused of being over-over-simple in my description of an fudge-packing homosexual male, then I plead guilty.
What’s simple about saying that a homosexual male enjoys performing oral sex on another male?

Someone who is too eager to consider others as fools or uses a lot of baseless accusations or abuses isn't likely to be very bright himself. He is just trying to cover his own inferiority complexes. Get real and discuss like a man!

“Discuss like a man?!”
I love the psychological undertones, the accentuation of concepts as a means to achieve a result.

I’m a Satyr, you fool, no man at all; part human part goat.
http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/satyr.htm
Duh.
As for my multiple insecurities, they are what make me....me.
Since I like me, I adore my insecurities.

Do you know of someone with none?
I assure you, your insecurities are nowhere in sight.

But, given your accusations against heterosexual definitions of maleness, what exactly does this mean?

As an advice, try not taking things personally here. We are all discussing larger issues. Grow up!

What “larger issue”, that society has constructed heterosexuality and maleness or that sex is a bonding mechanism?

And I quote:

- Purpose of sex: The basic purpose of sex is not procreation. The basic purpose is bonding --- that too particularly between the same sex. Reproduction is the secondary purpose of sex -- in that it just used sex to procreate because sex was the most effective available method.

You want me to take this seriously?
How adequately you place the cart before the horse and draw conclusions from your own psychology.
In fact sex precedes any bonding or social behaviour as a method.
Bonding and socializing come in as methods to enhance and facilitate the procreative process.

As the practice of procreating, through sexual intercourse and genetic mingling, took hold, it successfully produced more complicated beings which required a longer gestation and maturation period.

That is when sex was adjusted to create the bonding process, which allows for a male and female to tolerate each other’s physical intrusions and each other’s presence (especially for the female this became essential) and it allowed for the harmonious coexistence and cooperation of multiple beings within social groups which allowed for larger brain production.

Sexuality underlies every human interaction but not always as attractive and not always as benevolent and bonding.

- The purpose of life: What I'm going to prove is that the basic purpose of life is not survival but "meaningful survival". This means that the quality of life is just as important (or perhaps more important than) the quantity of life.

And here is the most hilariously stupid statement ever produced. One I’m asked to discuss “seriously”.
Where did you “prove” this?

Once again the solution is selected and then a theory is constructed backwards from it.
Backwards....how typically homosexual.

“Meaning” is but an interpretation of life; a focus, a from of understanding.
It is thusly a product of a higher brained creature. Life does not look forward seeking meaning it has no capacity, in its beginning, to do so. Life can be, and often is brainless – you being a case in point – with little concern about “meaning” but only for survival/continuance. Reproduction being but a means towards this end.

The mind looks back into life, trying to find a meaning to continue in life and asks: Why?

Life precedes higher brain functions and is responsible for the creation of the circumstances that will enable it.

“Meaningful Survival” is not only absurd but it’s also a concept with no definition, other than the one that is ascribed to it through a social context and due to individual tastes and preferences.

In this instance it is used as a way of establishing an alternative explanation to what threatens your need.
It’s the same strategy used by ideologies and religions the world over, to suppress natural tendencies and offer alternate, artificial goals and “meanings”.

In this respect, while sex between male-female represents 'quantity' (which the heterosexual society and its science is obsessed with); sexual bonds between male and male (or female and female) and the mother-child bond represents 'quality' (The heterosexual society has completely destroyed the quality of life --- and that is the biggest problem with it).

What a wonderful mental construct you’ve built here.

I’m moved to tears. But then again, I always tear up when I belly-laugh.

I would say that female/male intercourse is less about quantity and more about pretence, marketing, exploitation, tolerance and dominance/subjugation.
As are all human interactions.

You’ve taken the very premise (society), which facilitates and shelters alternative life-styles, and you’ve demonized it as a way to excuse your own inability to live up to a natural standard which you mistakenly feel dominates due to social propaganda.
I would say society represses natural heterosexual tendencies and it doesn’t create them out of thin air. It takes nature and warps it, domesticates it, attempts to dominate it, diverts it.

The very social process which results in the necessity for equalitarian and tolerant human beings and so protects and defends your right to have sex with whomever you choose and to exist, you take as an enemy to this very lifestyle.
In fact heterosexuality is still a remnant, as I’ve said, of past natural processes and is quickly becoming obsolete given technology and the degradation of sexuality into that of a simple entertainment choice.

The fact that females are more conducive to social environments – possibly as a consequence of them being reliant on others during the crucial gestation period and the subsequent period of bringing an infant into maturity – makes the characteristics which dominate in the female psyche more desirable socially.
This is why homosexuality is a growing trend not a declining one.

For this reason feminine “males”, like you, can experiment and feel safe within a social context, your "rights" and safety ensured, even if some remnants of natural instinct still result in a prejudice against you, and enable your choice of seeing sex as simply an entertainment tool or a bonding method.
It’s the decline of severity which has resulted in sex being a pastime or a lifestyle, not the reverse.

It is the natural process of alteration and evolution that causes the frictions between social groups and moral standards.

Homosexuality comes, usually, as a sign of social decline (decadence) where social sheltering and abundance, which protects the participating minds from the cruelty/indifference of nature, result in an inability to cope with life.
It also results in boredom, which requires constant distraction and entertainment – here is where you claim that the mind is meant for being entertained –, in moral decline, as the weakening of the ideal that bonds a group and establishes a common identity, and also it results in a lowering of the average tolerance for pain/suffering, resulting in weak, undisciplined, pampered, unfocused and frightened minds who think they have "rights" and mistaken their privileged existence as a symptom of their inherit worth.

Another consequence of socialization is that it establishes the environmental premises through which nature’s frugality can be altered into waste and which eventually makes life boring and empty. When a mind is protected from most of nature’s threats and/or diverted from her natural ways, the sheltering concludes in ennui from which constant distraction using entertainment and imagination is the only way out. Sex, then becomes just another form of entertainment and a distraction or a way of coping with ones own meaninglessness.

Here is where identity is exclusively taken over by sexuality: The male gaining a sense of self-worth through it and a female gaining a sense of purpose through it.

In the case of western culture, homosexuality comes as a precursor to social/cultural reinvention.
Where the past moral structures are slowly decaying due to technological advancements and the growing necessity for mental docility and social discipline, the past paternalistic guard still grabs onto ideals based on nature’s dominance, as they have been interpreted sometime in the past to help social integration, under different environments, and they attempt to maintain the ideals of a dying culture.

Where sex was controlled using the technology of monogamy – dependant on the subjugation of a woman’s natural sexual power to authoritarian male power which created civilization (domestication) - , enforced through institutions and religious dogma, it now is released from its purpose where it can be practiced with little thought and even less seriousness.

Female emancipation, - ironically the end result of the very moral dogma which defines the very culture it threatens – is now making family structure and monogamy obsolete and it is returning mankind to past sexual practices, but this time unburdened by importance or purpose.

As a result, and due to the replacement of male authority by institutional power, both males and females are forced to behave and think more femininely. In this way homosexuality becomes the new-mode, the new popular pastime, where masculinity and femininity are relegated to cosmetic definitions and sexuality becomes ambiguously definable.

Sex then is redefined as that which creates new life to that which serves some psychological function, with spiritual connotations that make the individual feel safe and secure and as possessing meaning or of being appreciated in an overpopulated world where the individual is lost in multiplicity and anonymity.

Frankly I have not read his link.

Don’t waste your time with his link.

Wanderer is a well known imbecile, trying to justify his life and excuse his inadequacy, so as to be integrated into a social or intimate union.
One of those many genetic mistakes, destined to exist and perish in anonymity, seeking recognition and the other’s “respect” and “acceptance”, shouting to deaf ears to be seen and waving his hands to indifferent eyes to be heard.

Just another do-nothing idealist with a chip on his shoulder and a two-by-four up his ass.
Ignoring him is the worse you can do to him.
He doesn’t even have the balls to respond in his defense.

Sorta reminds me of me.

- There is no evidence of heterosexuality in nature
- Heterosexuality is unnatural in humans too (also refer to another thread called: Is heterosexuality natural?
- 95% of men have a sexual need for other men
- Pressures on men to be heterosexual
- Heterosexuality is queer

Which part of these hilariously stupid claims am I supposed to respond to seriously?

Don’t expect any further serious responses.
Believe what you must.
I care not, I care not.
The forest is too luscious to sacrifice for a place in the shade. Let me play my flute and frolic in the brush.
I care not, I care not!


Walker

Ah, how I've missed reading the threads of hostile and defensive moral fundamentalists, their posts bristling with the quotes of those who surround them, and in turn, the anxious, overintellectualized retorts, like spikey defenses raised high from the precarious shelter of an...

...Orc...burrow...

...nvm, back to playing WoW. Have fun kids.

I’ll await your bright, sunlit proclamations, devoid of any pretence or defensiveness and full of the glory of…..
…..an Elven grove where happy children play and Dwarfs are welcomed as guests and where Hobbits are honored as Ring bearers and grow in stature.

Back to playing indeed.
I almost forgot that I’m a Satyr.

And that's the way it is!!!!
This has been a special sciforums report.
We now return you to your regularly programmed show of ego struggles and adolescent social games.

Next up:
What’s your favorite color?

Followed by:
What’s the meaning of life …..according to Star Trek?

Stay tuned next week for:

Will Invert prove his own indifference to himself and make Romani and Gustav pay for their insolence?

And for:

Will Buddha1’s secret love affair with the captain of the guard be discovered by the Palace, resulting in the discovery of a love child?

Now for this brief commercial break…………………..

 

[TheInnerCalm]

People look at this issue way too seriously and in-depth... look at these teenage guys wearing womens clothing, cutting themselves, and speaking like you would normally think a homosexual "flamer" (no offence to anyone) would speak... why would they do this?

They call themselves "emo" for emotional boys ... go look it up, its scary

 

[Buddha1]

He doesn't know much about anything. All he knows are stereotypes.

He is dependant on the continuance of stereotypes for his (false sense of) 'manhood'. Without them he is genderless (for he has already disowned his natural femininity --- he hardly ever had natural masculinity, that is clear!).You expose those stereotypes as false, and he becomes vulnerable --- desperate to safeguard his 'male' identity.

But he can't contend with the truth. So he gets angry and vicious and starts throwing tantrums --- wildly abusing and accusing, taking everything to a personal level.

 

[Buddha1]

STEREOTYPES​

ster•e•o•type P Pronunciation Key (st r - -t p , stîr -)
n.
1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.
3. Printing. A metal printing plate cast from a matrix molded from a raised printing surface, such as type.

Says nothing about a “stereotype” being correct or incorrect. Only that it’s an “oversimplification” of a type and "formulaic".

A “stereotype”: A type or idea or image that exaggerates certain defining characteristics in order to amplify their participation in what defines the idea or type or image and explains the idea or type or image in its totality.
Formulas are what man does.

Man simplifies everything. It’s part of the abstracting mechanism of the brain. Even memories are simplified down to their defining elements, the details lost in time, so as to facilitate storage.
Science does no less than stereotype nature in order to understand it.

Now if I’m being accused of being over-over-simple in my description of an fudge-packing homosexual male, then I plead guilty.
What’s simple about saying that a homosexual male enjoys performing oral sex on another male?

Stereotypes are exaggerated and often humorised versions of qualities that define a group of people.

They are often based on real traits/ qualities of the group......and the test of a real/ true stereotype is that it amuses/ humourises others without offending the 'group' members who actually proudly relate to it.

The rest are false stereotypes forced upon a disempowered 'false' group by those in power.

The sign of a false stereotype is that often members of the 'group' do not relate with it or see themselves in it --- while it may amuse the others who may use it to assert their power or to feel superior.

It is not only a false selection of traits which comprises 'false stereotypes', but in most cases it is the false or wrong grouping or classification of people that accounts for false stereotypes. And when there is false grouping (or stereotypes) you can be sure of a malafide motive doing its work.

Example: If 'somehow' by befooling people you manage to show Germans and Chincese as one 'people' --- let's say 'A', and use Chinese 'true' stereotypes on this group 'A', obviously Germans will not relate to it and for them it will be a 'false stereotype' (and vice versa), although they are seen along with the Chinese as 'A'.

Much of what you say smacks of 'false stereotypes' based on false grouping of men (as in 'heterosexuals' and 'homosexuals' rather than group them on their natural gender orientation) and smacks of malafide motives (heterosexualism!).

This is why you cleverly avoid a real, logical and macro discussion on them, cunningly attempting to reduce the discussion to personal fights --- based ironically on false stereotypes.

 

[Buddha1]

What “larger issue”, that society has constructed heterosexuality and maleness or that sex is a bonding mechanism?

The society has not constructed 'maleness', rather it has destroyed it.

 

[Buddha1]

What’s simple about saying that a homosexual male enjoys performing oral sex on another male?

Well, if what you're saying is right then your insinuation or direct 'accusation' or 'praise' of me as a 'homosexual' is wrong, since both oral and anal sex puts me off. I also don't fit into the other 'homosexual' trait mentioned by you, that of being 'feminine', therefore by your own definition I'm not a 'homosexual'.

Now if you forcefully ascribe any of the above traits on me, or deliberatally call me a homosexual, then it only shows that you're desperate to score a point and unfortunately for you, you have no logical means to do it.

For this reason feminine “males”, like you, can experiment and feel safe within a social context,

You have no basis to say that, you are saying it just because you're frustrated...... But the fact that you are so cut by imperonal assertions (like "feminisation of men', or 'Heterosexuality is queer') which are up for discussion and can easily be challenged logically if they do not hold water, shows that you deeply relate with the issue and are personally affected by it.

A masculine man, if indeed he were heterosexual, would brush that aside and will not see it as a personal threat to his manhood, and if he doen't agree with it or feels for the issue, he will boldly take the challenge and disprove --- logically.

It really exposes you as being negatively feminine. (In crude and politically incorrect terms it is referred to as a 'wimp' but I am against using degrading words). Now the true stereotypes of a negatively feminine male (who is actually a negative form of meterosexual) are --- he is extremely fond of 'calling' himself 'masculine' (inspite of his lack of adequate natural masculinity and presence of lots of natural femininity) with the help of heterosexual (false) stereotypes. He really is addicted to the social power that comes with this fake 'manhood' status. He doesn't want to be reminded of the contradictions between his false sense of manhood and his deep rooted natural desire to be subjugated by women, to be 'laid' and whipped by women (including giving oral sex to women), to endlessly cuddle women, to howl like women in front of women, to prefer the company of women over men, to relate with women's cause rather than men's cause, to be extremely scared of bonding with a masculine man, to love a female so much that one almost becomes a female, to harbour a deep secret desire to cross-dress or even to have a vagina and breasts, to be turned on by wearing women's lingeries and stuff, to allow a female to run one's life, to have the patience to allow a female to enter into one's personal space, to put up cheerfully with the endless nagging.......the list is endless.

 

[Buddha1]

Satire is a feminine quality​

Satire, by the way is a terribly, terribly negative feminine quality. Haven't you seen a woman trying to use satire on men to get an upper hand?

Real men like to be more straightforward and honest in their dealing. There is little room with them for satire, cunningness or other indirect ways.

Only powerless, effeminate males habitually use satire.

While we are talking about negatively feminine qualities, let me add that 'personal blaming' as a means to sidestep an argument is also an irritating feminine quality. Have you seen a husband wife quarreling? You can hear the wife shouting you did this, you did that, you're this, you're that.....when the poor man was just hoping to reason with her. And she will also be quick to take out instances from 20 years back, when the poor guy can't recall the fight from the last time. Women do that because they are powerless and cannot reason logically. The only chance they have to win over men is through such irritating tactics..

 

[Buddha1]

There's a saying that goes like this:
"Idiots will pull you down to their level and then defeat you with their experience there."

That is very well said. That is why I will resist any attempt to make this a personal issue by people like satire!

 

[Buddha1]

Xerxes You want me to take this seriously?
How adequately you place the cart before the horse and draw conclusions from your own psychology.
In fact sex precedes any bonding or social behaviour as a method.
Bonding and socializing come in as methods to enhance and facilitate the procreative process.

As the practice of procreating, through sexual intercourse and genetic mingling, took hold, it successfully produced more complicated beings which required a longer gestation and maturation period.

That is when sex was adjusted to create the bonding process, which allows for a male and female to tolerate each other’s physical intrusions and each other’s presence (especially for the female this became essential) and it allowed for the harmonious coexistence and cooperation of multiple beings within social groups which allowed for larger brain production.

Sexuality underlies every human interaction but not always as attractive and not always as benevolent and bonding.

“
- The purpose of life: What I'm going to prove is that the basic purpose of life is not survival but "meaningful survival". This means that the quality of life is just as important (or perhaps more important than) the quantity of life.
”
And here is the most hilariously stupid statement ever produced. One I’m asked to discuss “seriously”.
Where did you “prove” this?

Once again the solution is selected and then a theory is constructed backwards from it.
Backwards....how typically homosexual.

“Meaning” is but an interpretation of life; a focus, a from of understanding.
It is thusly a product of a higher brained creature. Life does not look forward seeking meaning it has no capacity, in its beginning, to do so. Life can be, and often is brainless – you being a case in point – with little concern about “meaning” but only for survival/continuance. Reproduction being but a means towards this end.

The mind looks back into life, trying to find a meaning to continue in life and asks: Why?

Life precedes higher brain functions and is responsible for the creation of the circumstances that will enable it.

“Meaningful Survival” is not only absurd but it’s also a concept with no definition, other than the one that is ascribed to it through a social context and due to individual tastes and preferences.

In this instance it is used as a way of establishing an alternative explanation to what threatens your need.
It’s the same strategy used by ideologies and religions the world over, to suppress natural tendencies and offer alternate, artificial goals and “meanings”.

“
In this respect, while sex between male-female represents 'quantity' (which the heterosexual society and its science is obsessed with); sexual bonds between male and male (or female and female) and the mother-child bond represents 'quality' (The heterosexual society has completely destroyed the quality of life --- and that is the biggest problem with it).
”
What a wonderful mental construct you’ve built here.

I’m moved to tears. But then again, I always tear up when I belly-laugh.

I would say that female/male intercourse is less about quantity and more about pretence, marketing, exploitation, tolerance and dominance/subjugation.
As are all human interactions.

You’ve taken the very premise (society), which facilitates and shelters alternative life-styles, and you’ve demonized it as a way to excuse your own inability to live up to a natural standard which you mistakenly feel dominates due to social propaganda.
I would say society represses natural heterosexual tendencies and it doesn’t create them out of thin air. It takes nature and warps it, domesticates it, attempts to dominate it, diverts it.

The very social process which results in the necessity for equalitarian and tolerant human beings and so protects and defends your right to have sex with whomever you choose and to exist, you take as an enemy to this very lifestyle.
In fact heterosexuality is still a remnant, as I’ve said, of past natural processes and is quickly becoming obsolete given technology and the degradation of sexuality into that of a simple entertainment choice.

The fact that females are more conducive to social environments – possibly as a consequence of them being reliant on others during the crucial gestation period and the subsequent period of bringing an infant into maturity – makes the characteristics which dominate in the female psyche more desirable socially.
This is why homosexuality is a growing trend not a declining one.

For this reason feminine “males”, like you, can experiment and feel safe within a social context, your "rights" and safety ensured, even if some remnants of natural instinct still result in a prejudice against you, and enable your choice of seeing sex as simply an entertainment tool or a bonding method.
It’s the decline of severity which has resulted in sex being a pastime or a lifestyle, not the reverse.

It is the natural process of alteration and evolution that causes the frictions between social groups and moral standards.

Homosexuality comes, usually, as a sign of social decline (decadence) where social sheltering and abundance, which protects the participating minds from the cruelty/indifference of nature, result in an inability to cope with life.
It also results in boredom, which requires constant distraction and entertainment – here is where you claim that the mind is meant for being entertained –, in moral decline, as the weakening of the ideal that bonds a group and establishes a common identity, and also it results in a lowering of the average tolerance for pain/suffering, resulting in weak, undisciplined, pampered, unfocused and frightened minds who think they have "rights" and mistaken their privileged existence as a symptom of their inherit worth.

Another consequence of socialization is that it establishes the environmental premises through which nature’s frugality can be altered into waste and which eventually makes life boring and empty. When a mind is protected from most of nature’s threats and/or diverted from her natural ways, the sheltering concludes in ennui from which constant distraction using entertainment and imagination is the only way out. Sex, then becomes just another form of entertainment and a distraction or a way of coping with ones own meaninglessness.

Here is where identity is exclusively taken over by sexuality: The male gaining a sense of self-worth through it and a female gaining a sense of purpose through it.

In the case of western culture, homosexuality comes as a precursor to social/cultural reinvention.
Where the past moral structures are slowly decaying due to technological advancements and the growing necessity for mental docility and social discipline, the past paternalistic guard still grabs onto ideals based on nature’s dominance, as they have been interpreted sometime in the past to help social integration, under different environments, and they attempt to maintain the ideals of a dying culture.

Where sex was controlled using the technology of monogamy – dependant on the subjugation of a woman’s natural sexual power to authoritarian male power which created civilization (domestication) - , enforced through institutions and religious dogma, it now is released from its purpose where it can be practiced with little thought and even less seriousness.

Female emancipation, - ironically the end result of the very moral dogma which defines the very culture it threatens – is now making family structure and monogamy obsolete and it is returning mankind to past sexual practices, but this time unburdened by importance or purpose.

As a result, and due to the replacement of male authority by institutional power, both males and females are forced to behave and think more femininely. In this way homosexuality becomes the new-mode, the new popular pastime, where masculinity and femininity are relegated to cosmetic definitions and sexuality becomes ambiguously definable.

Sex then is redefined as that which creates new life to that which serves some psychological function, with spiritual connotations that make the individual feel safe and secure and as possessing meaning or of being appreciated in an overpopulated world where the individual is lost in multiplicity and anonymity.

Are you crazy or what!

Why do you want to discuss all those issues about 'Darwinism' or 'Heterosexuality' here? There are different threads discussing those issues. Why do you want to rediscuss them here, especially the posts about 'heterosexuality' when you could not discuss the issues around the unnaturalness or queerness of heterosexuality in the (erstwhile) respective threads? Can't you stick to the broad topic of the thread?

 

[Buddha1]

There are different threads discussing those issues. Why do you want to rediscuss them here, especially the posts about 'heterosexuality' when you could not discuss the issues around the unnaturalness or queerness of heterosexuality in the (erstwhile) respective threads?

When the Lion was out in the open you were afraid to come near him. When the LIon has been imprisoned behind bars, you come out to dare it with lofty words.

 

[Buddha1]

TDon’t waste your time with his link.

Wanderer is a well known imbecile, trying to justify his life and excuse his inadequacy, so as to be integrated into a social or intimate union.
One of those many genetic mistakes, destined to exist and perish in anonymity, seeking recognition and the other’s “respect” and “acceptance”, shouting to deaf ears to be seen and waving his hands to indifferent eyes to be heard.

Just another do-nothing idealist with a chip on his shoulder and a two-by-four up his ass.
Ignoring him is the worse you can do to him.
He doesn’t even have the balls to respond in his defense.

Sorta reminds me of me.

Anyone, who puts out an assertion --- however I may disagree with him, if he is willing to discuss it logically/ scientifically should be heard.

If he is talking bullshit it will be easy to show him that --- not by shouting at him or abusing him but usinig logic --- of course the other person may not want to listen to logic but other readers will. Truth speaks for itself. Something you will never understand.

 

[Buddha1]

Don’t expect any further serious responses.

You're kidding, you call those responses serious! I could not make head or tail of them as much as I tried. I cannot really tell what you've been basically trying to say or prove. Just a lot of frustrated opinions from here and there, unsupported by any kind of evidence.

 

[Satyr]

He is dependant on the continuance of stereotypes for his (false sense of) 'manhood'. Without them he is genderless (for he has already disowned his natural femininity --- he hardly ever had natural masculinity, that is clear!).You expose those stereotypes as false, and he becomes vulnerable --- desperate to safeguard his 'male' identity.

But he can't contend with the truth. So he gets angry and vicious and starts throwing tantrums --- wildly abusing and accusing, taking everything to a personal level.

Quoting yourself to offer a response is pretentious.

As for the rest, I never denied my pseudo-male persona.
I’m a little girly with hairy arms.

Are you crazy or what!

Ah... ....duh!

Only powerless, effeminate males habitually use satire.

Does my pretty dress frighten you?

While we are talking about negatively feminine qualities, let me add that 'personal blaming' as a means to sidestep an argument is also an irritating feminine quality. Have you seen a husband wife quarreling? You can hear the wife shouting you did this, you did that, you're this, you're that.....when the poor man was just hoping to reason with her. And she will also be quick to take out instances from 20 years back, when the poor guy can't recall the fight from the last time. Women do that because they are powerless and cannot reason logically. The only chance they have to win over men is through such irritating tactics.

In this instance the man should use satire.

You can’t hit her, so mock her.

All I know is that me and my lover have a very healthy relationship. It scratches my back and I clip its nails. :bugeye:

 

[Buddha1]

In this instance the man should use satire.

You can’t hit her, so mock her.

That's how women really subjugate real men in a heterosexual society. In traditional societies even though social manhood was strictly tied to 'sex with women', the separate social spaces for men and women, and regulations on the open display of man-woman sexuality meant that man could not be easily exploited by women sexually. Women could not abuse the power artificially placed with them to define 'manhood' of men, because there were several regulations on the conduct of women too.

The heterosexual society changed all that. It brought women right into men's spaces. And it removed all social inhibitions and regulations of women and brought sexually aggressive women (whores) to the front to exploit the man who was virtually left helpless in the face of the traditional sexual requirement of manhood becoming even more intensified.

When a woman challenges a man's manhood in such circumstances, he can not hit her because the heterosexual society has strict regulations against it and he cannot argue with her because it is forbidden by traditional concepts of manhood. He then becomes so vulnerable and helpless that the only way he can save his manhood (which is a big issue for men!) is by making sure that he gives women no chance to find him in a vulnerable position --- by subjugating himself (especially sexually) to her --- by generally letting her have her way and by suppressing his nature, ways and desires.

It's the meterosexual man who laughs all the way!

 

[Buddha1]

And while we are bashing negative or forced femininity I think if we want to be honest, we should accept and acknowledge the beauty and strength of natural femininity in males --- especially when its extreme. It has a definite biological puspose in the nature's scheme of things --- which the human civilisation has made redundant because of its foolishness --- and the heterosexual society takes the cake.

And it would also be worthwhile to acknowledge that all men have some natural femininity in them (just like all women have some masculinity in them!). So masculinity and femininity are only a matter of degrees.

 

[Satyr]

The heterosexual society changed all that. It brought women right into men's spaces. And it removed all social inhibitions and regulations of women and brought sexually aggressive women (whores) to the front to exploit the man who was virtually left helpless in the face of the traditional sexual requirement of manhood becoming even more intensified.

There are no "whores".
How ironic that you use a social construct, constructed on the necessity for monogamy, to characterize a female natural mechanism in this way.

Women, like men, are governed by natural instinct. If you judge them according to western, Christian standards then both can be called "whores".

It is not “heterosexual culture” but equalitarianism, as a necessary part of domestication that is to blame.

Heterosexuality has nothing to do with it.

When a woman challenges a man's manhood in such circumstances, he can not hit her because the heterosexual society has strict regulations against it and he cannot argue with her because it is forbidden by traditional concepts of manhood. He then becomes so vulnerable and helpless that the only way he can save his manhood (which is a big issue for men!) is by making sure that he gives women to find him in a vulnerable position --- by subjugating himself (especially sexually) to her.

You’ve got it partially right, but your obsession with sexuality speaks of another hidden motive.
Sexuality is simply an aspect of the human condition which is used to create an effect.

Nature uses it in one way, society in another.

The decline of respect is often sited as a symptom of our ailing western culture.
This disrespect, for Self and for the Other, is a direct consequence of domestication/feminization.

The individual, is made docile and tolerant, and in return he/she is protected and told he/she has “rights” and that they hold a “privileged” position in nature.
This status, with no effort, causes the individual to think highly of itself, without having earned it and with no real sense of humility. He is worthy of life and survival simply by being born within a particular social group and by remaining disciplined to it. One begins expecting it as something they deserve, when they’ve been habituated to it from birth - the pampering effect.

This eradication of threat, from within the group primarily, and the minimization of extenral threats results in inflated ego, a lack of caution and a demanding, arrogant disposition.
The individual feels indestructible and so becomes more prone to disappointment and error.

Technology has made physicality obsolete and is quickly making intelelctual differences so, as well. All distinguishing physical/mental characteristics are diminished in importance due to the levelling effects of technology.
Machines compensate for our physical/mental failings and we become mere parts of the mechanism.

Physical strength becomes relatively ineffective when weapons can kill at a distance.
Mental attributes become unnecessary, and even detrimental to indoctrination, with only an average ability being necessary to absorb and store information.
Sexual differences are becoming cosmetic details when the severity of sexual intercourse is diminished through birth-control and men are no longer necessary to protect and provide for women and their offspring.

This because the male role is taken over, as I’ve said, by institutions.
Institutions guarantee the safety and provide for women now.
Men must adhere to the authority of the institution and their potency as physical beings is diminished and controlled.

Under these circumstances a weaker individual has nothing to fear from a stronger one and so can act disrespectfully, knowing that its well-being is ensured.
In many respects the weaker individual is more easily absorbed within the communal fold. For instance, those with the least resistant, least self-sufficient characters will more easily integrate within any system.

This loss of fear creates an artificial sense of safety.
It is fear that lies behind respect and caution, in nature.
Take away fear and you get a reckless, pompous, ostentatious mind, full of faked self-esteem and the delusional courage of the shielded.


This loss of fear is the primary cause for both ennui (Boredom with life), for the sense of disillusionment (Having lost interest the mind seeks for diversions), for entitlement (Having been told that all deserve love, respect, food, water, health and dignity the mind has nothing more to strive for or to prove or to live up to, or to attain. If these are not provided for adequately, due to the residual effects of natural selection which have not been completely erased from human reality, the individual feels like something is wrong with them.), for the loss of responsibility (The individual is always excused as being a victim of its immediate environment and the consequences of its mistakes are diminished in severity due to a blanket safety-net society and family provide), for the loss of self-control (The individual having no experience with care, is unable to control its instincts and whims and so becomes enslaved to immediate self-satisfaction.)

 

[Gustav]

hi everyone
i must update my status
i have a great vagina now
very realistic
it gets wet too