The Feminization Of Man

[Satyr]

Buddha1 begins with a logical premise and then leads it into obtuse insanity.

I love this guy.


I would have thought that the percentage of promiscuity in women would be much higher than 20%. I would place it around 70%, with the other 30% made up of women who fear exclusion and social ostracizing, cannot attract enough desirable men, and/or who have been thoroughly indoctrinated within the moral system, through culture and religion.
Women’s procreative tactics stem from their desire to harvest the best and most diverse genes for/within a particular environment.

Women are whores – if I am allowed to use this Christian moral judgment – by nature and men….are much more so.

What I do agree with this nut on is that maleness has been subjugated to feminization.
This “feminization” is related to a woman’s role as gatekeeper and social/genetic filter.
In our modern world, where a more docile controllable mind is desirable, a female chooses, intuitively or sometimes reasonably, the male that has these ‘desirable’ traits, even if instinctively she may still lust over the more primitive, vulgar and socially undesirable male.

Her ease in participation and her willingness to be indoctrinated – her very identity tied up with her social role and her social value – coupled with her sexual power, makes her a tool of social and genetic filtering.

In nature her determining preference is guided by genetic/aesthetic markers of value and survivability.
In social species, like our own, her preferences are complicated by social and status markers. The male must possess the correct external symbols which exemplify the group which she identifies with and serves.

The male, in turn, must play the part convincingly and prove his social/genetic worth if he wants his maleness validated.

One need not go far to see ample evidence of this process occurring in real time.

Any social gathering, such as this forum, offers plenty of observational opportunities.

Within social exchanges, especially, when many males socialize with females, the males begin falling over each other to satisfy the female’s interpretations of value.
This is especially true when the males have correlated their sense of identity with their sexuality, finding purpose and meaning in becoming something for someone else or relating their manhood with its validation by an external, preferably feminine, source.

In this process the males ignore their own opinions and accept those of the female, if they wish to enjoy her pleasures and her promise. They might go as far as risk life and limb in so doing.

 

[TruthSeeker]

wow... what a display of great and unfanthomable intelligence.....

 

[Buddha1]

Buddha1 begins with a logical premise and then leads it into obtuse insanity.

I love this guy.


I would have thought that the percentage of promiscuity in women would be much higher than 20%. I would place it around 70%, with the other 30% made up of women who fear exclusion and social ostracizing, cannot attract enough desirable men, and/or who have been thoroughly indoctrinated within the moral system, through culture and religion.
Women’s procreative tactics stem from their desire to harvest the best and most diverse genes for/within a particular environment.

Women are whores – if I am allowed to use this Christian moral judgment – by nature and men….are much more so.

What I do agree with this nut on is that maleness has been subjugated to feminization.
This “feminization” is related to a woman’s role as gatekeeper and social/genetic filter.
In our modern world, where a more docile controllable mind is desirable, a female chooses, intuitively or sometimes reasonably, the male that has these ‘desirable’ traits, even if instinctively she may still lust over the more primitive, vulgar and socially undesirable male.

Her ease in participation and her willingness to be indoctrinated – her very identity tied up with her social role and her social value – coupled with her sexual power, makes her a tool of social and genetic filtering.

In nature her determining preference is guided by genetic/aesthetic markers of value and survivability.
In social species, like our own, her preferences are complicated by social and status markers. The male must possess the correct external symbols which exemplify the group which she identifies with and serves.

The male, in turn, must play the part convincingly and prove his social/genetic worth if he wants his maleness validated.

One need not go far to see ample evidence of this process occurring in real time.

Any social gathering, such as this forum, offers plenty of observational opportunities.

Within social exchanges, especially, when many males socialize with females, the males begin falling over each other to satisfy the female’s interpretations of value.
This is especially true when the males have correlated their sense of identity with their sexuality, finding purpose and meaning in becoming something for someone else or relating their manhood with its validation by an external, preferably feminine, source.

In this process the males ignore their own opinions and accept those of the female, if they wish to enjoy her pleasures and her promise. They might go as far as risk life and limb in so doing.

If there was ever an excuse for feminisation/ heterosexualisation/ homosexualisation of men, this is its best example. And however lame it may sound it is as best as it can get.

 

[Buddha1]

I would have thought that the percentage of promiscuity in women would be much higher than 20%. I would place it around 70%,

So what is new!

The nature has provided for 20% promiscuity --- which certainly must have its purpose. The rest has been forced upon women by the heterosexual society which forces them to be 'promiscuous'/ 'heterosexual' in order to partake in their share of social power over men.

And this 20% promiscuity is not necessarily exclusively towards men. That has not been established. So before you run wild with your horses.....

 

[Buddha1]

Women are whores – if I am allowed to use this Christian moral judgment – by nature

That's the only way the rare heterosexual male can hope to get some sex. Because they all then to prefer real men when it comes to having sex with men for procreation.

If they are not so by nature, the heterosexual society will force them to be. The exaggerated and forced heterosexuality needs to be fulfilled by an equally exaggerated, albeit forced supply of females.

O.K. the first line is an exaggeration (though not completely false!)

This “feminization” is related to a woman’s role as gatekeeper and social/genetic filter.

Can you get evidence from the wild life on this?

In our modern world, where a more docile controllable mind is desirable, a female chooses, intuitively or sometimes reasonably, the male that has these ‘desirable’ traits, even if instinctively she may still lust over the more primitive, vulgar and socially undesirable male.

Her ease in participation and her willingness to be indoctrinated – her very identity tied up with her social role and her social value – coupled with her sexual power, makes her a tool of social and genetic filtering.

The above is pure gibberish (as if the rest is not!)

In nature her determining preference is guided by genetic/aesthetic markers of value and survivability.
In social species, like our own, her preferences are complicated by social and status markers. The male must possess the correct external symbols which exemplify the group which she identifies with and serves.

Oh! Preferences like servitude and submissiveness. Great masculine qualities. What else can you expect in a queer heterosexual world!

The male, in turn, must play the part convincingly and prove his social/genetic worth if he wants his maleness validated

.
I think if there is any doubt about what I've been telling straight men, this should remove it!

Within social exchanges, especially, when many males socialize with females, the males begin falling over each other to satisfy the female’s interpretations of value.

If this was so natural, what was the need for putting so much pressures on men! And why all this false pretense about 'machismo'! And why denigrate the homosexuals when 'heterosexuals' themselves are feminine!

This is especially true when the males have correlated their sense of identity with their sexuality, finding purpose and meaning in becoming something for someone else or relating their manhood with its validation by an external, preferably feminine, source.

In this process the males ignore their own opinions and accept those of the female, if they wish to enjoy her pleasures and her promise. They might go as far as risk life and limb in so doing.

That clearly exposes the heterosexual anti-male agenda. Really, for being such anti-men, heterosexual males (the real natural ones) have no right to call themselves men.

 

[Buddha1]

even if instinctively she may still lust over the more primitive, vulgar and socially undesirable male.

That's what the rare natural heterosexual male thinks about masculinity, and that's how the heterosexualised society treats masculinity too. It pays just lip service to masculinity --- that too negative masculinity, while denigrating it for the most part.

 

[Buddha1]

That's interesting. Where has that finding been published? That's a very specific-sounding gene. Why haven't I read about it in the mainstream press? Surely people would be greatly intrigued by a "bed-hopping" gene.

Fortunately, I have a press clip on this. This is somewhere in November of 2004. It reads: "Infidelity genes in 20% of women".

"The study, led by Tim Spector at St. Thomas' Hospital, London, involved 1,600 pairs of female twins aged 19 to 83 and revealed that genetic factors have same influence over infidelity as they do over medical conditions. It has put the heritable element of female infidelity at 41 percent."

If this is correct, then rather than divide men into heterosexual and homosexual (for which there is yet no scientific cause, inspite of desperate scientific attempts to find one) there is a strong case to classify women into 'relationship oreiented women' and 'multiple sex partner oriented" women.

The number of partners one desires and the nature of sexual expression (whether it is emotional + physical or only physical etc.) should be much more of a criteria to judge one's sexual orientation rather than the outer sexual organ(s) of the person one has sexual attraction for.

But of course dividing women like that will be against the interest of women and of heteroseuxal ideology --- and the ideology works only for women --- it gives a damn to men.

Of course you realise that the use of the word 'whore' is meant to evoke an emotional response (and you did!).

Heterosexual males and heterosexual males (including homosexual males) are so alive to the sensitivities of women but apathetic about the sensitivities of men.

How many men had raised their voice against isolating men as 'homos' when it was being carried out at the onset of heterosexualisation process --- and without any scientific evidence. Understandly men were greatly restrained by social concepts of masculinity and were unable to protest. But today, some men take immediate offense when women are described as 'whores'.

Men feel much worse at being called a 'homo' than women will ever do at being called a 'whore'.

 

[Buddha1]

But today, some men take immediate offense when women are described as 'whores'.

Still, all that the heterosexual society does is to force women to be 'whores' (I agree it is denigrating to call anyone a whore. But it is equally denigrating to call someone 'homosexual'). By repeatedly glorifying the 20% (actually lesser) women and creating such pressures, social spaces and customes where women are pressurised to have 'boyfriends' and to date.

Heterosexuality is not natural or normal for the majority of women --- just like it is not so for men.

If heterosexual men are queer, heterosexual women are whores. That line (even though denigrating) can give men a weapon to fight back when they deal with the pressures to be heterosexual (and e.g. are called homosexuals/ faggots in the process). Cutting iron with iron, that is!

Although on the other hand I also agree that two wrongs don't make a right, sometimes it is the only way left.

 

[Buddha1]

Aggressive heterosexual women (in nature they are rare)often use the word 'homo' or 'gay' to put pressure on men or to put them down in order to win sexual favours from them --- in other words to sexually exploit men. More oppressive is when they use it to prevent men from being physically close to another man.

The above acts as one of the strongest pressures on men to suppress their sexual need for men or to exaggerate theiri sexual need for women.

To call them a 'whore' in return is the most potent weapon a man can have.

 

[Buddha1]

How many men had raised their voice against isolating men as 'homos' when it was being carried out at the onset of heterosexualisation process --- and without any scientific evidence. Understandly men were greatly restrained by social concepts of masculinity and were unable to protest.

In fact the heterosexualisation process was quick to institutionalise this vunlerability of men --- this denigration of men into a social identity in order to institutionalise the compelete isolation of male sexual need for men. And it used the most powerful institutions that it had --- science and media to achieve this. Science gave it a clinical name and validated its isolation/ exclusion from the mainstream society. Media carried the idea forward into each home complete with stereotypes of effeminate images/ lifestyles -- and of course feminine gendered males who like men grasped at the opportunity to build on this 'homosexual' identity.

 

[Buddha1]

The conflict between 'whores' and 'homos' is an age old one.

Although it is far from being a natural conflict. In any case, nature it seems is in favour of male-male intimacy. The male-female intimacy does not have much of a chance --- not in a natural society.

In a male dominated society, there is no such thing like a homo. Unless you're talking about those feminine gendered males. But make no mistake --- it is not a sexual identity at all, and it does not reflect their sexual need for men. It reflects their feminine identity --- although as a result of (limited) pressures that men do have to procreate, this identity may include the quality of 'desirous of exclusive receptive anal sex' with men --- but only in conjunction with their femininity which is the focal point for this identity.

And men guard their space fiercely from women. Women are not allowed by male groups anywhere near them.

In male dominated societies (the heterosexual ideology (consisting of hetersexuals, homosexuals and feminists -- puts it down as 'patriarchal') men live together, eat together, sleep together, have mutual masturbation, deep emotional attachments, all without feeling in any way different or wierd or queer.

In my society till a few years ago two men usually walked hand in hand in buses and other crowded places (They even do it today, but the spaces/ opportunities are decreasing and one day they may become extinct as heterosexualisation progresses with technological and economical strength of the west). It would have been unthinkable for a girl to do this. She would be immediately labelled a 'whore'. No one would dream of calling two men holding hands or sitting cosily in each other's laps in a bus 'homos'.

As heterosexualisation consumes this male freedom and space, it becomes more and more acceptable for girls to show their sexuality for men openly in public spaces. The freedom of men to relate intimately with their own is inversely proportion to the freedom of women to display their intimacy with men. The latter has social power (related with social masculinity and makes men immensely vulnerable). In a bus where a girl is holding hands aggressively with a boy, two boys will feel extremely insecure holding each other's hands.

And as 'whores' become more and more acceptable and obsolete, glorified intensively by the media, 'homos' start appearing on the scene --- denigrated and feminised with equal intensity by the media. While no one will today call a woman trying to get cosy with another guy in a bus a 'whore', two men being too close will immediately be called 'homos'. See this conflict.

 

[Buddha1]

Sounds like simplistic intolerance to me. I'm sure you reason backwards, like this:

"Having an abortion" implies "little inclination to procreate AND prioritise sex with men" implies "whore" = "heterosexual".

Says a lot more about you than them.

a. Having an abortion: Having an abortion does indicate a lack of emotional bonding with one's foetus. That's not natural (at least not common) as far as mammals are concerned. Mammalian females invest a lot in their children. Their primary bond is with their kids, not with their male lovers. There is no proof of a male lover in nature. Females don't prefer the company of males.


b. little inclination to procreate: Heterosexual/ heterosexualised men and women do see procreation as a spoilsport in their quest to make male-female sex/ bonds hassle free (just like same-sex bonds are!). A big obsession of the heterosexual society is to find ways to do away with procreation --- condoms, pills, hormones and of course abortion. Of course nature pays a price to sustain human heterosexuality in more ways than one. And of course the right of the male-female couple (whether married or not) is the ultimate and any effort to make heterosexuality possible is valid even if it requires killing a human life (foetus!).


c. prioritise sex with men: The heterosexual media bombards the society with glorified images of women prioritizing sex with men. That is the most basic right of women and nothing should come in its way. Even the woman-child relationship fades before this.

d. whore: The concept of denigrating women who seek multiple partner sex with males for its own value was introduced by the society probably to tie them to marriage. It was used by men as a protection from the immense power that women had been bestowed with to force men to have sex with them, because some women (20%?) were more than eager to use that power to exploit men. It was a defense mechanism.

e. heterosexual: There is no evidence, at least from the mammalian world that females ever seek sex from males without them being ready to procreate. At least none that I know of. When females are not in heat (i.e. ready to procreate), they avoid, actually get irritated at an approaching male.

Heterosexuality is as unnatural for females as it is for males. At least for the majority of males and females. That's why in the west when women are amassing more and more 'outer power' women are moving away from men. And it is becoming more and more common for them to assert their sexual need for other women --- their basic sexual drive.

 

[Buddha1]

whore: The concept of denigrating women who seek multiple partner sex with males for its own value was introduced by the society probably to tie them to marriage. It was used by men as a protection from the immense power that women had been bestowed with to force men to have sex with them, because some women (20%?) were more than eager to use that power to exploit men. It was a defense mechanism.

Of course in the heterosexual world where the man has been made extremely vulnerable, and the 'sting' from the word 'whore' has been taken away as this lifestyle becomes glorified and forced on the majority, thus emboldening these (20%?) women immensely, men are left totally indefensible against these women and their sexual exploitation is a harsh and common reality. But the heterosexual society doesn't care for the sexual exploitation of men (there are posts on this forum to justify what I'm saying!) --- it laughs at men who complain!

The heterosexual society is an anti-man society, and the sooner the men realise this the better for them.

 

[Ophiolite]

Men feel much worse at being called a 'homo' than women will ever do at being called a 'whore'.

At first it was no more than a dot, almost undetectable. except to the trained and experienced eye, and quite invisible to the layman. But it grew larger, clearer, somehow more substantial. It changed from a grey amorphous almost, to a multi-coloured, textured, moving solidity. Growth was rapid now, changing, morphing with bewildering speed, ever nearer. And the roar, at first distant, now in the very ground beneath their feet, reaching up and seizing their very bowels. Then it was upon them, this broad, sweeping generalisation. And despite the sound and the fury, it transpired that it signified nothing.

 

[Buddha1]

At first it was no more than a dot, almost undetectable. except to the trained and experienced eye, and quite invisible to the layman. But it grew larger, clearer, somehow more substantial. It changed from a grey amorphous almost, to a multi-coloured, textured, moving solidity. Growth was rapid now, changing, morphing with bewildering speed, ever nearer. And the roar, at first distant, now in the very ground beneath their feet, reaching up and seizing their very bowels. Then it was upon them, this broad, sweeping generalisation. And despite the sound and the fury, it transpired that it signified nothing.

Just like serious discussion doesn't suit satyr, satire doesn't seem to suit you. Besides, it's not very scientific. state your objections more clearly if you want to make it fruitful.

If you're saying that the above statement is a generalisation, I can get posts from this forum only to prove my point. It seems you have not grown up amongst other men, if you don't believe that.

It was not for nothing that Tom Cruise had to sue the man who 'accused' him of being 'gay'.

 

[Buddha1]

Ophiolite:

Here is a post from this forum which confirms what I'm saying ...... that to be called a 'homo' is a fate worse than death for men:

Quote by Vossistart:

I think heterosexuality and homosexuality are essentially the same thing in that one person is attracted to one sex only whether its same sex or opposite. I think ultimately either of the two are somewhat dysfunctional, and arrise from imprinting, conditioning, or some sort of definable pathology. 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.

Im pretty sure orientation is learned or like i said the result of some sort of definable pathology. I think too that bi-sexual people are probably technically the more healthy of the lot. shrugs

 

[Buddha1]

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.

This is a common environment that men grow up in, in the west. Of course things are much different in the orient, although it is only a matter of degrees and of having more spaces for men. And the pressures start much later in life, unlike in the extremely heterosexual west. In the west the pressures to exaggerate one's sexual need for women as well as the pressure to suppress one's sexual need for men is much more intense and starts at a ridiculous age.

That you deny that this pressure exists means that you are either misleading us or you are really ignorant.

 

[Ophiolite]

Just like serious discussion doesn't suit satyr, satire doesn't seem to suit you.

It wasn't satire, it was sarcasm.

I am unaffected by the opionons of those who I do not respect, and those who I respect could not particularily care whether I am straight, gay, bi-sexual, asexual, hermaphrodite or the reincarnation of Ivan Grosny. I don't see how an accusation of homosexuality could bother me anymore than one of heterosexuality. The first would be wrong, and of no consequence, the second would be right and of no consequence.

 

[Buddha1]

It wasn't satire, it was sarcasm.

I am unaffected by the opionons of those who I do not respect, and those who I respect could not particularily care whether I am straight, gay, bi-sexual, asexual, hermaphrodite or the reincarnation of Ivan Grosny. I don't see how an accusation of homosexuality could bother me anymore than one of heterosexuality. The first would be wrong, and of no consequence, the second would be right and of no consequence.

a.) it's not only about you, its about men in general. Like I said it is strange that you don't relate with such an important pressure that men face.

b.) In my work experience, I have seen this again and again that men after they reach a certain stage in life, you know get married and have chlldren and establish that they are 'men', they not only forget that they ever went through pressures of social masculinity, they vehemently deny that it exists. They like to think/ portray that their social masculinity is natural. That they naturally had it in them whatever image they have established of themselves. In fact they start relating with these pressures and want to pass them on to the young. It is a vicious circle. And how the younger lot vehemently relates with these pressures. Surely, one of the group is telling a lie. It's the same younger lot who grow up to be older men.

In my opinion this denial is against the basic nature of men. Men do not acknowledge this pressure which otherwise could help the younger lot a lot and to change overall things for them. I think in nature, mammalian males are autiomatically programmed to relate with and help the younger lot, to help them understand this life. I guess heterosexualisation makes you incapable to do that.

 

[duendy]

just thought i'd look at original posts of tis long thread and was surprised to see 'wanderer' wa thread starter. had imagined it was Buddha1

anyhow, i read...him asserting it isWOMEN who follow authority ..."willing subjugation and acceptance of authority and claims it is MEN who are the true rebels "non-conforming male character"

well i choked on my TEA!!...then Lorra Lorra laughs. i mean pulEEEESE. what are thy--the type of maes that believe this--LIKE

Wo did weseein nazi Germany in monolithic blocks of Cecil D DeMIlle proprotions....rows and rows as far as eye could see, of....UNIFORMED MEN. and whatewere they doing? OBEYING the absurd comical histrionics of a funny little man wit a funny little moustache. MEN--not all men, bt a mindset of men

all te wars.....MEN following authority

so what is this myth tat women obey autority andmen are rebels then

i believe we have to go back to te beginnings ofpatriarchy when we see and read of 'heros' 'slaying serpents/dragons'

This where trhe boy-hero tries to break free of what he has convinced himself is the oley-feminine Mama, holding him back.....from? from exploitation of Earth and peoples....check out about god 'Marduk' etc etc. who 'splits Goddess in two' ie., creates division between heaven and earth and male and female, and light and dark, etcetera..........then see what happens after tis pseudo-absurd rebellion. whyyyy they follow the authority of their own ideology which is divisive, which becomes their 'God' the 'he' who divided from 'her'

UNDERSTANDING Intelligence of Nature, and nurturance is not being under an authority. it is the natrual. if i poison water, i am not being rebellious, i am being utterly stupid beyond belief!