95% of men have a sexual need for other men

Does this mean our marriage ends here? Are you asking for a divorce?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you are not convinced of the assertion that gender is basically given by nature, then you are welcome to enumerate your objection to it in the thread "Men and masculinity". The other thread is closed now, because I believed that the issue was decided upon.

There are several things to be discussed here.

a.) Like I said, I believe that natural gender is linked not with the desire to have sex with men or women, but the desire to form intimacy with masculine gendered men, feminine gendered men or with women. And this is where gender and sexual need influence each other.

b.) If I get you right you are saying that gender is no basis for differentitating between people? or are you saying that natural gender differences don't exist in men?

I believe that natural gender differences definitely exist amongst men (as in women). Whether to consider those differences important enough to divide people on their basis is something that I am not sure about.

I mean men have divided themselves on the basis of gender (not sexuality) since the ancient times. Although only the extreme cases of feminine gendered men were considered different.

Women, even today, don't divide themselves on the basis of gender......they take the entire range of possible combination of genders in their stride......and keep it fluid.

Perhaps that is the ideal state to be, but as long as masculinity is even slightly valued more than femininity amongst men, there will be a social need for dividing men on the basis of gender.

c.) Whether we want to socially divide men on the basis of gender or not, the discussion that I'm initiating about the linkage between feminine natural gender and a need to form 'intimacy' with women is still valid. We may still say that men who want to bond emotionally with women (that includes a sexual intimacy) are still part of the entire range of genders that are part of men, and should be allowed to remain fluid.

That is a separate discussion. I believe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one has been able to report evidences of a male-female bonding from amongst non-bird species in the wild.

This just confirms what I observed in my own society --- that men were not comfortable with women socially. And if men are not comfortable with women socially how can they be naturally inclined to form a bond with them.

I'd like to talk about the relationship between femininity and a desire to bond with women in the thread "men and masculinity".

But I can just add a few of my observances here.

It does seem that men who are comfortable with 'marriage', and in fact eagerly look forward to it, are softer, more adjustable, sometimes downright effeminate, showing hidden inclination towards cross-dressing, and also showing some of the negative features of feminine males (like cunningness). Some of these men may appear masculine before marriage, because their over-interest in girls earns a better social status amongst peers and also offers them a better chance of male bonding, which is so important for masculinity.

But after marraige their femininity just becomes too prominent. Their submissiveness in fact makes them ideal for male-female bonds. What I also find interesting is that such males also look for women who are masculine, aggressive, dominant and powerful --- even oldern than them. These men are not likely to be what women describe as "male chauvinistic pigs". They will hardly have 'ego' problems in their relationships with women, and will hardly be aware of a gender or sex difference between them.

That gay men are feminine gendered too is not a hidden thing.

I am not saying at all that femininity in males is a negative thing. It is only negatively valued. Like sex with men.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am still trying to work that out. It is a complex issue, and I'm hoping that a sincere discussion (including an opposition to the idea) would help this process.

If you understand that all men have some natural masculinity and femininity in them, whether they are primarily masculine gendered or feminine gendered then what I'm going to say will make more sense to you.

An intimacy or even a social bonding between a masculine gendered male and a feminine gendered male will help to put the masculine gendered male with his femininity, and the feminine gendered male with his masculinity, however how it may be. I'm not saying this is good or bad. It is a fact.

Try being with gay men for a while. You'll understand.

I counselled this couple of a gay male and a straight male. The gay male felt more masculine after the relationship with the straight male, while the straight male felt somewhat in touch with his femininity --- which was not a very pleasant thought for him though.

I'm not saying it would be wrong or right.

The rules may work differently in masculine gendered and feminine gendered men. I have still to figure that out.

It seems when a meterosexual (i.e. almost equally masculine and feminine) man (and according to my calculation, meterosexual men are most likely to be the most ardent supporters of the heterosexual identity) has a relationship with a meterosexual woman, the man gets in touch with his femininity while the woman gets in touch with her masculinity.

Making the man look feminine and the woman masculine.

 

In my parts, marriage is supposed to make a 'gentle man' out of a rogue. Marriage is supposed to be a softening feature for males. E.g. after marriage men start driving slowly and more carefully, become more sensitive to the others and start taking social customs and traditions more seriously.

It has a civilising effect on men, which is another term for their feminisation.

 

It you look at the heterosexual society --- it promotes meterosexuality amongst men. If you look at the kind of male fashion, male attitudes and lifestyles that are being promoted in the heterosexual society, you'll find that the meterosexual lifestyles are being glorified while the masculine lifestyle takes a beating.

Women too seem to prefer meterosexual males. The heterosexual society realises that for men to become heterosexuals they must become meterosexuals first.

 

This is only proof that they were brutish cro-magnon men to begin with. You're helping me prove my theory.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I believe you may be correct about this, in a way. However, I assure you, that football is alive and well!

I believe this is another correct assumption. Men that are too masculine usually end up pissing the woman off (or vice versa). Opposites repelling each other.

 

EVIDENCE FROM HUMANS: SCIENCE

ALFRED KINSEY

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual," Dr. Kinsey wrote. "The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats."

 

Not for long if they insist on half-naked girls playing in the breaktime!

Or making the games mixed gender --- where men and women participate jointly!

 

Giam, what do you make of the new set of evidences I posted while you were away?

 

How the fuck is that evidence ? Your threads are getting annoying, Buddah1.

 

I guess the strong forces of heterosexualty have marginalised the voices that spoke the truth --- saying that the world is not divided between heterosexuals and homosexuals. That the terms of sexual orientation are misleading.

I guess, when women and men are forced to mix to such an extent in the society, then it is in the interest of women to support heterosexuality, which makes it so powerful. Men who benefit include the 'true' heterosexual with little capacity to form intimacy with men, and with 'homosexuals' --- the feminine gendered males who like men gain power and thus support heterosexuality too.

 

When you can't beat them they become annoying!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Alfred kinsey existed in a time when same-sex bonds were the norms unlike today. In fact he existed in a time when the western society was fast being heterosexualised. He tried his best to talk sense to the world.

The fact that "95% or 100% of men have a sexual need for men" and that men cannot be divided into "heterosexual and homosexual" are interlinked.

Don't forget that Alfred conducted scientific studies to prove his point.

 

Haven't quite gotten to them yet. I will do so shortly.

 

EVIDENCE FROM HUMANS: SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

ALFRED KINSEY

“It would encourage clearer thinking on these matters if persons were not characterized as hetereosexual or homosexual, but as individuals who have had certain amounts of heterosexual experience and certain amounts of homosexual experience. Instead of using these terms as substantives which stand for persons, or even as adjectives to describe persons, they may better be used to describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which an individual erotically responds.”
(source: quotes on bisexuality )

 

The only major flaw with his study is possibly his use of an unusually large number of prison inmates. Though, now that I think of it, most of the early studies about sexuality (especially homosexuality) seem to have been done on institutionalized persons.

However, this inmate population, when properly weighted or altogether removed, does not alter the results very dramatically.

 

I don't think Alfred could prove his point amply, because as he himself noted, men will not report their same-sex needs or activities readily.

Especially, if the society through media and other institutions is keen on creating a deep sexual divide, while making 'heterosexuality' (sic) masculine and 'homosexualtiy' (sic) feminine.

 

EVIDENCE FROM HUMANS: SCIENCE

John Malone

“It is my opinion that while the word bisexual may have its uses as an adjective, . . . it is not only useless but mendacious when used as a noun.”

 

EVIDENCE FROM HUMANS: SCIENCE

Gore Vidal
“the reason no one has yet been able to come up with a good word to describe the homosexualist (sometimes known as gay, fag, queer, etc.) is because he does not exist. The human race is divided into male and female. Many human beings enjoy the sexual relations with their own sex, many don’t; many respond to both. The plurality is the fact of our nature and not worth fretting about.”