Masculinity and men

It's good that you asked Buddha about that! I think he will know...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay let’s recap what Lord ButterFly has taught us:

1- We are all gay….I mean straight men……secretly craving cock.

2- Karate schools are dens of debauchery.

3- Buddha1 is insane...I mean masculine.

4- Most men find sex with women repulsive – which makes the existence of the human species a miracle.

5- Sex with men leads to a “meaningful existence". Sex with a woman leads to sadness and social dependence.

6- Buddha1 isn’t a homo, he just wants to suck penis and receive meat injections up the ass.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

7- Emotional needs equate to sexual needs.

8- Dolphins rub penises…therefore dolphins are gay…..straight.

9- Any show of sexual disinterest by men for men can be explained by them not being aware of their own “true” feelings.

10- Marriage isn’t a social method of male inclusion within the system; it is part of a heterosexual conspiracy meant to force men to have sex with women.

11- Pink shoes do not go with a yellow dress.

12- Natural selection is a Darwinian conspiracy. How natural selection would work in a homosexual environment, given that homosexual sex is a genetic dead-end and so a parasitical meme with no genetic fitness, is one of those mysteries of faggotry.

13- Sperm isn’t produced for procreation and for passing on ones genes; it is produced as an anal lubricant meant to facilitate anal penetration.

14- Ancient Greek pederasty wasn’t a social phenomenon produced by the total subjugation of females to male power and their, subsequent, loss of sexual power which made them sub-human, it was a sign of human homosexuality – even though the Greeks had such a low opinion of homosexuals as to call them by the demeaning name of Malakas meaning soft. Furthermore ancient Greek beliefs that women represented the force of nature which clouds male reason and so had to be restricted and controlled or isolated from young men, especially in military formations, so as to enable male bonding which natural male competitiveness over women made difficult.
It wasn’t that Greeks didn’t desire women but that they thought them incapable of Agape and only good for Eros.

15- The present crisis in masculinity, isn’t the result of social pressure to feminize the species, oh nooooo, it is a result of men not being able to reveal their real homosexual desires.

16- Systems haven’t replaced masculinity with institutions, relegating all males into subordinate status positions and forcing them to repress the full extent of their masculinity, which includes violence, dominance, authority, control, forcing them to behave and to adopt more feminine demeanours and making them more feminine and docile and tolerant, systems have conspired to repress homosexual tendencies.

17- The invention of “social masculinity” by Buddha1, as opposed to “natural masculinity”, is necessary to attempt to argue that most men are pretending an interest in intercourse with women and do not fail due to their masculine deficiencies and genetic inferiority meant to be selected out by female sexual choice, forcing them into subordinate position of non-reproductive status and into alternative sexual behaviours.
In the wild males dominated by a superior male in a group, experience a drop in testosterone levels making them more feminine in demeanour and behaviour. In essence masculine inadequacy results in an effeminate solution. In some species, where no such drop in testosterone occurs, the males are forced into exile, grouping into peripheral groups that occasionally enter dominant male territories to challenge their authority and their control over the desired for females. This proves that any social group can only tolerate a certain degree of strife and male competitiveness and must expel or quell the masculine traits that result in group disharmony.

18- Lord ButterFly is a flaming fag.


It is evident that this type of mind, Lord ButterFly’s, is a direct result of this Feminization of Man - a feminization essential to civilization and in overpopulated environments.
Masculinity is obsolete when it has been replaced by institutional power and forced to behave and use female power strategies because male advantages are prohibited from being fully expressed and used and when no new accesible frontiers exist to make males necessary.

Female psychology is more easily assimilated within large groups, a fact proven by how species that live in large communities are predominately female and most mammals that live in groups are characterized by a core female group with passing male participation, while male competitiveness and the male challenging nature is detrimental to group cohesion and stability.

In nature alpha-male authority acts as peace keeper and stabilizer.
This role, in human systems, has been taken over by institutional powers, forcing all males into subordinated positions and making them obsolete, forcing them to gain empowerment through association and through institutional means.

The presidency is a good example.
The position itself is a very masculine symbolic one, but the person occupying it can be of any gender and sexual orientation since the individual is a figurehead, that must exhibit the correct traits of deferment and acceptance of the positions authority and prove himself reliable to the group who will tolerate him/her in that position of symbolism.

The president is the only one capable of violence and dominance, yet even this is strictly controlled by the regulating institutions that want to prevent the position losing its monopoly and retuning the system to totalitarianism.

The position itself is the masculine entity, while the individual occupying it is the outwards representation of this power that acquires status through association but has no real power as a person but only through his role of institutional representative.

As a result of the necessity to successfully include as many males within the group, which would enable the growth and stability of civilization, female sexual power had to be controlled and restricted using moral and religious means and by institutionalizing monogamy with marriage.

The recent emancipation of females, due to the decline of paternalistic control caused by the attrition of feminization and equalatarian ideologies and due to the natural decline of all cultural control in time, has effectively assaulted the institutions of marriage and is returning the species, in the west, to more primitive sexual practices of sexual competitiveness and procreative exclusion.
This has forced most males, and some females, into sexual exile, unable to find access to reproductive opportunities they take on the subordinate role of effeminate males and it has made homosexuality a viable alternative to solitude.

The total destruction of the previous moral system has not been completed but is a gradual process characterized by decadence.
Where religion and culture still dominate the populace, these institutions still flourish.
In environments where religion has weakened and the old moral fabric is coming apart we see a decline in family unity and a rise in single parenting as well as a decline in birth rates and a rise in violence and discontentment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

cor!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ophiolite, you'll have to adjust to getting several posts from me at the same time, for I can only access a computer once in a week.

Unless, of course it is against the rules.

As for being a laughing stock, well, let the vested interest group laugh all it likes. He laughs best who laughs last. And ever since I came to this forum, the vested interest group has been consistently unable to refute my assertions and evidences.

Of course now, I've been validating my evidences along with links, including those of published/ presented scientific papers.

As for the couple of jokers like Leopold and Satyr, well, I don't think anyone takes them seriously anyways.

 

I think you've been behaving exactly like a queer! Learn to discuss like a man and come to the table rather than making frivolous remarks like Satyr.

 

And no, mine is not a spam. And neither is it just my personal opinion like that of Happeh's. I am serious, open to new information and logic and everything I have been saying is based on scientific/ social evidences.

 

As for satyr, I am too busy to care to read the frustrations of the little girlie with hairy arms, so let her moan on and on while I'm away.

 

Surely, the obsession of the society with reproduction, and the responsibility to enforce it on men has been taken over by science (from religion).

Religion was obsessed with reproduction. And so is science. They may be two opposing institutions, but their motives here are the same. Although the approach taken by science to push reproduction is very different from that taken by religion.

Both religion and science have been used by the society to push its agenda of ‘reproduction’.
Surely, the obsession of the society with reproduction, and the responsibility to enforce it on men has been taken over by science (from religion).

Religion was obsessed with reproduction. And so is science. They may be two opposing institutions, but their motives here are the same. Although the approach taken by science to push reproduction is very different from that taken by religion.

Both religion and science have been used by the society to push its agenda of ‘reproduction’.
Surely, the obsession of the society with reproduction, and the responsibility to enforce it on men has been taken over by science (from religion).

Religion was obsessed with reproduction. And so is science. They may be two opposing institutions, but their motives here are the same. Although the approach taken by science to push reproduction is very different from that taken by religion.

Both religion and science have been used by the society to push its agenda of ‘reproduction’.
Surely, the obsession of the society with reproduction, and the responsibility to enforce it on men has been taken over by science (from religion).

Religion was obsessed with reproduction. And so is science. They may be two opposing institutions, but their motives here are the same. Although the approach taken by science to push reproduction is very different from that taken by religion.

Both religion and science have been used by the society to push its agenda of ‘reproduction’.

 

Both religion and science have been used by the society to push its agenda of ‘reproduction’.

But there is an important twist here.

The scenario in the modern world is quite different.

The most important difference is that societies don’t anymore need to push ‘reproduction’.

Because over-population has become the gravest problem for the humans. There is no pressing need to push men into procreation.

Indeed, the societies are struggling to rid male-female sex of procreation.

The other difference is that even where you need procreation, the technology is so advanced that you can have the desired level of procreation without forcing male-female sex on people.

Certainly there is no need to force male-female relationships on people, through social customs and peer-pressures, when the western society doesn’t pressurize men into marriage anymore, and increasingly women in any case are rearing up their children alone.

So what prompts science to push the ‘reproduction’ agenda so fiercely? Is it a ‘trained response’ from the past? A habit difficult to break? An insecurity difficult to come out of?

And when there is no hurry to push procreation (in fact most societies are worried about holding reproduction back) who is interested in keeping the ancient mechanism for pushing male-female sex on men alive? And why?

Any social ideology, however oppressive for most humans creates its own beneficiary groups, who draw power out of that system. The mechanism to promote male-female sex for procreation also created its own vested interest group --- which became very powerful indeed. This group will fight to the end to protect its power bases.

 

Absence of sexual need for women and social gender

So it is clear now that a lack of sexual need for women is considered a lack of social masculinity, but not quite a presence of femininity --- social or natural.

But does this also signify a lack of natural masculinity?

That is the crucial question?

 

‘Lack of sexual need for women’ and ‘Gender’

We saw how the presence of a sexual need for women or a capability to do it to women is not directly linked with being masculine gendered (remember gender is biological) by showing evidences of heterosexual men who were feminine gendered.

To show that a lack of sexual need is not linked with a lack of natural masculinity, we need to show evidences of masculine gendered males who do not have a sexual interest in women at all --- or limited sexual interest.

It’s a difficult task in a society where almost all masculine gendered men wear heterosexual masks --- and they’ve been doing this for ages, and where evidences of masculine gendered men with no interest in women, from the ancient world have been systematically destroyed/manipulated with.

But if it is true then there have to be some examples that we can dig out from the mess, and some signs --- even if indirect --- that we can discuss here.

Anyone?

 

HOMOSEXUALITY = FEMININE GENDERED MALES, EVEN IN THE WEST

It is one thing to define things in a particular way based on your ideology. But quite another thing when it is used in the community.

The word homosexual is supposed to mean only ‘a man who likes other men sexually’, with no connotation of gender. But it is clear that in general usage, the direct and unbreakable association with feminine gender is amply clear.

In fact I once came across a western dating site, which asked for your gender and gave the following options:
1. Man
2. Woman
3. Homosexual

(I don’t remember if it differentiated between homosexual male and female.)

Clearly a homosexual is not really considered a man in the west --- or not allowed/ acknowledged to be one.

(It’s funny how transsexual men are not allowed not to be men when they couldn’t care less about being men. They keep referring them as ‘men’, when they talk of themselves as ‘women’).

Let’s take another example:

On an Internet discussion of Alexander the Great, one historian retorted:

“Alexander was definitely not a fairy. He screwed some women.”

If the ‘homosexual’ label would make Alexander being prone to be called a ‘fairy’ (unless he can exonerate himself by evidences of having screwed women), it is clear that the term ‘homosexual’ has clear gender implications.

The scholarly, scientific and academic world only attaches the gender part indirectly, while the general public is more direct about it.

 

EAST-WEST CULTURAL GAP

It is possible that since the western society has not acknowledged gender as natural for several centuries, that western men don’t relate with the term as a natural identity.

It is for this reason that they cannot grasp the irregularity in the terms ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’. And they can’t understand the role of ‘social masculinity’ in the whole business of ‘sexual orientation’.

That may be the reason why western homosexual men too oppose my attack at the concept of ‘sexual orientation’.

In this case, it is a cultural thing. But a cultural drawback, that westerners will benefit from getting over.

 

I CAN VS I WANT

As a result, the refrain in traditional societies is that “I can so I will” and not that “I desire so I will”.

Not desiring to have sex with women is considered equivalent to not being able to do it with women --- which signifies a physical deficiency (i.e. a sexual/ erectile dysfunction) or impotency.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is an easy way to deal with bs on discussion forums like this one.

And that is to use logic and evidences to dislodge the person spreading the alleged bs.

Unless, the bs is actually on the other side (with the opposition)

 

GENDER CAN BE SEEN​

Gender is reflected in the eyes --- even in photographs --- both masculine and feminine gender.

And to test how association and social femininity can affect gender, keep a neutral or even masculine gendered man in a gay group for 1 year where he interacts daily with extremely feminine gendered males for hours, and see his natural femininity come out.

Then keep that same man for one year in a group of masculine gendered men and see the difference in him.

You can see the difference in the eyes.

You will then be able to appreciate how by forcibly removing men who acknowledge same sex needs from the mainstream society the society imposes femininity upon them.

And also why men are so scared to acknoweldge their same-sex needs.

 

Western Hypocrisy​

Even when they don’t acknowledge gender, they do forcibly depict heterosexuality as masculine and same sex needs as feminine.

I mean they’d never show a warrior macho guy as liking another guy. Not even a Samurai.

They’d even ‘feminise’/ homosexualise a great warrior like Alexander in their movies because he liked men. Both heterosexual and homosexual men are guilty of this.

 

Excellent news. When will the results of this definitive study be published? Which peer reviewed journal will they be published in?

More good news. Please explain which aspects of the eyes change, in what way and by what amount? Armed with these well defined quantitative changes it will be simple for us to assess feminisation and defeminisation amongst colleagues and acquaintances.

 

You don't expect a community which doesn't recognise gender as biological, to go investigate it. But it doesn't negate what clearly exists, whether the scientific institution recognises it or not.

Well, I would want to investigate further but then I'm not a scientist and there are more important things that need to be investigated.

Why do you need science to ascertain something which normal human beings are quite capable of assessing naturally?