Politics of manhood ----- my comments to Lui's answer

Comments to Lui's answer:

Lui's answer:
"I don't understand what politics are at work here. These are just civilizations, not humanity as a whole. The major factor that changes in those times I think is religion, as Christianity grows in popularity.

But that doesn't lessen what we've created, we're no less valid than ancient times. We merely have studied the sexual orientation concept in depth and come out with a sexual orientation spectrum.

I don't see the politics of putting us all on equal footing, that sounds like anti-politics."

MY COMMENTS:

Lui: I don't understand what politics are at work here.

Although, it is quite likely that you're not able to see the politics at play here....... which is unlikely if you're a straight guy.......

But many people do not want to acknowledge what is apparently there ------- and that is part of the strategy of the forces of heterosexualisation to deny the facts.

Eg. writing off two male animals who are having sex as ------ well they're just showing the other that they're dominant.

There cannot be any dialogue with this mindset. The vested interests of heterosexualisation say it because they know they have the social control/ power and they can get away with their lies.

I'll assume that you genuinely don't see the politics being played here.

Lui: These are just civilizations, not humanity as a whole.
Couldn't you notice the continuity?

There has been a deliberate attempt to break men from men sexually. However, these bonds were still strong till the ancient Greeks, after which they continued to be strong but went underground. In the western world they've just been significantly wiped out of the straight underground spaces ------- the western heterosexual society destroys these underground spaces by bringing them in the open putting women into them.

Also there is a clear pattern of artificially characterising male to male sexuality increasingly as being 'feminine' in nature........ while to paint male to female sexuality as 'masculine' That is the essence of the politics of manhood, and that is how it has been able to put the majority of masculine gendered males out of it. The rest of the mechanisms including religion are just accessaory weapons. None has enough power on its own to prevent straight men from bonding sexually with other men.

The conspiracy of the forces of heterosexualisation is to define gender spaces in terms of sexuality. To define manhood (straight) sexuality, and to define 'lack of manhood' (gay) as male to male sexuality.

However, all through the ages it was only the receptive sex that was characterized as feminine and thus different. However, the forces of westernization have now defined all kinds of male to male sexuality ------ even the masculine/ straight kind as feminine, and thus different enough to be categorized separately from mainstream men.

It is the same old primciple/ politics ----------- punish the man who indulges in male to male sexual bonds by depriving him of manhood and banishing him into the third gender (gay) ghetto.

Why do you think there are such extreme pressures on men to be heterosexual and such hostilities against same-sex bonds in the western straight world.

Lui: The major factor that changes in those times I think is religion, as Christianity grows in popularity.
Christianity was just a phase in the entire politics. It was a successful attempt to strengthen the politics of suppressing male to male bonds by bringing in god.

In the modern western world, the same agenda has been taken over by science which is being unabashedly abused to carry forward the dirty politics of manhood, viz. of proving that male to male sexualtiy is essentially a lack of manhood, of male hormones, of maleness.

Lui: But that doesn't lessen what we've created, we're no less valid than ancient times.

You are much worse than the religion ----- which was at least open about its oppressive ways. While you on the one hand play the politics of the dirtiest kind, also have created the feminine gay space which kills two birds with one stone.

You appear to be 'open' because you allow male to male relations in the 'gay' ghetto.

But you also at the same time paint it as essentially feminine/ third gender.

And you also isolate, trivialise and marginalise same-sex issues which are a universally occurring male phenomenon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lui: Show me proof that science is backing up religion now, because I surely do not see it.

The politics of manhood is the basic weapon the society has to fight same-sex needs amongst the male majority. Religion and science were/ are the powerful social institutions of their time and they have been used by the vested interests to aid the politics of manhood.

Religion took the line that although all men have the capacity to be sexually intimate with other men, we should all fight and control this instinct because it is against the will of god (although, it basically only talked about sodomy!). It generated enough violence in the name of god to oppress same-sex bonds.

Science, could not use such blatant methods. It gave the entire politics of manhood a new turn by giving scientific credence to various myths and false beliefs generated byu the cobined effects of milleniums of politics of manhood and religion. E.g. the male to male stragiht bonds had gone underground and become voiceless. They thrived as long as you didn't talk about it. The moment you brought it out in the open or acknowledged it in anyway it evaporated into thin air. This was the vulnerability created by the politics of manhood. Science used this slience around male-male sexual desire to claim that most men do not have a sexual desire for men, and it only happens as a 'disease' in certain populations.

the politics of manhood had also made sure that the only valid social space where males could like other males was the transgendered space (called Molly or gay), and since these people were obviously different (queer/ feminine) it decided that males who liked males were 'different' and thus required a different identity. Thus came the concept of sexual orientation (created by science) which was lapped up by the feminine male, who was greatly empowered by it, since it was silent about their gender and defined their 'difference' in terms of their sexuality for men.

And now further proof of science's taking on the agenda of religion (although, its strategy is different!):

The most important strategy of the politics of manhood is to portray same-sex desires as essentially feminine, symbolising lack of male hormones, a lack of maleness...... so that it can be validly isolated from the mainstream, 'normal' healthy males.

Science has come up with several studies that overambitiously seek to 'prove' that men who like men (which in the western society is represented by homosexuals) are:

1. different from straight men.
2. Are similar to women.

Anyone who understands manhood will know that proving this much will work wonders in putting extreme pressures on men (but not on effeminate males/ gays) to disown their sexual need for other men.

Some such half-baked theories propounded by 'science'"
1. Gays have brains similar to those of women (the enlarged hypathalamus theory)
2. Gays have pheromones different from straight men.
3. Gays PPI ratio (something to do with how reactive they are to startling sounds)is different than straight men and similar to those of women.
4. Gay rams' brains are similar to that of ewes.
5. There is a gene that makes people gay.

There are several drawbacks of these theories. Most important ones being:

(i) While 'gay' here is supposed to include every male that is attracted to men, in reality most men who are attracted to men are straights and hide their sexual need for men. The gays represent the feminine gendered ones, esp. those who are into receptive sex. I.e. to say that they have a different gender (feminine) and sexuality (receptive sexuality) than straight men who like men.

Thus the difference in brains etc. that these studies have brought out is most likely due to the difference in gender/ receptive nature of sexuality, rather than because of a sexual attraction for men as such.

(ii) None of the above studies could be properly established. E.g. the PPL ratio was not found to be significantly different in straight and gay samples. In any two groups that you study ------ even if it is of two straight groups, the results will be slightly different. However, the results were presented to the media, in such a way that the 'reservation' was in the background and the steroetypes were unnecessarily accentuated. The media added stuff of its own to present the data to the world as if they have conclusively found that gays are different from striaghts and closer to women.