Masculinity

[MasterOLightning]

It appears that my use of the term "meat-headed" was deemed inappropriate. If you read that original statement, I did not call anyone that. I was refering to the type of behavior commonly shown by certain male types. Many people probably can recall their high school days. Weren't the jocks always the most homophobic?

I did not intend to derail the thread on a discussion of homosexuality, but it appears to be in that direction now. I only was using that example to demonstrate that I saw no correlation between bravery and masculinity. Bravery is a human trait. I could have made this more clear previously.

I do think though that anyone standing up for their rights in the face of adversity is brave though. I am not gay or a gay sympathizer, but I feel that they, as anyone, should be entitled to the same legal rights I am as a citizen. If this makes me "politically correct" then so be it. I have not posted here lately, but those who remember when I did so more regularly might be able to attest to that I'm hardly the type to be concerned about conforming to popular opinion and political correctness.

I largely agree with Smoof's post.

 

[Øjeblikket]

The pompous and high-horse individuals who took offense to my entitled opinions well, you never properly substaniated yourselves. Somehow, that is not surprising. The person Ojebblikket should just back off of NorseMaiden. By the way, I'm a Fuckin' Alpha male.

You are so incredibly predictable and so unfortunately misguided.

How is it possible that you could call out pomposity while at the same time draw a conclusion such as "I'm a Fuckin Alpha male dumbass." without thinking you're a dumb-quote donor. How long will it be before you threaten to kick someone's ass?

 

[Øjeblikket]

bigot
1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi God. Plausible, since the Eng. were known as goddamns in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see also son of a bitch). But the earliest Fr. use of the word (12c.) is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul. The earliest Eng. sense is of "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, and may be influenced by beguine. Sense extended 1687 to other than religious opinions.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bigot

that is, the normans frequently said "bi God." Although, the Eng. sense is eerily apt if my usage is correct, wouldn't you say?

 

[Øjeblikket]

If this makes me "politically correct" then so be it. I have not posted here lately, but those who remember when I did so more regularly might be able to attest to that I'm hardly the type to be concerned about conforming to popular opinion and political correctness.

I'd be surprised that the "you're only being e-p.c." card was pulled so readily if it weren't for the pulling source, our new resident "runs-head-loudly-into-horse's-butt" Alpha fuckin' male [yeehaw] BloodSword.

I honestly haven't seen any politically correct statements, which are typically judgemental in an ethical or moral nature. If anything referring to homosexuality in terms of effeminate behaviour is grossly un-p.c.

I'd say anyway.

 

[OldScratch]

It appears that my use of the term "meat-headed" was deemed inappropriate. If you read that original statement, I did not call anyone that. I was refering to the type of behavior commonly shown by certain male types. Many people probably can recall their high school days. Weren't the jocks always the most homophobic?

I did not intend to derail the thread on a discussion of homosexuality, but it appears to be in that direction now. I only was using that example to demonstrate that I saw no correlation between bravery and masculinity. Bravery is a human trait. I could have made this more clear previously.

I do think though that anyone standing up for their rights in the face of adversity is brave though. I am not gay or a gay sympathizer, but I feel that they, as anyone, should be entitled to the same legal rights I am as a citizen. If this makes me "politically correct" then so be it. I have not posted here lately, but those who remember when I did so more regularly might be able to attest to that I'm hardly the type to be concerned about conforming to popular opinion and political correctness.

I largely agree with Smoof's post.

Well, I think if you state that someone is "coming from a meatheaded... perspective" you are more or less calling them a meathead at that point...but I guess that's just my interpretation. Sorry if I misjudged.
Moving right along, I don't believe it is necessarily "Politically Correct" to defend homosexuals or their "rights" at all. It is, however, decidedly 'PC' to automatically look upon those who disapprove of, or are uncomfortable with such behavior as bigots, being ignorant, "intolerant" or what have you(that is a general comment directed at no one). That was the only point of my post above - just wanted to clarify. As Speed noted...it is difficult matter to discuss without it getting heated - many opinions on each side...good, bad or ugly.

 

[Øjeblikket]

It is, however, decidedly 'PC' to automatically look upon those who disapprove of, or are uncomfortable with such behavior as bigots, being ignorant, "intolerant" or what have you(that is a general comment directed at no one).

Not that I need to defend myself, but,

Obviously some men are born naturally much more feminine than others, and there should be proportionately ever more men in society who show traits such as cowardice in battle, physical weakness, etc because women are not sexually selecting against them enough to keep these traits in check. (And because of lack of natural selection against the weak, and because war is dysgenic). This is one of the few down-sides of monogamy. The Celtic women could all go for getting pregnant by the studs and share them, while at the same time having a husband.

But are the "macho" type of homosexuals in the same category as the effeminate ones? They seem more as if they are just homosexual as a fetish, but it is not a subject one can ever get the truth on because there are PC reasons to deny that this is why apparantly masculine men are that way inclined.

How is that not bigotry?

By the way, I'm a Fuckin' Alpha male.

How is that not ignorant?

 

[Horus]

What BloodSword said was most likely a joke.
And if you're going to take everything that Norsemaiden says so personally, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread. I highly doubt that she was talking out of her own opinion. She was most likely talking out of what knowledge she's aquired through some sort of research of the topic at hand. (We all know that Norsemaiden's pretty much mastered that.)

And it's also Scientifically proven that people can be gay because of Chemical and Hormone balances in the human body. It's not always a person's choice, you know.
Maybe, after reading this, you could stop taking everything that Norsemaiden is saying so personally.

 

[Øjeblikket]

Maybe, after reading this, you could stop taking everything that Norsemaiden is saying so personally.

If you'll first kindly demonstrate for me an instance where I've taken anything Narsemaiden has said as if it were directed at me, with the exception being when she asked me if I were effeminate and consequently able to elucidate the characteristic, which was nothing but a venture on her part towards my personal person.

And I'll note again my response at first to her irrelevent question was simply that she was attempting to be humorous.

 

[Øjeblikket]

All shenanigans aside, my point is simply that effeminate men, in my opinion, exhibit no greater frequency of cowardice than do masculine men, nor are men in general confused because women have come to participate in typically male spheres, and because she has - supposedly - changed her opinion about being a "housewife" or mother.

By drawing up the effeminate homosexual male in contrast to the "breadwinner" man, I engaged the steroetype with its "antithesis."

I will ultimately engage the hysteria by claiming that the feminization of society and subsequent feminization of men is not best understood by observing the new world women's role in typically masculine affairs, which is more masculine, nor does the feminization of men contribute to the downfall of society by producing a species of battle-cowards.

 

[Norsemaiden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigoted

According to Egon Friedell, "bigot" is of the same root as "visigoth". In Vulgar Latin the initial v transformed into b (phenomenon today encountered in Iberian languages, such as Spanish language and Portuguese language; visi had truncated into bi in Vulgar Latin (phenomenon common in French and Portuguese). Certainly the Visigoths did behave in a manner which might have given birth to the expression; they were very race-conscious and intolerant; they loathed Roman civilization which they saw as effete and degenerated; they professed Arianism while their subjects were Catholics, they enforced very strict anti-Jewish laws in Spain, and they treated their Roman subjects as their inferiors and gave the birth to expression "blue-blooded" because of their fairer skin (where veins were more translucent and bluish than that of their Roman subjects). The Spanish word bigote means a beard style silmilar to that alleged to Visigoths. Since both Normans and Goths were Germanic peoples, the Franks as a Romance nation might well have referred the Normans as "Visigoths" with the expression bigot. This claim is also supported by the fact that the word bigoth for Visigoths appear in Medieval Latin language.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Morality dictated by society? How so? I support gays in their fights for equal rights as anyone else and why shouldn't I? I don't care if someone is homosexual, to me it means nothing besides their sexual preference and a way of acting, which isn't always what's perpetuated in the media. It's true, I find the thought, vision, picture, what-have-you of homosexual relations rather disgusting, but it's not my business as I'm sure they find my sexual activities revolting (maybe.) I think having tolerance for homosexuals does not come from some bullshit libby, P.C. trash; but rather it comes from being an enlightened individual able to realize that people ought to have some equality when it comes down to it. And just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I'm not talking about being equal on a moral, physical or intellectual level, I'm talking being equal on an opportunity(?) level. Homosexual tendencys have nothing to do with so-called "morals."

In addition, how do you mean morality dictated by society? What I see everyday are typical Judeo-Christian morals, which tends to generally be at odds with itself. By this I mean, "accepting people for who they are," and then also calling homosexuality "immoral."

I personally find it rather irrational that someone may think homosexuals threaten traditional marriage rules of Mom/Dad. Are they so afraid that homosexuals getting married will invalidate their own marriage? Are they so insecure? What is so bothersome about the idea of two people wanting to get married anyway? Marriage is nothing anyway. It's nothing more than sharing legal benefits of having a spouse, in reality, it means nothing. It doesn't mean commitment, it does not reflect masculine or feminine(?) ideals, nothing at all.

As far as mens masculinity, that is a difficult subject to address. Certainly, there seems to be a motherly influence on everything these days. I just recently read a story about a school district banning "chase games," as they're afraid children may get hurt. This seems to me something very feminine in nature, as I always recall my mother telling me to becareful and not get hurt. However, I question if this is a real issue or not? Or perhaps it is a race related issue? It seems as though white-males are typically taught to be understanding, caring, emotional, etc, etc whatever was mentioned in this thread. But it seems to me, any current black culture attempts to teach black-males to be tough guys. I wont go into detail as I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Apologies if my post is a little rambling and seems to lack direction, I tend to do that from time to time, especially when I'm exhausted as I am.

Here is some research which is unusual in that it gives an opportunity to analyse certain aspects of homosexuality which are not normally heard.
http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/victimization.htm

Some Christians go on about the immorality of homosexuality. Over here they get quite heavy prison sentences if they make any public speeches like that - but the situation is different in the US.

Personally I wouldn't call homosexuality "immoral" - but society does make it very clear that being opposed to homosexuality IS immoral. This is enforced by the law and by frequent media pressure as well as in school education.

Homosexuality would be/is fine as long as it isn't "in your face" such as having as much sex and kissing by gays in movies at any time of the day and in adverts for tea bags (in fact it would be preferable to not have heterosexuals doing this either rather than have an equal amount of gay and straight kissing whenever you watch a movie) and as long as it doesn't correlate to an increase in pederasty or favouritism resulting in careers ending up being full of gays and pushing out the heterosexuals. As long as it doesn't cause noticable harm to society in other words.

Its no use making homosexuality illegal, as some people are unable to be anything else - there should just be a limit to how far things can go.

And one thing that annoys me is that the truth is not being told about certain negative aspects of the gay lifestyle as well as that that society is tending more and more to favour the gay over the straight.

There are a substantial number of heterosexual white males who truly believe, with good reason, that they have been indirectly targetted for persecution. It is considered to be virtuous to discriminate against anyone in this category.

And just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I'm not talking about being equal on a moral, physical or intellectual level, I'm talking being equal on an opportunity(?) level.

That statement seems to undo everything you said in their defense.

 

[Omnis_Sathanas]

I'm 27, and many of my friends, and well, with my own experiences, I can vouch for everything you've stated. I know a few nice but men that traded up if you will for attractive wives with good jobs, who now run their lives. Its very very sad and emasculating for the man. And then their controlling wives start complaining about their spouses ball-lessness; yet while they complain over dinner, they tell them what to do, or ask them why they wore that shirt, instead of the one they suggested. Its terrible really.

I've noticed that all of my friends who end up in long term relationships basically end up getting castrated in one sense or another. They no longer have time to bother with me because they're so "busy" fulfilling all of their girlfriend's whims out of a kind of fear (or that's my best guess as to what it is). Then they resort to activities like sitting around and watching movies or going to restaurants all the time together or something equally boring just to demonstrate (maybe overcompsenate) that they have some kind of trust. All of this at the exclusion of their previous interests and activities. I ask, "How come you don't do X anymore?" and usually just get some bullshit reply about how they "grew out of it" or "don't have the time anymore". These are some weak willed men indeed; they have to resort to getting through a maze of symbolic gestures and performing the appropriate actions in return like a dog being trained to fetch. Balance and equality are obviously not concerns, what they basically tell me is "I'm getting pussy on a fairly regular basis, so the means I use to get to that end don't matter at all, because this is the best possible life I can hope for".

 

[Smoof]

Here is some research which is unusual in that it gives an opportunity to analyse certain aspects of homosexuality which are not normally heard.
http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/victimization.htm

Some Christians go on about the immorality of homosexuality. Over here they get quite heavy prison sentences if they make any public speeches like that - but the situation is different in the US.

Personally I wouldn't call homosexuality "immoral" - but society does make it very clear that being opposed to homosexuality IS immoral. This is enforced by the law and by frequent media pressure as well as in school education.

Homosexuality would be/is fine as long as it isn't "in your face" such as having as much sex and kissing by gays in movies at any time of the day and in adverts for tea bags (in fact it would be preferable to not have heterosexuals doing this either rather than have an equal amount of gay and straight kissing whenever you watch a movie) and as long as it doesn't correlate to an increase in pederasty or favouritism resulting in careers ending up being full of gays and pushing out the heterosexuals. As long as it doesn't cause noticable harm to society in other words.

Its no use making homosexuality illegal, as some people are unable to be anything else - there should just be a limit to how far things can go.

And one thing that annoys me is that the truth is not being told about certain negative aspects of the gay lifestyle as well as that that society is tending more and more to favour the gay over the straight.

There are a substantial number of heterosexual white males who truly believe, with good reason, that they have been indirectly targetted for persecution. It is considered to be virtuous to discriminate against anyone in this category.


That statement seems to undo everything you said in their defense.

I've met with, worked with, etc, plenty of gays and from my own conclusions, they're given a false identity through the media (surprise?) Everyone I've been around is a perfectly normal person. They don't talk about sex any more than anyone else and aren't going around trying to fuck other men in the ass or kiss them as seems to be a common fear... for whatever reason.

And in addition, how does my statement undo anything? I'm just not some libby P.C. idiot who thinks "Oh, everyone is equal!" and that no morals are better than another, no person is better physically or intellectually than another. Sorry, but that's bullshit. And even so, you're assuming that because I don't think everyone is equal on a moral level that i think perhaps homosexuals are immoral? Is that your conclusion? explain.

Also, society makes no effort to say that being opposed to homosexuality is immoral. At least, not where I live, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

And I've got to say, I think the gay stereotype that everyone is afraid of is false, for the most part. I think it's nothing more than the mega-corporations and media perpetuating it to instill fear into your average person. Just as what's perpetuated in places such as the rap scene.

And one thing that annoys me is that the truth is not being told about certain negative aspects of the gay lifestyle as well as that that society is tending more and more to favour the gay over the straight.

Substantiate yourself, please.

 

[BloodSword]

Stating that I am an Alpha male was to try and illicit some humour into a thread that has become a complete trainwreck. Although, I am proud of being a man. What I have noticed is their are a few people who take others posts(theorys, comments) and twist and turn them to sound the way they think or want them to sound. Its says "mature and intelligient discussion" that is NOT mature. And I admit I could have been more mature in my responses. I have not called anyone names on this forum. Implying that I have a "meathead perspective" certainly sounds like you think I'm a meathead. Ya, I'm just a swinging-dick of a guy who scratches himself all day and eats raw meat. And of course I attack anyone who I beleive has a questionable agenda.(gays, lesbians, the media machine, border-jumpers) you get the point. Those who have made disparaging remarks about me, need to be reminded YOU DO NOT KNOW ME!! And to assume you do because of some posts I have made is absolutely ludicrous. So, Obljekket( or whatever your moniker is) take your high-brow comments and well, I'm sure as sharp as you are you know where you can put them. BTW, it's NorseMaiden, not NarseMaiden. Your pomposity and arrogance is incredible. Those are the last words I will say about this topic. I tryed to pick up some of the wreckage. Peace.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I've met with, worked with, etc, plenty of gays and from my own conclusions, they're given a false identity through the media (surprise?) Everyone I've been around is a perfectly normal person. They don't talk about sex any more than anyone else and aren't going around trying to fuck other men in the ass or kiss them as seems to be a common fear... for whatever reason.

And in addition, how does my statement undo anything? I'm just not some libby P.C. idiot who thinks "Oh, everyone is equal!" and that no morals are better than another, no person is better physically or intellectually than another. Sorry, but that's bullshit. And even so, you're assuming that because I don't think everyone is equal on a moral level that i think perhaps homosexuals are immoral? Is that your conclusion? explain.

Also, society makes no effort to say that being opposed to homosexuality is immoral. At least, not where I live, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

And I've got to say, I think the gay stereotype that everyone is afraid of is false, for the most part. I think it's nothing more than the mega-corporations and media perpetuating it to instill fear into your average person. Just as what's perpetuated in places such as the rap scene.

Substantiate yourself, please.

A lot (if not everything) that the media says about gays is also discussed on gay websites. They don't deny it - so it would seem that you are rather naive Smoof.

Gay men fully admit that they are promiscuous as a group (although there are always exceptions) and that it is a part of the gay culture to do things like have sex with strangers in public toilets and glory holes. They consider it homophobic for anyone to suggest that this is in any way immoral and want to be able to advertise their activities more publicly so as to get more acceptance of it as normal.

Have you ever heard of "bug chasing"? This is a habit of some gay men to actually seek to catch HIV. Once they have it they are part of some sort of club scene and feel more like a fully initiated gay. Because they carry on with their behaviour regardless of having HIV, it has led to new strains of HIV evolving and also to an increasing drug resistance.

Gay men are generally risk taking thrill seekers (I'm not making any moral judgement on that, just observing a fact). They are already used to enjoying activities that they believe heterosexuals to find repulsive. Therefore it is no surprise if some of them have lower inhibitions regarding other sexual activities that others would find highly objectionable. I am being just a little bit cryptic here - and don't intend to spell anything out.

Here is some more information from a gay website.
http://www.gay.com/health/mental/?sernum=3121

Perhaps gays should have their own areas where they can go and feel relaxed about kissing in public or cross dressing etc and try to keep it out of the mainstream society. Tongue Ring has told me there is a part of Texas where it is fine to do that sort of thing and I think that is better than attempting to force heterosexuals to put up with this kind of behaviour in public and on daytime tv etc. I'm not sure how well this would work longterm but it is some kind of compromise anyway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/15/wgay15.xml

MP faces jail over anti-gay comments
By Colin Randall in Paris
(Filed: 15/12/2005)

A French MP faces jail and a heavy fine after being accused of offending homosexuals by saying they represent a "threat to humanity".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/5319896.stm

A Christian campaigner who handed out anti-homosexual leaflets at Cardiff's Mardi Gras gay and lesbian festival has appeared before city magistrates.
Stephen Green, 55, national director of the evangelical lobby group Christian Voice, was arrested on Saturday.

Magistrates heard he had handed out the leaflets - entitled "Same-sex love - same-sex sex: What does the Bible say?"

 

[MURAI]

Behold! The men of Japan.

They're dead gorgeous. :hotjump:

 

[speed]

Behold! The men of Japan.

They're dead gorgeous. :hotjump:

Haha, i thought #2 was a woman. What cheekbones and soft eyes!

 

[MasterOLightning]

Gay men fully admit that they are promiscuous as a group (although there are always exceptions) and that it is a part of the gay culture to do things like have sex with strangers in public toilets and glory holes.

You read too much into this. Men in general are promiscuous, and many would gladly have sex with women in public toilets, etc. if only women were willing. If there was a hole in the wall with a vagina on the other side I guarantee there would be a line of straight men waiting.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You read too much into this. Men in general are promiscuous, and many would gladly have sex with women in public toilets, etc. if only women were willing. If there was a hole in the wall with a vagina on the other side I guarantee there would be a line of straight men waiting.

Well the reason that I question that is that there are always plently of sluts around if any guy wanted to do this, and a large minority of straight men are promiscuous while it is a majority of gays - and a far higher proportion of men manage to happily stay faithful to a female partner than is the case with gay men staying monogamously true to eachother. Surely that last statement is not in doubt. (Again there is no attempt to moralise in saying this). There is more reason for heterosexual couples to stay together because they may have children to consider after all.

 

[MURAI]

Haha, i thought #2 was a woman. What cheekbones and soft eyes!

If only more men have the courage to soften up their image.