Those Manly Men of Yore

Op-Ed Contributor

By SARA LIPTON

Published: June 16, 2011

“WHAT was he thinking?” That’s the question columnists, talking heads and my (mostly female) friends have been asking about Representative Anthony D. Weiner of New York, who announced Thursday that he would resign, just over a week after admitting he’d sent sexually explicit photographs and messages to women over the Internet.       

Sadly, that question has been asked of a dizzying number of unfaithful men in recent memory: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton ... the list goes on and on.

The conventional answer is that when it comes to sex, a certain kind of man, no matter how intelligent, doesn’t think at all; he just acts. Somehow a need for sexual conquest, female adulation and illicit and risky liaisons seems to go along with drive, ambition and confidence in the “alpha male.” And even if we denounce him and hound him from office, we tend to accept the idea that power accentuates the lusty nature of men.

This conception of masculinity is relatively new, however. For most of Western history, the primary and most valued characteristic of manhood was self-mastery. Late antique and Roman writers, like Plutarch, lauded men for their ability to resist sexual temptation and control bodily desire through force of will and intellect. Too much sex was thought to weaken men: a late-15th-century poem mocks an otherwise respectable but overly sexually active burgess who has “wasted and spent” his “substance” until there is “naught left but empty skin and bone.”

Rampant sexuality was something men were supposed to grow out of: in medieval political theory, young male bodies were used as symbols of badly run kingdoms. A man who indulged in excessive eating, drinking, sleeping or sex — who failed to “rule himself” — was considered unfit to rule his household, much less a polity.

Far from seeming “manly,” aggressive sexuality was associated with women. In contrast to the Victorian view of women that is still influential today, ancient and medieval writers described women as consumed by lust and sexual desire. In 1433, officials in Florence charged with regulating women’s dress and behavior sought “to restrain the barbarous and irrepressible bestiality of women who, not mindful of the weakness of their nature, forgetting that they are subject to their husbands, and transforming their perverse sense into a reprobate and diabolical nature, force their husbands with their honeyed poison to submit to them.”

Because of this association of sexuality with femaleness, men who failed to control their sexual urges or were susceptible to feminine attractions found their masculinity challenged. Marc Antony was roundly mocked as having been “softened and effeminized” by his desire for Cleopatra. When the king and war hero Pedro II of Aragon spent the night before a battle not in prayer or council but in bed with a woman, he was labeled effeminate.

Few of us would wish to revive these notions or endorse medieval misogyny. But in the face of recent revelations about the reckless and self-indulgent sexual conduct of so many of our elected officials, it may be worth recalling that sexual restraint rather than sexual prowess was once the measure of a man.

How and why have we moved so far from this ideal? Why do so many powerful men take sexual risks that destroy their families and careers? Contemporary worship of youth is one explanation: rather than shunning the idea of childishness, many adults, male and female, now spend much of their time clinging to an illusory and endless adolescence. The ability to be a “player” well into middle age thus becomes a point of pride, rather than shame, for the modern man. Perhaps the erosion of men’s exclusive status as breadwinners and heads of households also figures in: when one no longer “rules the household,” there may be less motivation for or satisfaction in “ruling oneself.”

But in the face of recent headlines I find myself less inclined to analyze or excuse current mores than to echo medieval ones. The critics of Pedro II of Aragon would have turned Arnold Schwarzenegger’s own words against him and his kind: Who are the girlie men now?

Sara Lipton, an associate professor of history at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, is a fellow at the Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on June 17, 2011, on page A35 of the New York edition with the headline: Those Manly Men of Yore.

Excerpts showing how men's spaces were separated from women's spaces and third genders served as the connection

From the official website about Tourism of Delhi

About Delhi

Excerpts:

According to Jesuit Priest Montserrate, Akbar's Imperial spread thusly: "His table is very sumptuous, consisting of more than 40 courses, served in great dishes. These are brought into the royal dining hall, covered and wrapped in linen cloths, which are tied up and sealed by the cook, for fear of poison. They are carried by youths to the door of the dining hall, other servants walking ahead, and the Master of the Household (Khan-e-saman) following. Here they are taken over by eunuchs who load them to the serving girls who wait on the royal table..."

Freud was the real villain of men -- the father of the modern anti-man

Heterosexuality Is Unnatural, no matter what Sex Essentialists say

What follows is a book review from Achille's Heel: The Radical Men's Magazine

The Invention of Heterosexuality by Jonathan Ned Katz

Twelve years ago, Gore Vidal asserted that "there is no such thing as a homosexual or a heterosexual person. There are only homo- or hetero acts." He repeats this hypothesis in an argumentative foreword to Ned Katz's book. But Katz seeks to dig deeper than this and questions the assumptions that lead us to divide people, acts, relationships and feelings into binary opposites. Starting with the first appearance in the United States of the word hetero-sexual, in 1893, he shows how it has moved from its original medical definition to its use in describing "normal", different-sex eroticism.

The original definition is important in the argument that Katz develops. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, attempts were made to identify and name various deviations from the procreative norm. "Hetero-sexuality" described one type of non-procreative perversion involving different-sex desire. Erotic attraction was seen as a healthy sexual instinct when procreation was its aim, but not if it involved only the satisfaction of lustful impulses. It was these drives and impulses that were taken up by Freud, from 1905 onwards, in the development of his theories of sexuality.

It is difficult to imagine a time before knowledge of the powerful concepts and images that Freud put before us. Katz shows how the presumption of a predominantly male, heterosexual norm pervaded Freud's writing, creating an assumption of the biological and historical roots of the hetero/homo divide. In a similar way, Freud displaced the procreative norm and replaced it with the concept of sexual libido and its satisfaction.

In terms of individual development, the choice of sexual object (same- or opposite-sex) was not fixed or restricted, but Freud made it clear that a heterosexual outcome would be both normal and preferred. Homosexuality is seen as "fixated" and "immature" and an undesirable developmental outcome. This impression of an essential, historical and biological truth focussed negative attention on abnormal homosexuality. More importantly, it directed attention away from the heterosexual norm. Katz invites us to check the relative invisibility of discourse on heterosexuality by browsing the indices of relevant seminal texts. As an example, he cites the standard index to Freud's complete works. This contains only one reference to heterosexuality but more than a column of references to homosexuality. Katz goes on to show how heterosexuality grew rapidly from a preferred developmental outcome into a universal, cultural norm. He places Gore Vidal's distinction between persons and acts as post-Kinsey in that Alfred Kinsey's research, reported in "Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male" (1948), described a range of behaviour and practice that did not fit neatly into exclusively homo- or heterocategories.

In the same decade, the words "gay" and "straight" were being used as descriptions of sexual identity, with "straight" meaning "not homosexual". The concept of a gay or lesbian identity and the growth of identity politics have been instrumental in affirming the feelings and lifestyles of those who are glad to be gay. Ned Katz recognises the importance of this movement, but is pessimistic about its potential in the breaking down of the heterosexual norm.

Acceptance of genetically-determined sexual orientation is compared with similar biological "evidence" used to justify the practices of slavery, racism and sexism. Rather than argue on these grounds, he sees a way forward, through a focus on what is held in common and not through an emphasis on what makes us different from each other. His model for this is based on challenges to the dominant male, heterosexual culture posed by liberal, radical and lesbian feminists since the early 1960s. Katz draws together the strands of a feminist de-construction of heterosexuality, from Betty Friedan's dissatisfaction with arbitrary sexual designations, placing limits on women's potential, to Adrienne Rich's explicit criticism, in the early 1980s, of institutionalised heterosexuality.

Katz looks forward to a time when homo- and hetero- distinctions will become redundant. As Lisa Duggan points out in her afterword, this is bound to make some readers uncomfortable, if not downright hostile.

Conservative "essentialists" will perceive an attack against the institutions of marriage and the family. On the other hand, those working for lesbian and gay rights may feel that their position is undermined and that it is better to argue for equality on the basis of gains already made. Katz and Duggan both suggest that an acceptance of "difference" can lead, at best, to a state of tolerance, whereas true equality can only come if we "change the notion that heterosexuality is normal for the vast majority of people, and shift social, cultural and political practices based on that assumption".

Ned Katz's main aim in this book is to focus attention and to encourage debate on the problem of heterosexuality. In this respect, he has produced a valuable resource. "The Invention of Heterosexuality" distils almost fifteen years of discussion, research and writing. It contains a wealth of notes and references that will provide an excellent platform for further study. But, above all, this is an essential read and a fascinating journey through the sexual politics of the 20th century.

Andrew Martin

Copyright © Achilles Heel Collective

Male Take: When He Can't Get An Erection

No erection? What to say when he can't get it up.

By Jack Murnighan

It happens to the best of men: arousal but no lift... interest but no erection. When a man can't get it up, the experience for him and his partner falls somewhere between awkward and utterly mortifying—I've even heard of men not calling women back because they were so ashamed of their inability to keep things on the up and up.
Because men are so sensitive about it, and because it's about as embarrassing a moment as he can experience, it puts the woman in a really tough spot. Of course you just want to say, "Honey, is there something I can do to help?" But in some cases, that's exactly what he doesn't want to hear. He's thinking, "No, I'm just dying from the pressure here, and the last thing I want you to do is even notice, much less try to help!"
Even worse is if you say, "Is there something wrong?" or "Are you okay?"—because, yes, there obviously is something wrong (you don't have to remind me!) and, no, I'm clearly not OK; I'm flaccid!
So what can a woman say or do when her man can't rev up the engines? Here are a few possibilities (but know that any one of these can backfire, too, depending on the circumstances). But, in order of most likely to go over well, here are five things you can say to help make the best of the situation:
1) Don't worry, honey. It happens to all guys.
Granted, he might wonder how much experience you have (some guys like to pretend it's your first time—I think they're silly), but at least he won't feel like he's the only loser on the planet. Misery sure does love company.
2) We'll just touch for now—I love that.
This way he can feel like he's still giving you a decent experience, and it's possible that gentle, relaxed, not-trying-to-start-anything touching will eventually bring him around. I'd advise steering clear of his penis, though, at least until it starts showing life on its own. If you touch it, he might think you're trying again, and his guilt and feelings of failure can get in the way.
3) You know what? It happens to me sometimes, too.
Guys might not realize that, sometimes, women don't get wet, even though they're aroused. Letting him know that it's a human thing, not just a flaw with his equipment, will help ease his mind.
Yes, this is pretty close to "Is there something I can do to help?" but the difference is in the approach. Asking what you can do implies there's a problem that needs fixing; asking if he wants something allows him to either articulate his needs or ignore your question. Still, this tactic is a bit risky, as he might feel as if you're disappointed with him. Sometimes, however, changing things up a little will put him in the right headspace and back on track. Just be careful when and how you ask.
Note that in all of these cases, the thing you need to make clear is that you're not mad at him, frustrated or mocking him for not being able to get an erection (or for having lost one).
And remember: You shouldn't take his present condition personally. Trust me, a guy can have performance anxiety simply because he likes you a ton and is trying too hard to make you happy! Or: he could have something else on his mind; some odd thing may have triggered his response; he may have had a lot to drink... any number of other things could be happening that have nothing to do with you or whether you're sexy. If it becomes chronic, there may be a more significant issue at work. But an isolated case or two—or jitters during the first few times you're together—is nothing to take as a bad sign. Male Take: How To Tell If A Guy Likes You
So once you have a handle on not taking it personally, help him realize that he shouldn't take it personally, either. He probably thinks his inability to maintain an erection reflects on his whole identity, so make sure he understands that you know it's a fluke, and no big deal.
Finally, keep in mind that men are a lot more complicated than they're given credit for. It might seem as if they're like light switches—easily turned on—but there's a brain involved, and that can be a wildcard. And when a man does have troubles, he really is at his most vulnerable. So careful what you say and do. He's ultra-exposed—in every way imaginable.

Greek studs: a Foucauldian sideways glance at Aristotle's package

Ye of little sex rejoice: for at least some of the ancient Greeks, there wasn't anything less virile than screwing around.

Michel Foucault's History of Sexuality spans a wide variety of topics, examining ancient to contemporary Western discourse on the sexual act. Specifically, it examines the origin of what we know today as "sexuality": a biological, psychological, and historical area of study that has been delineated as somehow above or apart from the rest of human activity. How and why did the canon of "proper behavior" in Western society place not only the sexual act, but constant discussion and definition of the sexual act, at the core of its being? Volume 2: The Use of Pleasure reviews ancient Greek texts on the erotic, dietetics, and other subjects to give perspective on the origins of "sexuality" by examining aphrodisia - the latter not particularly synonymous with the former, as difference in respective ideas of "virility" show.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics digs his focus on virtue through "moderation". (That's sōphrosynē to you classicists.) In between two given behavioral extremes, there's always a mean in between that the virtuous man follows (although it usually ain't the median between the two). So what quality did the virtuous man have that allowed him to more-or-less tread the moderate path?

"Mastery" (enkrateia), in short. In order for a man to be virtuous, his rational faculties had to hold sway over his sensual inclinations: he had to be a "ruler" (archontas) and not "ruled" (archomenous) in relation to himself, just like Plato's hierarchy. Now, the blatant sexism in that last sentence is intentional - in fact, it's key to the whole process here. When we're talking virtue in ancient Greece, we're talking about men. Whether that's being a good citizen of the polis, a kick-ass Athenian general, or even a wise slave of the Stoic sort, it means being manly. Enkrateia was (in addition to being the power of a king over a subject or a lord over a slave) the same sort of "mastery" that a man had over his wife and household, and that the "top" in a sexual encounter had over the "bottom".

This isn't to say that virtue wasn't expected of women or that they couldn't have enkrateia or sōphrosynē, but that "this virtue was always referred in some way to virility. . .there was also a structural reference, since in order for a woman to be moderate, she had to establish a relationship of superiority and domination over herself that was virile by definition." (Foucault, p. 83) A virtuous woman was a manly woman, in the womanly fashion of being manly. (That make sense? Good.) The way Greek morality seems to be ordered, no matter whether one was "ruler" or "ruled" in relation to Athens, one was obligated to set up the same hierarchy inside oneself with one's rationality at the top. You had to kick your own inner ass - and make all those worrisome inclinations towards the extreme (quite literally) your bitch.

Now, aphrodisia (remember Aphrodite?) was subject to one of these dichotomies and had a moderate mean to follow. (It must be stressed that this wasn't particularly parallel to sexual virtue as a later, Christian concept: the exercise of all virtue was dependent on individual situations, and whether it was virtuous to freak nasty or not could even depend on whether you planned on taking your supper late that evening.) The mean in question was between being completely desensitized to erotic and sensory pleasure (something that Aristotle admitted to be extremely rare) and its opposite: chasing every tail that wagged your way, and sometimes a few that didn't.

That means that if you were prone (like a great many of the contemporaries of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) to all sorts of wacky sexual adventures, even with women, you weren't particularly virile. In fact, you vere a vussy girly man, ja! Of course many folks would have the inclination to stick it in wherever they saw an opening; what made you a virile master of yourself, and thus a virtuous person, was to know when to go at it and when to let it be. What this meant for ancient Greek sexual ethics was manifest in its differences with modern ideas about being masculine or effeminate.

The dividing line between a virile man and an effeminate man did not coincide with our opposition between hetero- and homosexuality; nor was it confined to the opposition between active and passive homosexuality. It marked the difference in people's attitudes toward the pleasures, and the traditional signs of effeminacy. . .were not necessarily associated with the individual who in the nineteenth century would be called an "invert", but with the one who yielded to the pleasures that enticed him: he was under the power of his own appetites and those of others." (Foucault, p. 85)
If you were a pretty boy favoring ostentatious dress and perfumery, if you didn't like to participate in suitably manly sports, if you were prone to malakia ("softness" in the sense of being unmanly, but also associated with disease and sickness), then it was just as likely that you were hounding the ladies as it was that you were hyperactively homosexual. What you were doing was failing to be a man to yourself by not standing up to the ways your body was likely to lead you astray, and that tended, in the Greek mind, to manifest itself in the way you talked, how healthy you were, how successful you were at raising children, and so on. If your inner hierarchy was a shambles, it was likely to show in how well you acted out your role in the hierarchy of Athens and the rest of the external world.

These ideas led to a lot of conclusions that were seemingly alien, and yet very related, to later Christian ways of looking at sex and society. Medieval thinkers often looked to the pure and innocent virgin young woman as the epitome of sexual morality. Such a person without sin would have nothing to confess, and was thus free of taint in the Church's eyes. There's a reason why Sir Galahad was raised by women into a virginal lifestyle and thus was able to get his hands around the Holy Grail, while Dear Daddy, the ultra-masculine womanizer and beloved friend to the rough-and-tumble Knights of the Round Table, had to kneel at the entrance to that sacred Mass. Yet Christianity's association of constant sexual self-control with power above that of one's fellow man is at least akin to enkrateia, if far more demanding of restraint. Its means of dealing with sex as a discourse of guilt and confession to God through the Church is also heavily related to the medical and social dedication of Greek texts to aphrodisia as at least one physical aspect of his life where a man could display virtue.

And, of course, to the Greeks, practice made perfect (hence some Athenian philosophers' admiration of brutal Spartan child-rearing practices designed to make young men into young soldiers). Mastering the genitalia was a lot like mastering an instrument, or rhetoric, or a certain sport: that is, you pursued virtue in that field as a unique individual, making some mistakes and trying your best while (if you were wise) learning as you went. The right amount, method, and partner(s) in one's sexual life had to be gauged independently through "growing experiences", as we say nowadays. So while Aristotle might not think that all those letters to Penthouse about how you slept with four Roller Derby sex goddesses at once made you a big virile hunk o' man, he could at least be content that you'd gained some valuable insight into who'd be in your motel room the next time around.

Brim job, Bro job

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Source: Urbandictionary.com

heterosexual i.d.

buy heterosexual i.d. mugs, tshirts and magnets
A theoretical form of identification issued to heterosexuals (mostly males) which can be revoked if the person acts sufficiently "gay". This doesnt really apply to people who know they're gay, because they wouldnt want the ID.
"Dude if you touch his balls one more time i'm gonna have to revoke your heterosexual i.d. card.
gaydar heterosexual gay homosexual poop by Notorious R.E.D. Feb 4, 2007 share this

Heterosexual man barrier

Source: urbandictionary.com

3.
heterosexual man barrier
16 up, 18 down
buy heterosexual man barrier mugs, tshirts and magnets
A long pillow used to lay over and weigh down the sheets between two straight males sharing a double bed. A heterosexual man barrier is set up to help prevent accidental contact during sleep. comonly used in combination with the stager sheet sleep method.
The two boys were afraid to sleep in the same double bed without the aid of a heterosexual man barrier.
heterosexual man barrier sleep bed by Action Steve May 23, 2006 share this

Favor Exchange

Source: Urbandictionary.com
1.
Favor Exchange
30 up, 21 down
buy favor exchange mugs, tshirts and magnets
A Favor Exhange occurs when two or more heterosexual males exchange sexual favors. A Sexual Favor could include, but not limited too: handjob, blowjob, or anal sex. This is completely Not romantic in anyway and is Not considered to be homosexual. This term is what many men want to ask for in other men, but are too ashamed to ask due to the fear of bieng labeled a homosexual. Most men have performed a Favor Exhange in one form or anouther at some point in there lives, but are too ashamed to admit it.
Dude1: "Hay Dude, you want to Exhange Favors?" Dude2: "You mean a Favor Exchange?" Dude1: "Yea" Dude2: "Well, since niether one of us are gay, I guess we can, what did you have in mind?" Dude1: "Well, If I suck you, will you suck me?" Dude2: "Sure, lets do it."
favor exchange favor heterosexual males sexual favor sexual favors handjob blowjob anal sex not gay not romantic not homosexual guys guys night in suck mutual masturbation circle jerk masterbation hand sex sexual two guys 2 guys group sex guys night out faver exchange beating the monkey faver spanking the monkey jacking off jerking off by David Baldwin Feb 14, 2006 share this
2.
Favor Exchange
1 up, 8 down
buy favor exchange mugs, tshirts and magnets
n. A Favor Exhange occurs when two or more heterosexual males exchange sexual favors. A Sexual Favor could include, but not limited too: handjob, blowjob, or anal sex. This is completely Not romantic in anyway and is Not considered to be homosexual. This term is what many men want to ask for in other men, but are too ashamed to ask due to the fear of bieng labeled a homosexual. Most men have performed a Favor Exhange in one form or anouther at some point in there lives, but are too ashamed to admit it.
Dude1: "Hay Dude, you want to Exhange Favors?" Dude2: "You mean a Favor Exchange?" Dude1: "Yea" Dude2: "Well, since niether one of us are gay, I guess we can, what did you have in mind?" Dude1: "Well, If I suck you, will you suck me?" Dude2: "Sure, lets do it."
favor exchange heterosexual males sexual faver favors handjob blowjob anal guys suck mutual masturbation circle jerk hand sex group jacking jerking by David Baldwin Feb 17, 2006 share this

Homosexuality and the Ancient Greeks

Note: Reclaiming Natural Masculinity is strictly against the use of the term 'homosexual' to describe sexual or romantic relationships between masculine gendered males, whether in the past or present, because of the 'third gender' origin and association of this term.

"The noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail." - Plutarch {1}

The ancient Greeks are widely known for their homosexual exploits. Many ordinary people are aware of Greek homosexual love poetry, the same-sex relations of Greek gods and heroes, and the homosexual relationship between Alexander the Great and Hephaestion.

This is only a recent development. Until the second half of the 20th century, historians avoided saying much about the sexuality of the ancient Greeks out of sense of propriety. In 1901, an English classicist named John Addington Symonds published A Problem in Greek Ethics addressing homosexuality in Ancient Greece, but it was provided only to "medical psychologists and jurists" and the number of copies was intended to remain under 100. {2}

The first major treatment of ancient Greek homosexuality in English was Greek Homosexuality by K.J. Dover, published in 1978.

By contrast, ancient Greek homosexuality is now a popular topic, and those who argue for full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle regularly appeal to these practices and attitudes of the widely-respected ancient Greeks.

However, the practices of the ancient Greeks differ significantly from those generally advocated by moderns. Greek homosexual practices involved beautiful expressions of love and devotion, but were also firmly embedded in their culture of social status and therefore had distinct limitations.

Forms and Prevalence of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

Homosexual relationships seem to have been prevalent in ancient Greece. It is possible Achilles and Patroclus of Homer's Iliad were icons of male homosexuality. Aristotle stated that the Cretans encouraged homosexuality as a population controller on the island community in his Politics. {3}

Greek poets wrote of same-sex love and notable philosophers and writers such as Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, and pseudo-Lucian discussed the topic. Plato is quoted as commenting:

Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce. {4}
Tragedies on the theme became popular, and Aristophanes made comical theater about sexual relationships between males. Vases portray numerous homoerotic relationships and hundreds of inscriptions celebrate the love of youths. Famous politicians, warriors, artists, and writers are believed to have had homosexual relationships. {5}

Diogenes Laeurtius wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century BC, "in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands." {6}

Similarly, a character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) proclaims, "the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail." {7}

Physicians casually commented that pleasure between men was more tiring. {8} Only a few examples of apparent same-sex exclusivity are known in ancient Greece, among which are Alexander the Great and Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism.

The form of homosexuality that was most common in ancient Greece was pederasty, meaning a relationship between an adult man and a male youth. For the Greeks, pederasty was more than a sexual pasttime or preference - it was nearly a social institution. A same-sex relationship between an older man, probably in his 20s or 30s, known as the erastes, and a beardless boy, the eromenos or paidika, became a cultural ideal. The relationship was regarded as mutually beneficial, as the older man would educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his lover, while the eromenos offered his partner with beauty, youth, admiration, and love. {9}

The relationship began with a courtship ritual, involving gifts and other norms, and the erastes was to demonstrate that he had nobler interests in the boy rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one.

There is evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos, which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood. {10}

Another common form of homosexuality in classical Greece originated in the symposion, an aristocratic male drinking group. Guests reclined on couches in front of low tables laid with light snacks and a mildly alcoholic water-wine mixture.

The wine was poured by young male or female slaves, often chosen for their beauty. There were games, entertainments performed by the slaves, speeches, and conversations. The evening often ended with a drunken riot through the streets.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World, the symposion was the main reason for the importance of homosexuality in ancient Greece, as it became the focus of expressions of love, sex, and liaisons both physical and spiritual.

Homosexual liaisons occured both between drinkers and with slave boys, and the "idealization of these emotions inspired some of the highest expressions of love in European literature." {11}

Views of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

In ancient Greece, same-sex romantic and sexual attractions were often regarded as a matter of taste or preferance rather than a moral issue. However, social status was of utmost importance, as was the differentiation between the active and passive roles in male homosexuality.

Given that only free adult men had full social status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Terms for the passive role were muliebria pati, "to submit to what is done to women" and aselgainein, "to defile oneself." The active role in Greek was hubrizein, "to exert force upon another." {12}

For these reasons, the pederasty described above became the ideal form of homosexual relationships. A free male youth was a more noble partner than a male slave (and perhaps more than a woman as well) because he could be from a noble family and would eventually become a free citizen.

But it also avoided homosexual sex between equals, which was problematic for reasons of status: if two adult citizens were to engage in homosexual activity, the one who played the passive role would lose respect. Women and slaves had no respect to worry about losing, and it appears that a male citzen who had been an eromenos in his youth lost no respect for it - in fact a history with a noble partner could be an honor - but he was expected to take the active role (whether with a women or a man) now that he had become an adult.

One important passage from ancient Greece that speaks against homosexuality is Plato's Laws 636c. Here the character of the Athenian stranger rejects homosexual behavior as "unnatural" (para physin), describes it as an "enormity" or "crime" (tolmema), and attributes it to "unbridled lust." Opinions are divided as to whether this is Plato's own belief, and whether it applies to homosexuality between equals, pederasty, or both. {13}

In contrast, attraction to males and homosexual relationships in the active role with one's social inferiors was common, approved by society, and could even be regarded as a sign of masculinity. There were stories of same-sex exploits associated with Greek gods including Zeus, and other key figures in Greek myth and literature, perhaps including Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers and renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle. {14}

References
Plutarch, Dialogue on Love, 146.
Introduction to the online text by Sacred Texts Internet Archive.
According to "Homosexuality in ancient Greece," Wikipedia, as accessed October 2005.
Quoted by John Boswell in "The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective" (1979).
"Homosexuality in ancient Greece," Wikipedia, as accessed October 2005.
Quoted in Greenberg, David F., The Construction of Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 144.
Dialogue on Love 146, quoted in "Homosexuality," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, August 2002.
Bowersock, Brown and Grabar, eds., Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World (Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 496.
Dover, K.J., Greek Homosexuality (Harvard University Press, 1989, as summarized in "Homosexuality," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, August 2002).
Ibid.
John Boardman et al, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World, 1986, pp. 225-226.
Bowersock, Brown and Grabar, eds., Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World (Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 496.
See for instance "In the Case of Martha Nussbaum."
"Homosexuality," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, August 2002.
Further Reading
A Problem in Greek Ethics - Full online text of 1901 book by by John Addington Symonds on Greek homosexuality, at the Sacred Texts Internet Archive.
Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality. Volume One: An Introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books, 1980.
Halperin, David M., One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: and Other Essays on Greek Love. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Plato, The Symposium.
Plato, The Laws
Eva Cantarella, trans. Cormac O'Cuilleanain, Bisexuality in the Ancient World (Yale University Press, 1992).

xxxxx

Men in westernized societies far too likely to commit suicide

Suicide: Top 10 Cause of Death in U.S Men

Posted Jun 04 2009 10:33pm 1 Comment

The news of David Carradine’s death ( David Carradine Dead From Apparent Suicide ) might have not registered with me had I not read of his cause of death, reportedly by hanging. That’s how my brother took his life four years ago. Did you know that suicide is the number 8 cause in the United States for death among men? They make up 80% of total suicide deaths. For women, it’s the 17th most common reason for death. Women do make more attempts (60%), but men use more violent and “sure” ways of dying, which makes them more likely to die from their attempt. For men, using a gun is the most common method of suicide - 11.2 out of 100,000, while it only happens in 1.5/100,000 women. The second most common in men is suffocation (including hanging), followed by poisoning. For women, the most common cause is poisoning. These statistics were taken from the Suicide Prevention Resource Center. Questions While we don’t know the circumstances around Mr. Carradine’s death, if you’ve ever known someone who has committed suicide, you know that their death leaves behind many questions. Did anyone notice anything? Could I have done something? Should I have done something? Why didn’t he say something? If I learned anything through my experience it’s that asking these questions don’t do anything because the one person who could answer them is no longer with us. Going through with it A social worker told me something interesting after JP died. She said that for most, the actual suicide isn’t the first time he or she wanted to do it. She explained that JP probably had planned this before but got interrupted or something stopped him from following through. Who knows? Maybe he got a phone call, thought of something, and then didn’t go through it that particular day - only to do it another one, the day he did die. Is is surprising that so many men successfully end their lives? I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s surprising at all. Even in today’s society, where men are given more freedom to be who they want to be, there’s still a huge stigma attached to mental illness, including depression and anxiety. It’s much harder for a man, in general, to admit he needs help than a woman to do so. Men are expected to suck it up, hide their feelings, move on. A woman can cry all weekend after a break up, for example, but a man is expected to go out on the town, find a new partner maybe. And sometimes, it just happens because even if the man reaches out, the system fails him. That’s what happened with my brother. He had reached out, he needed help, but the mental health system failed him. Instead, he self-medicated his pain and, given the outcome, not very successfully. Help yourself With Father’s day coming up, one of the best things for yourself, your own gift if you’re a father and a gift to yourself just because if you’re not, is to take care of your own mental health. Don’t let despair take over. Don’t let anxiety eat away at you. Don’t self medicate with alcohol and drugs. It doesn’t work. If you break a leg, you get it casted. If your appendix bursts, you get it removed. If your brain is making you sick, that can be looked at and helped. Do it for you. Do it for those who love you. Do it for people like Mr. Carradine and my brother (and the 2 sons he left behind) who didn’t get the help they needed. Please. ~~~~

Importance of manhood for males: evidences from a tribal society

Tribal rite robs youths of manhood

Robert Block - East London
The Sunday Times (London), p. 18, 29 December 1996


NOTE: Links with a right-facing blue arrow will take you off this site.

Sitting in loose hospital gowns, the youths looked sorry for themselves. They had reason to be. They had fallen into the hands of 'bush surgeons' who subjected them to crude circumcisions to mark their coming of age.

"...the quest for manhood has left more than 50 young Xhosa men
suffering infections and severe blood loss.
At least two have had to have their penises amputated.
Every year a number of boys dies from their injuries."

"All I wanted was to be a man," said one of the teenagers, on the verge of tears. "I'm not going to see that dream come true."

Each year doctors at Greys hospital in the Eastern Cape treat dozens of boys for horrific disfigurements inflicted during tribal circumcision ceremonies. These are usually carried out over Christmas when the youths return home on holiday from jobs in the cities.

In recent weeks the quest for manhood has left more than 50 young Xhosa men suffering infections and severe blood loss. At least two have had to have their penises amputated. Every year a number of boys dies from their injuries.

The mutilations and deaths have prompted calls for the closure of many 'initiation schools' and next month the Eastern Cape is planning to introduce the first legislation to regulate the circumcision ceremonies. The move has been attacked by traditionalists who see circumcision as an inalienable African rite of passage.

The initiation is supposed to be a joyous affair for Xhosa families and a crowning achievement in every Xhosa boy's life. President Nelson Mandela, the son of a Xhosa chief and himself the proud graduate of an initiation school, said in his autobiography: "I count my days as a man from the date of my circumcision."

Inrecent years, however, circumcisions that were once carried out by skilled elders have been performed by unscrupulous tribal practitioners for profit. Some of the victims report being operated on by men wearing balaclavas to hide their identity.

According to one study, 34 initiates died in the Eastern Cape, the poorest part of South Africa, after the operation last year. Another 13 suffered irreparable organ mutilation and 743 needed treatment of some kind for their injuries. In August, 26 boys from the region had their penises reconstructed by plastic surgeons as part of a project funded by the South African Red Cross.

"Refusal to undergo the process can result in
forfeiting the right to inherit property.
Youths who balk at the initiation are often scorned
and prevented from marrying in their area."

Traditional circumcision has always been treated as a secret part of African culture and discussion of the methods used is taboo. The ceremony is a solemn ritual supposed to make men of boys and women of girls - female circumcision is also rife in South Africa.

Refusal to undergo the process can result in forfeiting the right to inherit property. Youths who balk at the initiation are often scorned and prevented from marrying in their area.

Trudie Thomas, the Eastern Cape health and welfare officer, said the local government was not pushing for the practice to be outlawed but for traditional surgeons to be licensed.

Traditionalists reject charges that many of the bush schools' patients are doomed to abnormal sex lives or no sex lives at all. They accuse those who call for regulation of seeking to wipe out black culture. The teenagers at Greys hospital might not agree.

A more realistic categorization of male sexuality

The males are not divided between 'males who like men' and 'males who like women.'

Neither is male sexuality divided between 'male sexuality for men' and 'male sexuality for women.'

If at all 'sexual orientation' needs to be configured, male sexuality is divided between:

-masculine male sexuality for men
-feminine male sexuality for men
-masculine male sexuality for women
-feminine male sexuality for women

masculine male sexuality for men and feminine male sexuality don't come into the same category. They are essentially different in nature. The masculine male meets another male as a man. The feminine male meets another male as a woman (in different degrees). When a masculine male is approached by another male, he is approached as a man. When a feminine male is approached by another male, he is approached as someone who is half-male/half-female. Only the feminine male sexuality for men calls for a separate category.

The western world knows that masculine male sexuality for women does not come into the same category as feminine male sexuality for women. So, while the former are part of the straight category, the latter are a part of the LGBT category.

The masculine male sexuality for men and the masculine male sexuality for women come into the same category of men. Instead of being divided over people, these two different forms of sexuality, in nature, form part of the same man, but during different stages. While youth is for sexual bonding between males, reproductive sex is indulged in by many mammalian males in the latter part of adulthood, often without forgoing male bonds. They are both phases a man goes through. Of course, many males do not go through the second phase, but they intensify the first one. That doesn't make these males a part of the feminine males who have the same outer sex of sexual partners.

Likewise, feminine male sexuality for women and feminine male sexuality for men forms part of the same category. In nature, only the feminine gendered male has any long term or emotional 'sexual orientation' for women. With humans, of course, there are other factors than biology that comes into play, in order to heterosexualise the non-feminine males. Feminine male sexuality for men that is exclusive is an exception rather than the rule.

It should also be noted that while masculine male sexuality for men is more oriented towards emotional and social bonding (apart from a deep sexual bonding) and so is much more monogamous and long lasting, even lifelong ... the feminine male sexuality for men (gay) is often promiscuous by nature, limited only to the physical part of it. The feminine male is more geared to form emotional and social bonds with women.

An interesting article about how manhood works

Here's an interesting article on manhood:
Growth into manhood -- by Alan Medinger

The author has captured the essence of manhood on the dot, as well as the process. However, he uses it to attack what he calls 'homosexuality,' but what apparently is the third gender attraction for males.

It is exactly by driving out sexual bonding and its desire from amongst manhood spaces and male peer spaces (which otherwise thrive on strong male sexual bonds), into a separate category of 'homosexual' which is nothing but the erstwhile category of 'third genders' (not men), that the western world stigmatizes sexuality between men, and pscyho-socially forces men to train themselves to be heterosexual.

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


Copyright 2000 by Alan Medinger
Excerpted by permission of the author


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

Chapter One Excerpt: The Journey
Homosexuality is at its core an identity problem. Such a man does not feel like a man, at least as he perceives the way other men feel about themselves. Dr. Bill Consiglio referred to this as "gender emptiness." He doesn't feel like a woman, and he may not yet have taken on a gay or homosexual identity, but he feels empty in some place where he senses he should feel solid….In terms of having gone through all the stages of growth that take most little boys from childhood to full manhood, he found the process too difficult or too painful, so he took his leave and skipped out of a part of it….

Now, 15 , 20 or 40 years later, if you want to resume your growth, you will have to venture back out into the world of men and boys. Essentially, you are going to have to develop your manhood in the same way that young boys do, through a process of learning, testing, failing, getting back up and testing again, and finally succeeding. We grow into the fullness of manhood by doing the things that men do.

Chapter Two Excerpt: Growth Into Manhood: Essential for Healing
(The homosexual man) will not recover until behavior, attractions and identity have all been dealt with and to some extent transformed. Although his natural inclination may be to focus on behavior and attractions -- because this is where he feels the most distress -- I believe that the richest fruit will be borne in his life if he focuses most strongly (and early on) in the area of identity.

This is true for two reasons: First, identity is more amenable to direct attack than behavior or attractions….(It) can be changed significantly through a program of conscious choices and specific actions…. Second, a man's incomplete male identity is what drives and directs homosexual behavior and attractions….

With respect to attractions, the essence of sexual attraction seems to be "differences" or "otherness"… What if a man does not have the inner sense that he is a man? Will he experience attraction to a woman? Will she be his "other"? No, and this is critical. If he feels that he is not complete as a man, his first longing will be not for women but for complete manhood; he will be drawn to the masculine in other males. This will be his "other." This will be his missing rib… It follows, then, that the development of our manhood - finding completion in ourselves -- will do great things both to decrease our same-sex attractions and to start drawing us sexually to women.

Chapter Three Excerpt: The Way a Man Develops
Growth encompasses the following steps:

1. Physiological…

2. Separating from the mother: This occurs…psychologically in the boy's taking on an identity separate from his mother.

3. Identifying with the father or "the man"…

4. Modeling after or imitating the father…

5. Testing his manhood: He wants to prove that he is like his father, so he tests himself to be affirmed that he is a man like his father, seeking affirmation first from his father and then from his peers.

6. Getting affirmed: He gets feedback from his father or peers that tells him he is indeed a man.

7. Accepting his manhood: Affirmation has been sufficient for him to accept internally that he is a man.

…Identification is a far less mysterious thing than bonding, and it is something that could occur at any time, even in adulthood. Hopefully, as you are reading this book, if you have never done so before, you will come to the point at which you will say, "Aha! I am not that different from other men. I am a man, and there is no reason why I can't grow into a full sense of my manhood."

…The primary affirmer in the early years usually is Dad…In early adolescence the search for affirmation is broadened. It focuses on peers. The process is competitive and has the potential to produce some losses and some pain. For this reason many boys will seek an environment where their successes will outnumber their failures. This process almost always takes place in a group environment, and the boy will start fulfilling that strange, almost universal male longing to belong to a group of men. The combination of achieving, being affirmed, and belonging can make this a wonderful experience for a young boy.

Chapter Five Excerpt: Is It Possible for Us Now?
If the steps outlined in chapter 3 are truly necessary for growth into manhood and you skipped some of them or went through them only partially, then at some point you still have to go through them if you are ever to experience full manhood. God heals our physical, emotional, and even our spiritual brokenness, but it is safe to say, God does not heal our immaturity. He wants us to grow out of it….In one way or another, you will have to go through all of the steps that lead to full, mature manhood - separating from the mother, identifying with the father or the "man," modeling, testing my manhood, getting affirmed, accepting my manhood.

…Like a boy, we must be affirmed by men; they are the ones we still see as having the authority to affirm manhood. And like it or not, like a boy, affirmation must come from what we do.

…Manhood is formed in the company of men, and so affirmation must be sought on their terms. This clearly presents a dilemma. You may not like watching football and you may have no ability to fix cars. But a broader understanding of masculinity will expand the areas in which you can recognize and receive affirmation from men. For example, if three men in your church have decided to rebuild the fence around the church playground and they decide to ask you to join them, the very asking will be affirming. Implicit in their asking is the statement that you are one of the men.

…The primary principle of the program is also the basis of this book: We grow into manhood by doing the things that men do.

Chapter Seven Excerpt: Understanding the Masculine
The problem in the homosexual man is not that he has too much of the feminine but too little of the masculine. Can there also be too much of the feminine? Could we have too great a capacity to nurture, to communicate, to understand, too great an ability to respond and help? No, any man who has a surplus of these things is blessed and is likely to be a blessing to others. Maybe in your homosexual struggles you have thought that you are too sensitive, too verbal, too intuitive. I don't think you can be. Look at yourself again. Do these qualities make your life difficult? Are they what hold you back from getting on with your life? I doubt it. Isn't it your inability to initiate, to exercise authority, to function as you are expected to do in the physical world of men that give you such distress?

…This is not the only problem at the root of male homosexuality, and I am not saying that it is present in every struggler, but it has been in most of the men whom I have encountered in this ministry over the last 20 years.

The good news -- the really great news -- is that it is not too late to develop the masculine part of you….

.....

Evidence that manhood equals heterosexual sex in the west, even today

By: Matthew Bruner



As a child of the '70's now with three young sons of my own, I have been asking this question……"when does a boy cross that line and become a man"? I find myself thinking often about my own sons and the men they will someday be. I think about my influence on them as a father, and then compare their lives to my own childhood. I look back through my history and think about the men who were coaches, mentors, and fathers in my life that helped push me across that line into manhood.

Boys need men in their lives. Women obviously play a role that is irreplaceable in a boy's adolescent experience. However, there is something that can only be imparted from another man….something that despite all of men's weaknesses and flaws can only come through a male figure. It is for that reason that I look at our culture and challenge the parameters of responsible adulthood and the definition we have given for maturity and manhood. I suggest that we have lost our definition of manhood and thus lost the pathway to manhood. Young men need older men in their lives to establish various 'rite of passage' opportunities that would mark the defining moments of coming into manhood.

In America we tend to look at age for the most part as the indicator for "maturity." At 13 the boy is now at least kind of a "little man", busting out of the kid years and into the teens, which in our culture means finding independence (i.e., giving your parents hell for the next 4+ years). Teens seem to view this span of 13-18 as a small stint in the teenage phase with 18 as the release into true adulthood. This is because our culture has a whole set of laws for 18 year olds and crossing this line marks some significant things.....voting, buying smokes (legally), and joining the military, to name a few. Then, there is that magic 21. Yes, this is the age when you are now not only mature enough to vote, smoke, and fight for your country but you can consume alcohol at a plethora of establishments one had to formerly sneak into. In most states 21 is that magical time when the young man should be able to drink responsibly. Oh, I almost forgot, another "man establishing" moment culturally…the loss of virginity (at an ever decreasing age I might add!).

After turning 21 there are no other big steps of maturation associated with age, with the exception of the 65 mark. This is the age when we as a culture have said, "You deserve to retire; you're old." (I am a little biased against this age defined marker as I am personally surrounded by "old" family members that do not believe in retirement.)

Age happens. We can't stop it and every year we are a year older--no matter how mature or immature we may be. We all know 14 year olds that are more mature than 16 year olds and 16 year olds that should not be behind the wheel of any type of vehicle. I realize I have taken a broad sweep of American culture in relation to age and that in fact there are very mature teenagers out there...somewhere. There are also very mature 21 year olds that have successfully crossed through these age defining moments.

What if we are looking at it all wrong? What if we broaden our definition of manhood and maturity to include concepts like bravery, responsibility, self control, meekness (power under control), discipline, empathy toward others, self sacrificing, etc? Then, what if we set up specific opportunities that would challenge and test boys and qualify them for manhood?

Author Robert Bly reminds us, "The ancient societies believed that a boy becomes a man only through ritual and effort--only through the 'active intervention' of the older men." He tells of such a ritual in Africa where the boy has to take a sort of pilgrimage before he can be called a man. He first has to go out and find a wild bee hive, collect the honey in it and bring it back to the elders. He endures the stings and pain of this event, but that is only the beginning. While mom takes the honey he gathered and makes a honey beer, he goes off for a couple of nights alone in the wilderness (a quest if you will). He returns then to the elders where he is circumcised. If he cries or screams, he has failed his test. If he endures, he celebrates as a man with the elders, has his honey drink, and later that day is introduced to his mother as though it is the first time he has ever met her.

I realize that this is a radical example, but it is black and white. After reading this short explanation, we know now what it takes to be a man in this ancient culture. It is definable and can be measured. It is a "pass / no pass" test!

Young men that have failed to cross that line into responsible adulthood desperately need men in their lives to call them into manhood and acknowledge their bravery, responsibility, sacrifice…whatever! I am thankful for the men, fathers, coaches, and mentors that have set up definable and achievable rites of passage for my life….to push me out of immaturity and into manhood!

(Robert Bly, "Iron John")

About the Author:
Matthew Bruner is the Director of Men of Valor Ranch in Northport, WA. Prior to founding Men of Valor Ranch, Matthew worked for Straight Arrow. For more information, contact him at 509-732-8936 or matthew@menofvalorranch.com, or visit his website, www.menofvalorranch.com

What makes the concept of 'homosexuality' valid in the West

This article analyses how the western religious, cultural and scientific obsession with reproduction, mistaking it as the primary purpose of life (an obsession that is truly pathological), has created the myth of 'homosexuality,' i.e., of 'male's desire for men' as a distinct human trait (considered an abnormality for all practical purposes!) that deserves a separate terminology, and category. And the lack of this attitude towards reproduction is one of the primary reasons why none of the non-western or indigenous societies have anything even close to the concept of homosexuality or homosexuals, even when the incidence of sexual intimacy between males is far larger in these societies.

'Homosexuality' is NOT just a term to denote 'sexuality between males.' It's an entire concept, with a whole set of baggages, which is unique to the west. This concept cannot exist without the 'unnatural' assumptions that pre-empt it and surround it, and that is rendered invalid under more natural circumstances, including in non-western and indigenous cultures. It's a term made possible by a particular set of social/ political developments in the west, triggered by immense social engineering, often through violence and bloodshed, by Christianity. Its this base of conditions and attitudes created by Christianity, over two milleniums -- and then pursued vigorously and built upon by science (which has developed them beyond recognition), by employing/ abusing highly scientific tools.

It is not that the non-Western societies have not been obsessed with reproduction. But, they only forced it upon men as an important social role of manhood, never gave it a 'scientific' or biological facade like they did in the West, where everything, especially concerning males, is expected to compulsorily revolve around reproduction, or it is held to be there by mistake. Christianity has created a mindset, inherited today by western science, where they artificially create non-existing notions about nature, start believing in them zealously, and then expect nature to fit into it. When it doesn't, as is bound to happen, then they browbeat nature to fit into their preconceived notions. No method is held unfair in order to achieve this -- and both, the Christians as well as the scientists feel they're actually doing god/ nature a favour when they employ these unfair means. They ignore nature, suppress nature, even destroy nature -- without as much as a tinge of guilt -- so that it fits their pre-conceived notions. Whatever of nature remains after this strong persecution, they isolate, marginalize, penalize and stigmatize. When the enemy is male's sexual need for men, then its especially a "no-holds barred" war for the western society -- and after all, as westerners believe, everything is fair in love and war. While religion made man's need for sexual intimacy with a man into a sin, and succeeded to remove it from the formal, dignified scene, science, with its highly sophisticated tools, has converted it into an 'anomaly' and quarrantined it into the 'gay' pocket, together with the third genders. With its advanced technology, science has been able to achieve in this war against men, what religion could never achieve.

No wonder, western science is obsessed with finding out the 'cause' of homosexuality. This obssession quite clearly reflects the western cultural attitude towards male sexuality mentioned above, that treats sexual desire between men as something that got there by mistake. And, what can be described as the typical western attitude, when science starts to research male sexuality on this, it starts with this assumption that such a desire is an anomaly (esp. if its exclusive) and occurs only in individuals in whom some part of biology goes awry. So, it takes for given that there is a separate biological category of individuals and so it uses, without any qualms, the third genders who constitute the homosexual category, as its samples to study male sexuality for men. With this kind of predetermined research, when they already know what they want to find, the results will be predetermined as well. You find what you seek.

People in non-Judeo/ Christian/Islamic societies just don't have this concept of god wanting to run our lives through diktats that go against our natural needs and desires. For those who are in-charge of these medival religions, human beings are just slaves to fulfill the whims and fancies of what they hold to be the 'god.' The non-Judeo/Christian/Islamic cultures also don't understand the immense zealousness of the Jews, Christians and Muslims -- as a people -- to go to any extreme, unfair violent including that which is most obviously inhuman (like terrorism) to force human nature to fit into how their 'god' (who is the one and only 'one') wants nature to be.

One of the wrong assumptions that the western concept of "Homosexuality" is based upon is that the "normal," natural or biological sexuality of males is towards women, and furthermore, exclusively so, (the reason given being, that only male-female sex leads to reproduction and reproduction is pre-determined by the western culture to be the primary and only purpose of sex -- indeed, of life itself) and for male sexual desire to be towards men is an anomaly, and occurs only when something doesn't go in the natural direction, where it should, especially, if there is a lack of desire to copulate with women.

Along with the sexual desires, then every other male desire for men that usually accompanies sexuality --including social, physical and emotional desires -- also become unnatural, abnormal or simply an anomaly (a more politically correct term for 'abnormality'), even when they're purely non-sexual.

A lack of such an attitude towards male sexual needs and desires is one of the primary reasons, why the concept of 'homosexuality' becomes invalid in the non-West, or in the pre-modern west and in indigenous societies. In all these cultures, even though, men are expected to reproduce as well as to perform sexually with women, they are not really expected to have a desire for women -- its the performance that is important, not desire. Having sex with women is rightfully seen, just as the most important gender-sexual role of men, not something that is necessarily their desire. In fact, in a way, men are only expected to have only reasonable amounts of this desire for women, and excessive desire, whether it is sexual, social or emotional, is seen as problematic. (In the west, the more the desire the more powerful the man is made in the race for manhood, the more his social status amongst his peers improves -- and this strengthens men's heterosexual identities).

At the sametime, unlike in the Christian west, in the non-West, a desire for sexual and social intimacy, even emotional intimacy with men is seen as a universal male trait, something that is an integral part of manhood. It is the desire to be penetrated which is heavily stigmatised for men in the non-west, especially, if it is exclusive (as only those with a female soul are beleived to have such exclusive desires). It is not that a sexual desire for men is not stigmatized per se, BUT, it is not seen as 'unnatural,' or an 'anomaly' like in the West. It is just seen as something that although all men have, men ought to fight against and not give in to, for upholding social mores. Therefore, it gives a lot of psychological space to men to desire other men, which the west denies to men, by making men feel that desiring men biologically makes them inferior. Thus, in the non-west, 'straight' males routinely have not only sex, but also long term secretive romantic liasions with other men, especially in their youth, till they're not married. It's only that, they don't talk about it or acknowledge it openly or in formal spheres.

What also gives them a strong social space to develop such romantic liasions with each other is the immense social freedom to be 'socially' and physically intimate with other men that they enjoy -- because the men's spaces are pretty strong. Strong and committed sexual liasions between males flourish unspoken, behind this socially allowed intimacy between men. It is no wonder that the anti-man forces in the west, that want to use 'scientific' tools to make men heterosexual by denying them any social or pscychological space to be sexual with men, target specifically, the social and physical intimacy between them as well.

Although, western scientific institution restricts itself largely to rendering 'abnormal' or 'below normal' the sexual part of male to male intimacy, this groundwork created by it (as its contribution to the conspiracy to break men from men) is stretched far beyond by other western social institutions and psycho-social mechanisms (which all contribute to this anti-man conspiracy), including the powerful media and male 'peer-pressure.' This marginalization (in the form of 'homosexualization) of sexual intimacy between men is then further, aggressively built upon to marginalize the social and physical intimacy between men (as 'gay' too). A strongly Christian cultural background has given the western society a kind of zeal to work against male to male intimacy that is unimaginable under normal circumstances.

Thus, the western society conspires to create psycho-social mechanisms where men are afraid to hold each other's hands, when this comes naturally to men who live under more natural circumstances. Men feel insecure in westernized spaces, unless if they're all by themselves, unless, they're accompanied by women. As long as they are without female company, they become much more guarded about their behaviour towards each other -- due to extreme fearful environment created by the western culture.