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. ~~~~

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.

Two of the greatest myths about male gender and sexuality spread by the western society

(with strong backing from its scientific institution)


In the matter of human gender and sexuality, the western scientific institution has ------ instead of destroying the lies created by Christianity to manipulate male gender and sexuality ------ chosen to toe its line, and perpetuate ------ even strengthen those lies by giving it a stamp of science ------ by hook or crook.

What had happened was that the institutions of science, like all the other small or big institutions of the western society was hijacked by the vested interests, quite early on ----- as soon as it started getting powerful.

Here we are going to look at two of the greatest lies spread by the western world about human, particularly male gender and sexuality.

Myths that the traditional, non-westernised world knows to be untrue:

MYTH 1:

GENDER IS NOT A BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON

Human civilizations have, since the ancient times known about and recognized at least two distinct genders of males ------ the predominantly masculine gendered male and the transgendered male.

Femininity (as well as masculinity) in humans have long been established as a naturally occurring phenomenon. In fact in ancient India, in the Vedas the very word used for gender is “nature” (prakriti). In many ancient tribes, even today, there is this practice of identifying the 'different' male ----- the feminine gendered male, who is then raised not as a boy but as a distinct feminine gender.

Furthermore this femininity was not believed to be related with sexuality as is portrayed by the western world today. The feminine gendered male could chose female or male partner.

The politics of gender and sexuality has ever since, for long tried to redefine this 'third sex' space in terms of sexuality, and it was redefined to include only males who desired exclusive receptive sex from men. Although, these males were predominantly transgendered, the definitions were so mixed up that their transgenderism was considered to be a part of their sexuality for receptive sex where they treated their anus or mouth as vagina, and this kind of sex would fulfill their desire to be a woman (as they were performing the socially ascribed female role of a receptor).
In this process, the 'third sex' that liked women ----- that initially constituted the overwhelming majority of the 'third sex' category were totally wiped out of the scene……. they apparently went underground.

Also, those who went underground were masculine gendered males who liked receptive anal/ oral sex and the feminine gendered males who did not like receptive anal/ oral sex.

In the west however, the gender and sexual politics being played with males took a different route. Christianity came down heavily on transgenderism which was punishable by death. Soon transgenderism went almost completely underground for centuries, till even the phenomenon was totally wiped out from the society. When science took over from Christianity, it too disacknowldeged gender as a distinct biological phenomenon from human sex. It held that men were biologically supposed to be exclusively masculine while females were meant to be exclusively feminine. Any variance to this rule was considered to be a socially orchestrated anomaly.

And while the Scientific institution on one hand refused to acknowledge feminine gender in males as biological, it went on to deliberately confuse feminine male gender with male sexual desire for men. Because, like in the medieval times, the only visible group of males that liked men was the transgendered or the overly effeminate male who predominantly sought receptive sex with men. It was convenient for Science to only look at the issue from a superficial level and assume that what appeared on the surface was the true nature of male gender and sexuality.

The traditional societies considered only those males who sought exclusive receptive anal/ oral sex with males to be feminine gendered ------ which was also borne out by facts. However the west started to portray any kind of sexual desire between men as 'feminine' and 'different'.

And while the traditional world continued to accept transgendered males as a naturally different gender, the western science still considers it a disease, an abnormality, a socially caused phenomenon to be treated.

And while the scientific institution considers gender to be non-existent biologically, the social activists working around the issue of male gender and sexuality (including feminists and gays) consider male femininity or masculinity to be a matter of choosing socially prescribed roles of males and females that has nothing to do with nature. As per this belief, Femininity or masculinity doesn't reside within a person but is determined by, e.g., whether he wears male or female clothes………….. and is therefore considered a matter of social choice. Interestingly, sexuality is not considered to be a choice or to be socially orchestrated but instead held to be biologically ingrained in a person. This view of social scientists is quite different from that of the physical sciences, but both deny the truth of gender being a biologically occurring human phenomenon quite distinct from the outer sex.
The fallacy upon which the entire western outlook on male gender and sexuality is based can be understood in this way. There are two concurrent but different definitions of ‘gender’ popular in the west. And both of them are way off from the real thing.

(i) The first definition is the traditional western definition, where gender is equated with ‘sex’. Thus the masculine gender is the same as the male, and the feminine gender is the same as the female as per this definition.

(ii) The second definition is used by the so-called progressive section of the western society ------ the intelligentia and the social scientists. As per this definition Gender denotes the artificial social roles fixed for each sex by the society (e.g. blue for boys and pink for girls). Thus as per this definition, you can become masculine just by wearing men’s clothes and smoking ciggerrettes. And you can become feminine just by wearing lipstick. Gender is seen as something that exists outside of us, as an artificial behaviour.

To understand the real, biological/ natural gender please click here.


MYTH 2

MALE SEXUAL NEED FOR MEN IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY OCCURING PHENOMENON

The west is a society where the mainstream society has been extremely heterosexualised, where most men's spaces have been destroyed by heterosexualising them, and there is extreme hostility against man-to-man bonds in these spaces ------ even against non-sexual intimacy between men. At the same time male-to-male bonds are only allowed under the label of 'homosexuality' in the third sex 'homosexual' sphere.

In the western heterosexual society, there is no difference between the sexual need of a transgendered male for another man and between that of a man for another man. Both are considered homosexual, since the western society does not recognize gender as a valid human phenomenon. The traditional world does not consider relationship between a transgendered male (Hijra) and a man to be 'homosexual' in nature, since they have different gender identities.

Interestingly the western world makes a difference between the transgendered male's attraction for women and that of a man's attraction for women. The former is not allowed the straight space/ identity and is clubbed together with the 'homosexuals' as 'queer' or LGBT.

The traditional society made a stark distinction between those who displayed an exclusive interest (which is closely related to their femininity ------ whether biologically or as an assertion of their social gender) in receptive anal/ oral sex on the one hand and those who were predominantly penetrators or those who did not indulge in anal/ oral sex at all. While indulging in receptive anal sex was not always considered unmanly (like during the Muslim period in India), but transgendered males were supposed to indulge primarily in receptive anal or oral sex and were considered a distinct gender.

The western world on the other hand does not make a difference between those with predominant interest in receptive anal/ oral sex, and those predominantly into the penetrator role or those not into anal or oral sex at all. It clubs all male to male sexuality into the previously third sex space which is rechristened 'homosexual' or 'gay'.

All of this is a part of the conspiracy of the forces of heterosexualisation to force men to be (exclusively) 'heterosexual'. Naturally, under such conditions only a few men ever acknowledge their sexual need for men and hide themselves behind fake heterosexual masks and a fake repulsion for male to male physical intimacy.

The western society, including its scientific institution then holds this misleading scenario as a 'proof' of the majority of men being exclusively heterosexual, and sexual need for men being a rare phenomenon, an anomaly that occurs only in a few individuals in whom it insists something somewhere has gone wrong.

On the contrary, most traditional societies were although not supportive of man to man sexual bonds most of the time -------- at least not formally, accepted the fact, at some level, even if it was at the peer (straight) male level ------- that man's sexual need for men was a universal male phenomenon and that all men are capable of being attracted sexually to other men. However, they expected men to have self-control and to fight these desires.

E.g. in India it is still largely believed that all men are capable of being sexually attracted towards other men ------ at least in the men's spaces. A certain amount of sexual play is even allowed between men. It is called "Masti". The situation and beliefs are diametrically opposite in heterosexualised, westernised urban, middle class India, where it is propagated that man to man sexuality is a thing for feminine gendered males called 'homosexuals'.

Even in the west in some pockets which have escaped wide-scale heterosexualisation, e.g. black or Latino working class spaces, where men's spaces are strong, straight (i.e. mainstream/ majority of) men still engage in sexual intimacy with other men without considering themselves as non-straights or 'homosexuals or 'bisexuals'. It is still believed to be something that all men are capable and willing of.

And the older generation of westerners and many Christians still realize that all men have this inner capability to be sexually attracted to other men. They should know because they have had to develop such intricate mechanisms to force men to suppress these sexual needs. These people still believe that if you accept same-sex bonds as valid and manly sexual need, then every man shall start indulging in them.

At least the traditional society, including the western traditional society and religions like Christianity has been much more honest in their approach towards man to man sexual intimacy. The western society has on the other hand distorted facts and abused the institution of science in order to reach its goal of suppressing same-sex bonds in the mainstream without appearing to be 'violent' or 'unfair' on the surface.