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.

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.

Men Holding Hands, and Other Macho Sightings in South India

Men holding hands, and other macho sightings in Southern India
The first time, you are shocked. Eventually, you get used to it. In between, you go through various stages of reaction—puzzlement, wonder, curiosity, disgust, grudging acceptance, repulsion, etc. The sight is a common enough one in these parts--- grown men and teenaged boys holding hands in public like lovers that cannot bear physical separation from each other. This, in the same society where even incidental contact between the opposite sexes is still taboo. But men cannot stop pawing each other. The way they carry on is enough to unleash the latent homophobe in most of us. Do they kiss when we are not watching?

Yet, I suppose I grew up in the same society, and even perhaps held hands with a male cousin or two when crossing a street. I suppose I never gave it a second thought until my overseas sojourn gave me a different perspective on such matters (although I know it shouldn’t, given that some of my adoring public believe that any new perspective gained during nor-residency renders me a traitor to my place of birth). Now, if I were to see a boyfriend grasp my son’s hand, I’m likely to rush out there and break it up before it got too intimate. On the other hand, I find the sight of boys holding girls’ hands, and vice versa, very wholesome, very non-threatening to a traditional way of life. On college campuses, you see these “macchans”, clearly the leaders of the pack, holding their dearest lieutenant in an arm-lock that would not be out of place on a Lovers’ Lane. On the streets, you see these “goondas” engaging in passionate arm-holding and palm-squeezing, even as they prepare to launch a major offensive against the neighborhood tea-shop that refuses to serve them free chai. You see auto rickshaw drivers walking hand-in-hand, comparing notes on 10 best ways to fleece customers. You see professional colleagues clasping hands with a fervor that borders on the obsessive. Once, I saw a guest speaker at a conventions held in a death-grip by the organizer for nearly thirty minutes; he escaped by severing his hand at the elbow. On the beach, it appears as if every male stroller is linked to another by the arm. Why is this male physical intimacy considered natural in a society where pre-marital male/female contact is still stigmatized? It is amazing what men can get away with in India without having their masculinity questioned. And yet, you accompany your wife to one Bharatanatyam recital, and it’s open season on your manhood.

Females, of course, are touchy-feely in all societies, Western or Eastern. I recall reading somewhere that all women are lesbians at heart. I believe that is true at least to some extent. Women are constantly obsessing over other women’s physical attributes. I asked a few female acquaintances of mine the following question: “If a naked man and a naked woman were to appear in front of you, whom would you look at first?” The unanimous answer was that they would examine the woman first, from head to toe, with a few lingering stops in-between. They may spare the man a glance or two, but almost as an after-thought. This may explain why a naked woman, in any form of art, is sexy, whereas a naked man is… comic. Women can spend hours comparing their looks with those of, say, supermodels. You cannot do that unless the interest spills over from the cosmetic to the prurient regime.

Friendship in India takes other strange forms, such as eating off one plate. Heart-warming display of closeness & togetherness, but has anyone considered the hygienic aspects? Friends drink from the same glass of juice, or same bottle of a soft-drink, sipping away with their straws. They take bites off the same fruit. They borrow each other’s hankies. They play kabaddi. They go to movies. For all I know, they probably hold hands there also. I’m not saying that males should not engage in any activities where females are excluded. My point is, why is male bonding appropriate, whereas male/female bonding is not? Because the latter would lead to premarital sex? If that’s the sole reason, why do people gawk at a wife and husband smooching or holding hands? In India, we actively suppress all outward signs of hetero-sexuality, thereby limiting displays of camaraderie to same-sex encounters only. I guess this is less evil than the Western suppression of homo-sexual acts in public, but not by much. Many newly-weds experience needless anxiety and angst because they are not used to being friendly with the opposite sex. They seek out their own sex for friendship and company, to the extent that the holy institution of marriage is reduced to a seal of approval on sex and reproduction. No wonder that in India, after work and on weekends, the hubby goes to play with his male buddies , and the wifey goes shopping with her female cronies. And the children are left to torment Grandma and Grandpa….

Confessions of an American - My Life in a New Delhi Gym

Cultural confusions of a desi gym having non-desi aspirations.

“What’s different about living in Delhi compared to America?” friends back home keep on asking me. It’s one of those questions that leave one unsure where to begin, and even after a year of living here, I’m still not certain how best to respond. The main reason is that a list of differences can quickly devolve into a catalog of gripes and frustrations, as the mention of the USA reminds me of the ways in which, by comparison, Delhi is still very much the capital of a developing country. Yet I find myself increasingly reluctant to reduce my India experience to a list of complaints, because my initial culture shock has given way to a more relaxed curiosity about what is different here. As much as possible, I try to feel amusement rather than annoyance when things don’t go quite as I might wish or expect.

Saying that India is irreducible to a series of neat observations is as obvious to those of us who live here as it is unsatisfying to my American questioners, but another way in might be to give them one snapshot, describing an activity here that they are familiar with at home. And what could be easier for many of my friends to grasp than that favorite Californian urban-suburban pursuit - going to the gym?

Yes, there are gyms in Delhi, I tell them, even though the work-out culture here isn’t as widespread as it is on the coasts of the U.S. I’ve no doubt that Delhi gyms, like their LA counterparts, range from the grungy to the glitzy. LA’s gym culture is well enough developed that there is a healthy competition for members, and while you can pay a lot there to join a more exclusive joint, a membership at a mid-range gym needn’t cost more than the equivalent of about Rs. 20,000 a year. Or you can join a gym in Delhi that is one-eighth the size of my old LA club, and often much more crowded – and for nearly two and a half times the price. I could probably have found somewhere cheaper than my current gym, but I chose it simply because it’s close to where I live. Ease of access is half the battle for those whose motivation is as underdeveloped as their stamina. But more interesting than the painful price differential are the cultural differences that I noticed – some immediately, some gradually – when I started my thrice-weekly regimen.

First, it has to be said that the clientele at my gym does not represent a cross-section of Delhi society. Gym-goers in Los Angeles by definition must have some disposable income, but the steep membership fees at my Delhi club mean that it caters basically to well-off locals, with a smattering of ex-pats like myself. So the people I chat with briefly on the floor or in the locker room are kids whose parents have money, or young professionals, and very occasionally someone (like me) almost old enough to be one of their parents. Everyone seems to be studying finance, aiming for an MBA, or working in the family business. The crowd is not just young but often conspicuously well dressed, whether in their work-out clothes or in the street clothes they change into afterwards. No old shorts, ratty t-shirts and beat up tennis shoes here. This is also the only gym where I’ve ever seen someone working out in cargo pants and a designer tee-shirt and shoes: even the most stylish work-out clothes seem too infra dig for some people.

The class difference extends to locker room etiquette, in a way that was initially rather disconcerting. Many a gym member hands his clothes wordlessly to the locker room attendant, who hangs them up or folds and puts them away in their bag; or the member just casts his clothes onto the bench with the assumption that they will be dealt with. Pleases and thank-yous are clearly not required. Some people do chat cordially with the attendant, but it’s the frequent master-servant attitude that is striking, all the more so because it seems to be accepted by both parties as a given. On my way out of the locker room I usually say “Thank you” to the attendant, regardless of whether or not he’s helped me directly that day. In return, I get a smile that’s hard to interpret: is it friendliness, appreciation – or just a certain amusement that I should cluelessly waste my time and his on a superfluous pleasantry?

Of course, the gym should ultimately not be about what you wear or how you behave, but about what you do, and there’s no disputing that everyone seems pretty intent on having a proper work-out. They’re not there just to show off, and from my position at the upper end of the client age scale, I can’t criticize their energy levels. Perhaps they are inspired by the music, which is usually so loud as to make idle conversation impossible. Or maybe it’s the lyrics being pounded into their brains that energize them: the compilations chosen by my gym include a considerable number of rap and other songs with graphic and vulgar descriptions of sex. I haven’t yet figured out whether multiply-repeated lines like “You already know I wanna fuck you” have the advantageous aerobic effect of making the heart beat faster, or whether to those gym members who are also dance club denizens they’re simply too familiar to be noticed.

The impression I have is that elements like those songs are part of a blasé-seeming attitude towards sex cultivated by the gym to appeal to the majority of its clients: we’re hip, westernized and contemporary, it tries to say. Unfortunately, the façade begins to crack when exposed to a native western pair of eyes. Look at the buff trainers, their biceps and pecs nicely outlined by their tight t-shirts. In their masculinity they’re identical to their American counterparts – until you notice that they can’t seem to keep their hands off each other. The easy physical contact which many Indian males have with their friends reaches its apogee at the gym, whose raison d’être is after all the body beautiful. As they pass each other, the trainers touch each other’s hands or chests, or they walk through the workout area together with their arms slung round each other’s shoulders. By contrast, in the men’s locker room there reigns an almost universal painful modesty about nudity, which leads to much contorted divesting and vesting of underwear from beneath towels wrapped tightly around the waist.

All of these goings-on are gazed upon by ultra-defined muscular males in photos that grace the walls of the establishment, including in the locker room a large poster of a male nude, who is presumably meant to rouse us to greater heights of disciplined exercise. All perfectly normal, one might think, and impeccably heterosexual – except that the pictures are predominantly by Herb Ritts, one of the most prominent gay American photographers. Ritts is known for works that slyly subvert heterosexual conventions by depicting hyper-masculine men in a way that is particularly appealing to gay viewers. In other words, his photos are homoerotic, and several of the ones at my gym are prime examples. It’s probably the case that a lot of Americans don’t quite cotton on to this – Ritts shoots models for the Abercrombie and Fitch clothing catalogs, after all – but I’m pretty sure that an American gym would steer nervously clear of displaying his photographs on their walls.

It seems to me that my gym has adapted some of the trappings of American gym culture without completely understanding the subtle, often blurred lines that define heterosexual and homosexual male identities in the west. Transposed to India, these western traits and affectations mix haphazardly with the very different ways in which Indian men relate to one another in terms of physical appearance and contact. The result is that notwithstanding the pounding macho music, the muscular trainers and the atmosphere of serious intent to exercise, through my western eyes my gym seems very gay!

Male sexual anxiety in the USA still often revolves around wanting to have a good-looking body while simultaneously not being mistaken for being gay. In Delhi, it seems to me that appearing gay is literally inconceivable to most men, who focus on a good physique because it is a component of the social, professional and romantic success that, to judge by their behavior, they feel they’re entitled to. “You already know I wanna fuck you,” they may be singing along in their heads – but only to the woman of their dreams. To my western eyes, however, it doesn’t always look that way. It’s just one small example of how life in Delhi is often confusing – but equally amusing.

Seeing Males Together: Brokeback Mountain and Picturing Men

The Chicago Blog
Publicity news from the University of Chicago Press including news tips, press releases, reviews, and intelligent commentary.


History's fundamental lesson warns those who are comfortable with contemporary social arrangements, as it reassures those who are oppressed by current practices: It hasn't always been like this, and isn't likely to stay this way forever. This lesson is certainly true when it comes to the way that American men today are inclined and allowed to express their affection for each other—whether that affection involves romance, sexual longing, or just profound fondness.
from the book cover

Ang Lee's magnificent film Brokeback Mountain is the sad story of two Wyoming ranch hands whose society severely inhibits their twenty-year-long affectionate and sexual relationship. They express their mutual attraction only when utterly alone in the wilderness, at huge expense to their emotional lives and also their relationships with women. Yet Brokeback Mountain may also be instructively seen as a movie that raises disturbing issues about the ways that all American men feel about the appropriate ways to express their fondness for each other, whether or not that fondness is accompanied by sexual desire. Our culture still so scorns sexual desire between two men that there is a common fear that such desire just might accompany any fondness, as well as a fear that other people might jump to conclusions about the implications of two men's attraction to each other.

Homophobia afflicts all males in our society, both those who genuinely are sexually attracted to each other, like Ennis del Mar and Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain, as well as those whose love or simple affection for each other has no sexual dimension to it. For one man to tell another he loves him, some joking around often trivializes the expression, with all the depth of a commercial for Bud Light; if two men embrace, a reassuring punch is often part of the action. Simply because they are men, gay men—in spite of being sexually drawn to each other—may often be no less free of inhibition in expressing affection than are their straight brothers.

As a historian who has studied the shifting history of American men's various sorts of relationships with each other, I think it is critical to note that Brokeback Mountain's Ennis and Jack were nineteen in 1963, the year they met. (So was I coincidentally.) They were shaped by the culture of 1950s America, a culture that was unusually hostile to male intimacy, as I argue in Picturing Men.

When most American boys learned to fear and despise any suggestion of queerness in themselves, Ennis received a peculiarly graphic lesson: His father made it a point to show his nine-year-old son the sexually mutilated corpse of a rancher whose relationship with the man with whom he shared a home had bothered his neighbors. Jack's dream for himself and Ennis—simply to live together in peace—was a modest one, in contrast to the reasonable dreams of men today who want to marry each other. Yet, living when they did, Ennis could only warn Jack that if their feelings for each other were ever to "grab on to us again in the wrong place, wrong time, we'll be dead." Their intimacy had to remain in the shadows, making Brokeback Mountain a tragic tale of unrealized potential.

Picturing Men shows a different world. The lost world of American men that I depict in my work was a time when men clearly were comfortable with each other, feeling free to physically express mutual affection for all to witness—not hidden away on a Brokeback Mountain, but in front of a camera, wholly without the coldness or the reassuringly exaggerated gestures that would come to mark photographs from a later time. Picturing Men does not argue that the lost world was in every way better than the world of men today, but does surely maintain that the earlier world was different, and that our understanding it, and the reasons for its demise, might improve men's relationships nowadays, with each other and with the women in their lives.

Picturing Men is based on my systematic scrutiny of thousands of everyday photographs of two or more American men together, from the dawn of photography before the Civil War until the early 1950s—both studio portraits as well as the snapshots that became common after the invention of roll film in 1888. The book displays well over a hundred representative images, showing men indoors and out, in homes, dorm rooms, and bunk houses, at the beach and in the work place, soldiers, sailors, and civilians, camping, hunting, and posing for athletic team portraits. The ways men posed with each other changed markedly over the time my book surveys, and my interpretation of those changes leads me to an interpretation of drastic changes in the quality of men's various relationships with each other over a century of American history.

ibson_fig_xiiAs cultural evidence, photographs document certain things, yet are wholly silent about others. In looking at this photograph taken around 1915, we see two men doing something we rarely observe nowadays. I refer not simply to their pose, but to the fact that they had their portrait taken together in a photographer's studio, a ritual once widespread among American men but extremely rare today. Many observers may confidently think they see evidence of romance and a likely sexual relationship in this photograph, but that judgment reveals something only about the observer, not the subjects. Without an inscription, we can actually discern nothing from this image regarding a matter that has come to obsess us about relationships: whether the parties are having sex with each other.

What we do observe in this photograph—and in countless others—is male intimacy, two men who were clearly so comfortable with each other that they felt no need to clown around, to reassure themselves and anyone who would see their photograph that nothing culturally scorned was being displayed. Another of history's critical lessons is that change always brings both gain and loss. Picturing Men maintains that certain losses that American men have experienced in their relationships with each other have been severe. It is not simply fictional ranch hands, and not just men sexually drawn to each other, whose lives today are full of unrealized potential.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow thanks for writing this book. This is an issue that so needs to be talked about. I've noticed this also how men are so afraid of each other. It's cultural so we see every one else acting in the same way and we think it's a normal thing but it's actualy not a normal thing. It's extremely abnormal and disfunctional.

Posted by: God loves you [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 29, 2007 05:11 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Ibson,

It's a wonderful book no doubt, but at the same time a reminder of the unfortunate state in which men are today, that this book has been featured and reviewed under the gay and lesbian section -- the very concept that has been the greatest tool in wiping off all kinds of open, proud affection for each other from the Western men.

It is primarily because of the concept of sexual orientation, which portrays man's sexual desire for men as straight mainstream, while clubs masculine male desire for men together with those of the feminine/ transgendered/ queer / third sex through ill-conceived and oppressive definitions. It can be easily shown through a study of men and manhood through the history, that men will avoid like hell what is socially ascribed to the third sex. In the beginning before the concept of 'sexual orientation' came, only receptive anal sex was seen as 'unmanly' thing of the third sex. A masculine male's affection for another man was seen as perfectly normal, and sexual affection was seen as a macho vice. After this concept (of 'homosexuality' )was fully established now showing bodily or sexual affection towards men implied that you're not on e of the 'real' (read straight) men but one of them -- the queers/ third gender/mollies/ effeminate/ gays. And this is why men have disowned their sexual need for men. And they'll never accept it again, till the concept of gay/homosexuality/sexual orientation that seeks to isolate them from the men's community into what is clearly the third sex community (even if its not officially defined so) is done away with.

Unfortunately, now this concept is being thrust upon societies like India, where men's spaces and men's affinity is very strong. Soon it will be history when the gay movement is given power and place in the society, with its misleading classification of the society. Unless, we decide to expose what is wrong with sexual orientation.

regards,

Please see:

http://sexual-orientation-is-oppressive.blogspot.com/

http://heterosexualisationofsociety.blogspot.com/