Changing the male AFC dynamic

[DJDamage]

I live in Canada and the media here is completly pussified. Just opened todays' newspaper and this is what jumped out from the front pages of a section called "LIFE"

The name of the article is "MAN CRASHES" and it was written on heterosexual males

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...991929131147&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Man crushers

Men all over are declaring their loving admiration for other men, writes David Graham.

It's not a gay thing — not that there's anything wrong with that
Nov. 14, 2005. 03:04 AM
DAVID GRAHAM
LIFE WRITER


It's a love that dare not speak its name ... until now.

Finally, five years into the new millennium, there are words to describe the range of fond emotions one straight man can feel for another.

Into a world of man dates and metrosexuals, enter the man crush.

Not to be confused with a pulverizing WWE strangle hold or a gay orgy, the man crush is a term of endearment shared between two straight men.

Certainly, women have been open about their straight girl-on-girl crushes for years, those pangs of tenderness (requited or not) they feel for other women they admire deeply or just want to hang out with ... a lot.

The girl crush, as described last summer in The New York Times, refers to, "that fervent infatuation that one heterosexual woman develops for another woman who may seem impossibly sophisticated, gifted, beautiful or accomplished." As writer Stephanie Rosenbloom explained, "What's new is the current generation's willingness to express their ardour frankly."

One of history's most famous man crushes, that of Jerry Lewis on Dean Martin, is documented in Lewis's Dean & Me: A Love Story, the memoirs of the duo's blissful years together and their tumultuous separation. Lewis gushes about Martin's movie-star good looks, "Long, rugged face; great profile; thick, dark brows and eyelashes. And a suntan to match."

As well, Where the Truth Lies, an Atom Egoyan film starring Kevin Bacon and Colin Firth, is closely based on the relationship between Martin and Lewis.

It may not be news that straight men are capable of developing infatuations for one of their own. What's new is that they're expressing it, publicly and even on the Internet, unfazed by any homosexual implications.

There's even a movie due to be released called Man Crush, written and directed by Rob McKittrick.

He pitched the "new-take-on-the-buddy-movie-genre" as a romantic comedy between two straight guys. "It's sort of satirizing male/female relationships but having it play between two guys. But it's never about them being attracted to each other. It's about how guys can be sort of needy and weird just like men and women."

Says Pridesource.com, "Man Crush is sure to be rife with played-for-laughs, almost-gay moments that won't freak out its probable teen demographic too much."

Michael Musto of The Village Voice told MSNBC this summer, "Straight men now feel it's okay to wax their legs. They can also let their feelings show. As you know, Sex and the City is gone and the shows now are Deadwood and Entourage which are shows about groups of men fighting from time to time but really loving each other.".

Stephen Whitehead, a sociologist at Keele University in England, agrees.

While the man crush has found a place in our modern, urban lexicon it also has been appreciated as an important social phenomenon.

"Disavowed of any homoerotic overtones, the idea of a man articulating his emotions for another man is where we stand in the post-feminist era," says Whitehead. "It challenges the traditional notion of masculinity. The rugged, stoic, heroic definition of masculinity is losing ground." .

The contemporary notion of heterosexual male interaction allows for intimacy, but is rarely eroticized.

Whitehead is encouraged that men are now able to explore various levels of their friendships with impunity.

Need proof?

Google the phrase, "I have a man crush on," and you'll get more than 2,200 hits, mostly blogs in which men publicly declare their affection for high-profile entertainers and sports personalities, often phrased in terms of the "man crush."

Remarkably, the expression has been embraced enthusiastically by sports fans. Read any sports blog and the level of admiration among these unassailably het guys is often effusive, gushing, dare we say, loving.

Dallas/Fort Worth sports radio station, The Ticket (1310 AM/104.1 FM), includes the man crush in its catalogue of oddball sports terminology. Their definition: "One male being in awe of another for any reason." Jeff Catlin, the station's program director, says the terminology refers to a situation in which professional athletes "have no idea someone has a crush on them." Like childhood crushes, these feelings are meant to be kept on the down low. There's an inherent embarrassment factor, explains Catlin. "That's what makes it funny."

Wrote Janice Armstrong in The Philadelphia Daily News last month: "This sounds like the kind of adulation some guys have for sports figures such as Donovan McNabb and Terrell Owens ... A man crush often is admiration from afar."

While bloggers reveal themselves from a distance, other men are more up front and personal.

Twenty-six-year-old Toronto law student Keir Wilmut says the man crush is an obvious follow-up to the man date, in which two straight men are permitted to enjoy each other's company outside the confines of a sports arena — for instance, having coffee, going to dinner or a movie. Wilmut cautions other men that you'll recognize it when it happens. "You're a little too excited to see him. There's a level of emotional giddiness." He adds, "There's always a feeling of great admiration and infatuation."

Then Wilmut comes clean.

"I've had a man crush."

In fact, it was on his roommate of more than three years. "For the first year-and-a-half we did everything together. We went on lots of man dates." What's more, he believes the crush was mutual, and when his roommate moved out to be with his girlfriend he jokes that, "We treated it like a divorce."

Photographer/waiter Alex Gray, 22, is convinced he has been the object of a man crush. "I have felt the vibe," he says, admitting the unsolicited attention left him cold.

And at the risk of sounding arrogant, he believes it's happened more than once. "I'm very confident socially and perhaps a lot of people find that attractive, both men and women. You can tell by the way people are treating you that they are developing a crush."

Here's the kicker: while it's obvious that Wilmut took the relationship seriously, calling it a man crush is meant to sound funny.

What's germane to the understanding of the man crush is that while it can be studied as an important evolutionary stage in the men's movement, it's also a joke.

It may even be an extension of the popular "I'd turn gay for" quip, in which straight people list which same-sex celebrity they admire so much they'd consider switching their sexual orientation.

Urban Dictionary, an online slang website, defines "man crush" in a variety of ways, mostly through feedback from readers. The site asks them to provide a brief definition, then use it in a sentence.

One man wrote: "Man crush is a very strong feeling that one straight man has for another, bordering on romantic but not the sexual. It's love alright but not the love that makes you want to get into his pants."

Used in a sentence: "Man crush is like the relationship between Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson in Wedding Crashers."

In fact, years ago two Seinfeld episodes were devoted to the "non-sexual crush." In a 1994 episode George Costanza developed a crush on Elaine's "mimbo" boyfriend Tony, played by actor Dan Cortese. Costanza fell hard for the cool, athletic male bimbo.

In yet another instalment, Jerry comes under the spell of baseball player Keith Hernandez. Jerry's feelings are hurt when Hernandez blows him off for a date with Elaine.

According to the Seinfeld list of expressions, the "non-sexual crush" occurs "when a non-cool person has a platonic infatuation for a cool person (usually a stud) of the same sex."

Toronto's David Eddie says sports personalities do nothing for him, though he admits tennis great Jimmy Connors was "intoxicating."

Happily married with three children, the 44-year-old writer and author says when it comes to man crushes, he prefers the artsy types, recalling fondly "the interesting, eccentric cool guy" in his philosophy class. "If I ever had a man crush it would be on someone like that, someone with the deep inner cool of Robert de Niro or writers like Edward Limonov or Martin Amis. Brad Pitt doesn't do it for me."

Eddie, who believes men develop man crushes on guys "who embody the qualities they want to have," admits he isn't completely charmed by the expression. He prefers the Seinfeld "non-sexual crush."

Eddie calls me the day after our interview to tell me he just watched the movie Deuce Bigalo: Male Gigolo, which details the comic mishaps of a male prostitute. As the male madam gushes to Bigalo, "You the best he-***** in my man-stable. If I had more man-ginas like you I'd be a millionaire."

"Man-ginas," grimaces Eddie. "That's taking this to its final destination."

 

[DJDamage]

I believe that it is feminism/homosexual agenda at work here. There was never a need to label a heterosexual man or woman for that matter because we were all the same. However there was a need to label Feminist, Lesbian and a Homo because their views and sexual practices were different then the rest.

Now the game has been reversed. Feminism backed by homosexuals are labeling the stright male. Words like "metrosexual" "ubersexual" and "man crushes" to name a few are design to chip away slowly the heterosexual masculine male so he would turn into something else.

That something else is an androgynous male who biologically is born male but thinks, talks and acts like a woman. This way the Feminist who adopt masculine trait can shape society to its own vision because the un-masculine male is too helpless to do something about it. Every day I see more and more guys wearing pink golf shirts, walking around with sandles, talking on the cellphone, going shopping!!! WTF is this????? Men better start waking up before we all wake up in prison with a sperm cup in one hand.

I say refuse and ignore the media from labeling the heterosexual male. Women are the agents of the media and they will come to you and ask you " are you and ubersexual? do you have male crashes?? " Don't fall for their tactics stand you ground and say " I am not down with this label sh1t I am a fvcking man!"

Originally posted by Maverick001
My take on this whole feminization of society situation is that it`s just the pendulum swinging that way and it will swing back. It`s just a matter of time.

Originally posted by Lost In Translation
i don't think it will swing back

I think Maverick001 and LIT are both right. With the way society is currently going there is no way that the pendulum will swing back. It will however swing back when that society will end up either crumbling from screwed up social system or being completley destroyed by nuclear bomb or some sort of big natural disaster. Ever seen the Movies MAD MAX 1&2???? Men will have no choice of being masculine again because it will be required for their survival.

Now I know that my theory is way out there but you cannot be awake and not know that there is something funny going on here. Now if you excuse me I better place tin foil on my head because the satellite in space is reading my thoughts and "THEY" will be knocking down my door any minute!!

DjDamage

 

[Lost In Translation]

great post DJDamage

have you got bit torrent ?

got a file you might like


Lost In Translation

**AUSTRALIAN STREET PIMP**

 

[WestCoaster]

Man crushes?

That's insane and the first time I've heard about it. Look, you're either gay or not. You don't have man crushes.

It's like that stupid term "metrosexual" they tried to jam down our throats a couple years ago. It's nuts.

Women experiment like crazy with their sexuality -- I just had a dyke from college e-mail me telling me her MAN is in town and she's soooo much in love with him. WTF? When I knew her in college all she did was women ... and she did a lot of them. (For the record, I'm not for women experimenting with their sexuality then deciding one day they're straight.)

But guys?! I mean, c'mon, you're either freaking straight or gay. I've never met a bi-guy ... I can't believe articles like this, it's whacko!

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

"Disavowed of any homoerotic overtones, the idea of a man articulating his emotions for another man is where we stand in the post-feminist era," says Whitehead. "It challenges the traditional notion of masculinity. The rugged, stoic, heroic definition of masculinity is losing ground."

This is the only part of the article that needed to be quoted. This pretty much sums up the entirety of the problem - masculinity is being redefined by people who have no concept of what it's real definition is. The behaviors and characteristics that constitute what is uniquely masculine aren't being challenged, they're being redefined to fit the purposes of an agenda. In 1905 no one wrote articles on how to "be a man" or bothered to analyze the fundamentals of masculinity, men knew from their socialization what was masculine and women responded to it.

Traditionally, women define what is masculine and men define what is feminine. The charateristics that made a man desirable were ones that presented the opposite to what men similarly found desirable in femininity. Men and their biology defines what in the feminine that arouses them, women react to this and behave accordingly (knowingly or not).

The root of the AFC endemic lies in the fact that as recently as 40 years ago there has been a concerted effort to demasculinize society, not only in mass media, but down to how we educate and condition our youth to assume masculine and feminine roles. What Whitehead states here is true; but what is being challenged is the predisposition of males in western cultre to even consider what masculinity is. A rugged, stoic, heroic definition of masculinity is losing ground, but is that a good thing? When men become feminized, are we leveling any playing fields or are we progessing towards androgeny and homogenization of gender? Why should masculine traits be of lower value than feminine?

The very characteristics that define traditional masculinity - independence, self-confidence, rugged individualism, physical strength, problem solving and innovation - we are now to believe are (or should be) the aspirations of women to the point that ridicule of the singularly feminine female is the order. That's not to say, given this new gender dynamic, that women are discouraged from claiming their femininity in addition to her masculinity. On the contrary they're encouraged to "handle their business as well as any man" AND "still be a sexy, vivacious woman" every man should want.

Yet in opposition to this post-modern gender dynamic, men are not encouraged to 'man-up.' We are told to shape up for sure and that our mascuilinity (as we define it) is a flaw; we're poisoned by our testosterone. Our higher aspiration ought to be becoming more feminized, sensitive, emotional, nurturing. We should "feel comfortable waxing our legs" stripping away the hair that is the result of our poisoning testosterone. Interestingly enough there are few cries in society to have women cultivate their leg or armpit hair.

Yet the 'masculine' that men should strive for doesn't encourage anything resembling traditionally masculine traits in a male's personality. In fact it's ridiculed to such a degree in mass media and largeer society that it's literally akin to a disease. While women are congratulated for embodying masculine traits with an acceptance of her feminine character, men are conditioned to believe that feminine traits ARE masculine traits and any traditionally masculine characteristics that manifest themselves in us are the unfortuante byproducts of our 'flawed' biologies.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

The agenda is control, because generally speaking, testosterone is the hormone most well-known for its autonomy, independece, self-reliance, and innovated skills.

What bugs me most, is MOST women's short-sightedness in seeing that, without men, they'd not be here. Articles posit that women will eventually rule the world and men will only be needed as sperm donors. The article was actually begun by a man! [Tyler Durden of the REAL fight club should like to have his balls].

I mean this whole-heartedly, the progression of society as a whole, was on the shoulders of BOTH sexes. Now that we have the "machine" up and running, the agenda for it can be re-engineered as people see fit to do, through social tools, such as the media, schooling, taxes, law, and propaganda.

FEW, if ANY people take thoughts into their own control. Most girls get their basis of values, identity, and on-going sense of principles from their family. If you look behind what motivates her, look at her family, or lack there of to determine her motivations and basis of support.

This, ladies and gentleman is a system. A REAL system, from birth to now and beyond, that seeks to separate the wheat from the chaif, the men from the boys, the boy from his testosterone.

Kids are taught an inordinately young age to obey authority, to stand-in line, to wait your turn, to be ranked. A few discentors run amuck, but so long as the system is successful in the majority, it's ok to have a FEW anomalies.

[Read: The Unground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto. ]

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

Were society NOT in the grips of some social reversing agenda, PUA websites EBOOKS, and dating services WOULD not be necessary. Think about it...conversing over whether a woman liked you or not, what her moves meant, how she was confusing you, that she's torn between 2 men, that shes like the "jerk"(sounds like the opposite of liking a good girl vs the hoe), that you can't find any GOOD ones, and so on IS the talk of women.

They ENJOY that, even if it appears like a problem. It gives them a bonding platform with other women to share emotion.

For men, it presents a problem, not in lack of resources, but that the problem should be about the opposite sex!

THIS IS NOT HOW IT IS.

It isn't about learning how to get women, it's about learning to realize their lack of importance. REALLY. I'm not saying a good woman isn't a great thing, but they are in plentiful supply. Moreover, far too many youngin's, perhaps myself included, get bogged down by the chase of a woman, like they'll be gobbled up by the marriage-monster in a game of marriage musical chairs.

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

People more than ever seek VALIDATION outside of themselves. As a result, their principles, values, morals, beliefs, goals, and reality on life CAN BE SHAPED by the media, magazines, newspapers, tv, advertisements, and other people. Even the internet.

Every person is plugged in, and few are stronger than you, as a result, if you're not sitting right in front of it, some single mother is walking up to you with her problems telling you how miserable life is, or how miserable men are. You hear the depression so you seek outlets, confirmation, maybe you buy things to offset it. Whatever. Regardless, the validation is thrust upon you.

THAT is the problem with the AFC dynamic. YOU ARE NOT VALIDATING YOURSELF AND YOUR OWN EXISTENCE. Confirmation is being sought in "communities", by appealing to social whims, or groups, by appealing to women, or some approved social status. And we try NOT to appear that way by saying "i have a I-don't-give-a-fawk-attitude."

Having read "Iron John" and "wild at heart," you learn that MANHOOD is bestowed upon boys by the father, or some fatherly figure, and that many men don't get it from their fathers. It's not the passing of a sword, but just the tacit approval of your ABILITY. It's like one guy saying to another "nice job."

It's like being MADE by the MALE MAFIA. You get that pat on the back by your grandfather or father, or uncle, or male figure. You see who you're born to become and he acknowledges that you're on your way. ONLY SOMEONE OF THAT CLUB CAN DO IT.

WOMEN CANNOT DO IT. They're approval only means you're good in the feminine eyes. You're capable of being acceptable to them. But you don't want that. This is the poison of the new world! They lead you to believe that it's automatic...that care, love, support, are all one needs. THEY'RE mere pieces.

Anybody who has ever had a younger brother or younger cousin (male), knows how they long to tag along, to "be one of the gang." This makes him feel like a "big boy." And that's what we all want. More power. More responsibility. To be a leader. To be in charge. TO be respected. To be looked up to. It's the constant battle men fight (at least early on) each day.

I'm not speaking just philosophically or idealistically, but In REALITY. Women cannot confirm manhood, and that is what's being lost on boys and young men, thrust into single homes, or boys who foresake their youth to be with women early on. They never grow from boy to man. Perhaps their responsibilities do, but they don't personally.

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

A case...I have 2 males cousins, 1 16, the other 13. The 16 year old did sports, but has ceased doing them. He never did sports his father approved of totally, but he did them anyways. When he played, he didn't show aggression that his father encompassed.

On the other hand, the 13 year old had a spirit much like his dad. He played cool sports like lacrosse and football and wrestling. He doesn't mind getting hurt, in fact he likes. His dad coached all his teams.

One would suspect the 16 year old to be more mature, more boyish, but he's not. Perhaps it's because the 13 is more like his father, that he's more into GUY things, or because he had his father's approval early-on. But they're very different at the CORE of who they are. One aggressive, one passive. Parenting toward them was somewhat different, since the older one tended to be an introvert, while the younger an extrovert.

That's ok...but what's impressive is how the 13 year old is developing, growing and maturing. He's doing it faster, and far better with girls now than ever. He has little interest in girls, and normally prefers his friends to girls. He'd rather "do" than observe. He'd rather INTERACT than REACT.

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

The AFC dynamic is JUST THIS. Think I'm wrong? Look at the boards of SoSuave.com. VALIDATION APPROVAL. Every post ASKING for something. They're not asking for a direct answer, but they are asking for approval or confirmation of what they are asking.

Many hear cry outloud about the community, about being found out, about "being DJ" without knowing who he was, or about "being a PUA", and all forms of it are mere forms of a desire to be validated but older or more respected men. By Men in general. THOSE ARE THE LOST communities of old. Around campfires. And lodges. At golf clubs. With families. With father's. With older brothers.

Watching "Spanglish" last night (God Paz Vega is hot) she remarked a FANTASTIC quote, appropriate to WOMEN, and this post of mine.

'Is your goal to be much unlike me?' ~ Mother to Daughter.

In the movie, the Mother was trying to raise the Daugther in the mirror-image of her, a good, loving, grounded, very feminine, traditional woman, while Adam Sandler's wife was a cutthroat, uncaring, shark of a bytch woman, ripping her family to pieces.

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

When boys stop seeking validation from ANYWHERE but within themselves, they can begin to mature. When they stop seeking CONFIRMATION of who they are and their abilities, they will begin to develop self-reliance. But these are HABITS, they are not put-offs-til-tomorrow. They must be begun now.

Anything a male chooses is masculine, and anything a woman chooses is feminine, SO LONG AS THE GENDERS aren't warped. Men choose by definition of their essence, not social programming. Women, the same. We cannot entirely OVERcome the inherent nature of our hormonal and spiritual structures, NOR WOULD I WANT TO. I believe we're here to live out some plan, design, intention, or purpose, and denying that is denying your own existence.

Nothing needs to be labeled. What soceity is aiming to do is LABEL things as such, and then tell us it isn't feminine or masculine. That pink is neutral. That waxing is neutral and not feminine. That the metrosexual isn't a hybrid male/female. That MASCULINITY is only a DEFINITION and "why would you want to be an icky boy?" All the while feminists are slipping their grimy behinds into our seats.

I'm with those on this journey to right this ship.



A-Unit

 

[WestCoaster]

Great post A-Unit. I'm very disturbed by that article on man crushes and so forth. Why is masculinity being destroyed? It's not even neutrality that they want, it's feminization. It's freaking insane, I don't get it.

My best friend has three kids, two boys and a girl. When his oldest kid was young, he just gravitated toward playing with fire trucks, toy guns, etc. He didn't even ask his dad, he just picked up the toys. That's the way it is folks!

Funny episode of The Simpsons the other night: Bart starts hanging out with Marge, going on bike rides (on a tandem) all the time. They go to a "tea shop" and Bart starts becoming feminized. They enter a talent contest, but the duo who gets on stage before them is Skinner and his mom, both dressed the same. She, of course, bosses him around and Skinner (as Simpson fans know) still lives with his mom at age 40.

Marge sees a future of Bart being a ***** boy, calls off singing with him, hands him a fire extinguisher and lets him douse the crowd. She says, "You may be a little 'heck-raiser' but that's what I want you to be!"

Pretty scary when The Simpsons is more relevant than most newspaper articles these days.

 

[A-Unit]

HAHA!

Awesome freaking episode!

It's funny how SouthPark, Family Guy, and The Simpsons can get away with the topics they do and touch so many nerves, while REAL tv promotes a false reality and false ideas.

-Stupid husbands, smart hot wives.
-Disobedient kids basically doing nothing.
-Desperate housewives, sex in the city = glamorizing the single women lifestyle (that your knight will come some day, promiscuous sex is OK and comical).
-Politcal shows = readying us for Hilary's push as Presidential candidate.
-Political/white house shows = getting people to LIKE the government and side with them.
-24 = gets people to believe all that crap that happens is necessary and the gov. is doing good things.
-the L Word = swallow the homosexual agenda please.
-Reality shows = commoners getting a "big break", dramatize the lifesyle of do-nothing kids and talentless parents, glamorize money, fame, and fortune. Spike people's desire for consumption (i.e cribs).
-Apprentice = demonstrate women are capable, when their emotions KILL their chance to win, and most guys locked it up from day 1. Sales tool for Trump.

It's the buying of EMOTIONS and LOST EMOTIONS by people to recapture what was lost, or the emptiness they feel. It's one thing to replenish the fridge, and entirely something else to blow-up credit cards ACQUIRING a lifestyle.

I admire people who aren't attached to who they're perceived as, what they own, or what they do. I'm not talking worthless, useless druggy hippy, but people laid back enough to not feel pressure, yet love what they do, who they are, and where they are.

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

I've read stuff going on in Massachusetts where homosexual tolerance assemblies are had, sometimes without the notice of parents. I've polled my cousins, ranging from age 8 to 16, about the conferences they have in various rooms about sexuality tolerance.

THING is, THESE KIDS HAVE NOT HAD SEX yet, most of them. Nor do they care! But it's like Eve in the garden of Eden.

"See this apple, it's bad, don't touch it!"

AND BAM, they do and you wonder. If bring no attention to it, people do not care. Homosexuality is a PERSONAL issue, yet it's brought in to schools. That should be left up to the PARENTS, not administrators. I do not care if they believe parenting is awful, it's still no their place. It's not their place to use tax dollars on beliefs, agendas, and programs, that we do no sign off on and that they feel IS good for kids.

Sex should not be taught @ all in school. Really. The topics discussed is all about the biology of it, condoms, etc. That's a parental thing, and by administering it in school, you incur liability. Really.

Seriously, if you talk about how to buy, use, and put a condom on, and you didn't do it right, do you blame/sue the school program?

If kids harass and bully kids that APPEAR gay or come out that they are GAY in middle school or high school, does the school accept responsibility for that taunting because they exposed it??

SCHOOL IS SCHOOL IS SCHOOL. No grey area.

Where's NO MA'AM when we need them???

A-Unit

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

One thing this gender dynamic cannot contend with is basic human biology. As much as subscribers to this agenda try to condition both sexes to push towards androgeny in their behaviours, they cannot snuff out the simple fact that gender is both nurture and nature. They can bring certain mental schemas and behaviors that qualify gender to extinction, but they cannot remove the biological element of the whole equation. Men posess 50 times the amount of testosterone women do and are sexualiy viable from pubert into old age. One of the ways ultrasound techs determine the sex of a fetus inutero is to look at the hand placement of the child in a scan. If the hands are frequently positioned at the crotch area the fetus is almost unversally a boy. Not much else to do in the womb I guess, but that's how powerful a male's sexual impulse is. Men may express this in homosexual or heterosexual acts, but it will still manifest itself inspite of social conditioning.

Liwewise women posess high levels of estrogen and oxytocin - horomones that foster feelings of nurturing and security. God, evolution and biology have all conspired against androgeny for millenia and flip the bird to those who think that homogenization would make for more survivable variety.

Adherents to this modern gender interpretation insult this by only recognizing half of what constitutes gender, in fact they distinctively separate gender (being taught) from sex (being biology). The insult in the irony is that little boys will still gravitate towards trucks and lizards, while girls will want to play with baby dolls and fuzzy stuffed animals if left to their own impulses. What a supreme insult to think that we should contradict a dynamic that has served our species so well for so long. Gender and sexual identity are ment to be complimentary to each other to make for a strong, stable individual. It's when we no longer (or forget how to) teach this that society's suffer. Instead this agenda tells us we ought to be ashamed of teaching a boy to be a man or a girl to be a woman. Were told it's the root of sexual tyranny and oppression to meddle with the gender identities of our children. How dare we think we have a right to influence the selection of their own indentites?

Yet in this shaming is the unspoken effort to confuse gender and reverse the order thinking that this will make for better people. Confident, individualistic women married to caring, nurturing sensitive men, that would be ideal. Yet what difference would it make if you could fit the square peg in the round hole and the round one in the square hole?

I once brought part of this little rant up in a Women's/Gender Studies class I had in college, to the unadulterated outrage of the teacher and female students (about all were women but myself and another guy). I simply posed the question whether gender was a collection of learned behaviors or if we were born into our sexual identities. Every feminist in the class answered with an emphatic "learned of course" as if only an idiot male couldn't see this. I then asked if this was so then homosexuals must be taught to be homosexuals. This is what borught down the house because it is in direct contradiction to the (IMO very misguided) notion that homosexuals are 'born that way'. They were denied their cake and eating it too, but at this point I'm tarred as a homophobe-misogynist and the debate went downhill from there.

 

[DJDamage]

More Propaganda From Canada!

I just opened the same newspaper the following day and low and behold they have more articles dissecting hetrosexual males.

This one I kid you not is called: "Are we all shades of gay?" (written by a woman)


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...406&call_pageid=991479973472&col=991929131147

Are we all shades of gay?
It once was so simple for everyone: Straight or gay, with no in-betweens

But who you do isn't defining who you are any more, writes Emily Mathieu
Nov. 15, 2005. 01:00 AM
EMILY MATHIEU


Can you be a little bit gay? A little bit straight? Questions about defining sexuality are piling up.

But hey, if two actors who consistently play heterosexual are comfortable creating a homosexual love story in Brokeback Mountain, then we're entering a new era in how people consider sexual attraction.

"Most people, whether they're comfortable admitting it or not, are going to, at the very least entertain fantasies or thoughts," says Guy Grenier, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Western Ontario.

On Wednesdays, 650 students, with 100 sitting in the aisles, listen to the 44-year-old Grenier lecture on human sexuality. He covers everything from ambisexuals and brothels to yaoi and zoophiles (feel free to Google at your lesisure).

According to Grenier, a big part of sexual education is the Kinsey Scale. Created by sexologist Alfred Kinsey, it's a seven-part meter measuring how gay or straight you are (see upper left). "If your fantasies are exclusively homosexual, your interests are exclusively homosexual and your behaviour is exclusively homosexual, then you could consider yourself a Kinsey 6," Grenier explains.

"There isn't sort of a line when you get to pass and we say, `Okay you get to be homosexual now.'"

Grenier believes any attempt to define or restrict sexuality, "isn't consistent with the human condition."

So what if you are a 3, a.k.a. you play for both teams, on the Kinsey scale? "Thinking there is one type of homosexuality is about as much of a mistake as thinking there is one type of heterosexuality," Grenier says.

The reason why such sexual fluidity exists isn't clear. One theory is that homosexuality actually promotes survival.
"Homosexuality is the sign of a healthy species,"
he says.

Did you just read that ??? a professor just said "Homosexuality is the sign of a healthy species"??? Did the world just turned upside down?? Homesexuals do not reproduce so how can he say its a sign of healthy species?????

For example, if we only mated with people with a singular characteristic, like red hair, but then Scotland disappeared into the ocean, our species would die off. "Homosexuality represents that we find lots of things attractive," he says.

So is the world open to these ideas? "I think if we lived in a homophobic society before we might be evolving into a homonegative society," Grenier says. Hate against homosexuals is still there, just less "rabid."

"We're not seeing more homosexuality. We're not seeing more experimentation," he adds. "We have a greater appreciation that it's out there."

Experimenting often happens in the early 20s - the first time we get out of the house. "If you're going to experiment, university is an excellent place," says Jacqueline Stein, a media, information and technoculture student at Western. "I've never experimented," the 20-year-old says, despite boldly labelling herself a Kinsey 2. "But I've thought about it before. It was a fleeting thought," explaining her crush was more about admiration than attraction.

Whether a tendency to experiment with same-sex scenarios is a product of biology or environment isn't clear either.
"I think it has to be some kind of genetic component," says Cole Futterer, a 22-year-old kinesiology student at Western, speculating on sexual attraction. He also thinks culture plays a part. Futterer says he's "definitely straight. Just open-minded about what other people want to do."

Creating open-mindedness means addressing stereotypes early on. "Sex should be taught in a formal, organized way starting in kindergarten. You go `Head and shoulders, knees and toes' - and all of a sudden there's this black hole between your knees and your shoulders."

They are promoting teaching kindergarten kids on sex! Kids have no concept of sexuality and they want to confuse the kids to distort and accept something such a homosexuality as natural! This Professor wants to brainwash kids to accept and experiment with homesexuality so when they grow up they will go both ways.

Is there something wrong with this picture???

"Of course, you don't teach Kinsey in kindergarten," Grenier adds.

He is encouraged by the integration of homosexual content on TV. "Hopefully shows like Will & Grace are not still a flash in the pan." The primary appeal of shows like The L Word is that they're taboo and risqué, he says, "unfortunately."

Having an uncensored sexual edge is the reason syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage has a job. "I don't think straight kids are going to look at The L Word and Brokeback Mountain and say, `I gotta get me some of that!'" the Seattle-based Savage offers. "I think back to when I was 15-year-old and gay and all of the heterosexual sex that I was exposed to in film and television didn't really make me want to kiss girls."

Curiously, though, the most common male hetero fantasy involves two people of the same gender. Just not their own.

"I think more and more women have come to appreciate what straight men saw in images of lesbians - two of the things I want to mess around with messing around with each other," Savage explains.

The unspoken script, as Savage points out, is that the man will get to leap onto the bed, trampoline, or the Jell-O pit before the final curtain falls.

Does Savage think women would be comfortable enough to cut in on two guys? "Women are less phobic these days about bisexuality with guys and exploration," he says. "They can more easily imagine themselves stepping into that scenario."

The real question is whether straight men are ready to admit, maybe just once, that they want to kick the girl out of bed.

If a guy kicks a girl out of bed in favour for a guy he is not STRIGHT!

Savage says heterosexual women have always had a "latitude" that allowed them to get physical with other women without identifying as lesbian or even as bisexual. He says guys are about a "hundred years behind," but are catching up.

"It doesn't mean they are bi. It doesn't mean they're gay," he says about guys who have a same sex fling. "It usually means once or twice they did experiment and they didn't have to panic about it and they are not ashamed about it.

Is that suppose to be an insult? that guys are about a hundred years behind women??? Once again masculine heterosexuality comes under attack by insinuating it is primitive and wrong.

I do not buy the experiment argument. If you are willing to let another guy jackhammer you from behind, YOU ARE A HOMOSEXUAL ALREADY and your whole life you were experimenting trying to be STRIGHT! not the other way around.

"People say `sexual experimentation' and you just picture a laboratory with a mad scientist in it attempting to have an orgasm," says Savage. "It's not really like that.

""When people grow up and enter the demographic of daily newspaper readers, they seem to stuff down the memory hole what it was like to be 15 years old and coming into their sexuality. We all experimented, we all explored and, by and large, the vast majority of us are fine and better for it."

This article is wrong in so many levels yet it is written in one of the sections of Canada's largest newspapers. They know how to distort reality.

DjDamage

 

[Lost In Translation]

Yeah that is very messed up

Looks like the world is ending to me

Jesus must be coming back soon


Lost In Translation

**AUSTRALIAN STREET PIMP**

 

[Ricky]

I love 80's rock music. The hair bands and all that.

But heck you even have to blame some of those power ballads for their romantic view of love!

AFC'ism is a problem.

Someone recommended Love must be Tough by James Dobson for me to read. I am just starting. It is about marriages, but it talks about lack of respect being a key factor in divorces. This plays right into the AFC issues.

 

[wolfsbaneforever]

"Mancrush" reminds me of something out of Seinfeld.

Like when George wanted to hang out with the male bimbo (mimbo) that Elaine was going out with.

"Mancrush" Whoever thought this word up is either a total loser or someone with a very cynical sense of humour.

 

[WestCoaster]

I've always liked Canada ...

... enjoyed the time I've spent in B.C., it has to be perhaps the most beautiful place on this earth, though I haven't yet been to Banff, which could be nicer. The Canadians I've met have been fantastic people.

But those newspaper articles are making me cringe. Yikes!

I'm not a homophobe, but it seems nutty to me to ignore biology and science to try and prove nutty theories. C'mon Canada!

 

[CraigMack]

Originally posted by The_Next_Big_Thing
Guess what!!! This board is not about finding a girlfriend as far as I am concerned. This board is about bettering yourself so you will have a successful life. Women are just part of that successful life.

The AFC dynamic in this country is bad enough but how did rap become mixed up in this. I'll just say my piece on rap music though.

Agreed, it isn't even music anymore. Music is more then just the words of "gotta kill this b!tch!" It is the heart and soul. Not all rap is bad but most of it is in my opinion.

I love listening to classical music or country music (raised on both) and it is relaxing.

The_Next_Big_Thing

And how is putting down a whole race of people bettering your life? How is this helping you conquer your fear or problems with women. All it does is give you something to mask your true problem.

You have trouble with women!

Don't blame the blacks because they don't have on a norm this issue. I had a buddy of mine tell me about black music. He stated that it teaches you that there are 3 types of women out there.

He said there are freaks, ho's and good girls and that the music will tell you which one to approach if you want to save your heart.

He said his music used to be about men being gentlemen with women and making love and finding love. But times have changed he relayed to me. It's a much harder world out there and women are educated and aggressive, so you must determine which women you want to invest your time into.

I call that good advice from the socalled rap pheno.

When I hear rap music these days and turn around to see who is blasting it out of their cars, it's not blacks doing it anymore.

The urban music has reached the high and mighty burbs with full force. Today if you don't know who Tupac is when your talking to a lady then your considered a dork.

The music has changed the whole pick up scene. If you want to be considered cool then you need to catch up on what's current in hip-hop/rap othewise women will walk away from you.

When I'm in a club the music that get's the most audience participation is rap music. Now the DJ's will use other music styles such as Rock to clear the dance floor so that people will buy more drinks.

I'm sorry to inform you guys but your wasting your energy and time arguing over a music style that isn't going anywhere.

You need to ask yourselfs how has this helped you get a female in your life right now? How has this argument helped you as this misguided person I quoted better yourself right now?

 

[CraigMack]

Re: Agree Lost in Translation

Originally posted by WestCoaster
The true dirtballs of the whole scheme are the rich, white record execs, the slimeballs of the earth. That said, I wish black AND white youth would quit buying such junk. Starting with that racist, bigot, rape-advocate Eminem, and go from there.

You wrote this:

********************************

they have lived a hard life and dont care

*************************************

True, but funny thing ... EVERY soul singer from the 60's and 70's had harder lives. They grew up in a society with much deeper racism. The Temptations -- all of them -- grew up in extreme poverty and racism, yet they still sang something as positive as "My Girl" and "Just My Imagination."

Of course that was back in the day when people liked nice songs like that ...

Most modern rap is mainstream. Designed to sell cd's. But in it's origin rap has a message. Just as Regge had a message.

Just because we don't like hearing the message of how the police are beating them in the dark alleys or there are roaches in their houses and they can't walk through the park after dark, doesn't mean it's any less a valid message.

 

[Lost In Translation]

Quote : CraigMack
I had a buddy of mine tell me about black music. He stated that it teaches you that there are 3 types of women out there.

He said there are freaks, ho's and good girls and that the music will tell you which one to approach if you want to save your heart.

He said his music used to be about men being gentlemen with women and making love and finding love. But times have changed he relayed to me. It's a much harder world out there and women are educated and aggressive, so you must determine which women you want to invest your time into.

I call that good advice from the socalled rap pheno.

When I hear rap music these days and turn around to see who is blasting it out of their cars, it's not blacks doing it anymore.

The urban music has reached the high and mighty burbs with full force. Today if you don't know who Tupac is when your talking to a lady then your considered a dork.

The music has changed the whole pick up scene. If you want to be considered cool then you need to catch up on what's current in hip-hop/rap othewise women will walk away from you.

When I'm in a club the music that get's the most audience participation is rap music. Now the DJ's will use other music styles such as Rock to clear the dance floor so that people will buy more drinks.

i agree

what planet these people live on that the women aren't shaking their a$$ to hiphop/rap/r&b ?


Lost In Translation

**AUSTRALIAN STREET PIMP**

 

[Bonhomme]

Has it occurred to you guys that some of this "feminization" in the media might be tongue in cheek?

Sure looks that way to me.

I also like House.

And I listen to whatever kind of music I like, most of which is not rap. I've got a thing for good melodic vocals, and music that flows. Rhythm, not just beat.

*********

For once I strongly disagree with Rollo. I'm well convinced that homosexuals are born that way, and homosexual tendencies are not learned, nor can they be. A straight man can have gay sex, especially if that's the easiest sex to get, but -- in absence of major hormonal changes and/or other changes to his machinery, so to speak -- he's still a straight man, and would be more aroused by a woman, though possibly to AFC to follow through.

Societal pressure pushes people toward heterosexuality. In fact, in one study, men who identified themselves as "bisexual" were shown erotic images of men, and erotic images of women, and a vast majority of them were only aroused by the men, whereas the remaining few were only aroused by the women. None, mind you, were aroused by both.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

BONHOMME: The debate on the genetic basis of homosexuality is still in contention. There is definitely a psycho-biological factor in sexuality to be sure, but our natural wiring's default is to be aroused by characteristics of the opposite sex. This follows logically because in the past, it was a survival benefit for our species to be so, but like most evolutionary behavioral phenomenon it has a nurture part to the nature element. It is very easy to condition out natural unconditioned responses. For instance if you were hungry and I prepared your favorite meal, your natural response would be to salivate at smelling the food. But were I to give you a painful electric shock everytime you smelled this aroma, after time, you'd cease to salivate and would probably recoil from the smell. This is an easy Pavlovian illustration, but it demonstrates that our natural, evolutionarily developed survival response behavior, even the autonomous ones can (in some cases quite easily) be modeled. This then opens up the discussion to the importance of gender role training in sexual preference.

Often the argument homosexuals explain is that they can't help the way they are, and in actuality this is probably true. I have no doubt of their sincerity or honesty in this, but the question is whether or not their sexual arousal is a response to conditioned stimuli. As an aside, I'd also argue the same case for people predisposed to fetishes in their sexual arousal. Chubby Chasers, ****, foot fetishes, are all conditioned sexual responses. Even one man's preference for blondes over brunettes is a conditioned response.

I should also add that sexual response is mediated by external conditions as well. The heterosexual man incarcerated in prison and forced into a same sex environment for 10 years may participate in homosexual behavior and return to being heterosexual after his release. Does this mean he discovered his true sexual identity in prison or is this just a response to his prolonged same-sex environment? I'd argue the latter. If a there is a strictly genetic basis for homosexuality then how do we account for bi-sexual people? Do they posess half the genetic information for this trait or is it their conditoning that causes them to be aroused by both sexes? Given that, how do we define sexual preference for a naturally born transsexual child? It's conditioning.

The usual response to these arguments (or even posing them unfortunately ) is to brand the person questioning them as 'homophobic'. This is the societal response for peering into what many people find difficult and uncomfortable - ostracize and marginalize the counter argument. It becomes even further complicated when you add morals to the equation; then nothing gets discussed. To be honest, I can understand this since people arguing against homosexuality tend to claim the self-righteous, moral high ground making them easily ridiculed. But even when debated sans-religion as I always attempt to on this subject, even the well developed, pragmatic arguments get lumped in with the 'religio-homophobe' title.

 

[Maverick001]

Originally posted by ( . )( . )
Agreed, the pendulum thing is bullsh!t. Our children are born into it which means it would never go the other way even if they actually knew how things SHOULD really be.

Media, marketing and legal system all obviously a joke to men, you honestly think those 3 foundations which all play a huge role in moulding society is all of a sudden going to swing the other way? .....Yeah right.

Hey All,

The pendulum won`t swing back all of a sudden to be sure. It will take time and it`s already started. This site is an example of that.

Consider that (and I can attest to this even from my own personal experience), a "strong, independent, feminist" woman will "give in or yield" in the presence of a stronger man. As long as they are there, and this site (among other counter-measures) continues to help men to reclaim themselves, all will be well.

Cheers,
Mav