Society and Sexual Distortion

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Louie Vaton Don - Glamorous name by the way These people and their agenda did not come out of nowhere. Their organization was during the revolutionary times of the 1960's when there was a lot of iconoclastic anti-repressive, anti-government fervor in the air.

This all started with the human rights movement that was ignited by blacks after world war 2 and especially in the 1950's in the south of the USA. The black struggle was the catalyst for other groups to voice their own displeasure with government control. Thus we have the drug experimentation and the rebellion in the long-hair and unkempt dress of the youth listening to their music filled with sexual and revolutionary lyrics, the women's liberation movement, and yes the unification of homosexuals.

What you see today I experienced in the 1970's- 'women's lib' was big then and you had situation comedies and advertising commercials that downgraded men and portrayed women as stronger and more able than their male counterparts. Women were independent and did not need men to survive, nor did they need to cook anymore and care after the household. Women in the 1970's have become their own person now!! TV shows like 'Maude' and 'The Mary Tyler Moore show' and 'All In The Family' with 'Archie Bunker' being portrayed as the old neantherdal man living in the past and not accepting the new paradigm of the new age.

The songs had topics such as "I Will Survive" by Gloria Gaynor and other female artists who sang their songs of independence and unshackled morality. "We can have as many sex partners as men have and we have the birth control pill now and are no longer slaves to our vagina through child bearing", "We can do what men do and even better" was their cry. You had TV showing women as Carpenters and Mechanics and Technicians...but rarely did you find them wanting such careers in reality. This was all a facade to uplift the status of women to the level of men.

The AIDS epidemic in the early 1980's was the impetus for the homo movement that put them in the spotlight and portrayed them fighting for a just cause and that they were special and deserve special funding to curb the tide of AIDS. "We must become a political force", they said. "We must be represented in the media if our message of 'Diversity' is to take hold".

Thus the mass deceit and the 'BIG LIE" began in full-force upon the current generation.of youth. Now we have fags in Grade school - did you hear me? I said Grade school teaching this sick doctrine of perversion to young impressionable minds under the banner of 'Diversity' and 'Love'. Bastards are trying to make evil fair seeming!! What child is going to reject a message of love, even though it is based on a false premise?

My tax dollars are paying for this shyt? Homos are making something so unnatural seem so matter of fact natural. And the adult parents are allowing this - remember, these parents were the byproduct and brainwashing of the 1960’s and 1970’s unnatural revolution! I have pity for you young men and for those who follow you.

This unnatural force won’t be satisfied until they indoctrinate the minds of everyone!!!!

No Louie this is nothing new, your eyes have just been opened. The matrix had you! Welcome to the 'real' world! Look out for those Agents of control!!

 

[StockTrader]

This is a fascinating set of questions:

The main culprit behind the development of more girly guys and more masculine women is the industrial revolution.

Men and women for thousands of years had very defined roles. The men were tough and strong. They went out and hunted, fought, protected the family and were the unquestioned leaders of the household.

Women had very clearly defined roles. From our earliest human ancestors, women looked after the family, nurtured their young, and did basic household chores.

Watch some of the documentaries on TV showing ancient tribal groups in the world today (in Brazil, New Guinea, etc). This is a perfect example of how the world use to be. Men and women had clearly defined roles. I believe that's what nature intended.

There is no feminism or women's lib in the New Guinea rainforest.

Men in the white collar workplace lose their natural dominance and aggression and women in the workplace lose their natural passiveness.

 

[Player_Supreme]

Originally posted by StockTrader
This is a fascinating set of questions:

The main culprit behind the development of more girly guys and more masculine women is the industrial revolution.

Men and women for thousands of years had very defined roles. The men were tough and strong. They went out and hunted, fought, protected the family and were the unquestioned leaders of the household.

Women had very clearly defined roles. From our earliest human ancestors, women looked after the family, nurtured their young, and did basic household chores.

Watch some of the documentaries on TV showing ancient tribal groups in the world today (in Brazil, New Guinea, etc). This is a perfect example of how the world use to be. Men and women had clearly defined roles. I believe that's what nature intended.

There is no feminism or women's lib in the New Guinea rainforest.

Men in the white collar workplace lose their natural dominance and aggression and women in the workplace lose their natural passiveness.

Amen! We share similair beliefs.

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Don Ronny,

I have nothing against anyone on this forum. I welcome adversaries because they feed my appetite for thought. Where would I be without a counterview, if only to be conversing with myself.

My posts are always enlightening injected with humor, if you only find them 'sometimes' enlightening it is because you and others with your frame of mind disagree with my strong stance against the hor and homosexual mindset. These mindsets are a deviation and an anomaly that was developed in societal affairs and not 'naturally' embedded genetically. They have ‘distorted’ their natural sexuality. The word ‘distort’ is defined as…dis·tort (dĭ-stôrtʹ) verb, transitive
dis·tort·ed, dis·tort·ing, dis·torts

1. To twist out of a proper or natural relation of parts; misshape.
2. To give a false or misleading account of; misrepresent.
3. To cause to work in a twisted or disorderly manner; pervert.

Take note of the words ‘twist out of…natural’, ‘misrepresent’, and ‘pervert’!

I disagree wholeheartedly with your equating, animal behavior with human coinduct. Animals have anal sex so it must be a natural occurrence in man or at least for him to experiment. Huh? We are humans and not animals - unless you believe apes are your ancestors. Animal behavior doesn't influence or have a direct connection to human thinking!

Since this thread is titled "Society and sexual distortion", then this title is obviously pointing out the fact that members in this society have 'distorted' sexuality. Hors and homosexuals of the modern day are part of this main force behind this distortion.

Pook and Fingers have touched on the political and religious orders of the last thousands of years and on how they manipulated our sexuality. I didn't think we needed to go that far to explain such manipulation, since it seems to me that individuals here have enough problems seeing the immediate and more influential cause of this manipulation in the last 30 years, let alone factors and institutions that were established thousands of years ago that are far removed from our modern day thinking. I am looking at the closer link.

If you can't tie the immediate happenings of sexual distortion to the last 40 years then it is a much more difficult task, if not impossible, to go back centuries to look at the 'true' underlying cause. Why? Because most DJ's here are under 40 years of age and have directly been influenced in their thinking by those in the last 80 years who have established the norms in society.

To link it with the religious and political orders of centuries past is a farther stretch than to look at the mass appeal through the mass media on our thinking of today. Also most people here, in my opinion, care less of what political or religious leaders mandate upon them, we now live in a so-called ‘free and liberated’ society and cling to our ‘individualism’ now more than at any other time in history.

I know for a fact that TODAY American mores on sexuality is not set by religious and political edicts because the political and religious institutions today are not revered nor are their laws adhered to as they once were centuries past. This is evidenced by the current ‘breakdown” in society, which surrounds us currently. I dare say that these institutions in the last 40 years have been looked upon with scorn and disrespect amongst our youth, because of their false ideologies and misguided indoctrination.

This is what the 1960’s anti-establishment and sexual revolution was about and now this ‘individualistic’ thinking has been fully adopted by the current generation. The shackles of political and religious orders have been broken decades ago.

So these powers cannot be the underlying cause of our ‘sexual distortion’ in society today because they have been totally negated and undermined by the new religion of ‘individualism’ of decades past. There is a more pressing and deliberate agenda at work here that is actually not spearheaded by political or religious powers, but rather by individuals to gain and garner control and power for themselves.

Yes, it is all about control and you must have power to control. Religious and political institutions have no or little power over the sexuality and thinking of our youth today, as evidenced by their actions. So we must look at another cause that is more immediate and forceful than established institutions that is influencing and distorting our sexuality as men.

I point to those who have control over the mass media in the last 40 years because this medium has usurped the power of religious and political leaders and has become more influential in our current thinking and behavior. Do you notice how the political and religious leaders of today bow down and cater to this mass medium of influence. They know that they have absolutely no power over the masses without this force behind them, and how would their message to control the masses ever be done without mass appeal? This is elementary!

This is why there has been a power struggle to control TV, radio, and print mediums over the last century, because this is where the power over the minds of the people now lies. This is known by all in the know! Have you also noticed the changes in FCC regulations over the last decades regarding the consolidation of mass communications and thereby putting the power and control in fewer hands and minds? Hmmm, I wonder why? It is because you cannot absolutely control the thinking of the masses or have influence on their behavior when there is a counterbalance to your mandates. So you must get rid of your competition. Political and religious wars have been fought for millenniums for this exact reason!!!!

But now the ‘power of control’ has shifted to a more powerful and more massive force that overshadows all other powers. Those who own mass media have become the ‘new rulers’ in this new technological age! So now those who control mass communication have ultimate power and influence. This is why we fear the notion that the ‘state’ or ‘religions’ have control over the media, because we know it is used and can be used to indoctrinate and to control our thinking! Sad to say that we have been duped into believing that the media is privatized and free, when in reality it has always been controlled by those wielding the power over us.

The question is who is behind this message? The answer is, those same individuals who have been our political and religious leaders since centuries past. They understand that their political and religious power must take on a new form, and this form must be done with messages geared towards impacting the masses. It is no longer done through religious edicts or political laws and proclamations, but rather through print, voice, and images through the printing presses, radio, music, movies, and television.

The beginning of this mass power begun in the 1600’s with the advent of the printing press, and the religious and political leaders took notice of its’ power to influence the masses and thus the bible was first to be organized and printed en masse and distributed the world over. Do you see how the ‘mass media’ gives you power over people from all over the world without your presence? The British and American empires (political and religious) tried and are trying to control the masses physically but ultimately failed due to the impossibility to control those beyond your shores.

But now they found a better and more efficient means that doesn’t involve bloodshed. So they now do so, culturally and religiously, through the mass media Could all religions and political ideologies (Democracy, Communism, Capitalism) have spread and adopted so readily to the masses across continents, without this form of modern day communications?

The main option of indoctrination in the past centuries was through bloody political and religious wars and only then, when the strong men who ruled are killed, can they subjugate the women and children to the newfound religious and political order. This barbaric means to control others is now archaic and is only used as a last resort. Those people who ‘reject’ the culture and ideologies (whether political or economic) of those in power will pay a heavy price. This is why there were two so-called ‘world’ wars in the 20th century! It was just a means of ‘consolidation of power’ in the ‘new world order’!!

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

A current example of those in power using the mass media to try to control the thinking and the cultural norms of others is in the Arab and Islamic world. Most of these countries have rejected outright the influx of movies and music that has permeated every culture on every continent, including China and Africa. They have stated, correctly, that this is an attempt by Europeans to indoctrinate their youth to embrace the West’s sick cultural values and to eventually adopt their thinking and customs! The first thing America did in Iraq (before the invasion) was to create a radio and TV station to broadcast their message and try to affect and influence the thinking of the Iraqi citizenry!

Arab and Islamic peoples are the most adamant rejecters of this ‘new thinking’, especially when it comes to the ‘distortion’ of man’s sexuality. They despise what the Europeans have made of their women, the metamorphosis from a gentle feminine creature to a masculine hor with a bad attitude! And the men are now the effeminate ones! They refuse to be injected with the political, religious, and cultural mores of Europeans, and are desperately trying to keep the purveyors of filth from infecting the minds of their women and children. These are their words not mine!!

This is why those in the media label it as a ‘clash of civilizations’, ‘adopting and embracing modern thinking vs.retaining historical cultural traditions’. This is not a ‘clash’, rather it is ‘the Powers’ that rule trying to subjugate those who have rejected their rule! The control of other cultures has been attempted throughout history via warfare, but warfare is only now done as a last resort when cultural and economic influences upon a culture do not have the power to change the mindset and ways of a people.

Actual ‘heads’ of state has said this very thing, “If Islamic countries do not adopt western (European) thinking voluntarily then we must force it upon them!” This was on “60 minutes” news show four years ago, and this view has been stated by politicians who have international influence! You won’t find too many indoctrinated supplicating chumps in the Islamic world! Time to invade!

This ‘sexual distortion’ by use of the media is only but a small part to change the dynamics within the society at large, and to wield ultimate influence over the thinking of the masses! This power is being used globally and not just in America. But it is the same people behind it! To see my view on why and how man’s sexuality has been distorted in the last 30 years, see my prior posts!

I have more to say, but my index finger is strained. I have to learn how to type with my other fingers. No Senor Fingers, I’m not talking about you, I’m referring to the fingers that make up my hand. I need a hug too! But be careful where you put your hands on my body, with sexuality being distorted the way it has lately, an embrace between two men doesn’t seem to represent what it once did, and it has now taken on a new meaning. J

 

[StockTrader]

On the subject of the mass media in the US:

Politicians often criticize foreign governments over restricted state owned media. For example, in the middle east.

Yet, are we really much better off? Look at what the FCC has done through deregulation over the past few decades. Only a handful of a companies now control most of the TV, radio and major music labels in this country. There are literally 10 or 20 people that get to influence a country of 280 million.

The media just goes along with the status quo. The same soundbytes and opinions get heard over and over in a supposedly diverse media environment.

 

[squirrels]

It's funny...I re-read this thread after having a discussion last night with a close friend about urban vs suburban environments and, believe it or not, I disagree with your assertion that "urbania" is responsible for anonymity, much less effeminization.

In fact, I think city life gets way too much bad press. There's this big move right now to go OUT of the cities to raise families...get away from the sprawl, the crime, the pollution, the vehicular traffic. But with all the negatives of city life, people forget about the POSITIVE side of it.

There was a time when people didn't have cars or any kind of personal transit. Back in "the day," cities were a NECESSITY because your residences, your industry, and your commerce ALL had to be close to each other and have facilities that ONLY cities could afford (seaports mainly) to be able to reach their markets.

Because of this, people were forced to interact with each other. You would actually SEE your neighbors on the street walking or riding their horses to work. You wouldn't just see "another car", you would see a face, a PERSON, with whom you could interact.

You don't get that in suburbia. The car is the single unit of interaction. Everyone's neatly packaged in their four-wheel box that shields their identity from everyone else on the road. You don't interact with people on your way to and from work any more, or to and from the store. You transport yourself to your destination, make your purchase, and are gone just as quickly. Think of the degree of personal interaction, the ideas that could be shared, the social skills that could be learned, if we all just lost the cars and walked (or even took the subway!) to our destinations.

Children at least have schools in which they can learn interaction. Me, being a 20something living in suburbia, I rarely interact with ANYONE. I only see people at work, at the gym, or at wherever my destination happens to be. The hot honey jogging in the park, the cutie on the subway, the attractive woman sitting outside at the corner coffee shop? They don't exist for me in suburbia. I take a car or I don't get anywhere. And in that car, I lose my identity and my ability to interact.

It's no wonder customizing cars to reflect your personality is such a popular hobby these days.

Another thing you get from an urban environment is culture. During your walk/bus ride/subway trip to school, merchants will try to grab your attention with sidewalk cafes, novelty shops with fancy displays, music, lights, etc.

Try finding culture in suburbia. You have your houses sprawled out in these single-home and townhouse developments, surrounded by shopping malls, fast-food joints, garages, etc. And each one having a parking lot so people can go there in their sterile automobiles and not have to deal with other people. Again, the car becomes the unit of society.

And again, it's funny how suburban kids with their customized cars will often gather in parking lots and simply hang out, turning these lots dedicated to the instantization and depersonalization of suburban society back into places of social gathering and interaction.

But the most important point goes hand-in-hand with your complaints about the throngs of people in which you lose your identity. Those throngs, that jungle, at least *I* believe, is ESSENTIAL to developing one's manhood. A man in a city must learn to interact, learn how to use the facilities of the city, how to survive, how to make his way around, how to take the culture available to him in a city and build a personality. How to learn to stake his claim among these throngs of people and still interact with them on a political level. It's a quest for SURVIVAL and it teaches you independence and helps you develop identity.

Look at these kids growing up in suburbia. They're not forced to interact with other people outside of school. They grow up on video games and TV, isolated within their own little houses, isolated within their own little cars. They don't have those long Tom Sawyer/Huck Finn style conversations on the walk home from the schoolhouse; instead they drive to where they want to be, do what they came to do, and drive home. That is the limit of their stale experience. It's no wonder they grow up wondering what life holds for them, what the point of everything is.

You have kids who never learn to interact socially, so they get lonely and blow their brains out. You have kids who never learn to tolerate other classes of people, so they form Trenchcoat Mafias and shoot up the schools. You have kids who spend their whole lives on Nintendo, never receiving culture and never developing creativity. It's a waste. And when they're faced with a situation they don't understand, they don't LEARN, they just get back in their car and disappear back into the sprawl. And I think that suburban life is the main reason for the intense drive toward marriage in today's society. If you live isolated in your own house and your own car in suburbia, you're starving for human interaction. That's why everyone wants to marry and settle down. You end up bringing people to you instead of going out and meeting them. You get a wife and kids so you can have someone join you in your lonely little suburban house and your lonely little suburban car. The city is a MUCH better place for singles and for male/female interaction.

I don't think any effeminacy (I love making up words) in your life is due to an urban vs suburban environment. I think it's due to your home life (father leaving) and to the commercialization of modern society more than the fact that you were brought up in an urban vs a suburban environment. For every city kid you could name who ended up like you, I can name one who grew up in suburbia the same way.

I'll tell you this much...I pretty much grew up totally suburban. I never even KNEW the city life. But when I went to U of M, that was one of the most fascinating things I had ever experienced...being able to walk anywhere, being able to interact with people, going to places that weren't just corporate franchises but actually had CHARACTER.

I had the opportunity to visit New York City for the first time in my life last summer. I was COMPLETELY blown away. Even the places like McDonald's in Times Square had a unique character to them. Everything was built straight up, the houses were near the shops, and EVERYONE was on foot. Even though it was a throng of people, they were REAL PEOPLE, not just a bunch of cars gliding anonymously here and there. There were outdoor cafes, museums, shows, specialty shops, department stores with familiar names but displays that just BECKONED you inside. Bars RIGHT ON THE STREET where you could just be walking by on your way to WHEREVER and stop for a drink. Strip clubs, artisans, street musicians...ENDLESS opportunities to start a conversation. ENDLESS opportunities for interaction.

You PREACH creativity and freedom. Urban life is infinitely more inspiring than suburban life.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that growing up in a city should have made you MORE masculine. What I'm saying is that I think you're placing the blame in the wrong place there. I think living in an urban world would INTENSIFY the factors that WOULD lead you to be masculine or feminine, but this is not the root cause, and I don't want others to believe that suburban lifestyle necessarily makes you grow up more masculine.

"Metrosexual" is the most bullsh!t word ever coined.

And with that, I will end this long-winded comment.

 

[squirrels]

It's funny...I re-read this thread after having a discussion last night with a close friend about urban vs suburban environments and, believe it or not, I disagree with your assertion that "urbania" is responsible for anonymity, much less effeminization.

In fact, I think city life gets way too much bad press. There's this big move right now to go OUT of the cities to raise families...get away from the sprawl, the crime, the pollution, the vehicular traffic. But with all the negatives of city life, people forget about the POSITIVE side of it.

There was a time when people didn't have cars or any kind of personal transit. Back in "the day," cities were a NECESSITY because your residences, your industry, and your commerce ALL had to be close to each other and have facilities that ONLY cities could afford (seaports mainly) to be able to reach their markets.

Because of this, people were forced to interact with each other. You would actually SEE your neighbors on the street walking or riding their horses to work. You wouldn't just see "another car", you would see a face, a PERSON, with whom you could interact.

You don't get that in suburbia. The car is the single unit of interaction. Everyone's neatly packaged in their four-wheel box that shields their identity from everyone else on the road. You don't interact with people on your way to and from work any more, or to and from the store. You transport yourself to your destination, make your purchase, and are gone just as quickly. Think of the degree of personal interaction, the ideas that could be shared, the social skills that could be learned, if we all just lost the cars and walked (or even took the subway!) to our destinations.

Children at least have schools in which they can learn interaction. Me, being a 20something living in suburbia, I rarely interact with ANYONE. I only see people at work, at the gym, or at wherever my destination happens to be. The hot honey jogging in the park, the cutie on the subway, the attractive woman sitting outside at the corner coffee shop? They don't exist for me in suburbia. I take a car or I don't get anywhere. And in that car, I lose my identity and my ability to interact.

It's no wonder customizing cars to reflect your personality is such a popular hobby these days.

Another thing you get from an urban environment is culture. During your walk/bus ride/subway trip to school, merchants will try to grab your attention with sidewalk cafes, novelty shops with fancy displays, music, lights, etc.

Try finding culture in suburbia. You have your houses sprawled out in these single-home and townhouse developments, surrounded by shopping malls, fast-food joints, garages, etc. And each one having a parking lot so people can go there in their sterile automobiles and not have to deal with other people. Again, the car becomes the unit of society.

And again, it's funny how suburban kids with their customized cars will often gather in parking lots and simply hang out, turning these lots dedicated to the instantization and depersonalization of suburban society back into places of social gathering and interaction.

But the most important point goes hand-in-hand with your complaints about the throngs of people in which you lose your identity. Those throngs, that jungle, at least *I* believe, is ESSENTIAL to developing one's manhood. A man in a city must learn to interact, learn how to use the facilities of the city, how to survive, how to make his way around, how to take the culture available to him in a city and build a personality. How to learn to stake his claim among these throngs of people and still interact with them on a political level. It's a quest for SURVIVAL and it teaches you independence and helps you develop identity.

Look at these kids growing up in suburbia. They're not forced to interact with other people outside of school. They grow up on video games and TV, isolated within their own little houses, isolated within their own little cars. They don't have those long Tom Sawyer/Huck Finn style conversations on the walk home from the schoolhouse; instead they drive to where they want to be, do what they came to do, and drive home. That is the limit of their stale experience. It's no wonder they grow up wondering what life holds for them, what the point of everything is.

You have kids who never learn to interact socially, so they get lonely and blow their brains out. You have kids who never learn to tolerate other classes of people, so they form Trenchcoat Mafias and shoot up the schools. You have kids who spend their whole lives on Nintendo, never receiving culture and never developing creativity. It's a waste. And when they're faced with a situation they don't understand, they don't LEARN, they just get back in their car and disappear back into the sprawl. And I think that suburban life is the main reason for the intense drive toward marriage in today's society. If you live isolated in your own house and your own car in suburbia, you're starving for human interaction. That's why everyone wants to marry and settle down. You end up bringing people to you instead of going out and meeting them. You get a wife and kids so you can have someone join you in your lonely little suburban house and your lonely little suburban car. The city is a MUCH better place for singles and for male/female interaction.

I don't think any effeminacy (I love making up words) in your life is due to an urban vs suburban environment. I think it's due to your home life (father leaving) and to the commercialization of modern society more than the fact that you were brought up in an urban vs a suburban environment. For every city kid you could name who ended up like you, I can name one who grew up in suburbia the same way.

I'll tell you this much...I pretty much grew up totally suburban. I never even KNEW the city life. But when I went to U of M, that was one of the most fascinating things I had ever experienced...being able to walk anywhere, being able to interact with people, going to places that weren't just corporate franchises but actually had CHARACTER.

I had the opportunity to visit New York City for the first time in my life last summer. I was COMPLETELY blown away. Even the places like McDonald's in Times Square had a unique character to them. Everything was built straight up, the houses were near the shops, and EVERYONE was on foot. Even though it was a throng of people, they were REAL PEOPLE, not just a bunch of cars gliding anonymously here and there. There were outdoor cafes, museums, shows, specialty shops, department stores with familiar names but displays that just BECKONED you inside. Bars RIGHT ON THE STREET where you could just be walking by on your way to WHEREVER and stop for a drink. Strip clubs, artisans, street musicians...ENDLESS opportunities to start a conversation. ENDLESS opportunities for interaction.

You PREACH creativity and freedom. Urban life is infinitely more inspiring than suburban life.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that growing up in a city should have made you MORE masculine. What I'm saying is that I think you're placing the blame in the wrong place there. I think living in an urban world would INTENSIFY the factors that WOULD lead you to be masculine or feminine, but this is not the root cause, and I don't want others to believe that suburban lifestyle necessarily makes you grow up more masculine.

"Metrosexual" is the most bullsh!t word ever coined.

And with that, I will end this long-winded comment.

 

[nibun]

Can someone do me a big favor and write a Cliff Notes version of this entire thread?

 

[Señor Fingers]

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
homosexuals of the modern day are part of this main force behind this distortion.

PRL, I just realized what it is that bothers me about the majority of homosexuals. Its not so much that they are personally twisted or even that they try to impose their ideals on others (as annoying as that can be)

The problem with these people is that they identify themsleves solely based on their sexuality. You have all these "movements" and yes even parades celebrating a sexual preference. I think that the most distorted aspect of these people is not so much in their perverse sexual nature, but the fact that they feel the need to constantly broadcast their preferences.

This might not sound bizarre to most guys here, but just imagine if the roles were reversed... Think of what would happen if I were to organize an annual "Hetero Pride Day" and even made a little flag of the YinYang symbol to embody the union of male/female. The very premise sounds ridiculous! Whats next? The International Goatfúcker Society?

Pook is right. Sexuality has become distorted into a political tool.

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
Pook and Fingers have touched on the political and religious orders of the last thousands of years and on how they manipulated our sexuality. I didn't think we needed to go that far to explain such manipulation.

There is nothing new about homosexuality or promiscuity. The only real change is that we now have the ability to program the masses easier. Back in the day there were public hangings and executions, the powers used fear as their tool of control. These days it is much simpler, because entertainment is a lot more subliminal and effective form of control. I think we both agree on this point.

However, if you believe that that religion and politics are far removed from modern thinking then I would have to disagree. You bash the homos and hors for imposing their sexuality on the masses but you arent seeing how this is just a counter-response to millenia of the “righteous” imposing their asexuality on others.

It all ties together like a massive Domino Effect. Gays and sex fiends did not arrive on the scene 30 years ago and band together in a massive effort to control the world. Go back to Greco-Roman times and you will see that homosexuality was FAR more accepted by society than it is today. And they accomplished this without TV or mass media!

Funny thing about us humans, we like to believe that history does not repeat itself, that because of our advances in technology and civilization we are history´s special little flowers. The reality is that this sh!t has been going on since the beginning and as they say, our blindness only dooms us to repeat our mistakes...

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
I know for a fact that TODAY American mores on sexuality is not set by religious and political edicts because the political and religious institutions today are not revered nor are their laws adhered to as they once were centuries past. This is evidenced by the current ‘breakdown” in society, which surrounds us currently. I dare say that these institutions in the last 40 years have been looked upon with scorn and disrespect amongst our youth, because of their false ideologies and misguided indoctrination.

Not directly affected but you cant deny the influence. Society has been swaying between extremes for quite some time now. What you are describing here is a textbook example of the pendulum effect in full swing.

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
Do you notice how the political and religious leaders of today bow down and cater to this mass medium of influence. They know that they have absolutely no power over the masses without this force behind them.

Bullsh!t. Look at President Bush. He has pissed off a lot of people on the whole gay marriage issue but it didnt stop him at all. You are giving these people far too much power IMO. You wanna talk about the “powers that be” just follow the money trail dude. Monetary gain is the biggest incentive there is for mass control. The card-holders dont care if you are black, white or purple. Sexual orientation dont mean sh!t to them either, as long as you keep feeding cash into their system, you are cool with them.

You talk about how religious/political have little or no bearing on the current distortions, but then you undo your argument with this right here....

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
The question is who is behind this message? The answer is, those same individuals who have been our political and religious leaders since centuries past. They understand that their political and religious power must take on a new form, and this form must be done with messages geared towards impacting the masses.

Now you are agreeing with Pook. This is the “Neo-Religion” you are describing here. A new empirical force that wears many faces. Religion and sexual preference are non-issues at this level of power. It all comes down to the money dude.

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
A current example of those in power using the mass media to try to control the thinking and the cultural norms of others is in the Arab and Islamic world. Most of these countries have rejected outright the influx of movies and music that has permeated every culture on every continent, including China and Africa. They have stated, correctly, that this is an attempt by Europeans to indoctrinate their youth to embrace the West’s sick cultural values and to eventually adopt their thinking and customs! The first thing America did in Iraq (before the invasion) was to create a radio and TV station to broadcast their message and try to affect and influence the thinking of the Iraqi citizenry!

Absolutely. Cultural diffusion has become the most potent tool of imperialism. Think of how many cultures have been successfully blanked out by a generation of America-wannabes. This goes beyond sexuality though, we are talking about voluntary cultural genocide here. Very scary and very real threat to the diversity we currently enjoy.

Hell, our people are a perfect example of this. How many Tainos are left to carry on their traditions? What happened to their culture? Also, Puerto Ricans are granted American citizenship, but it comes at a great price. They must sacrifice not only their land for military operations (The Vieques fiasco) but also their cultural identity as their precious landscape is gradually looking more and more like New Jersey. Sad!

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
Arab and Islamic peoples are the most adamant rejecters of this ‘new thinking’, especially when it comes to the ‘distortion’ of man’s sexuality. They refuse to be injected with the political, religious, and cultural mores of Europeans, and are desperately trying to keep the purveyors of filth from infecting the minds of their women and children. These are their words not mine!!

You applaud these people for thwarting the brainwashing of Western culture, but you ignore the fact that they are just as brainwashed and distorted as the West but to the opposite extreme. We may have hors and homosexuals but at least we dont stone our women for adultery, cover them in burkas or practice female circumcision. Both cultures are sexually distorted at opposite ends of the spectrum, IMO. Whichever one is more “wrong” is really subjective and depends on which idealogy conforms to your own morals.

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
I have more to say, but my index finger is strained. I have to learn how to type with my other fingers. No Senor Fingers, I’m not talking about you, I’m referring to the fingers that make up my hand.

Damn. You typed all that with one finger? Thats some serious dedication!

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
I need a hug too! But be careful where you put your hands on my body, with sexuality being distorted the way it has lately, an embrace between two men doesn’t seem to represent what it once did, and it has now taken on a new meaning. J

LOL!

 

[Señor Fingers]

Originally posted by squirrels
It's funny...I re-read this thread after having a discussion last night with a close friend about urban vs suburban environments and, believe it or not, I disagree with your assertion that "urbania" is responsible for anonymity, much less effeminization.

What? How dare you disagree with me? Dont you know who I am???? My goons are arriving at your door as you read this.

Originally posted by squirrels
In fact, I think city life gets way too much bad press. There's this big move right now to go OUT of the cities to raise families...get away from the sprawl, the crime, the pollution, the vehicular traffic. But with all the negatives of city life, people forget about the POSITIVE side of it.

Wait up Tony... Dont break his legs just yet..this kid is onto something...

Go on kid..I am listening.

Originally posted by squirrels
There was a time when people didn't have cars or any kind of personal transit. Back in "the day," cities were a NECESSITY because your residences, your industry, and your commerce ALL had to be close to each other and have facilities that ONLY cities could afford (seaports mainly) to be able to reach their markets.

Because of this, people were forced to interact with each other. You would actually SEE your neighbors on the street walking or riding their horses to work. You wouldn't just see "another car", you would see a face, a PERSON, with whom you could interact.

You don't get that in suburbia. The car is the single unit of interaction. Everyone's neatly packaged in their four-wheel box that shields their identity from everyone else on the road. You don't interact with people on your way to and from work any more, or to and from the store..

Nevermind Tony. This kids full of shyt. I say take out the whole family for good measure..

Hehe...On the real though, you make a valid point. I dont have much experience in suburbia so this is a new perspective for me.

I can tell you this much. Just because people are exposed to each other more in the city does not negate the fact that everyone is still isolating themselves from social interactions. I have taken the subway everyday my whole life and you know what I have seen? A bunch of people who have become PROS at ignoring each other! Eye contact is shunned because you never know who will turn out to be a stalker, mugger, rapist. Defenses are way up and it is a challenge to engage people in this environment.

But you are right, at least there is the opportunity to do so!

Originally posted by squirrels
Children at least have schools in which they can learn interaction. Me, being a 20something living in suburbia, I rarely interact with ANYONE. I only see people at work, at the gym, or at wherever my destination happens to be. The hot honey jogging in the park, the cutie on the subway, the attractive woman sitting outside at the corner coffee shop? They don't exist for me in suburbia. I take a car or I don't get anywhere. And in that car, I lose my identity and my ability to interact.

Yeah. As I said, there are infinitely more opportunities in the city than in the burbs. Guess this is why I have never been able to hang, much less live in these areas...that and I also cant drive! Another symptom of city life!

Originally posted by squirrels
Try finding culture in suburbia. You have your houses sprawled out in these single-home and townhouse developments, surrounded by shopping malls, fast-food joints, garages, etc. And each one having a parking lot so people can go there in their sterile automobiles and not have to deal with other people. Suburban kids with their customized cars will often gather in parking lots and simply hang out, turning these lots dedicated to the instantization and depersonalization of suburban society back into places of social gathering and interaction.

Thats deep squirrels.. Also funny you mention this. The few times I did hang out in the burbs it was in 7-11 parking lots. You poor bastards are STARVED for hangout spots!

Originally posted by squirrels
But the most important point goes hand-in-hand with your complaints about the throngs of people in which you lose your identity. Those throngs, that jungle, at least *I* believe, is ESSENTIAL to developing one's manhood. A man in a city must learn to interact, learn how to use the facilities of the city, how to survive, how to make his way around, how to take the culture available to him in a city and build a personality. How to learn to stake his claim among these throngs of people and still interact with them on a political level. It's a quest for SURVIVAL and it teaches you independence and helps you develop identity.

Some more good points here, but I still dont like that you disagree with me. We have to fix this because Tony is getting restless!

For your clarification...

I was really addressing the anonymity factor of urbanization that has helped break down the family unit. In the city no one will hold you accountable for your actions. In the burbs people know who you are and you have more pressure of social obligation to your family. Does this mean that guys dont go AWOL on their families in suburbia? Of course not, we are just talking statistics here. Wish I had some numbers to back up my claim but I am working off my decades of experience in the city. Feel free to prove me wrong (at your own risk of course)

Bottom line, most of the kids I know from the burbs have a mother and father as opposed to the majority of my city pals, who had to learn how to shave and toss footballs on their own.

Originally posted by squirrels
Look at these kids growing up in suburbia. They're not forced to interact with other people outside of school. They grow up on video games and TV, isolated within their own little houses, isolated within their own little cars.

You PREACH creativity and freedom. Urban life is infinitely more inspiring than suburban life.

No arguments here. If I were you I would get out of that hell hole ASAP! This post makes me feel even sorrier for my suburban friends than ever.

Alright Tony, you can put down the baseball bat, seems this kid has suffered enough already.

 

[TesuqueRed]

shouldn't rant, should I?

 

[TesuqueRed]

x

 

[TesuqueRed]

[...

 

[izza]

This is one of the most important threads on sosuave - don't let it die.

Who is responsible for AFCs? And how can we change the world?

I had a conversation with a kid my age recently - I didn't even say a word about sexuality and women, and according to him I changed his life. Why? Because we on SoSuave are blessed to be finally told that real life is following your dreams to the last breath. Among thousands of confused, pain-filled AFCs, by happen-stance we have found our way to this site; among the thousands who persuade us our dreams are impossible, I can think of few other places that have told me my dreams are possible. We are the few who can inspire others to dream.

Look around you today, and I guarantee you are surrounded by people with no F*CKING DREAMS! People that sleep through life and live only through debilitating fantasy - porn, tv, video games, browsing the internet etc. Ask these people how to change the world for the better, how to be happy, who they are, what they believe the meaning of life is and they can't sputter out even a word. They just don't know; they have no idea and no idea how to find meaning in life.

We who find SoSuave are blessed to find real dreams not fantasies, manhood not androgyny. This is what I offered that 23 year old kid, the possibility of dreaming and self-improvement. And it changed his life; you there, you can change so many wasted lives around you. It's a crazy world and someone has to do something.

Izza

 

[drew6532]

Comment on the whole urban life theory. I'm from a heavily populated city area and I, along with the majority of males brought up in my time, were raised by women in fatherless homes. So I can see where one may get the idea of mothers "unwittingly banishing" their sons "to the lowest levels of AFC-dom."(reminds me of Fight Club)

However, despite the rationality of this idea, this is NOT what I see in my area and many urban areas around the country. Most of the young males in my community end up treating women with the same regard, as did the fathers they never knew. So in fact, I must say that I'd be more likely to blame suburban life for sending their sons into AFC-dom. Having spent 5 years of my life in suburbia where there are more two-parent homes, I can say the absense of the father (working, networking, smashing the secretary), along with more of mommy raising kids at the younger ages would more likely lead to this AFC-dom than would urban life. And I believe that suburban life is what we recognize more as the norm when it comes to societal standards.

[BTW] Thank you squirrels for not being afraid to disagree S. Fingers, Ph. D ("Good point", "Beautifully put!", "100% true...", "Right again"). Shyt's more interesting that way. Fingers' exceptional skills at writing and persuasion do not make him unarguable or immune from the possibility of being wrong.
Chill Tony!

 

[KinkyMan]

im starting to think that some people that frequent this board are crazy misogynists

what are you so afraid of?

you keep wanting to think you have balls and men are this or that, why dont you just deal with what is in front of you instead of making stupid generalizations

i mean it is obvious that women have more rights and respect than they did one hundered years ago

but if you date some girl who tells you what to do, dump her if you want to

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Originally posted by KinkyMan
im starting to think that some people that frequent this board are crazy misogynists...i mean it is obvious that women have more rights and respect than they did one hundered years ago

Are you insane??? Women have never been more disrespected than ever in the last 40 years!! How do you "respect" a hor?? You only respect her as the hor that she is!!!!

Were you sleeping the last 40 years or are you a teenager and not knowledgable?

Wake up - THE MATRIX HAS YOU!!!

Follow the Puerto Rican rabbit!!!

 

[NewMan]

How do you "respect" a hor?? You only respect her as the hor that she is!

Please Enlighten us. What constitues a Hor? Define it for us. What is the difference between a Hor and a non Hor?

 

[TonyTheTigerOI]

Im sorry - but everyone here who thinks feminism is a female version of chauvinism is incorrect - PRL

Feminism is a belief in the equal opportunity (socially, politically, and economically) of the sexes. Chauvinism is a belief in the superiority of ones gender. They are actually opposites.

The poblem is... feminism is misrepresented for the sake of entertainment. The flanell wearing, 160 lb woman chanting about female superiority is not feminism. True feminism recognizes that there are many identities that both men and women can fill. Those identities should be filled according to ability, not stereo type. Thats it. Period.

If you are a large, strong woman - go ahead and work in a factory. If you love kids and can manage a household - go ahead and be a house husband. Is it right for everyone? Less than one percent of the population. But for that small fraction of the public, taking an untraditional roll is WHAT THEY WERE MEANT TO DO - that is feminism.

Its strange to think of a woman in cammo holding a gun, defending the country. But I am certain that I have met women more capable of war than my brother. Thats life - PRL you are probably religious - god made my brother incapable of fighting. And he made some women tough as nails. Who are you to say he is wrong? (for the record I am not religious, btw)

Personally, PRL, you dont deserve access to these boards. You are obviously uneducated if you think women are dissrespected more now than they were hundreds of years ago. It was a common practice in war to kill the men and children of a conquored village and then rape the women. That just reeks of respect, doesnt it? Be thankful you live in a civilized country where women have earned representation in the social political and economic arenas. If you dont like it, leave.