My Pussy is Purrin’ Again is part one-woman band, part memoir, part stand-up comedy. 78-year-old New Yorker D’Yan Forest gives both a titillating and endearing performance as she sings and zings about her many pussy purrin’ and not-so-pussy purrin’ adventures across the globe.
-no homo = my compliment is not sexual... but who said it was in the first place? -Chapter 4 says most men are attracted to other men, this is how it bubbles in a homophobic society
I've never been satisfied with the search feature in Windows. Too slow and it never found a damn anything, especially in Vista and 7. I've been using Copernic Desktop Search. It runs in the background and loads in a few seconds when you need it: http://www.copernic.com/en/products/desktop-search/home/index.html
If you like a woman with a penis, you're a fag. If you like pussy, but a man is attached to it, you're also a fag. Sexual orientation is technically only about genitalia but clearly that's not the whole picture.
Windows doesn't generate thumbnails for all video formats, making it hard to find the right porn out of terabytes of videos. The solution: http://babelsoft.net/products.htm#en
We are all bisexual to begin with. That is a fact of our condition. And we are all responsive to sexual stimuli from our own as well as from the opposite sex. Certain societies at certain times, usually in the interest of maintaining the baby supply, have discouraged homosexuality. Other societies, particularly militaristic ones, have exalted it. But regardless of tribal taboos, homosexuality is a constant fact of the human condition and it is not a sickness, not a sin, not a crime . . . despite the best efforts of our puritan tribe to make it all three. Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Notice I use the word "natural," not normal. Buckley likes the word normal. It conjures up vigorous Minute Men with rifles shooting Commies, while their wives and little ones stay home stitching hoods. But what is the sexual norm? By definition it is what most people do most frequently. Therefore, the norm is neither homosexual nor heterosexual. The most frequent (if not most preferred!) sexual outlet of most people most of the time is masturbation, making onanism the statistical norm from which all else is deviation.
Thank you very much for your mail. I actually had seen your site a few days before you sent your mail, while searching the net, and have been wanting to get in touch. I'd keep my mail short for this one, and would write more in my next mail. Basically, I was really glad to see someone who thinks so much like me, and if you hadn't started your work after viewing my site, then its even more rare to see such work. There have been quite a few western endeavours in the past, by masculine gendered males to talk about man-man love, however, none ever would touch the issue of 'gay' as a separate (third) gender -- and to my mind, understanding and taking into account the third gender factor is primary in understanding the oppression of men and man-man bonds. I see some acknowledgement of this gender, and, to me, its a good start. I'm in a hurry now, but will write more, soon. Till then, congratulations on your work, keep up the good work, and hope we can join hands on this!
Quote
First of all my apologies for writing so late. I have been very busy, plus, I've not been keeping well. Add to it the fact that I've been actively doing internet activism for years -- and now I'm mentally tired and dread writing, and would rather work. As I promised in my last mail, I'd like to give you some feedback about the issues you've written on. first of all, let me tell you that your book seems to be the work of great scholarly quality, which means that you're not only talented to do this stuff, you've done your homework well. Add to it, that you write in an interesting manner, which keeps the interest of the reader live. I'm amazed at the knowledge that you've collected and the depth to which you've done so. Your work is going to be of great use to me (as well as others), and I do hope that you can start a movement of sort in the west -- which badly needs it. But, the most important is this -- that you have pinpointed the problem correctly (well, nearly). And, identifying the problem is half-solving it. You've great clarity about the issue, and you've dealt with it in a very professional manner. And, now for some constructive analysis. 1. While I greatly appreciate that you talk about (a) universality of male desire for men, and (b) the problem of associating man-man desire with the 'gay gender,' you're still one step away from recognizing the 'gay' gender as a distinct human gender of effeminate and transgendered males --- which should ideally include all males with a female gender orientation, whether they desire men, women, other third genders or any combination of them. And, while I think that recognizing the "third gender" is crucial to understanding and addressing the problem of man-man love (and other manhood issues), I don't think that this is necessarily your drawback. I understand that the western society is not really conducive, at this juncture, to acknowledge or understand a third gender, and thus, your approach is totally appropriate to your culture (i.e. the west), and that is more important than calling a spade a spade, to the 'T.' Hopefully, one day you can take your society to that ideal point. 2. I have some concern about the solution that you're proposing to the issue of man-man love. While acknowledging and proving universal male desire for men, you're at the sametime (to my mind) making the mistake of creating another 'category' for man-man love -- the "Greros." The very idea of separation is the root of the problem. While, I understand that you live in a society where labels and categories are very important, at the sametime, the goal should be to end isolation/ separation -- not to create another category, even if 'masculine.' I am sure you know about other such attempts in the west -- that of the "G0ys" who also recognize that a majority have sexual feelings for men, however, end up creating a separate space within the LGBT for 'masculine gays.' I don't see this as something that is going to attract a number of masculine gendered males into proudly accepting their desire for another man. I've worked with males with manhood a lot, and my experience says that men detest anything that separates them from the manhood category. And, there is only one manhood category in the west, and its defined as 'straight.' Now unless "Greros" are going to be counted toegether with the 'straights' rather than the LGBT, I don't know how this is going to solve your problem. "G0ys" at best attract the masculine gendered males that are already sexually active with men, apart from the 'straight-acting' gays (i.e. non-men). The only difference in their approach and yours seem to be that you're not coming down on 'anal sex' like the "G0ys." However, if you sincerely believe in the universality of male desire for men (which cannot really come unless you experience it -- and I don't mean by personally having sex with men, there are other ways ... and you probably have experienced it), then there is no reason why you shouldn't strive for the ideal situation -- where the definition of 'straight' itself is changed from 'heterosexual' to include all kinds of desires and relationships between men. That is the only way, regular guys can ever feel comfortable in large numbers to own up their own need for men. Of course, that would mean first to fight to end all the anti-man pressures and mechanisms built to forcefully heterosexualize boys, as part of their social masculinzation. It's going to be a lifetime's task, but we need people who are willing to devote a lifetime, rather than those who expect some quick results, however minor. In fact, your goal should be to do away with all 'sexual orientation' categories, and instead revert back to the ancient (that still operates in the non-west) 'gender orientation' categories of: i. Men: i.e. males with manhood, of whatever sexual orientation ii. Women: i.e. females who are non transgendered. iii. Third genders: males who have feminine gender orientation, and transgendered females of whatever sexual orientation. In fact, the word 'sexual orientatoin' should be made obsolete. It never existed before. 3. It may be better to work upon the issues of 'manhood' for men and their overall rights (and include man-man love as part of the overall agenda), rather than to work specifically upon 'man-man love' issues, firstly because, eventually, the issue is not 'sexuality' but 'gender' (manhood ... and the need to avoid 'queerhood'). All of men's issues, problems and oppression originate from politicizing and manipulation of social manhood. Secondly, because, men are EXTREMELY wary of talking about 'sexuality' upfront, because, for long it has been associated with 'lack of manhood,' at least, in the west. Talking about sexuality upfront will only scare and alienate most men, and that is not what you want. Besides, many men will feel comfortable talking about sexual issues, if it is suitably camouflaged. I don't think you can remove the stigma of 'lack of manhood' associated with 'man-man love' just through talking about the facts. Because, even when men know the facts, they rarely feel empowered or safe enough to act on that information. It is one thing to know the truth, but to take that knowledge into action takes much more. Many men are already aware of the reality -- yet, they would rather conform, rather than confront the society. As long as the individual man is isolated he would not feel empowered to act. And, you cannot organise men unless you camouflage the issue of man-man love. Afterall, you're living in a society where men are prevented even from holding hands with each other. Remember, for many men -- probably most (if they've killed their sexuality), sexuality is not the most important thing in life. Manhood and conforming to social standards, etc. are more important to men, than being able to indulge in sex with men (or women/ third genders) freely. This could keep your reach restricted to the few sexually active men, or for whom sex is everything. Having said that, you're of course free to experiment and reach at your own conclusions. It is no doubt, possible, that if some males with manhood, fighting all odds, create a small space for man-man love, called 'Grero' -- and maybe very, very slowly, perhaps after our lifetimes, things will change, and others will join in. In the end, once again my best wishes are with you for the success of this movement, and you're welcome to discuss anything that you wish to.
My points as rambled about in the video, okay: -third gender: political correctness prevents much gender talk as it is, classifying by gender may be limiting, just like sexual orientation. -grero does not create entirely new sexual orientation paradigm per se, but rather grero is a small piece of a new broader whole -grero as a new category: grero is not necessarily a collective noun but rather a property or essence of men, also marketing demands a shorthand to describe a complicated concept. -grero is not LGBT: LGBT itself a dumpster for individuals who are not part of the artificial, biased heterosexual construct -g0ys: g0ys say gays are too anal-focused and anal=feminine, but converting gay men will not work as gays are effeminate naturally not because of anal sex -focus on gay vs third gender category: gay is the main attraction, cross-dressers and other third genders not important to main point -change definition of straight, instead of new category: straight conflation of sexuality and gender, straight = masculine & likes only feminine women, probably easier to have new term, grero supersedes sexual orientation -sexual orientation obsolete, gender-based orientation may be too simple and limiting -third gender: like LGBT, it's a dumpster for a wide variety of people -down-low, discrete: subtle has not worked for centuries, maybe bold openness can change that -down-low: ironically only about sex, maybe openness can create a space for more than just sex -grero strategy: grero not for everyone, people conform, not confront; most men will not be greros in current era, attract small percentage of those willing to confront, meet up with others, form social circle, attract others (take over world, etc)
You know what I've been wondering about for years? The people that say "gay is a choice" might simply be speaking from their own perspective. Maybe for them they are bi or curious but have chosen not to explore any same sex attractions so that's why they think it must be a choice for truly gay and bisexual people. So really it's an admission of their own potential sexual fluidity.
Show Posts
