A response to the author's comments on my review of
0029: Review of Reclaiming Natural Manhood:
I liked your review, but there are a few things:
- Although, you often mentioned my site as saying that most men want to have sex with other men -- that is not exactly what it says. Although, I often use the term 'sexual interest,' I am really talking about a much larger concept than just sex (sex is often the preoccupation with the gays). I'm talking about a need for intimacy (physical, sexual, romantic, etc.), love, eompanionship, etc.with another man.
In fact, this is often one point of difference between the gay's attraction for men and the straight male's attraction for men (I can't say about the greros). While the gay male's attraction for men is often shallow, superficial and promiscuous in nature, the straight male tends to bond one to one, deep and lifelong -- if they could, that is, something like the Brokeback mountains depicted. The core of what constitutes straight in your society, consists of such males, a large percentage of whom would readily have monogamous lifelong relationship with another man. Most of the rest would, under natural circumstances, tend to bond in a committed relationship with one man, while be promiscuous with women.
Those who tend to be promiscuous with men, but into deeper, committed relationships with women are the one's who are exactly similar to the gays, except that the gays often don't like women at all. This population really doesn't belong in the straight (i.e. manhood space) however, they're the ones that rule and control the western manhood space, now called 'straight' by the third genders that like men (gays).
In fact, there are two main points of difference between the gays and straights (the sexual orientation difference is not real, only imposed). In other words, there are two kinds of people that relate to a 'gay' identity, or to the entire idea of a separate identity at all. The first and foremost class of gays is those who are different on account of gender orientation, i.e., they're feminine gendered. The second class of those who insist on a gay (or any other identity) are those who maybe masculine gendered, however, their sexuality for men is promiscuous in nature, like that of the gays, especially, and this is my suspicion, that they have a promiscuous need for receptive anal sex, which makes them feel different from the straight population. They're also more open about their sexual need and don't care for down low, like the straight males.
It seems that the Greros are then part of the masculine gendered males, who are into multiple partner sex with men, rather than into deeper, especially, monogamous bonding (that involves sex) with one male. As such, they should properly be classified on the 'straight' side of the straight: lgbt divide (which is essentially, the manhood: third gender divide).
- It seems that your interpretation of the chapter on "mammalian male sexuality" is deeply influenced by what may be called as the 'heteronormative' mindset of the west. In the west, it is now widely believed that males are essentially and primarily into females (the mindset in a typical non-western society may seem similar on the facade, but as you go deeper into the men's spaces, you can feel that a different mindset prevails).
The way you said, something like, "in the wild, the alpha male who is the most powerful keeps the entire female harem to himself, forcing the other males out, who then have no option but to band together and fulfill their sexual needs with one another." It seems like 'situational homosexuality.'
The reality is quite different -- both, if you study male mammals in the wild, or if you observe human 'straight' male behaviour in non-heterosexualised men's spaces. At least, how the west explains this is based on half-truths.
The fact is that nearly all of the intense fights that we see in wild life documentaries for control of female harems, is amongst less than 20% of mammalian males. The ones who don't fight aren't meek -- they just don't care about females. But, if you assume that all males have sexuality towards females as their basic drive, then you'll need to explain the rest of the 75% or more as weaker males.
I also have problem with the manner in which western science defines the male that rules the female harem as the 'Alpha male.' This smacks of equating sexual desire for females with masculinity or machoness and is not totally true. The male that controls the male group may be much more powerful than the so-called 'Alpha male' that controls the female group. It doesn't take much power to control the females. But western science don't want to even look at that. How many documentaries can you talk of that show you how the male groups live? If they were to show that, the hollowness of the assumption that the majority of males need females will be knwon.
The fact is also that (as is clear in the case of red foxes), the males who fight for females, are not really heterosexual. They're merely looking for one night stands, enough to transfer their genes. They forget about the female after that, while their main life is spent in male spaces and in male bonds. However, the heterosexual red male fox -- who is the gay type, doesn't want to fight for females, instead, he has 'relationship' with them, for which he doesn't compete with the males at all. When the males who have fought for females have deposited their genes, this heterosexual male then quietly bonds with one of the females, and then starts a family with her, fathering over her offsprings, eventhough he is not their real father.
regards.
