Deconstructing Adam

A thread dedicated to analyzing, understanding, dissecting the male gender, the masculine type, the male sexual type.

A male is expendable.
A male is a dime a dozen.
A male can fertilize hundreds of females over the same period of time a female needs to carry to term a single baby.
This is why, in nature, a male must prove himself worthy of a female's risks and the costs she will be called to pay during her pregnancy and afterwards when she supports the child.

In solitary species the choice is not made by the female, as any male that survives or can control a territory or can run of any competing males will get to copulate with her.
This is why in non-social species estrus gives off obvious signs, calling to the female all potential mates.

In social species, such as humans, the process is more complex, as competition occurs within the social group, where hierarchies must be established and continuously updated.
Copulation can take on a social aspect,a  symbolic bonding or reaffirmation of hierarchies.

In some social species the inferior, non-dominant, male is excluded  from the group, forcing it to impose himself upon one.
In others the inferior male, the subordinate, immature one, the beta-male, is tolerated if he offers the proper deference to the dominant one.
Guile becomes a part of the reproductive cycle.
Females, having control, more control, over their own ovum, can now use copulation, grooming, the promise of sex, as a way of preserving their status and improving it.
Social cunning becomes a female talent, whereas the male still uses more direct, obvious approaches.
This makes the dominant male's sexual behavior more honest, whereas females and beta-males use the more feminine approach of seducing, manipulating, promising, creating alliances to compensate for individual inferiority etc. 
Politics is born.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

In solitary species the choice is not made by the female, as any male that survives or can control a territory or can run of any competing males will get to copulate with her.

I would like to take a step back.

From what I have seen recently, it seems to me that too many men need the approval of women. This obviously prevents a man from being who he wants to be and involves giving away his power to do as he sees fit, let alone "control a territory or compete with other males".

The man he is today, basically is what the boy learned at home, from his dad or father figure. Being an "approval seeker", ultimately means avoiding confrontation. A man like this will go to extreme measures, such as editing or avoiding, saying or doing anything he knows that will provoke a woman. The result is all that he was passionate about is slowly being forgotten.

If a man decides to give up the need for a woman's approval and becomes more masculine in his role then, he is changing the game. There are lots of women who would cherish a man like this.

A man cannot ask for permission to be the man he wants to be. It has to be his choice and many men have forgotten this.

The system prevents men form being the men they are.

It is called political-correctness. It is enforced with accusations about sexism, racism, hate, sexual innuendos, and more direct threats upon him, his family and his livelihood.
Nothing which might come close to making someone hurt is considered unacceptable rhetoric and hate-speech. 

Let's be honest, the only reason females can flex their sexual muscle is because they are protected. In nature this protection comes from siding with a powerful male, In modern systems this male is the Institution.
It is only under the protective gaze of the abstracted male and its arms, (law, police, state) can a woman be the "intimidating" woman all males fear, explaining why she is without a mate; only now can a woman go out, carefree, with her tits and ass in full view, fearless because she is watched over by the state; only now can she be promiscuous, masculnie, because she's given the pill which arrests her critical judgment - whatever level she is gifted with - by making her choices irrelevant, and sex, in general, a trivial body on body masturbation.

Let's bring two natural behaviors together.

1- Taking lion prides as an example.
In lion prides the dominant male controls a group of females. 
He protects them and they feed him and bear his offspring.
When the male grows old or is challenged by an other male, the females rally behind him, wanting to preserve their inventions - mostly in living matter, offspring.
If this unified defense fails, the new male slaughters all cubs, forcing the female into heat.
The females quickly accept this new authority and now become defenders of him, after they've submitted to him sexually. 

2- Taking primate (chimpanzee, baboon) social structures as an example. 
In systems where inferior males (immature males, genetically inferior males, injured or old males) are included in the social structure, the dominant male enforces a strict code of conduct.
He not only breaks up internal strife but he keeps females and males in check.
These dominated males take on a feminine disposition simply to be permitted to coexist within the troop.
Some await for an opportunity, creating alliances, to challenge the authority of the dominant male, others employ more feminine methods of gaining sexual favors.
Therefore, males are either emasculated or forced to challenge and confront the authority. 
The only third option is to pretend, to self-censor, to keep under the radar, to use more insidious, methods - in other words it is to be a hypocrite.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

It is only under the protective gaze of the abstracted male and its arms, (law, police, state) can a
woman be the "intimidating" woman all males fear, explaining why she is without a mate; only now can a woman go out, carefree, with her tits and ass in full view, fearless because she is watched over by the state; only now can she be promiscuous, masculnie, because she's given the pill which arrests her critical judgment - whatever level she is gifted with - by making her choices irrelevant, and sex, in general, a trivial body on body masturbation.

I feel your anger and frustration.  Do you really think all women are like the one you describe above.

Female chimpanzees are wildly promiscuous, and male chimpanzees have large testicles, in contrast, female gorillas are extremely faithful, and so male gorillas have tiny testicles. Human males have mid-size testicles (40g or 0.08 per cent of body weight), suggesting moderate promiscuity among human females.

The only comfort that men can take from the animal world is that females also have an incentive not to have all their offspring from adulterous liaisons.

'If they are totally unfaithful to their social partner, they might just be abandoned.'

What frustration?
What one?

I speak of a species with a particular disposition.
The exception to the rule can only be understood and appreciated in relation to the rule.
No emotion, no need, no desire...simple analysis.

True, the size of male testicles is proportional to their aggressiveness.
Their aggression is proportional to female promiscuity and the competitiveness, sperm wars, this produces.
Therefore, the human species is in between gorilla and chimpanzee, when using primates as our standard.
This is not to say that gorillas are not aggressive at all, but that they are less so in comparison to humans and, much less, when compared to chimpanzee - Bonobo being a special exception.

If we take this as a starting position then feminization, using human techniques, technologies, would result in the shrinking of testicles, and a reduction in testosterone.
If we also consider the fact that this is a byproduct of human intervention, which proceeds at rates exceeding in speed those we find in nature, we see how this discrepancy between the natural - the sum of all nurturing, the past - is different, in degree, from the present situation of social rules and enforced behaviors.
We might think of human meddling as a phenomenon almost as traumatic and life altering as a meteor hit.
The sudden divergence from previous natural behaviors is resulting in an extinction, and in mas confusion.

Recently on another Forum during an exchange, far more males, defended what they saw as the "victimized" woman during a debate concerning feminism.  This was done without critical thought.  The content did not matter, only the context.

I was more than mildly surprised at the thought that there are now males who have become assimilated by feminization and are more emphatic, more effective feminists than the founders of feminism could have ever hoped for.

Needless to say I was "gagged" and banned for attempting to point this out.

What's an Alpha, who are the Betas...?

I think,
Alpha - Beta is the degree of masculinity relative to the individuals involved.
Additionally there is internal and external masculinity.

A PUA (Pickup Artist) would say that an Alpha gets to sleep with lots of women, preferably attractive ones. So, in that book, the Alpha is trying to please women, it's his purpose. Pleasing in the sense of being sexually attractive to her. That's the end of the line for them - hedonism.
That's not masculine at all - Quite the opposite.
On the inside, that's a feminine attitude, to want to please, to be delightful by  posing, by showing a masculine demeanor on the outside.
It's almost as if everybody involved knows about this charade, at least at an unconscious level.

The honor of women is their love and fear.
It's also a way of discriminating among male suitors.

Then, there are those men who are trying to escape that purpose. I say escape because often they start out with a mindset which focuses on being attractive to women, being successful with women and modern society. They start having success with women and society, become disillusioned because they learn which qualities, which kinds of attitudes are successful and they seek more. I'd say that the idea of Alpha changes - being more focused on themselves, to become someone, to continually become.

That's an internal development, the alpha attitude is within and it tries to create their own surroundings to reflect it. It's all cloak and dagger on the outside in these modern times. Which reminds me, that this here - here on this forum - is a form of preserving, not only some other minds - the selfish intent is to preserve oneself. So the cloak and dagger doesn't become the purpose but is just the cover.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

The system prevents men form being the men they are.

and women who endeavour to challenge it.

Adam comes from the Hebrew adomah, meaning "man." Eve is from the Hebrew for "life."  

Most of our preconceived ideas about Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden come from John Milton's epic poem "Paradise Lost," published in 1667.

Feminist critics of Paradise Lost suggest that Eve is forbidden the knowledge of her own identity. Moments after her creation, before Eve is led to Adam, she becomes enraptured by an image reflected in the water (her own, unbeknownst to Eve).[16] God urges Eve to look away from her own image, her beauty, which is also the object of Adam’s desire. Adam delights in both her beauty and submissive charms, yet Eve may never be permitted to gaze upon her individual form. Critic Julia M. Walker argues that because Eve “neither recognises nor names herself ... she can know herself only in relation to Adam.”[17] “Eve’s sense of self becomes important in its absence ... [she] is never allowed to know what she is supposed to see.”[18] Eve therefore knows not what she is, only what she is not: male. Starting in Book IV, Eve learns that Adam, the male form, is superior and “How beauty is excelled by manly grace/ And wisdom which alone is truly fair.”[19] Led by his gentle hand, she yields, a woman without individual purpose, destined to fall by “free will.”

reasonvemotion wrote:

Recently on another Forum during an exchange, far more males, defended what they saw as the "victimized" woman during a debate concerning feminism.  This was done without critical thought.  The content did not matter, only the context.

I was more than mildly surprised at the thought that there are now males who have become assimilated by feminization and are more emphatic, more effective feminists than the founders of feminism could have ever hoped for.

Needless to say I was "gagged" and banned for attempting to point this out.

 This is the typical beta-male psychology.
The beta wants to be a rug for the female to walk on, increasing his potential to be liked.

Two reasons...

1- He, being on he side, I what beta-males do to get her to give him sex.
Debasing himself, his sex, his identity, anyhting just to get between her elgs.  
She obliges because she knows that making and keeping alliances is beneficial.
What a little sex for a rug to step on?

2- The beta-male, the effete, emasculated, inferior male, knows that the only way to make his state less obvious is by enforcing this uniformity of behavior, thinking, which is on his level.
If all males are emasculated, restricted to a median, then the superior loses its advantage. He is less obvious.

Quote :

Anfang wrote:
What's an Alpha, who are the Betas...?

I think,
Alpha - Beta is the degree of masculinity relative to the individuals involved.
Additionally there is internal and external masculinity.

 


It can be calculated that 15% of the population are alpha males.  They have the greatest success rates with women than the average Beta and as Betas make up approximately 70% of the population, these are obviously the majority and they are the ones who marry and have families.  So is it fair to say, that if their wives cheat while they are married, it is most likely it would be the Alpha male whom they would be cheating with?  

Which brings to mind the questions.  

Is there a fine line between an Alpha and narcissism, and

Do any males on this Forum consider themselves to be an Alpha male?

Alpha, originally, has to do with sex, but, more generally, it has to do with attitude and domination.

For example, Nietzsche was sickly and was not sexually promiscuous. He was not successful with females.
Salome chose his friend over him...or, perhaps, he pushed her towards him, having seen something in her which he could not accept.
Heidegger did not look like a typical alpha-male either, yet he seduced some of the finest female minds around him.Socrates was ugly, but young boys sought his interests and were willing to surrender to him sexually to gain them.  

Still, he, Nietzsche, can be considered an alpha-male because he mind-fucked generations of females and males, and his seeds, though they are themselves products of an earlier age - because there is no such thing as parthenogenesis - are still growing, gestating in the mental wombs of generations.
he was fertilized, he gestated the seeds and produced a new flower, which proceeded to fertilize others.
I return to the homoerotic aspect of masculinity, at the end.
 
Nietzsche, like Socrates and Heidegger and countless others, was a memetic alpha-male, and so he can only be appreciated by the more intellectuals, particularly the more intellectual female.
Other males, of his time, may have been more endowed, and may have left behind children by the dozens, but none of them could match his effect. 

A base, beta-female - because females can also be divided into hierarchies - being more primal, more simple intellectually will be attracted to the physical manifestations of dominance, or will be simpler in her evaluations and will find the more primal male irresistible.
Her judgments will be based on assessing the authenticity and quality of genetic superiority in the past - inherited by the offspring of an alpha-male.
A more sophisticated female, being more prone to use more up-to-date criteria, and more prone to use more timeless standards, will evaluate the male on his mental symmetry more than she would using his physical symmetry.
Of course females do a bit of both, with the pendulum falling one way, towards the more obvious apparent (physical), or the other, towards the more conspicuous (mental.
The latter usally exposing its qualities using humour, creativity, harmony of thought, confidence in one's own judgments, steadfastness, eloquence, character, style etc.   

Here is the conundrum:
 Inherited superiority usually stagnates because it has no reason to try, to suffer, to struggle.
Having inherited his qualities, this hypothetical fortunate one, and because necessity is the mother of invention, he will not develop them to their full potential.
Therefore, a female using these genetic markers (height, muscle, beauty) is risking it, as these may be outdated or will never attain their full potential.
The slightly inferior male might have to struggle more, and since pain is gain (if it is not death), such a male may develop more current advantages....or to put it another way, the male may develop mental superiority which will then become physical, or it will manifest into physical superiority.
Compensating is, again, another dirty word, when it is nothing more than someone attempting to surpass one's own limitations.

Having said that, let's be clear.
The outer manifestations of genetic prowess are the most direct indicators of fitness, as they reflect the entire past of the male and that of his ancestors, but if this domination is to such a degree that it overwhelmed the competition then it will most certainly never have to exercise, cultivate, them because he does not have to.
This is why we sometimes find good looking males who are bimbos.
Same goes for females, but here the dynamic is different because males do not seek superior minds in females, but only symmetry of form, which displays superior fitness, inherited, and available to be passed on.     

There is a reason why memes are now becoming the new battlefields.
What human trait sets him apart from every other species on earth, and has proven to be so dominating that man now can fear nothing from most other animals?
Viruses aside.
The mind.
The Greek balance between mind/body was indicative of their focus on the mind...WITHIN a healthy body.
The mind was the organ that has to be developed, and the other body parts only because they contributed to the brain's overall health and stability.
A healthy mind could cultivate its body to its fullest capacity, but a healthy body cannot do the same with the mind.

The mind controls the body, not the body the mind.
The Hellenic triad is brought to mind:
Reason>Will>Passion

What advantage does the brain offer, which is so powerful that neither speed, nor size, nor mass nor fangs nor poisons can compete with? 

Efficiency.
This is the clue the martial arts give us.
A small man can overpower a bigger man, by focusing what energies are in his willful control - emphasis on the "willful" - upon an object/objective. This focus can bring to bear his smaller yet bigger, in percentage, force.
This is called discipline and it holds true not only for physical challenges but also for mental ones.

But there is another way efficiency is mutiplied, or this focus is made possible: consciousness and imagination. 

Consciousness: Another term for awareness, perception.
A more sophisticated consciousness does not only perceive more details in its surroundings - there may be species with more acute senses than man - but it perceives patterns.
This pattern recognition is what is measured in I.Q. tests.

By perceiving pattens the mind can project - a dirty word, used as an insult or as a way of dismissing a hurtful perspective by the nitwits of this world.
Of course not all projections are equal, because no two consciousnesses and imaginations are equal.

The projection of a recognized pattern - if it is accurate and not infected by emotion (fear, lust/love, hope etc.) - offers the organism the possibility of preparedness.
To be prepared is to not squander your energies, your resources, aimlessly.
It is an investment, accompanied by the usual risks.

Imagination: The projection of the known, in other words of the perceived (past = experience, knowledge) , into the future, once this data, this sensual information, has been integrated into a cohesive mental model (abstraction).
This cohesion either has more or less references to the ongoing sensual world.
In other words, if the combination of data is totally detached from the real world, it is called fantasy or delusion. This is a corruption of the imagination; usually from a brain disorder, or by the organism's surrender to emotions and their warping effects.
If the imagination is clear, lucid, it offers the organism the advantage, as was noted, of preparedness.

The advantage can be understood as such:
a)The aggregate energies of the organism, b)multiplied by time, c)divided by its accuracy or its clarity.

a can be understood easily....b is a reference to time, which is a measurement of (inter)activity and is the very essence of existence...and c refers to the projected abstractions freedom form emotions and/or mental diseases.

This preparedness has an added benefit.
The organism being prepared and having gained confidence, due to multiple successes, with its own abstractions, or, more precisely, has gained confidence in its own mind and its own judgments, exhibits this confidence as indifference.
This indifference is not feigned, but is the product of years of testing, or challenges, eventually becoming a self-sufficiency.
This women find sexy, because it reflects power.
Not the power of a master/slave dynamic but a power in one's self. Not a power directed outwardly, but one which is directed upon the self.
This, ironically, is the epitome of masculinity, in my opinion. I offer my opinion to Anfang who asked.

The truly male is the one who has dominated the feminine in himself.
Male = Order
Female = Chaos

Here, I repeat, both biological types are characterized by different degrees of masculine and feminine traits.        

So, this mastering of the feminine, of the chaos, in one's self, is a form of ORDER.
This ORDER, represented as inherited symmetry (beauty) is what is attractive, seductive.

This brings me to another issue, related to this one.
Why did the ancient Greeks practice some form of pederasty, and why was it only with boys?

Because males have the largest potential for order, and because boys are, like females, immature males.
The boy, maturing slower than girls, because more sophisticated minds mature slower - we see this in the wild everywhere - is like a female is psychology.
He needs a strong, male to guide him towards manhood, without thwarting this developing with sexual debasement.
This is why the ancients despite their reported pederasty looked down down males who enjoyed being penetrated. To like it is to be a female.

reasonvemotion wrote:

It can be calculated that 15% of the population are alpha males. They have the greatest success rates with women....

That is an often used definition of Alpha - much 'success' with women. It's not only 'superior' characteristics, it's also, often much more, a numbers game. And to play that numbers game requires a certain kind of psychology and attitude. And that psychology and attitude is then selected for.

See, the primal part of the female brain feels - 'Oh, that guy is so aggressive in his approach, he doesn't flinch and isn't afraid of other men around me - he must be very strong and powerful, because the other men don't dare to club him to death...'
That's artificial world meets feminine intuition which is lagging the development of our environment.

And now, living in a matriarchy of sorts - That feminine intuition must be supported by appropriate laws.

'Alpha fucks and Beta bucks'
Bucks in form of child support, taxes,...

And I find this definition of Alpha to be tragic.
That's a whore's way. And it's not me saying that the whore type is bad but it shows how upside-down things have become.

It's like -
Why do I train my body? What does it mean? Is it because I want to be attractive to females? Is that the purpose in the first place, the focused purpose? I don't want to foster that attitude in me.

Satyr wrote:

This, ironically, is the epitome of masculinity, in my opinion. I offer my opinion to Anfang who asked.

That's very powerful writing. Thank you.

Anfang wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:

It can be calculated that 15% of the population are alpha males. They have the greatest success rates with women....

That is an often used definition of Alpha - much 'success' with women. It's not only 'superior' characteristics, it's also, often much more, a numbers game. And to play that numbers game requires a certain kind of psychology and attitude. And that psychology and attitude is then selected for.

I'm glad you put quotations around "success" because seeping with many women really amounts to little other than potentially making you seem more attractive to other women(maybe the one you're really after?)... but unless your running in a confined social circle, that really doesn't even matter. And if you're truly an "alpha" you don't need to bed many women to feel confident. Of course, real "success" with women is having strong sons. It's too bad there isn't better science on breeding.

Quote :

The outer manifestations of genetic prowess are the most direct indicators of fitness, as they reflect the entire past of the male and that of his ancestors, but if this domination is to such a degree that it overwhelmed the competition then it will most certainly never have to exercise, cultivate, them because he does not have to.
This is why we sometimes find good looking males who are bimbos.
Same goes for females, but here the dynamic is different because males do not seek superior minds in females, but only symmetry of form, which displays superior fitness, inherited, and available to be passed on.

I would say that the best looking males aren't total bimbos, nor are they gay. One distinguishing difference between good looking "pretty boys" and extremely good looking males is a piercing look. It's almost the look of a well developed predator, seems to indicate intelligence and is another pinnacle of the European man. But yes, because they are so beautiful they aren't as obligated to developed their intelligence, at least when they are young and flooded with attention... But one advantage that these men have over average/above average guys is that they don't make the mistake/waste time trying to please women because they think she's the more beautiful sex... In the current system, what offers relief, temporary satisfaction, what gives pleasure is beautiful. Women has become the beautiful sex because she perpetually offers a soft resting spot for men to vent his frustrations and hide from suffering...Go out to work, suffer a little bit dealing with the daily grind of existence, then come home and deal with the suffering self-victimizing woman. Now you've "suffered" so much that you not only NOT feel obligated to strive for anything greater or think for yourself, you defend this type of pain/suffering because it's from this particular pain that you've carved your little ideals.

Even the word "beautiful" has been hijacked. To call a man beautiful means your gay, because you must either find him sexually attractive or be internally "soft". Beautiful things must only garner gentle adoration. Anything more would upset the comfortable status quo. The gay "community" likes to talk about the ancient Greeks but would be ridiculed for by them for how effeminate gays are now.

When people do go out and do something great, it is just subsumed within this system, becomes a commodity for these type of people. The "greatness" of this culture is being able to relax and enjoy for its own sake. So much power and security has been established that all that's left to do is redefine human behavior through discourse. Nietzsche says something to the effect that men can now be destroyed merely by words.

Ironically, when one criticizes this limp wristed romantic culture, or talk of greater cultures in the past in comparison, they call YOU "romantic" or "idealistic" as if you are the one not being realistic..."Let go of the past and move forward!" lol...Cruelty and discrimination, of course, belong in the past... despite the fact that the world continues to be cruel and discriminate

Quote :

This brings me to another issue, related to this one.
Why did the ancient Greeks practice some form of pederasty, and why was it only with boys?

Because males have the largest potential for order, and because boys are, like females, immature males.
The boy, maturing slower than girls, because more sophisticated minds mature slower - we see this in the wild everywhere - is like a female is psychology.
He needs a strong, male to guide him towards manhood, without thwarting this developing with sexual debasement.
This is why the ancients despite their reported pederasty looked down down males who enjoyed being penetrated. To like it is to be a female.

And now, with no one but a corrupt state and weak-willed parents to guide him, he will debase himself in pursuit of sex. Men aren't even properly prepared to deal with women let alone stronger men.

From the link provided by Lyssa in the "Dissecting the homosexual" thread:

"In the sequel of the dialogue Lucian makes it clear that he intends these raptures of Callicratidas to be taken in great measure for romantic boasting. Yet the fact remains that, till the last, Greek paiderastia among the better sort of men implied no effeminacy. Community of interest in sport, in exercise, and in open-air life rendered it attractive. 3

"Sons of Eudiades, Euphorion,
After the boxing-match, in which he beat,
With wreaths I crowned, and set fine silk upon
His forehead and soft blossoms honey-sweet;p. 37

Then thrice I kissed him all beblooded there;
His mouth I kissed, his eyes, his every bruise
More fragrant far than frankincense, I swear,
Was the fierce chrism that from his brows did ooze."

"I do not care for curls or tresses
Displayed in wily wildernesses
I do not prize the arts that dye
A painted cheek with hues that fly:
Give me a boy whose face and hand
Are rough with dust or circus-sand,
Whose ruddy flesh exhales the scent
Of health without embellishment :
Sweet to my sense is such a youth,
Whose charms have all the charm of truth
Leave paints and perfumes, rouge, and curls,
To lazy, lewd Corinthian girls."

Now men work out like mad-men in the gym trying to perfect their bodies only to chase after women with heavy make-up and rough personalities.

Quote :

perpetualburn wrote:

Now men work out like mad-men in the gym trying to perfect their bodies only to chase after women with heavy make-up and rough personalities.  

Many studies show that men had sexual access to all those beneath them in society and homosexuality was confined to the prosperous and aristocratic levels of this ancient Greek society. Sex was something he did to someone else and what he used to do it with, his male sex organ, the penis. Sex had active/passive roles, one partner was the penetrator and the second partner was penetrated.

"Thus we are told that the Greeks saw nothing inherently wrong with sodomy between males as long as certain “protocols” of age, social status, and position were honored, an interpretation maintained despite the abundance of evidence, that the Greeks-including pederastic apologists like Plato-were horrified and disgusted by the idea of male being anally penetrated by another male and called such behavior “against nature.”  Pederasty in ancient Greece, Bruce Thornton.

“The point is, that in ancient Greece homosexuality was considered a deviation; it was given positive value only by a minority of homosexuals, bisexuals and apologists. Neither did its presence in Greece have any relationship to social, artistic or political health. The fact that homosexuality was a factor in the lives of great men only speaks for its prevalence among the leisured, literate elite from which artists and statesmen came. A permissive or positive view of homosexuality must find other grounds than the myth that made everything Greek praiseworthy.”  Sexuality And Homosexuality; A New View by Arno Karlen

I view pederasty as a vice that is encouraged by abnormal social conditions.  For example, the military or purely masculine communities, which from what can be garnered from historical records, the classical period of Greek civilisation was just that.  Essentially masculine.

Quote :

Many studies show that men had sexual access to all those beneath them in society and homosexuality was confined to the prosperous and aristocratic levels of this ancient Greek society. Sex was something he did to someone else and what he used to do it with, his male sex organ, the penis. Sex had active/passive roles, one partner was the penetrator and the second partner was penetrated.

I'm not sure how this response follows from what you quoted... but anyways, my point was how men build themselves up only to chase after a very superficial beauty, and thus become ridiculous caricatures of themselves in the process.

Quote :

The point is, that in ancient Greece homosexuality was considered a deviation; it was given positive value only by a minority of homosexuals, bisexuals and apologists. Neither did its presence in Greece have any relationship to social, artistic or political health. The fact that homosexuality was a factor in the lives of great men only speaks for its prevalence among the leisured, literate elite from which artists and statesmen came. A permissive or positive view of homosexuality must find other grounds than the myth that made everything Greek praiseworthy.

There's a difference between homosexuality(in a pure lustful sense) and finding the male the more beautiful sex, which most definitely did contribute to "the myth that made everything Greek praiseworthy."

Quote :

I view pederasty as a vice that is encouraged by abnormal social conditions. For example, the military or purely masculine communities, which from what can be garnered from historical records, the classical period of Greek civilisation was just that. Essentially masculine.

"just that?" just what?, abnormal? Do you find the Greek practice of pederasty a vice or the modern crime of pederasty(which is just a sexual deviation)?

"A male culture. Greek culture of the Classical era is a male culture. As for women, Pericles, in his funeral oration, says everything with the words: "They are best when men speak about them as little as possible.."13

The erotic relationship of men to youths was, on a level which we cannot grasp, the necessary, sole prerequisite of all male education (more or less in the way love affairs and marriage were for a long time the only way to bring about the higher education of women); the whole idealism of strength of the Greek character was thrown into that relationship, and the treatment of young people has probably never again been so aware, loving, so thoroughly geared to their excellence (virtus), as it was in the sixth and fifth centuries-‑-in accordance with Hölderlin's beautiful line, "denn liebend giebt der Sterbliche vom Besten" (for loving the mortal gives of his best).14 The more important this relationship was considered, the lower sank interaction with women: the perspective of procreation and lust-nothing further came into consideration; there was no spiritual intercourse with them, not even a real romance. If one considers further that woman herself was excluded from all kinds of competitions and spectacles, then the sole higher entertainment remaining to her was religious worship.

To be sure, when Electra and Antigone were portrayed in tragedies, the Greeks tolerated it in art, although they did not like it in life; just as we now do not tolerate anything with pathos in life, but like to see it in art.
Women had no task other than to produce beautiful, powerful bodies, in which the character of the father lived on as intact as possible, and thus to counteract the increasing overstimulation of nerves in such a highly developed culture. This kept Greek culture young for such a relatively long time. For in Greek mothers, the Greek genius returned again and again to nature." -N

I begin with a basic question:
Why did sex evolve, and why did the sexes evolve?

From then on how sex morphed or how the sexual roles we applied, is a matter of culture, cultivation.

Saying that the ancient Greeks did something or believed something does not automatically make it valid.

To this day the modern Greeks consider the one penetrating not homosexual and the penetrated one a disgraceful fag.

A young male was not fully male in their eyes.
They were incomplete, like females.
What kind of sexual interaction took place between a mature, male, teacher, and his young male apprentice varied.Teachers, like Socrates, did not take advantage of this custom at all.

Admiring beauty and being attracted to someone sexually, are two different things.
I would think that a man being attracted to another man, is a genetic dead-end, and it requires an explanation, a cultural influence.

While history portrays that only the man experienced pleasure, art and poetry indicate reciprocation of desire, and there are others who express the opinion that it is a modern fairy tale that the younger eromenos was never aroused.

It is common sense to acknowledge pederasty would have been a haven for those with homosexual tendencies.  To follow the chaste form of pederasty successfully, would fall only to those men with the highest degree of self control.  Sex is a powerful reducer.  

All this had to be quite an emotionally confusing strain on a young boy. In this situation a boy who is trying to advance as a man, is also playing the role of a female so it can be all right for what his lover is doing to him.

I see nothing honourable in this, I see it as a distortion of the boy's natural passage to manhood.

Male camaraderie can be more powerful than the erotic madness of sexual lust.
Sex would degrade it to a display of hierarchy, requiring repetition because of an internal (interpersonal) conflict.
The willingness of the boy to please his mentor should be considered through the reality of that age, and its comfort with the body, its nakedness, and with nature in general.
Sex for me is a settling upon the primal, and if  the relationship between a man and a young boy was pure then it was motivated by a desire to go beyond it: to begin from the base, and build upward. 

I find beauty in everything, even in the horrors of nature, but I cannot say that the male form can compete, in my psyche, with the female form, in sexual appeal.
The female form is shaped to produce comfort, protectiveness, the sensation of possibility, in the male.
In her a man sees potential, of self-expansion.
The attraction to the feminine is an attraction towards self-replication, through a healthy, capable, other.

In men a mentor sees the same on an intellectual level.
Here, once more, we find the meme acting in the same way as a gene.
Agape is a recognition of potential in an other.

Depending on the self-confidence, self-esteem, of the one looking, the other can either provide a reflection of self, or an expression of what is missing in self
in the first case the observer, the one judging, sees what he recognizes as himself, or what he identifies with, and he is driven to replicate it; in the second case he sees everything he is lacking, and wishes to merge or appropriate it.

The feminine psyche always feels a lacking, an absence, an in-completion in self, and so is always attracted to what appears to be a representation of all that she feels she lacks.
The masculine psyche is attracted to what is most like him and whar promises the possibility of reproducing it: egoism.

In the realm of genetics this becomes erotic attraction.
For a female a completion of self through otherness; the male a continuation of self through otherness.
This can only be a heterosexual attraction.
Homosexuality is a mutation with no such possibility....it is infertile and a dead-end.
And like bestiality, or pedophilia, it promises nothing but escape and fruitless hedonism. 

In the realm of memetics this becomes agape.
For the female an immersion in the other's ideals, ideas, power, order, symmetry of mind; for the male an inspiration, a reaffirmation of one's self in the mind of an other.

The erotic is instinctual, sensual, and does not require awareness beyond the perception of patterns.
Agape is rational, pragmatic, realistic, it requires analysis, appreciation, self-consciousness, self-love.
 
Being that both biological males and females posses the masculine and the feminine psychological traits, the matter of masculine/feminine becomes a complex mixture, manifesting each individual differently.
In more natural environments, the erotic ascends in importance, as survival is the first concern and sexual expression is the only answer to mortality.
In human environments where  mutations, not disruptive to the system, are protected and permitted to propagate, agape ascends in importance, as survival is protected, and identification with an meme an abstraction such as nation, tribe, ideal, God, makes personal survival a secondary aspect of communal survival.

 Another thing which I think is important to keep in mind:
Danger, or the unpredictable, the chaotic, the seemingly random, leads to binding.
In times of war men bond like no brothers or sexual partners can ever bond. Their shared anxiety becomes an unquestioning trust.
A love like no other love.

There was a time when men and women bonded in the same way, due to shared risks and costs.
They became closer when they faced a common foe together.
This is not the case today.
In this age we live in a protective, artificial reality, where all is guaranteed as "rights," and given as "deserved," by all.

Males try to experience this camaraderie through computer scenarios, bonding in electronic realities.
Females find protection, agape, in the institution, and have no use, except as a hedonistic, emotional device, of a man.
There is no bonding because there is no real risk in copulation, in child bearing, in child rearing.

What risks there are are shared between individual and State, or any abstraction of masculine power: Church, God, Institution.
The male is a sperm donor with no real relevance.
Given the advancements of genetics even this role is quickly becoming obsolete.

The result?
Fatherless children, finding identity in the State, God, Church, Insinuation.
No connection to any heritage, via a masculine presence.

Males, now in a panic, retreat into artificial realities - see MRA - hoping for vengeance, dreaming of a technological future that will give them liberty from females: the artificial womb.
Some try to adapt by becoming as effete, emasculated, as the women and the institutionalized judgments they are infected by, demand them to be.
Rise of the metrosexual, "nice guy".

Then, because the primal has not yet been extricated from their psyche, they ask:"Where have all the men gone?"
We all know that no "real" man would be tolerated by them, in their sheltered, artificial nihilistic realities.
What they are saying is that they wants a "daddy figure". They are looking for that missing male in their lives; a missing flesh and bones father.

But what is a father if he is not the bringer of "tough love"?
How can men-children, and prissy, spoiled brats, ever accept the harshness of such a man, when they've been raised no lies and feel-good mythologies?

A woman says she wants to be respected, meaning she wants to be sexually dominated but not taken advantage of and hurt.
What can guarantee this?
Yes, the institution.

Quote :

There was a time when men and women bonded in the same way, due to shared risks and costs.
They became closer when they faced a common foe together.
This is not the case today.
In this age we live in a protective, artificial reality, where all is guaranteed as "rights," and given as "deserved," by all.

Males try to experience this camaraderie through computer scenarios, bonding in electronic realities.
Females find protection, agape, in the institution, and have no use, except as a hedonistic, emotional device, of a man.
There is no bonding because there is no real risk in copulation, in child bearing, in child rearing

There's no physical danger in having children now. But there's still a huge memetic risk, a risk that the child will be invaded by foreign dangerous ideas unless the parent/s are educated enough to prevent this. Yet, the concerns of most people when having children isn't, "am I educated enough, are my ideas developed enough to pass on effectively that I am ready to have children?"... even with the guarantee of physical safety,most women want even more comfort and security, in the name of bigger houses, better more ideal towns. Since houses in "nice" neighborhoods are so expensive, and acquiring this lifestyle takes so much effort, once it's achieved, they think they've done all the required "fighting" to secure the "best" conditions to have children.... So they send their kids off to public education and hope that everything works out...

If males and females are to bond in any meaningful way, it has to be with shared ideas that are at odds with the institution... and beyond any sort of weekend warrior activism.

Modern times creates a platform that allows the admiring of beauty to be shamelessly explored and potentially allowing it to be developed into a sexual attraction or a much deeper appreciation for male beauty. Allowing men to willingly activate those feminine aspects to configure themselves to experience the greatness of men beyond view.

To experience a male on male intimacy, sexually, emotionally or a rational love even. A type of male bonding taken one step further, where dominance and submission can become switching and workable further deepening the bond. To combine 50% of femininity of one man with 50% of femininity of another man creating a relationship that successfully eliminates the need for the human female. At this point, the woman should be put into quarantining and used for procreative purposes only.

A controlled insemination of the female for procreation will do for now because I imagine it'll be rather difficult for the male to engage with the female at this point after experiencing true love with another male. It would be like taking a shower in pure fresh mountain water and then jumping in a pile of shit afterwards.

For some, a man's attraction to men can be seen as that little bit extra, an extra spice to life. Many of these men, homosexuals or otherwise, enter into relationships/marriages with women even procreating, only to seek out a greater satisfaction to their nature in the direction of other men, a completion to their natural discontentment, something which the boring female is incapable of addressing.

For these men, the relationship with women becomes a societal safety net, a type of protection. A status one and ultimately a physical one, this depends upon the sensitive areas of the man's life, be it family, work, friends, system, money. etc  A lot of the times this can be purely sexual, a deviant curiosity which is incredibly understandable having been in a relationship with any female for a couple of weeks.

For other men, the relationship with a woman was mindless conformity or pressure in some form or another, or acting upon any remnants of attraction to the female form which results in instant regret once he has discovered the better gender with the realization of the environmental acceptance of such discovery in any form.

First off...I know who you are.


Second off, the moment you speak of male/female you speak of sex, and procreation.
once you take this out of the relationship then there is no need for sex, physical intimacy or anything else. Mimetic bonding, is different from genetic bonding, as it eliminates the physical and turns all relationships into purely platonic.
Males have been bonding, for ages. The exclusion of females is noteworthy across times and geographical boundaries.

You desire to retain the sexual component while dismissing the reason for sex, indicates a personal mutation with particular hopes; a feminine aspect in you, desiring expression.
If sex is to be overcome, then intercourse and all its symbolism must be discarded along with the specialized forms of male/female.

You can't pick and choose when sexual penetration is appropriate and when it is merely symbolic.
Becoming both the penetrated and penetrator is only attractive to one as yourself.
One, if he is truly masculine, does not forget being dominated and shamed. He would rather die than lowering himself to the level of a female just to bond with a "man-child, like you.
Notice how in ancient Greece only the youth were expected into these feminine positions, and then one did not expect them to enjoy it or to submit to it willingly. It is a bit inconclusive s to what this mature male and young boy relationship entails,. It was different in every case, and there were no rule.

One thing is for sure, a man who willingly and with pleasure submitted to being penetrated was 'soft"...not fully male at all.
A retarded masculinity...perpetual adolescence, in the spirit of femaleness, which was considered stunted masculinity.

Male bonding has always been no the level of agape...which requires no physical expression besides, perhaps, the occasional back-slap. Memetic bonding is about a connection no a rational level...not a physical one, where genetic connection is only applicable.

You are definitely a flaming fag...and one, I suspect, which has been following me around ever since my Sciform days.
A Brit, from what I can recall.

In my Hellenism you projected a hope, which is not to be fulfilled by me.
You found in the ancient a reason to be proud of your degenerate state.

So be it.

Would a truly masculine man be prepared to die protecting other men who may be forced to lower themselves to the level of a female to bond with people like me?.... because if you go outside right now, it sure does look like it happening quite a lot. Or do these truly masculine men need no help?

What else is this truly masculine man prepared to die for?

"Male bonding has always been no the level of agape...which requires no physical expression besides, perhaps, the occasional back-slap"

That's all!!? that's a bit limiting isn't it. I see rugby players occasionally slap each other on their bottoms, not out of homosexual attraction, but that male bonding you speak of especially in the competitive environment. Perhaps, that area of the body from the back to the bottom can be considered a slight modern retardation from your view and a new beginning for many.

How many men on this forum would truly settle for just the occasional back slap. I think you'll be surprised satyr.

Sexual penetration doesn't have to happen. There are many homosexual relationships between men where neither of them engage in that behaviour, but yeah those penetrated men are soft in nature, they are also sweet, kind and gentle.. which is very attractive.  

I know nothing about your sciform days. A brit, yes, but that's definitely not me. The British must have an attraction for you .. I doubt any man would like to follow you around for that long seeing that you have a very "negative" (although a genuinely truthful) attitude towards my kind, you probably scared him off.

Yes, we have spoken before and neither am I hiding anything or pretending. I simply expressed a hypothetical situation between you and I just to gather a deeper understanding on your position. It's not like I was sending you naked photos of myself.  I also told you I would be signing up relatively soon, if you can remember.

Quote :

To experience a male on male intimacy, sexually, emotionally or a rational love even. A type of male bonding taken one step further, where dominance and submission can become switching and workable further deepening the bond. To combine 50% of femininity of one man with 50% of femininity of another man creating a relationship that successfully eliminates the need for the human female. At this point, the woman should be put into quarantining and used for procreative purposes only

Are you homosexual?

Or is this some hypothetical based on the realization that women don't love the same way as men, thus serve no purpose? To discard women completely is to give up your on own masculinity, your ability to dominate. Or maybe you're just trolling...

There must be some level of shared humiliation in consistently using another man to get off, unable to channel sexual energy properly. I imagine that this is part of the "bonding," the laughable indulgence in shared beauty and mutual flattery. Post sexual intercourse, both parties limp physically and spiritually... until the sexual urge resurfaces again as it always does, and you can indulge in one another's "understanding" and "kindness" and play the part of the woman, while never actually benefiting from what a woman can offer.

At least with a woman, there's the possibility of passing on your genes. And maybe most importantly, the sexual attraction to women arouses a greater level of aggression in men, which translates to greater energy, greater potential. I've already gone through how men become a victim to this attraction, but nevertheless, woman exist as a source of potential and possibilities if used and understood correctly.

What you're saying sounds how the admiration of beauty can degenerate into a ridiculous sexual lifestyle that I'm sure you're "proud" of. Chaste friendship will always be the ideal because it requires the most effort and discipline, thus will always be more beautiful.

perpetualburn wrote:

Are you homosexual?

Or is this some hypothetical based on the realization that women don't love the same way as men, thus serve no purpose?  To discard women completely is to give up your on own masculinity, your ability to dominate.  Or maybe you're just trolling...

There must be some level of shared humiliation in consistently using another man to get off, unable to channel sexual energy properly.  I imagine that this is part of the "bonding," the laughable indulgence in shared beauty and mutual flattery.  Post sexual intercourse, both parties limp physically and spiritually... until the sexual urge resurfaces again as it always does, and you can indulge in one another's  "understanding" and "kindness" and play the part of the woman, while never actually benefiting from what a woman can offer.

At least with a woman, there's the possibility of passing on your genes.  And maybe most importantly, the sexual attraction to women arouses a greater level of aggression in men, which translates to greater energy, greater potential.  I've already gone through how men become a victim to this attraction, but nevertheless, woman exist as a source of potential and possibilities if used and understood correctly.

What you're saying sounds how the admiration of beauty can degenerate into a ridiculous sexual lifestyle that I'm sure you're "proud" of.  Chaste friendship will always be the ideal because it requires the most effort and discipline, thus will always be more beautiful.

Not quite.

If a flaming fag born into a genetic disposition of femininity is what you picture, then you are way off. I see those around sometimes, I personally find their natural presence quite annoying, sometimes even revolting. I feel quite sickly if there is no retained masculinity, not all the time though.

As satyr says, it's the feminine within me that creates my attraction to the masculine. Sometimes it gets the better of me. The masculinity in men and women. This is not a general attraction for me. I guess you can say it comes and goes. Physical and emotionally.

For a moment if we define heterosexuality as a sexual attraction to the opposite sex, then I can be considered the biggest heterosexual of all, but if it goes beyond sexual then perhaps not.

Do anal sex with a woman produce the same humiliation you speak of?

The sexual energy is channelled properly to the standards of the homosexual attraction, and yes, that may only be pleasure and therefore realistically improper. When a woman engages in anal sex is she playing the part of a submissive homosexual man?

What type of great aggression in men do the attraction for the women create? Physical? I'm confident enough to suggest that you watch ANY homosexual based BDSM scene and compare it with any heterosexual based BDSM scene, I think you'll find that generally the physical aggression displayed is far greater in the homosexual scene than the heterosexual one.

That "greater level of aggression in men" is not only relative to the individual man, but also the sexuality of the man.

"greater energy, greater potential" what, suicide? murder of other men? rape of women? when exactly will this energy be used "correctly"?

What if that chaste friendship became slightly romantic, not containing penetrative sex but intimate acts which express love, passion and affection such as a kiss, hugging or holding hands, is it then still degenerate?

Quote :

For a moment if we define heterosexuality as a sexual attraction to the opposite sex, then I can be considered the biggest heterosexual of all

Apparently not... or you wouldn't be so confused.

Quote :

but if it goes beyond sexual then perhaps not

What does that mean? Spiritually you don't feel connected to women? What does woman mean to you?

Quote :

Do anal sex with a woman produce the same humiliation you speak of?

The sexual energy is channelled properly to the standards of the homosexual attraction, and yes, that may only be pleasure and therefore realistically improper. When a woman engages in anal sex is she playing the part of a submissive homosexual man?

No, she's not. Woman is biologically made to handle/receive male sexuality better than men is...is capable of far more orgasms than man...sex doesn't exhaust woman the same way it does men... I know some guys that have sex ten times a day with their girlfriend... I can't imagine how utterly unhealthy it would be to do that to a guy.

Quote :

What type of great aggression in men do the attraction for the women create? Physical? I'm confident enough to suggest that you watch ANY homosexual based BDSM scene and compare it with any heterosexual based BDSM scene, I think you'll find that generally the physical aggression displayed is far greater in the homosexual scene than the heterosexual one

I''ll have to take your word... The majority of the best athletes(most physically aggressive) are straight... If we're talking about sublimated aggression... then even art/music/poetry is going to be dominated by straight males.

Quote :

That "greater level of aggression in men" is not only relative to the individual man, but also the sexuality of the man.

Generally, I should of said. Of course, there are exceptions.

Quote :

"greater energy, greater potential" what, suicide? murder of other men? rape of women? when exactly will this energy be used "correctly"?

When? Maybe when you stop experimenting with guys...

Quote :

What if that chaste friendship became slightly romantic, not containing penetrative sex but intimate acts which express love, passion and affection such as a kiss, hugging or holding hands, is it then still degenerate?

Well, I'd say there's a big difference between holding hands and kissing... but a real man requires distance.