Advertisement
posted by:
|
Connecticut
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Unsu...
Re: Androphilia
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 5:11 AMI read about this on their web site. If that is how people are so be it, but they seem frankly intolerant of people who are not like them (most of the gay male community). I accept that macho men are part of the community. They need to get used to the fact that us bears, fems, queens and others are an equal part of the community. I am glad that the image we project to the world is made up of all kinds of us. It seems to me that "real men" have no need for a static definition of what it means to be a "real man". -
-
Re: Androphilia
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 4:53 AMI think there is a difference between tolerance and embracing something as my own. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Androphilia
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 6:57 AMEmbracing something as our own is exactly what I advocate. I also feel the community should embrace as our own everyone from fem queens to the author of this book.
From reading their web page I hear an echo of the notion that we need strict gender roles.
IMHO the fact that social control of gender roles is disappearing is a fact to be celebrated.
If Androphilla is what floats your boat I am happy for you. I am also happy for the fems and divas both of whom I count a friends.
It is possible to embrace your identity and at the same time accept others embracing theirs. -
-
Re: Androphilia
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 7:22 AMIf you would take the time to actually read the book, you would find that the author cites evidence that the disappearance of gender roles is not a good thing. He refers to differences between males and femals that are natural. These differences remain no matter how much we want to deny them. It would seem that males are males and females are females no matter how we choose to act and pretend we are the same. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Androphilia
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 7:31 AMMy point is that gender roles are optional. The strict enforcement of gender roles is just a way to control people. Something a free society needs less of IMHO. I do not think it is about pretending to be the same as much as it is about our right to not conform to gender roles.
The very existance of a gay rights movement (and the feminist movement) challenges traditional gender roles. This is good thing. The more that gender roles are ignored and undermined the better off we are as a society. A society that tries to enforce gender roles would not be a good society for queer folk. -
-
Re: Androphilia
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 7:47 AMI guess people are free to play any role they want, but under that role play there is what they really are. There are biological differences between male and female. Its in the genes. Trying to surpress differences will not take them away. I do feel that individuals are free to take on any role they want. That won't change what they are. Society require certain things otherwise there would be no society. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Androphilia
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 8:02 AMWhat 'society requires' is not carved in stone. Society used to require us to supress our sexuality. Society used to say that one needed to be a white male property owner in order to vote. Thankfully the movement for gay rights and the civil rights and womens movement have changed all that.
I think the ones trying to supress differences are those who would for instance shun men who are more feminine or those who insist that females must be "ladylike".
I thnk that people challenging old gender roles is one of the most positive and liberating developments in modern history. -
-
Re: Androphilia
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 4:09 PMI echo your sentiments, Bear.
While most of us show physically either male or female, there is a whole range of being that we as humans exhibit. It is my nature, for example, to prefer to be graceful and refined. That doesn't mean that I want to suppress my maleness. I love being male. My cock is my favorite toy! And as to society, read through history again. There are many things that society once condoned that I'm glad we don't anymore. cannibalism being one. It wasn't that long ago, really, in many areas of the world.
Jim, I also believe that each of us should be genuine in ourselves, and not pretend to be something that we're not. At least as a rule. Sometimes it's fun to pretend! ;) I will, however, search out this book and read it.
There are many ways of being in this world. Each one of us is truly unique, and it's a shame when we try to squeeze ourselves into a square hole when we're obviously stars. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Androphilia
Wed, September 5, 2007 - 2:56 AMthis thread has been dead for a while...but still worthy of discussion.
i'll have to echo some of the sentiment from coyote in the last post. i think there is a greater range of gender 'being' than is suggested by the strict male/female paradigm. sure, nature created male-female; but it also made sissies, dyke, fags, wimps, pussies, tom-boys, tough guys, and hilary clinton....
...who, btw, is THE toughest candidate in the field BAR NONE, (not that i nec love her, but i think there is no denying that she is far tougher bitch than Bill could ever hope to be)...
...nature doesn't care about 'categories' or our need for male/female ying-yang structures....
...nature simply mutates and does not make judgments....
.....if a trait exists then IMHO nature says it is normal to the degree it exists in nature....traits that are no good disappear...
obviously, sissies and dykes, fags, homos, and lesbos are still here....modern society gives us the ability to circumvent the raw pressures of nature....
LET HUMANISM RULE!
(ok , i became a little discursive but you get the idea)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Androphilia
Sun, September 9, 2007 - 2:53 PM<I am glad that the image we project to the world is made up of all kinds of us.>
Why do you care what "image" is projected? Isn't that like worrying about what image to the world blue-eyed people project?
-
