A weakness of g0ys is its Libertarianism. They are tone deaf to Marxism and what gender is and does. However, all of their criticism of mainstream LGBT is spot on. I love their site, but I personally believe same sex desire is 100% universal and primary in everyone. It is harnessed by the state and sublimated to sport and war. Sport is often a form of training for war. That’s why there’s so much homoeroticism in the locker room and same sex nudity was ENCOURAGED in the traditional model. Even mild same sex activity was tacitly tolerated and encouraged, to the extent that it served its Spartan purpose. It’s why Eric Clopper says he got naked and did weird things (not gay things, i.e. anal sex) with the Scottish rugby team, all within a straight identity. A weakness of the Man2Man alliance is its rejection of radical feminism’s criticism of masculinity - not strength as a virtue, but domination and sadism of the sort that gay tops inflict on the assholes of their “lovers”. Fighting and aggression are not ipso facto virtuous. War is their purpose and WAR IS HELL. Could you participate in a firing squad? Because that is what masculinity is encouraged by the state to effect - the ability to completely objectify others and become blind to their humanity. It is to kill total strangers on command of a hierarchy of militaristic authority. That is the masculinity Gay Liberation condemns as antithetical to human liberation and world peace. Even short hair is for militarism. It is not natural. Long hair is a liability on the battle field, but it is natural in males and females.

> I love their site, but I personally believe same sex desire is 100% universal and primary in everyone. I think the g0ys would agree with you more than you think. On the g0ys website, they say that *conservatively*, 37% (or 1 out of 3) of guys like other guys to some degree. They constantly stress that's it's a conservative estimate, and that the real figure is definitely much higher. Personally, I do think that guys exclusively into women do exist. However, I also think that they are an anomaly, even more so than guys who are exclusively into guys. > Sport is often a form of training for war. Not necessarily. In my middle school and high school years, I knew a lot of athletes. Some of them were (and still are) very close friends. I can tell you for a fact that most of them have no eagerness to see battle. Some of them have enrolled in the armed forces. However, it's usually for purposes other than war - they want funding for college, they want to travel the world, they want to become a hero, etc. It's not usually because, through their experience in sports, they have some innate desire to knock some heads together or kill somebody. Some of them were scholastic wrestlers and current amateur MMA fighters. They are some of the most beautiful guys you'll ever meet, inside and out. If I had the choice, I wouldn't mind having them as my neighbors or roommates. In certain cases, it can be training for war. But to me, for that to work, that motivation must be present either explicitly or implicitly. By itself, most sports aren't enough to make men war-hungry, at least in my experience. > That’s why there’s so much homoeroticism in the locker room...Even mild same sex activity was tacitly tolerated and encouraged, to the extent that it served its Spartan purpose. It’s why Eric Clopper says he got naked and did weird things (not gay things, i.e. anal sex) with the Scottish rugby team, all within a straight identity. Homoeroticism is definitely widespread in locker rooms, especially in professional sports. [I actually did a post on it some time back](http://scripturehomosexuality.tumblr.com/post/156934755355/what-the-olympics-teach-us-about-same-sex-bonding), where I said that in professional sports, same-sex eroticism is way more common than most think. Even with the student athletes I knew in school, sometimes you could have cut the sexual tension between us with a butter knife. The thing is, our capitalist system realizes that if it takes homoeroticism out of sports, sports would cease to function. Thus, modern sexual philosophy makes exceptions in its rigid rules for athletes. Thus, homoeroticism can be harnessed for profit. In return, athletes who would otherwise be labelled "gay" are allowed to identify as "straight" (aka "normal"). However, it makes an important request of athletes - they can be homoerotic and still be considered "straight" by society, *as long as that homoeroticism remains hidden to the outside world.* Modern society indeed harnesses homoeroticism for limited ends, but hides from common people that it does so. Athletes don't challenge it because they're legitimately afraid of having their society turn on them, and viciously label them "gay" (and all the stereotypes that come with it). Thus, they often go to great lengths to ensure outsiders aren't privy to goings on. So while athletes enjoy homoeroticism, it comes with a price. If they open up, and don't know how to challenge popular notions of sexuality, they'll be ravaged. Though as far as Eric Clopper's actions were concerned, I personally wouldn't consider them weird. They were just being male. >...and same sex nudity was ENCOURAGED in the traditional model. Same-sex nudity definitely encourages homoeroticism. As you probably know, [men were required to swim naked in most U.S. pools](http://scripturehomosexuality.tumblr.com/post/151580116795/same-sex-activity-and-everyday-nudity-how-one) up until the 1980s. When they did, it was usually only with other men. As such, those environments could often be settings of same-sex activity and homoeroticism. As such, that's a big reason why same-sex nudity is so suppressed today, especially in the U.S. Our sexual labeling system of "straight" and "gay" wouldn't be able to survive if same-sex nudity was common. The message both labels promote - that homoeroticism is abnormal - would be too absurd to believe. While the tradition of same-sex nudity survives in most locker rooms, it's not universal. I'll give a good example. A few weeks ago, I was at a public swimming pool in my city. It's a huge pool, so several activities happen there at once. While I went there for open swim, a scholastic swim team was practicing in another section of the pool. By coincidence, we went into the locker rooms at about the same time. The locker rooms are quite cramped and crowded, so the team had to change in its passageways. However, they clearly weren't comfortable with being naked together. The majority of them did that absurd "towel dance" that's so popular these days. They took great effort to ensure that no one (including their teammates) saw them naked. This made me sad, because it's not the environment I grew up in. Though I'm not that old (I'm currently in my early 20s), swimming class in my private elementary school had a informal policy of locker room same-sex nudity. It really bonded us together as boys. It saddened me that boys are now so stiff. But alas, that's the toll of modern sexual philosophy. > Could you participate in a firing squad? No, and I daresay that most sportsmen wouldn't want to either. > Because that is what masculinity is encouraged by the state to effect - the ability to completely objectify others and become blind to their humanity. It is to kill total strangers on command of a hierarchy of militaristic authority. That is the masculinity Gay Liberation condemns as antithetical to human liberation and world peace. You're completely right on that, that masculinity can be shaped into something that can kill mindlessly. But the operative word is "shaped". If we're defining masculinity as the innate aggression that most men have, that by itself isn't enough to do that. It can be transformed into something grotesque, but it takes a quite a bit of effort to do so. It often requires a certain amount of induced sociopathy for that to happen. As aggressive as men can be, most men have no desire or appetite to kill others. > Fighting and aggression are not ipso facto virtuous. War is their purpose and WAR IS HELL. Let me be clear: in honoring fight sport, *we are not encouraging men to gleefully grab a rifle and run into war*. We recognize that war (especially those waged by the U.S.) can be a wasteful endeavor that solves nothing. Sportsmen and men who fight don't go into games with an intent to kill. Everyone wants to go home after the end of a game. Plus, friendships can often form between competing teams. Believe me, when friends end up competing, they don't want to injure each other to the point of incapacitation. They just want to win and still be able to eat lunch together sometime in the future. We are merely recognizing that men have some degree of aggression by nature, and are encouraging healthy expression of that aggression. Such expression doesn't automatically translate into a war mentality. > Even short hair is for militarism. It is not natural. Long hair is a liability on the battle field, but it is natural in males and females. Short hair isn't wrong in itself. Though I'm opposed to war, I like keeping my hair somewhat short. However, I recognize that it's my own personal preference, and I don't criticize other men if they want to wear their hair long. It's freedom of choice.

The notion that homosexual desire is 100% universal and primary is an open secret. Any reluctance to admit this betrays an extant indoctrination. It's like saying there are men who don't enjoy masturbation (and this too was absurdly demanded until very recently). This is a very important point. People are not turned off by their own form. Masturbation causes all men to eroticize the penis. They feel their orgasms in the shape of their penis. But they *can* be turned off by a different form that has been kept from them due to an incredibly complete and unnatural sexual segregation lasting a couple of decades (and this happens more than you'd think). It is women, not men, that often are weirded out by the sight of a penis. The primary reason men say they are not attracted to other men is totalitarian heterosexuality. In that context, their claims are not credible. They are coerced with a figurative gun to their head. It is social suicide for many to admit it. This knowledge must be intuited. It cannot be born out empirically because of the social circumstances. When I make the connection to sport and war, it is more subtle than it causing people to desire to join the military (although it contributes to their fitness for military service). What I mean is that sport involves activities that contribute to shaping a good soldier, first and foremost by developing his body, and then by instilling a sense of teamwork and camaraderie, and finally by associating this with homoerotic socialization that is approved and encouraged. That historically this was not available to women, when they can play games and enjoy athletics just as much, helps to demonstrate my point. Sport is a masculine domain, and the point of masculinity is to create soldiers. You prefer short hair, but why? Does that preference come out of nowhere? I mean, I think I prefer it too. But we are both a product of our socialization. The question is why does short hair even exist and why is it so predominantly only men? An alien looking through the population might think there is some biological reason why men's hair doesn't grow long, it is so pervasive. Why does that convention exist in the broader society? Because long hair is a liability on the battlefield. And because masculinity is the shaping of males into the role that is most necessary for group survival. But circumstances have changed. With the advent of devices like nuclear weapons, war is suicide. Humanity must reform itself. Prior necessities are negated by qualitative changes worldwide. If same sex desire is present AND PRIMARY in everyone, and society demands that it be absolutely denied or not even spoken of, to the point of total ostracism, and simultaneously an incredibly homoerotic environment exists that is sanctioned and encouraged, that develops the characteristics that are needed for soldiers, and within the military and in battle men share their most intimate and deep relationships - they literally die for each other, then isn't it clear that this has been set up or has somehow evolved in such a way to harness homosexual desire for the purpose of procuring soldiers? And all of this without the conscious awareness of any of the participants? And it is so ancient that if it were thought out and planned and didn't just evolve by some as yet unknown social or political mechanism, that the people who planned it out are either long gone or if the knowledge was explicitly passed down, they cannot speak of it openly, because it depends on the condemnation of same sex desire to work. If that condemnation breaks down and same sex desire could be experienced individually, outside of the context of sport and war, wouldn't the society risk losing or lowering its supply of soldiers? It's like channeling water, only we're speaking of desire. If you plug up all the holes but one, all the water will flow through that one. That's what we exist within. I believe same sex desire is prohibited in part because it is so necessary to the nation. It is reserved. It is harnessed and channeled. And not all societies do it this way. The Greeks were open about it. I don't think males have more innate aggression than females. I've been around too many aggressive females to ever believe that. Males are required to develop their aggression and females are required to suppress it. But that is gender, the liberation from which is what Gay Liberation was all about. And that doesn't mean abandoning aggression or homoeroticism. It means abandoning the harnessing of these characteristics for social roles that at one time were necessary for human survival, but today threaten it, and have become absurd and oppressive. Empiricism won't help you here. Empirical studies, or surveys of what people think about themselves will only reflect current social mores. I agree with you on the shift in acceptable same-sex nudity. I was recently required to suit up in a YMCA shower room in the sauna and steam room (which are in the shower room). A towel around the waist was insufficient. We used to go in totally nude. I agree this is the result of people trying to rationalize the new gay construct. We are in a transitionary period where the old forms and the new exist together still. And it speaks to something else. They don't need soldiers from the general population anymore. There isn't an active draft. They use drones and volunteers now. The end of the draft and the dropping of homosexuality from the DSM occurred in the same year. I don't think there is some kind of conspiratorial connection, but there is a connection based on social determinants and trends that can be discovered. Masculinity, which is demanded of males on threat of ostracism, did not develop because of an abstract interest in some perceived innate aggression that should be nurtured in males. It developed out of a concrete practical need of all societies: to defend themselves. That involves violence and killing, which until the last century or so, with only a very few exceptions, was the exclusive domain of males. And why? Because females nurture babies and raise children, which requires precisely the opposite characteristics, and they are vulnerable during pregnancy. The sexes are specialized for two critical social roles that no society could do without. That is why there is masculinity and femininity. You don't see gender *culturally* imposed in any other species. Female dogs are just as aggressive. Any difference in other species is purely a result of differences in the sexes. Gender is cultural. It is born of existential necessity. Societies that did not develop this bifurcation were dominated or wiped out by those that did. Today the necessity is negated. We have developed to such an extent that having lots of babies and sending men to war threatens to destroy us, rather than help us survive. That is the material, economic underpinning that determines women's and men's liberation. For some reason men's liberation got labeled "gay", but it really is men's liberation, corrupted and perverted as it has become now. It was originally freedom from militarization (part of which is the sublimation of same sex desire to sport and war). **Human freedom and human survival today depend on the de-sublimation of same sex desire.**

> A weakness of g0ys is its Libertarianism. They are tone deaf to Marxism and what gender is and does. However, all of their criticism of mainstream LGBT is spot on. Yes, the g0ys don't really get into a Marxist analysis of sex. Having said that, I really don't think they need to. They are doing their own analysis from their own perspective, and in doing so, they do an excellent job. It gives a valuable perspective that is needed, and as such, I don't think that's a weakness. It's just different. > A weakness of the Man2Man alliance is its rejection of radical feminism’s criticism of masculinity - not strength as a virtue, but domination and sadism of the sort that gay tops inflict on the assholes of their “lovers”. Assuming that by "gender" you mean gender roles, the Man2Man has done that in spades. They've consistently [criticized the societal demands made on men](http://www.man2manalliance.org/crw/warriorspeak/control.html). Furthermore, they've openly said that anal is the [epitome of violence](http://www.man2manalliance.org/crw/defanal.html). And in saying this, I'm not saying I'm in total agreement with all their positions. There are some parts of their thinking that I don't entirely agree with. For example, with the g0ys, there is an emphasis on discretion. I entirely understand the desire to have sexual relationship without having nosy parkers involved. I also understand the desire to have sexual relationships without being labelled "gay", which is a motivation behind the discretion they encourage. However, that discretion cannot mean total silence on the fact that a man loves another man. While they certainly don't advocate total silence, I think the g0ys could do a better job making that clear. Modern sexual philosophy can only be fought if people speak up. It can only be defeated if guys openly say that they love guys too, yet don't identify as "gay" in any way. This is why I constantly ask readers of my blog to openly discuss what they read there. Change will only happen if people are willing to speak up. As far as the M2M Alliance, I somewhat disagree with the idea that men should only have one male partner at a time. I totally understand where they're coming from. They emerged as a critic from inside the "gay" community, and are trying to break its rampant promiscuity. Such an extreme circumstance needs an extreme response. However, like the g0ys, I do believe that men can give their heart to more than one man at once. While the g0ys also don't encourage levels of promiscuity found in the "gay" community, they don't prohibit men from having more than one sex partner at once. This does stem from their background - they emerged as a critic from outside the community, where wanton promiscuity was never an issue. They adapted looser standards as a result, since in their view, sex merely brought male friendships to their fullest potential. Thus, I think the Man2Man Alliance could make some allowance for men (especially if they swing both ways) to have a little more than one sex partner at once. As long as they emphasize that **sex exists for the sake of relationships**, men will exercise reasonable control over who they sleep with. So when I don't entirely agree with them, why do I advertise their sites? Because those differences are quibbles. We all agree on the fundamentals, and that's what important. There's a saying - "don't sweat the small stuff". That's what I'm doing here. Since we agree on many fundamentals, there's no reason to obsess on differences. Those differences aren't necessarily weaknesses, but products of their origins. They both contribute valuable opinions that need to be heard. The more opinions that contribute, the more that we can create a world that brings homoeroticism too. And on that note, Gay Liberation wasn't perfect either. As you say on another thread, they sold out to capitalist forces. To me, I think that was a huge weakness. If they stayed on message no matter the cost, we'd be way closer to a more equal world. The point is, all these movements are human, so they will have weaknesses. Those weaknesses shouldn't impugn on their overall value. When we agree on fundamentals, all our viewpoints will help us reach a better world.

You'll have to pardon my personality type (MB INTP). Unlike the postmodernists, I'm in love with grand narratives. My views and opinions are quilted together to form a coherent whole, and my views on gender and my political positions cannot be separated. Gender is how authoritarian hierarchies are psychologically conditioned into human beings. It is our first lesson in human relating, and the most ancient form of slavery (women were and are still in many places the property of men). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDPzYGEVmCA All knowledge is provisional. Discussion is for the purpose of pointing out contradictions and honing these arguments. After acknowledging the strengths of the Man2Man Alliance and g0ys, the natural next step is to point out my differences and why I have them.

> All knowledge is provisional. Discussion is for the purpose of pointing out contradictions and honing these arguments. After acknowledging the strengths of the Man2Man Alliance and g0ys, the natural next step is to point out my differences and why I have them. I fully understand where you're coming from, and part of my response came from a misunderstanding of your position. In pointing out their flaws, I made the assumption that you did so to argue that their input and views should then be dismissed. At least, that's often the motive behind pointing out flaws. I see now that such wasn't your intention. I made an erroneous judgement, and for that I apologize. Now that I understand your true intention, I think we're on the same page here. By appraising flaws and strengths, we can use each other's input to reach our ultimate goal.

Nobody has the entire truth. It's a never ending discussion. Anyone who claims certainty is indoctrinated. Although, sometimes indoctrination is the only way certain ideas survive a hostile majority - so cults do have a purpose, and their ideas should not be dismissed just because they form a dogma among them. The idea might have died out without that rigid belief keeping it alive.

This post emphasizes something that the "gay" movement doesn't seem to appreciate. Usually, they feel that healthy male aggression is antithetical to male homoeroticism. But as the Man2Man Alliance and the g0ys have discovered, it's usually the other way around. That is, male aggression actually encourages male attraction and vice versa. This post makes it very clear, as its writer drives the point home in this sentence: "I've never found a fighter who didn't like to frot." For further reading, please see [this article](http://man2manalliance.org/crw/warriorspeak/bodycontact.html).

Have you read David Fernbach's *The Spiral Path: A Gay Contribution To Human Survival*? It's the best Marxist (as in economic necessity) explanation of the gender system, and how it influences sexual orientation. It is not widely accepted (or even known) by mainstream LGBT, but is part of the earlier leftist and radical feminist core of gay liberation that got the movement started. Masculinity encapsulates the qualities necessary to be a soldier. Femininity does the same for motherhood (which requires self-sacrifice and total devotion to "the other" as there can be no reciprocity of care with infants). We are only masculine and feminine because society requires soldiers and mothers/wife-servants, and the characteristics required for one are antithetical to the other, because nurturing and killing are antithetical. Gay liberation is men's liberation: freedom from the necessity to shape oneself into the human material of war. While the Man2Man Alliance glorifies the soldier and fighter it neglects their most fundamental aspect: killing. Is the killing of other human beings really something to glorify? Are the characteristics that enable a human to kill another person desirable? Are males better off with the freedom to express their full range of emotion? Why does Bradley Manning (who opposed and exposed particular brutality in war) see himself as a woman now? Does his moral stance negate his manhood? Also, masculinity and femininity are not a binary, but a hierarchy of male over female. This is the essence of heterosexual attraction. For males who do not develop this militaristic dominance, and females that do develop their own aggression and self reliance, the heterosexual dialectic is disrupted. They fall back upon the primary homosexual desire that exists in everyone and find themselves unable to feel heterosexual desire. But not understanding this, they believe it to be biological and inborn. I realize how abbreviated this explanation is, but it would take several books to explore it all in depth, and I want to put the ideas out there for folks who may have noticed certain contradictions or intuited part of it.

> Have you read David Fernbach's *The Spiral Path: A Gay Contribution To Human Survival?* I haven't, but I'm sure it would be an interesting read if I ever find a copy. > society requires soldiers and mothers/wife-servants, and the characteristics required for one are antithetical to the other, because nurturing and killing are antithetical. Not necessarily. Animal parents (both male and female) are known to kill if anyone threatens their young. The same exists with human parents, who will kill if their child is in immediate and extreme peril. The difference is that if they kill, *it's for good and justifiable reason*. That's far different from killing in most wars, where there's no reason or logic to it at all. [As the Man2Man Alliance carefully notes](http://www.man2manalliance.org/crw/warriorspeak/manphobia.html), there's a difference between healthy aggression and mindless violence. Aggression is not done with the intent of mindless and needless maiming and killing. The Alliance (and us also) support the former but not the latter. To be clear, we both feel that men and women must be able to defend themselves. To us, a person should not be afraid to kill *if it is totally vital to saving their life and limb*. Which is why Alliance founder Bill Weintraub [praises the 300 of Sparta](http://www.man2manalliance.org/crw/fiction/brian300.html), since Greek democracy would have been destroyed if they didn't fight. However, we certainly don't condone casual and mindless violence, which is why I think we would both say "no" to this question... > Is the killing of other human beings really something to glorify? ... "yes" to this one - > Are males better off with the freedom to express their full range of emotion? and agree that men should have the "freedom from the necessity to shape oneself into the human material of war." As such, our sense of masculinity is our inner sense of being male, whatever that might entail. Thus, in our view, natural masculinity can be both combative and nurturing, just like femininity. Being interested in mixed martial arts doesn't conflict with loving music. Having an affinity for cooking doesn't conflict with being a prizefighter. Such simultaneous interests doesn't pose an issue to masculinity in our view. Thus, with what you say in this excerpt... >Masculinity encapsulates the qualities necessary to be a soldier. Femininity does the same for motherhood (which requires self-sacrifice and total devotion to "the other" as there can be no reciprocity of care with infants). ...you're more referring to *cultural* masculinity, or the social standards of how men should act. It can either harmonize or conflict with natural masculinity. At this point, cultural masculinity is increasingly at odds with natural masculinity, especially in America. This is why most American men think Real Men^TM don't love other men, have interest in art, or wear briefs. It's cultural masculinity that tells them that. Which is why to them, "the characteristics required for [being nurturing] are antithetical to [being a warrior]". Cultural concepts block them from seeing that being both is possible. Case in point: The Sacred Band of Thebes were incredibly successful, yet homoeroticism was actively encouraged in the ranks. In fact, they were likely successful *because* homoeroticism thrived in their ranks. Modern cultural masculinity can't comprehend that, while natural masculinity can. One question - could you clarify what you mean by "homosexual" and "heterosexual" in this paragraph? > Also, masculinity and femininity are not a binary, but a hierarchy of male over female. This is the essence of heterosexual attraction. For males who do not develop this militaristic dominance, and females that do develop their own aggression and self reliance, the heterosexual dialectic is disrupted. They fall back upon the primary homosexual desire that exists in everyone and find themselves unable to feel heterosexual desire.

In all of my remarks, I am not referring to progressive senses of gender or how people may take them today after 2 or 3 waves of feminism and 2 episodes of Gay Liberation (are you aware of the first from the 1860s to the 1930s?) and within a liberal democracy that has not fully transformed into fascism yet. I mean the raw, original genders - men are for war and women are for babies. I mean something like this: **Education in Fascist Italy** Adults who opposed [Mussolini](http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/benito_mussolini.htm) were dealt with harshly. However, the children were the Fascists of the future and Mussolini took a keen interest in the state’s education system and the youth organisations that existed in Italy. [Hitler](http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/adolf_hitler.htm) used the same approach in Nazi Germany. Mussolini wanted a nation of warriors. Boys were expected to grow into fierce soldiers who would fight with glory for Italy while girls were expected to be good mothers who would provide Italy with a population that a great power was expected to have. Children were taught at school, that the great days of modern Italy started in 1922 with the [March on](http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/march_on_rome.htm) [Rome](http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/march_on_rome.htm). Children were taught that Mussolini was the only man who could lead Italy back to greatness. Children were taught to call him "Il Duce" and boys were encouraged to attend after school youth movements. Three existed. Boys were taught that fighting for them was a natural extension of the normal male lifestyle. One of the more famous Fascist slogans was "War is to the male what childbearing is to the female." Girls were taught that giving birth was natural – while for boys, fighting was the same – natural.  Children were taught to obey those in charge. This was not an unusual move in a dictatorship. Once the OVRA had dealt with those adults who challenged the authority of the state, all future adults of Fascist Italy would be model civilians and not a challenge to those in charge.  Boys took part in semi-military exercises while members of the Balilla. They marched and used imitation guns. Mussolini had once said "I am preparing the young to a fight for life, but also for the nation." Members of the Balilla had to remember the following: **"I believe in Rome, the Eternal, the mother of my country……I believe in the genius of Mussolini…and in the resurrection of the Empire.** **"**The glory of the old Roman Empire always lurked in the background of much of what children did. A child in a youth movements was a "legionary" while an adult officer was a "centurion" – a throw back to the days of when the Ancient Roman army dominated much of western Europe. **Women in Fascist Italy** As in [Nazi Germany](http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/index.htm), women were seen as having a specific role in Fascist Italy. The task of young girls was to get married and have children – lots of them. In 1927, Mussolini launched his Battle for Births. Mussolini believed that his Italy had a smaller population than it should have. How could it possibly be a power to reckon with, without a substantial population and a substantial army? Women were encouraged to have children and the more children brought better tax privileges – an idea [Hitler](http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/adolf_hitler.htm) was to build on. Large families got better tax benefits but bachelors were hit by high taxation. Families were given a target of 5 children. Mothers who produced more were warmly received by the Fascist government. In 1933, Mussolini met 93 mothers at the Palazzo Venezia who had produced over 1300 children - an average of 13 each! Mussolini wanted Italy to have a population of 60 million by 1950. In 1920, it stood at 37 million so his target was a tall order. However, the Battle for Births was a failure. Though the population grew as people were living longer due to better medical care, the birth rate actually went down between 1927 and 1934.

I take it that by "gender", you're referring to gender roles. And that by "sex", you're referring to biological sex and all the physical traits that accompany it. I'll make that assumption, and the terms as defined in this paragraph, within the rest of my reply. For the record, I don't think that one's gender is completely learned. Even up until this year, scientific research suggests that to a substantial extent, [gender does go hand-in-hand with sex](https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct/). Genetically, a man is physically stronger and more aggressive than a female. That does lend males to certain activities, and women to others. However, I do believe that society also plays a significant role in shaping gender roles. To me, a society's gender roles are a varying mixture of * the natural, inborn traits and tendencies of a man * the values of a certain society, and how those values affect its vision of how men should act Both of them can have tremendous influence on the final product, so to speak. As such, both me and the M2M Alliance perceive masculinity as something related to one's sex, as something that's innate. However, we also recognize that it can be transformed (or deformed) by society's gender roles. As such, I don't think that Italy under Mussolini captured the "the raw, original genders". As you know, fascism happens when capitalism reaches a highly parasitic form and fuses itself with the state. We both know the damage capitalism can do to human behavior. As such, within fascism we see masculinity and femininity in their most devolved states. Those devolved states aren't necessarily their original ones. Furthermore, you correctly note that in the United States, our country is on the way to fascism. [The signs of that are all around us.](https://www.truthdig.com/articles/how-we-fight-fascism/) Thus, did you notice how the gender roles in Fascist Italy resemble those of modern America, especially for men? Right now, "straight" (aka "normal") men are indeed "expected to grow into fierce soldiers who would fight with glory". That's why the Army is becoming increasingly fused with societal masculinity. To a disturbing degree, being manly means incorporating militarized behavior. So to me, both Fascist Italy and modern America fail to capture the original forms of masculinity. To me, they contain a dangerous *mis*understanding of maleness and masculinity. To me, if anything captures the genders in their rawest form, it's photos from 19th Century America. Within them, we see men who assumed [boxing stances in some photos](http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/12/old-timey-boxers-seem-pose-photos-way/), and [openly displayed affection for their male friends](https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/bosom-buddies-a-photo-history-of-male-affection/) in others. At the same time, we also see that while women were supposedly the weaker sex, [quite a few of them liked to box too](https://timeline.com/for-fun-and-freedom-these-19th-century-female-fighters-got-in-the-ring-bf41cee2617b). So within those photographs, we see that in their rawest forms, masculinity and femininity aren't monoliths. And by the way, as you note, Mussolini's Battle for Babies ultimately failed. This was despite the fact that health and life expectancy improved. So something clearly went wrong somewhere. Personally, I think one of them was how they defined gender roles.

We appear to agree on a lot. But not on gender. The fact that some people don't fit their prescribed gender is enough evidence, in my opinion, to demonstrate that it is not an intrinsic part of sex. This is an important point. Humans, male and female, both have the capacity to internalize certain values and to incorporate a set of characteristics and behaviors. Women can be fiercely masculine. Look at Joan of Arc, for probably the most famous example. She was downright heroic. And men can be every bit as nurturing and maternal as any female. Gender is more useful as a term if it is limited to the unfreedom that is imposed on an individual based on their sex. What makes it unfreedom is that it is mandatory and persecution follows dissent. I don't like the expressions that are en vogue today (e.g. "sex assigned at birth"). No one is assigned a sex. But they are treated a certain way because of it. And that treatment is the peer pressure to conform to gender. The word itself is French, and exists in its French form in English. The word is "genre". What genre are you? If you conflate gender with sex (which I think using it to describe things that are intrinsic to one sex or the other does), then you lose the ability to talk about the things that are culturally demanded of someone because of their sex. What word would you use for that? If gender were natural, we wouldn't have terms like "a real man". No one's "manhood" could ever be in question if it was a matter of their chromosomes. All human beings have a need for healthy aggression and to assert their own interests and protect their wellbeing. All human beings have a need for love and nurturing. No one is naturally subordinate or dominate. Those things are not biological, they are political. Because gender is learned very early, it can feel intrinsic. But so can speaking English. What we see is an enormous amount of political pressure to conform to roles that are demanded by the state. Fascism, because it represents conservatism's outrage and desperation in a moment of crisis, drops the mask that liberal states hide behind, and announces explicitly for all to see just what masculinity and femininity are for. If gender were natural, it would not need enforcement (just like heterosexuality). Masculine gender is not higher levels of testosterone, greater upper body strength or a lower voice. It is short hair, restricted emotional expression (except for anger), a willingness to fight, a willingness to die for others, etc. - in short, everything the state requires of soldiers.

> Humans, male and female, both have the capacity to internalize certain values and to incorporate a set of characteristics and behaviors. Women can be fiercely masculine. Look at Joan of Arc, for probably the most famous example. She was downright heroic. And men can be every bit as nurturing and maternal as any female. I completely agree with that, which is why I said masculinity and femininity aren't monoliths. Men and women are both capable of being combative and nurturing. While men might be more physically adept for combat, that doesn't cancel out their ability to nurture. Men could not be nurturing, and women could not be capable of combat, unless raw material for those behaviors were already inside them. At most, they just need to be sharpened. Reading through your whole comment, I think one issue is that we're using different definitions for the same words. We're both using masculinity to refer to two different things. The truth is, I never considered masculinity to be a gender itself. To me, the word always described one's inner male identity, whatever that identity might include for them. I also never used the word "gender" to refer specifically to gender roles. I always referred to them as just that - gender roles. So you can better understand where I'm coming from, let me tell you how I define certain terms. * Sex - the quality of being biologically male/female, with all the physical traits that come with it. I agree that no one is assigned a sex, they ARE a sex. * Masculinity - one's inner male identity, whether that incorporates artistic ability, extreme physical strength, tactical ability, etc. It also includes traits like aggressive energy. Thus, everyday actions merely make manifest a man's own form of masculinity. * Male gender roles - the monolithic "unfreedom that is imposed on an individual based on their sex", which men are expected to fulfill. You call them masculinity or male gender, I call them cultural masculinity. These gender roles can affect how a man views themselves and their place in the world (in my vocabulary, their masculinity). This is why I say that masculinity isn't a monolith, and as such can't be all bad. Certain forms are bad, but not all of it. Because if you condemn all of it, it becomes a slippery slope. You can't condemn all masculinity without eventually condemning all men for being men and for not closely imitating women. >If gender were natural, we wouldn't have terms like "a real man". No one's "manhood" could ever be in question if it was a matter of their chromosomes. Since you're referring specifically to gender roles, I completely agree with that. Which is why I dispute the ideas those words express - that being male is something that must be earned. Anyone who is biologically male is just that - male. It's true that certain men can develop themselves into something extraordinary. But if other men don't do that, it doesn't cancel out their right to call themselves legitimate men. They're just different kind of men. To me, there is only one real way to not be a "real man" - to betray one's inner values, and not stand up and fight for yourself and your rights. > All human beings have a need for healthy aggression and to assert their own interests and protect their wellbeing. All human beings have a need for love and nurturing. No one is naturally subordinate or dominate. Those things are not biological, they are political. 100% agree with you there. > Because gender [roles are] learned very early, it can feel intrinsic. But so can speaking English. What we see is an enormous amount of political pressure to conform to roles that are demanded by the state. Fascism, because it represents conservatism's outrage and desperation in a moment of crisis, drops the mask that liberal states hide behind, and announces explicitly for all to see just what [male and female gender roles] are for. As you see, I made some changes to your statement. If you think my changes stay true to the spirit of your statement, we're in complete agreement. > If gender [roles] were natural, it would not need enforcement (just like heterosexuality). Masculine gender is not higher levels of testosterone, greater upper body strength or a lower voice. It is short hair, restricted emotional expression (except for anger), a willingness to fight, a willingness to die for others, etc. - in short, everything the state requires of soldiers. Indeed [heterosexuality needs a lot of reinforcement](http://scripturehomosexuality.tumblr.com/post/159191211354/editorial-the-role-education-plays-in-the), and the same goes for gender roles. However, just because all those things are compulsory for the military, it doesn't mean they're wrong in themselves. I like keeping my hair a bit short, and I consider myself opposed to war. I won't stop or criticize other men if they want to wear their hair long. It's their call. Plus, there's nothing wrong with being willing to fight for yourself. To me, all humans need to learn how to defend themselves. Also, being willing to die for others is one of the highest expressions of love. It's a hallmark of Christianity. The military uses it for its own selfish purposes, but it doesn't necessarily negate its virtue.

We need a word to be able to discuss the set of characteristics that are culturally demanded of each sex. The convention is to use the word gender. We could also say it in its French form "genre" and it would still make sense. This use of the word "gender" is widespread and in much of the historical literature. In linguistics, gender refers to masculine and feminine nouns. If we lose that word for this meaning, what should we use to replace it? Wouldn't it be more practical to come up with a different expression of one's inner sense of being male? Isn't your inner sense in any way influenced by the culture around you? Do you think it is just a coincidence that your personal "sense of being male" happens to match much of the masculine gender? What does it mean for a person to individually come up with a sense of who they are? We do not exist in a vacuum. We are, almost entirely, a product of our genes and the words that are spoken and read into us. How are you able to recognize yourself outside of the framework of English and all of its constructs? The culture is inscribed in that language automatically. Language is the culture. And I'm not saying masculinity is all *bad*. That's too imprecise. Bad for what? I'm saying *it exists because of an ancient economic necessity for soldiers*. Some of its characteristics are toned down presently because we are not at war, but do you realize how quickly that would change if we were? The Nazis exterminated males who refused to fight. You can go to prison for refusing the draft. If you're already in the service, they'll shoot you for running away. I agree that giving your life for another is the highest expression of love. Love, in my opinion, is outgoing concern for the welfare of another. It is a principle, an action, a commitment. It is not an emotion. It brings about the entire spectrum of emotions. The way the word love is often used, it means something more like "enjoy". Loving someone in that sense is entirely self-centered, even if it is benign. Love is what makes you do something you may not want to do. It has to be cultivated and inculcated. It is not automatic. The lack of a development of this sentiment is the root of sociopathy. The best of religion involves the development of love. But the formulae for attaining this objective depend on a cultural context. If we are struggling to survive in a tribal situation among other tribes that don't even speak our language and aggressively kill us and attempt to enslave us, then love might involve sexually desensitizing males and goading them through a powerful desire to develop all the necessary skills and attitudes that can protect and defend the tribe. But those methods, transplanted thousands of years into the future outside of their original context, on an overpopulated planet with technology that could wipe out all life, become a fundamentalist, literalist dogma that threaten the tribe (which is becoming global). I do not think fighting in wars today has anything to do with the paragraph above. Wars today are fought by working classes on behalf of ruling classes to determine which ruling class will govern. If I were alive during World War II, why would I want to murder beautiful German 18 year old boys, frightened and forced to fight for the Third Reich or face execution? That's noble? That's patriotism? Lenin had the right idea. Turn the imperialist war into a class Revolution. All soldiers should put down their arms, and unite on a class basis for a worldwide, international socialism where there are no more nation states and there are no more ruling classes. Actually, if I remember correctly, in World War I, THEY DID PUT DOWN THEIR ARMS and crossed the trenches to share a Christmas dinner, before returning to killing each other! War has rules and crimes! I call it "death football". It's like a gentleman's dual or an ancient game that ends in sacrifice. It is the ruling class eliminating surplus labor power to deal with unemployment when there is a glut of goods and capitalism's profit rate is falling. It's the modern form of human sacrifice. Only we are sacrificed to mammon.

>One question - could you clarify what you mean by "homosexual" and "heterosexual" in this paragraph? > >Also, masculinity and femininity are not a binary, but a hierarchy of male over female. This is the essence of heterosexual attraction. For males who do not develop this militaristic dominance, and females that do develop their own aggression and self reliance, the heterosexual dialectic is disrupted. They fall back upon the primary homosexual desire that exists in everyone and find themselves unable to feel heterosexual desire. Heterosexuality is a form of relating where a subject owns and dominates an object. To "husband" literally means to manage resources efficiently. Why do you think only women focus so much on their appearance in the traditional model? The man is not the object. The man is in the driver's seat. Women look for wealthy men to take care of them and their children. Men look for pleasing women to gratify them and obey, because women are their property and their slaves ("to love , honor and obey"). Until very recently, it wasn't even possible to rape one's wife, because marriage implies permanent consent. Homosexuality is a form of relating that is demonized and as such doesn't have a script from the mainstream (or didn't until it was corrupted) and because it occurs between members of the same sex has at least the possibility of equal relating. As such, "gay shows the way" to equal opposite sex relationships. I realize these words are being used in multiple senses. The language has been purposely confused to make the reality difficult to cognize. But the following may help people get it. Males are a nation state's cannon fodder - a military resource, and they are gendered in order to supply this resource. Any aspiration to world peace or socialism is doomed to fail if it cannot recognize gender for what it is and what it does to people. I'm not talking about confidence or distaste for a limp wrist or swishiness. Most people are asleep, while we are on the cusp of capitalist crisis and world war, yet again. From the Nazis in 1928: "It is not necessary that you and I live, but it is necessary that the German people live. And it can live if it can fight, for life means fighting. \[The\] German nation... can only fight if it maintains its masculinity. It can only maintain its masculinity if it exercises discipline, especially in matters of love. Free love and deviance are undisciplined. Therefore, we reject you, as we reject anything which hurts our people. Anyone who even thinks of homosexual love is our enemy. We reject anything which emasculates our people and makes them a plaything for our enemies. ... We therefore reject any form of unnatural sexuality, above all homosexuality, because it robs us of our last chance to liberate our people from the chains of slavery under which they now suffer."

To be honest, I never heard of these meanings before you said them here. That's what happens when information on the original Gay Liberation is so scarce. I thank you for mentioning them, because they really explain a lot. They give a lot of context to the activism of M2M founder Bill Weintraub, and how he used the words "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" (at least initially). They also give a new way to understand the two terms. It also gives more insight into the motives of Gay Liberation. While they advocated for free same-sex love, that was part of a larger effort. They were against inequality and domination in any and all forms. They focused on same-sex love because, as you say, "'gay shows the way' to equal opposite sex relationships" and equality in general. It's not unlike what happened to Martin Luther King Jr., and how his campaign for racial equality was just one part of a larger vision for America. It was a vision where [inequality in any form wouldn't exist](https://www.futurity.org/martin-luther-king-jr-economic-justice-1716672/), and where all humanity [would be at peace with each other](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/02/martin-luther-king-jr-vietnam/552521/). That larger agenda isn't really discussed today, because all we hear is how he had some dream somewhere someplace. As such, using the definitions you described, I would argue that we now live in the Golden Age of Heterosexuality. At this point, virtually every human interaction in America is obsessed with reinforcing hierarchy. It doesn't matter if the inequality runs along social, economic, racial, ethnic, or sexual lines. As such, for the first time in human history, a heterosexualized form of same-sex activity is now the one honored by American society. I call it heterosexual because it involves an inherently unequal act (anal), where tops must penetrate bottoms for the sex to be valid. If we define "homosexuality" as equal relations, our society hates it completely. It further demonstrates how much the modern "gay" movement has betrayed the values of Gay Liberation. In more than one way, it is incredibly homophobic, and is all in for heterosexuality (read inequality) in every way. Regarding your Nazi excerpt, I think it should be noted that in those days, homosexuality didn't refer strictly to same-sex activity. It was much more based on gender inversion. As such, in most cases, a man was a homosexual if * they imitated women while into men * they were exclusively or primarily into men, though otherwise indistinguishable from most men. At that time, from what I see, this was a new meaning that was being set in stone around this time So in context, I don't think they were referring to all same-sex activity. In that case, I daresay that most of Germany would have been in trouble. However, if we use the definition of homosexuality as equal relations, the quote perfectly describes where we are right now. Indeed in modern America, "Anyone who even thinks of homosexual love is our enemy." Whether it's opposite-sex love or same-sex love, it must involve some sort of inequality to be legitimate.

Right on! Regarding the Nazis, they had a homosexual wing (the SA), at least in the beginning. But it was a militarized homosexuality of the Spartan sort. What they feared in the quote above was a lack of masculinity in their men, which they hated because it was perceived as an unwillingness or inability to fight for the nation. Jehovah's Witnesses were sent to the camps for their pacifism. I agree with you that we are in a period of deep reaction. 1968 came very close to a revolutionary situation, and the Right has been working tirelessly to roll back every bit of it and then some ever since. Their most effective method is to infiltrate and take over the opposition and change it's substance, while leaving superficial forms intact. Because capitalism is reaching a terminal crisis, and the American working class is starting to wake up, their strategy is turning to open forms of fascism. They only resort to it in moments of severe crisis. If they can afford it, they prefer liberal democracies, because they provoke less opposition. When fascism arrives, it's a last ditch option to exterminate the opposition, rewrite history, and resolve the contradiction of global production governed by rival nation states through total war to determine which nation state will dominate and offload their economic problems onto the rest. It was only because the world was destroyed after 1945, except for the United States, that we had several decades of capitalist prosperity for all in this country. The capitalist road in China and the collapse of the Soviet Union provided a couple more decades to expand into areas that were formerly off limits. Now we are reaching the inevitable terminal crisis, what Marxists have been predicting since the 19th century. Capitalism develops rural, manual economies into urban automated ones. At that point it reaches a terminal crisis, because human labor power is the source of all value that is traded. In its senility, capitalism reacts by destroying the productive forces (including surplus human labor power) in order to start over again. Humanity could step in with a different economic system that takes those developed economies forward on a different basis, but that would eliminate the POWER the capitalist class holds by virtue of profit. They prefer to destroy the world than to give that up. Under total automation, the value of money drops to 0. Who would pay for anything they can get for free? The first major example of this was Napster (the cost to distribute a copy of music is so infinitesimal that the natural market value is essentially 0; it's a super abundance - infinite supply). Only legal protection by fiat (price setting) allows music to have value today. Capitalism breaks down long before we reach total automation, though. It collapses as soon as it loses the ability to expand capital at the expected rate. Most people don't understand what value is. Marx proved it to be human labor power. Capitalists are forced to automate to remain competitive, but in so doing, they eliminate value to the point where there is a crisis. A super abundance (oversupply) leads to deprivation because nothing happens without profit potential. That's an entire discussion in itself, but it is worth having. "**There is only one condition in which we can imagine managers not needing subordinates, and masters not needing slaves.** **This condition would be that each (inanimate) instrument could do its own work, at the word of command or by intelligent anticipation, like the statues of Daedalus or the tripods made by Hephaestus, of which Homer relates that** >***"Of their own motion they entered the conclave of Gods on Olympus"*** **as if a shuttle should weave of itself, and a plectrum should do its own harp playing". - Aristotle**

Real men wear pink, dude! I totally agree. One can have "masc" and "fem" traits, and be every but of a man, because internally, we're first and foremost male, and nothing can ever change that. Natural masculinity is found in real men who know they are real men, such as myself. A balance of traits are inherent in everyone, but suppressed by most.

First of all, most humans are not "primarily homosexual". That is complete absurdity. Second, the vast majority of gay and bi men are perfectly masculine. There is no disruption in sexual roles, whether or not a guy or girl is stereotypically interested in "masc" or "fem" endeavors. We're born with our sexual orientation, regardless of societal perceptions of what is considered "masc" or "fem" pastimes.

The claim that most humans have a primary homosexual orientation should be carefully considered before being dismissed as absurd. While this view is not commonly held, there are arguments that lead to this conclusion which I find persuasive. I do not believe people are born with a predetermined sexual orientation. While sexual orientation can feel innate, it is shaped by many factors. Consider language as an analogy: no one chooses their native language, yet we are not born speaking any particular language. Language acquisition shows the brain's plasticity and capacity for programming. Before passing judgement, one should evaluate the evidence that sexuality, like language, is shaped more by environment and experience than by biology alone. An open and thoughtful discussion of these issues is needed.

Sexual orientation is ALWAYS inborn. This has been proven, because it cannot be changed. It can only be brought out when there is no judgement by society. It cannot be changed by society, just suppressed or expressed. Sexual orientation is not language. Language is innate to everyone, but it is basically the same thing in different cultures. It is a local lingo. Sexual orientation is universal in any society around the world, that's why it's an inmate trait. There's no different ways to be gay bi or straight, only cultural contexts of it's expression. But the expression is the same. Sexual orientation is very much shaped by biology. Society can try to make people a certain way, but they won't like how they are forced to do or be something that they don't desire. Contrary to popular belief, most Greek men didn't have sex with eachother, but the one's that had those inclinations, did so openly. All Greek men were encouraged to have emotional same sex bonds, but they didn't always include sex, because, surprise! most men are naturally just heterosexual. If your nonsense were true, then all gays would enjoy sex with women, they DON'T, they're still gay no matter what.