Males Who Impersonate Men


Referring to the title of this work, the term “males” is defined as human beings with “XY” chromosome and who will typically have a penis and testicles. Thus, being a male is more or less a function of the time and chance of conception. Obviously, these males do not choose to be male but they can choose to be men. Therefore these terms, males and men, are not necessarily interchangeable.

Pathetically, many males define their manhood [being a man] in terms of their sexual orientation. These males consider heterosexuality to be a badge that reveals them to be men and that homosexuality is the antithesis of manhood. Such a  definition is short-sighted and woefully incorrect. At the risk of sounding trite, being a man is what you do but not who you “screw”. Males who assert they are men because of their heterosexuality are merely a cheap and woeful imitation of what they think they are.

If heterosexuality is a crucial part of the definition of a man, then what if he has sex with an underage female? What if he is a pedophile? Is he still a man? What if he rapes women? Is that something a man would do, or would someone who is simply a male do that? What if he is impotent or suffers from erectile dysfunction? Is he no longer a man? What if he is asexual? What would you call him then? Or what if a male is bi-sexual? Is he half a man? In other words, the inclusion of a man’s sexual orientation and/or activity in the definition of being a man can be problematic.

In ancient Rome, if a male was the “active” partner in a sexual encounter with another male [as opposed to being the “receiver” or the passive one], he was still considered a man. Even today, among the Sambians of Papua New Guinea, the rite of male passage into manhood entails performing oral sex on the older men of the tribe and swallowing their semen. The point I wish to present is that the definition of what constitutes a man can be far more encompassing than one’s sexual proclivities. But those examples aside, could it be that sexual orientation is irrelevant or at best, it obfuscates the issue of what constitutes manhood?

One or two emotions often drive many males’ reactions to homosexuality: Fear and/or hatred. In this context, these emotions are often used to cloak the frenetic, irrational child within. [One of the frailties of being human is that humans often experience discomfort when in the presence of the “different”; human prefer a certain level of sameness or conformity. True, diversity is often the source of conflict – sometimes resulting in fear –  but it can also be the catalyst for progress.]  Fear, however, should be rational; it should be driven by the capacity to be harmed. How is it that two gay men or two lesbians can cause harm? This kind of fear is a fool’s fear. In fact, it can be argued that a real man does not waste fear on that which can cause no harm.

Many males hate gay men or lesbians. How irrational is it to hate ? That is, to actually expend a serious and potentially dangerous emotion. Hate should be felt and shown with great care and deliberation — not a knee-jerk, thoughtless reaction. It may seem like a paradox but hatred should be done without emotion — even though it is an emotion. To that end, what would be a legitimate rationale for hating men who prefer sex with men or women who prefer sex with women? Never mind, hating “the act”; why hate or even dislike the persons? Is having a different preference legitimate grounds for hatred? Petty and pitiful people hate for reasons often cited by males who are not men. In fact, if anything, an argument can be made that heterosexual sex causes more harm than homosexual sex. Heterosexual sex can result in difficult pregnancies, unwanted children, over-population, and all the things that flow downstream from that. Yes, I am saying this with tongue in cheek but the point is that homosexual acts between consenting adults is no more harmful and deserves no more hatred or fear than sex between two heterosexuals.

Even if a person’s sexuality is a matter of choice [for the record, I do not believe it is. My being heterosexual is no more my choice than my being a male or African-American or …], there is still no harm. Thus, no grounds for fear or hatred. Lastly, however, for those who cite religion as the basis for their negative reaction to this matter, I point to the marked difference in their reactions to the other “sins” that are lumped in with homosexuality. The day these religious zealots protest and scream at thieves, liars, adulterers, alcoholics and the like with the same fervor and vigor as they do homosexuality, then they would have some credence. Otherwise, their hypocrisy is both foul and feculent.

Definitions are often not exhaustive or comprehensive but dare I declare my definition of a man: “a male who honors the humanity of others in concert with deep respect for himself; a male who thinks critically and deeply.” But perhaps my most controversial definition would be: “a real man is no different from a real woman – one having a penis and the other a vagina, notwithstanding.”

Anything other than, is simply an impostor not worthy of anything, “man”.

Advertisements
Published in: on March 29, 2013 at 8:25 PM  Comments (5)  
Tags: , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: