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: , , , , ,

Stupid Is, As Stupid – As Ever


There is no record of who actually said these words: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” In short, this assertion is that stupidity can sometimes be the best explanation for actions that might otherwise be deemed as being motivated by malice. That quotation implies that malice is more pernicious and sinister than stupidity. I assert stupidity, however, can be equally as dangerous as malice.

Stupidity, to any degree, can be dangerous to all involved or impacted, and that potential for danger should not be underestimated. This is especially true when those in positions of authority – real or perceived, spout stupidity. As an aside, smart people can say stupid things, so to that end, I will ask you to judge whether the following person is painfully stupid or whether he is a smart person saying stupid things. I present him in the context that what he said was not said with malice or baleful intent but with dangerous sincerity.

In May of this year [2012] Annie-Rose Strasser posted from ThinkProgress LGBT a video of a North Carolina pastor, Charles Worley, who stated the following:

“I figured a way out — a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers. But I couldn’t get it passed through Congress. Build a great big large fence, 150 or 100 miles long. Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. Have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. Feed ‘em, and – And you know what? In a few years they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce.”

My reaction to this man’s solution is two-fold.

First of all, I believe this pastor has overlooked a vital aspect of homosexuality. If it were possible to round them all up and confine them, only those that are confined would “die off.” But that would not rid the US of all “lesbians and queers” because [and this might come as a shock to the pastor] the heterosexuals outside the fenced-in area would continue to reproduce, and approximately 10% of the children born would be homosexual. Thus, for as long as men and women continue to have children, homosexuals will continue to also be born; they will not “die out.” His solution would not “get rid of all the lesbians and queers.”

Even if you believe homosexuality is a deliberate choice rather than being of genetic origins, heterosexual parents will continue to produce them. Therefore, the only solution to rid the US of homosexuals is for heterosexuals to stop having children.

It would appear that the pastor’s solution is, at worst, completely stupid and, at best, simply stupid. I wonder, how many in his congregation actually gave this solution any critical thought? Pity that congregation if he is the smartest one in the bunch.

The second aspect that gives me cause for pause is that the vitriol directed at homosexuality seems to be disproportionate vis a vis other “sins” specified in the Bible.

Christians believe they are not subject to the Old Testament Mosaic Law but to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles/disciples. According to I Corinthians chapter 6 verses 9 and 10 [New International Version], “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

One thing is glaringly obvious from this passage: No one sin is worse than the other. Therefore, if that is the case, then I think the pastor should recommend that an electrified fenced-in section should be constructed to contain the swindlers and greedy people as well as adulterers and the other kinds of persons cited in I Corinthians.

Religious groups have stood outside funerals of US military personnel while holding up signs stating that those deaths were God’s way of saying that homosexuals should not be allowed in the military. But, to date, no such groups have stood outside anybody’s funeral while holding up signs condemning slandering and swindling or idolatry. Furthermore, where are the gangs of hoodlums who wait for the sexually immoral [e.g., those who have pre-marital sex] or thieves or greedy persons to leave the bar and then attack and beat them up? Why do they do that to homosexuals but not to the others listed in I Corinthians? There is no indication that any one of those types of behaviors condemned in I Corinthians is worse than the other. In short, being greedy is as “sinful” as being a homosexual – neither one will get into the kingdom of God.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do not care what homosexuals do any more than I care what heterosexuals do. Furthermore, I do not accept the Bible or any religious book, as the word of “God,” but I quote it to make my point about the utter hypocrisy [i.e., stupidity] of believers who twist themselves out of shape about homosexuality while they react as if the other “sins” are less “abominable.”

What I do care about is honoring the humanity of others – homosexuals, heterosexuals, bi-sexuals, asexuals or whatever. Thieves, greedy persons and swindlers, in my opinion, produce far more harm to society than do adulterers or homosexuals – but to the “God” of the Bible, they are all unworthy of entrance into his kingdom. The pastor would have more credibility if had suggested that all those guilty of the “sins” listed in I Corinthians should be confined behind an electrified fence. But if he had suggested that, I wonder how many in his congregation would be left – not just in his congregation but any.

So, is the pastor a smart person saying stupid things or is the pastor simply stupid? An ancillary question would be, how many times must a smart person say stupid things before he is no longer smart but stupid?

In any event, stupidity of that sort is frightening in its essence and can be dangerous in its consequences. Stupid is as stupid as it ever was.

Published in: on May 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: