gay vikings- could it be true...

[Sophia]

  

new studies shown that being gay aint just something new in our time, even the vikings celebrated being gay. People who have studied viking graves and found gay burials. People with same sex holding hands. And in other burials women have been decorating in mens cloths and men decorating in womens cloths. There are even vikings stories that have been written down who talks about samesex relationsship.

Hearing this made me so happy that I felt I need to start a thread on this subject.

[milomorris]

Of course there could have been homosexuals among Viking men. The likelihood is that there certainly were.

But let's keep in mind that these 2-man graves could have been brothers, sworn-brothers, or blood-brothers. It was not un-common for Norsemen to form such platonic bonds.

[Sophia]

Of course there could have been homosexuals among Viking men. The likelihood is that there certainly were.

But let's keep in mind that these 2-man graves could have been brothers, sworn-brothers, or blood-brothers. It was not un-common for Norsemen to form such platonic bonds.

well in these graves, they were not siblings or relatives.

[milomorris]

well in these graves, they were not siblings or relatives.

Ah. So they could be lovers, or sworn/blood-brothers then. One of the most famous of the Norse Sagas is the Volsunga Saga. It is the story Wagner used to write the Ring Cycle. In Die Gotterdammerung (one of the operas in the Cycle), there is a blood-ritual between Siegried and Gunther. They swear their friendship and loyalty to each other. Its a great moment with some great music.

This is a fascinating find!!

[Sophia]

Ah. So they could be lovers, or sworn/blood-brothers then. One of the most famous of the Norse Sagas is the Volsunga Saga. It is the story Wagner used to write the Ring Cycle. In Die Gotterdammerung (one of the operas in the Cycle), there is a blood-ritual between Siegried and Gunther. They swear their friendship and loyalty to each other. Its a great moment with some great music.

This is a fascinating find!!

is this an opera you have played in?

[milomorris]

is this an opera you have played in?

Not yet. Wagner is only done by the largest opera houses here in the US.

[Mikaela]

I'm curious about this. Where have these finds been made? During which time of the viking period were they buried? Could you link us to any articles or archeological websites about it?

I must admit that I am surprised, given the Norse laws' and Norse literary sources' seemingly firm bias against homosexuality (and against men wearing women's clothes and vice versa). My first guess would have been that these persons in the graves were siblings or "blood-brothers", but if DNA has confirmed they were not related, there certainly is room for new interpretations of the Vikings!

[Sophia]

Not yet. Wagner is only done by the largest opera houses here in the US.

for the future then...

Just curious, what other operas are common on smaller stages?

[Sophia]

I'm curious about this. Where have these finds been made? During which time of the viking period were they buried? Could you link us to any articles or archeological websites about it?

I must admit that I am surprised, given the Norse laws' and Norse literary sources' seemingly firm bias against homosexuality (and against men wearing women's clothes and vice versa). My first guess would have been that these persons in the graves were siblings or "blood-brothers", but if DNA has confirmed they were not related, there certainly is room for new interpretations of the Vikings!

i read about this on the swedish daily newspapers webpage. www.svd.se  Unfortantly I haven´t been able to find it again, sence the news have been archived. and I haven´t figure out how to search the archive the best way. (the swedish webpages, have strange search functions, it either gives you 10000 of hits in different directions or 0 hits.)

[milomorris]

Just curious, what other operas are common on smaller stages?

http://www.operaamerica.org/content/research/quick.aspx

The most frequently produced operas in the 2007-2008 season were:

La bohème
Tosca
La traviata
The Marriage of Figaro
Carmen
Don Giovanni
The Elixir of Love
The Magic Flute
Aida
Madama Butterfly
Turandot

I have performed roles in all of these, except Madama Butterfly, and Turandot

[milomorris]

I'm curious about this. Where have these finds been made? During which time of the viking period were they buried? Could you link us to any articles or archeological websites about it?

Yes, sopy. Please let us know where to find more about this. This is exciting.

[delalluvia]

 

new studies shown that being gay aint just something new in our time, even the vikings celebrated being gay. People who have studied viking graves and found gay burials. People with same sex holding hands. And in other burials women have been decorating in mens cloths and men decorating in womens cloths. There are even vikings stories that have been written down who talks about samesex relationsship.

Hearing this made me so happy that I felt I need to start a thread on this subject.

While it could be gay people, and I'm not saying they aren't and I certainly don't deny gay people have been around as long as humans have, we shouldn't jump to any conclusions.  

Women sleeping with women friends and men sleeping with men friends platonically was quite common in the 19th century.  Women holding hands and being affectionate with each other was quite common then and now.  In several countries, up until very recently, it was quite common to see men holding hands in public with each other without any sexual connotations being associated with the actions.

They could be siblings, or they could be adopted brothers or they could have some other sort of bond.

Maybe the cross-dress was an insult to the person, maybe it was an honor (i.e. maybe a man was disgraced and forced to wear women's clothes, maybe a woman proved herself in battle and won the 'honor' of dressing as a man).

Context is everything.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'm curious about this. Where have these finds been made? During which time of the viking period were they buried? Could you link us to any articles or archeological websites about it?

I must admit that I am surprised, given the Norse laws' and Norse literary sources' seemingly firm bias against homosexuality (and against men wearing women's clothes and vice versa). My first guess would have been that these persons in the graves were siblings or "blood-brothers", but if DNA has confirmed they were not related, there certainly is room for new interpretations of the Vikings!

Sure enough. The Vikings were Androphiles for sure.

 

[milomorris]

Sure enough. The Vikings were Androphiles for sure.

 

I'm sure that some homosexual Vikings could be described as androphiles.

[Sophia]

some info I found in english about vikings and there view on sexuality...


The evidence of the sagas and laws shows that male homosexuality was regarded in two lights: there was nothing at all strange or shameful about a man having intercourse with another man if he was in the active or "manly" role, however the passive partner in homosexual intercourse was regarded with derision. It must be remembered, however, that the laws and sagas reflect the Christian consciousness of the Icelander or Norwegian of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, well after the pagan period. The myths and legends show that honored gods and heroes were believed to have taken part in homosexual acts, which may indicate that pre-Christian Viking Scandinavia was more tolerant of homosexuality, and history is altogether silent as to the practice of lesbianism in the Viking Age.

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/gayvik.shtml

[louisev]

Sure enough. The Vikings were Androphiles for sure.

 

as a direct descendant of the William I of Britain and his illustrious ancestors the kings of Kvenland and the princesses of Normandy I can tell you that there was not a single androphile among them.  As warriors there were gay as three dollar bills and did their duty to produce heirs of dubious sexuality, and we their descendants bear the stamp of their preversion.

[milomorris]

as a direct descendant of the William I of Britain and his illustrious ancestors the kings of Kvenland and the princesses of Normandy I can tell you that there was not a single androphile among them.  As warriors there were gay as three dollar bills and did their duty to produce heirs of dubious sexuality, and we their descendants bear the stamp of their preversion.

Are you saying that these guys were effeminate? Or that they were part of a subculture that had its own sensibilities distinct from other men?

Your description of warriors sounds more like the Spartans and less like a gay pride parade.

[milomorris]

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/gayvik.shtml

Thank you VERY much for this, sopy.

The following indicates that Vikings were OK with man2man sex as long as homosexual men still behaved like other men in daily life. That's the basics of androphilia.

Homosexuality was not regarded by the Viking peoples as being evil, perverted, innately against the laws of nature or any of the other baggage about the concept that Christian belief has provided Western culture. Rather, it was felt that a man who subjected himself to another in sexual affairs would do the same in other areas, being a follower rather than a leader, and allowing others to do his thinking or fighting for him. Thus, homosexual sex was not what was condemned, but rather the failure to stand for one's self and make one's own decisions, to fight one's own fights, which went directly against the Nordic ethic of self-reliance. (Sørenson 20).

[Jeff Wrangler]

History is altogether silent as to the practice of lesbianism in the Viking Age.

Does anybody know anything about the position of women in Viking society? If women were more or less seen as "property" of their menfolk, I'm not too surprised if there is no surviving record of lesbianism. If women were "just another species of property," I would think that lesbianism would be below the male radar. Men made the laws and wrote the histories.

[louisev]

Does anybody know anything about the position of women in Viking society? If women were more or less seen as "property" of their menfolk, I'm not too surprised if there is no surviving record of lesbianism. If women were "just another species of property," I would think that lesbianism would be below the male radar. Men made the laws and wrote the histories.

Not a chance.  the reason the Vikings were so successful at conquest is that, like Rosie the Riveter and the female empowerment that took place during the New Deal era under Roosevelt that enabled women into professions in the United States previously relegated to men only, Viking society was based upon a polytheistic conception that had both male and female gods and god-warriors including Thor (after which Thursday is named) and Freya (after which Friday is named) and women ran the households and the towns along with male and female elders, year round while men went out to fish, conquer and plunder.  They were also responsible for the agriculture and government.  It's modern America where you find this "woman's place is in the home" nonsense.  Look to Socialist Scandinavia and New Old Europe for actual equality.

you might wish to read Harry Harrison's historical novels about the Vikings entitled "The Hammer and the Cross Series"

http://www.harryharrison.com/

very well done and I'll vouch for their accuracy...

[milomorris]

Look to Socialist Scandinavia and New Old Europe for actual equality.

What do women there have that women here do not??

[delalluvia]

Thank you VERY much for this, sopy.

The following indicates that Vikings were OK with man2man sex as long as homosexual men still behaved like other men in daily life. That's the basics of androphilia.

Homosexuality was not regarded by the Viking peoples as being evil, perverted, innately against the laws of nature or any of the other baggage about the concept that Christian belief has provided Western culture. Rather, it was felt that a man who subjected himself to another in sexual affairs would do the same in other areas, being a follower rather than a leader, and allowing others to do his thinking or fighting for him. Thus, homosexual sex was not what was condemned, but rather the failure to stand for one's self and make one's own decisions, to fight one's own fights, which went directly against the Nordic ethic of self-reliance. (Sørenson 20).

But this was true in most societies where male homosexuality was a normal part of society?  That as long as a man was a top, it was fine, but if he were a bottom, then society questioned his manliness however they defined it.  Sadly, in most male/male relationships someone has to bottom at sometime, so that means men tried to stay tops, which limited the bottoms or men willing to bottom and the bottoms were not held in very great respect.

[milomorris]

But this was true in most societies where male homosexuality was a normal part of society?  That as long as a man was a top, it was fine, but if he were a bottom, then society questioned his manliness however they defined it.  Sadly, in most male/male relationships someone has to bottom at sometime, so that means men tried to stay tops, which limited the bottoms or men willing to bottom and the bottoms were not held in very great respect.

In Greece and Rome for sure. Of course, nobody (anywhere) has been able to answer the question of how anyone but the men themselves knew who topped and who bottomed. My understanding, though, is that the assumption of weakness/effeminacy could easily be dispelled by living an honorable and respectable life.

[delalluvia]

In Greece and Rome for sure. Of course, nobody (anywhere) has been able to answer the question of how anyone but the men themselves knew who topped and who bottomed. My understanding, though, is that the assumption of weakness/effeminacy could easily be dispelled by living an honorable and respectable life.

I thought that would be obvious.

You're assuming that the men themselves didn't gossip or the men didn't have orgies or men didn't have menage a trois where servants/slaves were present or that they didn't get angry or jealous with one another and 'out' each other in public.

[Jeff Wrangler]

But this was true in most societies where male homosexuality was a normal part of society?  That as long as a man was a top, it was fine, but if he were a bottom, then society questioned his manliness however they defined it.  Sadly, in most male/male relationships someone has to bottom at sometime, so that means men tried to stay tops, which limited the bottoms or men willing to bottom and the bottoms were not held in very great respect.

Indeed. Women, slave boys, and boy prostitutes (who were also probably slaves) got fucked. Adult male citizens did not. At least in theory.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Not a chance.  the reason the Vikings were so successful at conquest is that, like Rosie the Riveter and the female empowerment that took place during the New Deal era under Roosevelt that enabled women into professions in the United States previously relegated to men only, Viking society was based upon a polytheistic conception that had both male and female gods and god-warriors including Thor (after which Thursday is named) and Freya (after which Friday is named) and women ran the households and the towns along with male and female elders, year round while men went out to fish, conquer and plunder.  They were also responsible for the agriculture and government.  It's modern America where you find this "woman's place is in the home" nonsense.  Look to Socialist Scandinavia and New Old Europe for actual equality.

Fair enough. Then how does one account for the absence of lesbianism in the laws and the records? I'm not disputing, but the question remains unanswered. And I guess we still have no idea why some guy was buried in a woman's clothing. 

you might wish to read Harry Harrison's historical novels about the Vikings entitled "The Hammer and the Cross Series"

http://www.harryharrison.com/

very well done and I'll vouch for their accuracy...

Surely you're not implying you were there?  

[milomorris]

I thought that would be obvious.

You're assuming that the men themselves didn't gossip or the men didn't have orgies or men didn't have menage a trois where servants/slaves were present or that they didn't get angry or jealous with one another and 'out' each other in public.

Yep. I'm assuming that men will be honorable. Those that kiss and tell do not deserve to be kissed at all.

[milomorris]

What tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.

It's okay to bottom so long as you lie about it?  And this is somehow honorable?  

Where did I say that??

[louisev]

Fair enough. Then how does one account for the absence of lesbianism in the laws and the records? I'm not disputing, but the question remains unanswered. And I guess we still have no idea why some guy was buried in a woman's clothing. 

Surely you're not implying you were there?  

surely!

[louisev]

What tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.

It's okay to bottom so long as you lie about it?  And this is somehow honorable?  

So honor is defined as dishonesty.  What a load of horseshit, and how Orwellian.

Androphila = homophobia and sexism.

Androphilia = dishonesty.

Androphila = silly little boys who think being a man is all about appearances and not substance.

it's all been said by the press reviews of Jack Donovan's 'manifesto.' That new male pride the Androphiliac crowing about?  it's called the closet.

[milomorris]

it's all been said by the press reviews of Jack Donovan's 'manifesto.' That new male pride the Androphiliac crowing about?  it's called the closet.

That is 100% incorrect. Jack never advocated, nor does he advocate staying in, or going back into the closet. That is a personal choice that he leaves up to the individual. Nor has he said anything about lying about the details of one's sexual practices. Read the book before you make such wild accusations, or decide to listen to somebody else's lies.

[Sason]

What do women there have that women here do not??

I don't know what women have in other countries, but I can tell you some of the things
we have here in Sweden. My guess is that most of them do not exist in the US, but I could be wrong.

* Free councelling and medical advice on reproductive health till the age of 25 for both girls and boys in special youth clinics. They don't exist everywhere, but in many places.

* Unquestioned right to abortion. Counselling if you're in doubt.

* Free care during pregnancy and childbirth, for both mother and child, including all kinds of complications.

* Free child welfare centers till the age of 7, they do all kinds of checkups and give vaccinations. Referral to doctor if needed.

* Free habilitation including all technical aids if the child is handicapped. Free rebuilding of the home if needed for the child being able to live there.

* 480 days of paid maternity leave. You get 80% of your usual pay. You don't have to use all 480 days when the child is born, you have the right to use them until the age of 8. The other parent has the right to use half of those days if that's what the couple wants.

* Legal right to return to your work until the child is 3.

* 120 days/year/child of right to stay home with a sick child, till the age of 12. You get 80 % of your usual pay.

* Public day care of (mostly) good quality and reasonable prices. The less you earn, the less you pay.


This is what springs to mind off the top of my head. There is probably more.


What we don't have is

* Equaly pay. Year after year the statistics show that women still earn less than men within the same field of work.

* Equal representation where decisions are made, both in society and corporate.

* Fair trials in case of rape. Courts still  have a tendency to blame the victim.

There is more in this category too, this is what I can think of right now.

[milomorris]

I don't know what women have in other countries, but I can tell you some of the things
we have here in Sweden. My guess is that most of them do not exist in the US, but I could be wrong.

* Free councelling and medical advice on reproductive health till the age of 25 for both girls and boys in special youth clinics. They don't exist everywhere, but in many places.

* Unquestioned right to abortion. Counselling if you're in doubt.

* Free care during pregnancy and childbirth, for both mother and child, including all kinds of complications.

* Free child welfare centers till the age of 7, they do all kinds of checkups and give vaccinations. Referral to doctor if needed.

* Free habilitation including all technical aids if the child is handicapped. Free rebuilding of the home if needed for the child being able to live there.

* 480 days of paid maternity leave. You get 80% of your usual pay. You don't have to use all 480 days when the child is born, you have the right to use them until the age of 8. The other parent has the right to use half of those days if that's what the couple wants.

* Legal right to return to your work until the child is 3.

* 120 days/year/child of right to stay home with a sick child, till the age of 12. You get 80 % of your usual pay.

* Public day care of (mostly) good quality and reasonable prices. The less you earn, the less you pay.


This is what springs to mind off the top of my head. There is probably more.


What we don't have is

* Equaly pay. Year after year the statistics show that women still earn less than men within the same field of work.

* Equal representation where decisions are made, both in society and corporate.

* Fair trials in case of rape. Courts still  have a tendency to blame the victim.

There is more in this category too, this is what I can think of right now.

That's a pretty good list. As you probably know, most of the free services you listed are not free here in the US, but they're all available. Maternity leave varies from one company to the next, and like in Sweden, your company must hold your job open for you. We also have a Family Leave Act that allows workers to take time off to care for a sick child or other relative.

When it comes to equal pay, there is still a salary gap between men & women nationwide. But within any individual company, one can find equal pay. It totally depends on the company in question.

[Sason]

All of this is of course different from country to country.

There are many things in Sweden that I'm critical of,
but when it comes to having and taking care of children,
I think Sweden is one of the better countries to live in.

[milomorris]

So true, Louise.  You can dress it up all you want, and you can even admit to your attraction to men, but if you restrain who you basically are in order to fit in, then you're still in the closet.  Some may feel the need to remain in the closet, but it's hardly honorable.  And not telling the truth about who you are is dishonest, even if done out of necessity.  

That's an interesting opinion. The fact is that ALL people homo, hetero, whatever modify their public behavior to varying degrees depending on the social situation. People behave differently when they're at a black-tie gala than when they are out drinking in their favorite neighborhood bar. People put on their professional "selves" when they get to the office. Nobody gets to be "themselves" 100% of the time.

As for the closet, like I said, Jack has not commented on it one way or the other. He and I see it as a matter of personal choice. And here too one will find varying degrees of "outness." Some people are out to friends & family, but not out professionally. Some people are out to some family members, but not to others. There are just so many combinations.

Yeah, there are a lot of guys out there who would bully us into being something we're not.  These men are grotesque thugs.  They are not honorable, and giving into them is not honorable.  And a man secure in himself would not care how effeminate or masculine another man is.

I'm not trying to bully anyone into anything, and neither is Jack. We're not looking for converts. He wrote androphilia for those of us who don't fit into the orthodox gay community, and those who are new to homosexuality who might be seeking an alternative. He did not write it for those who are already entrenched in effeminacy, and enjoy that sort of thing.  This is about more than just the individual man. Its about a collective mentality and practice that is seeping out into the larger population. Many authors have written extensively about the feminization of men and American culture. Some straight men feel that this direction is chipping away at our cultural fabric too.  

Judging someone based on how effeminate they are is stupid.  And doing that is not in any way an essential element of manhood.  

You evaluate men based on your own criteria, I will evaluate men based on my own criteria. Effeminacy is a weakness, and I will take that into consideration, along with a whole host of other things, when forming my opinions about any man.

[bailey1205]

So true, Louise.  You can dress it up all you want, and you can even admit to your attraction to men, but if you restrain who you basically are in order to fit in, then you're still in the closet.  Some may feel the need to remain in the closet, but it's hardly honorable.  And not telling the truth about who you are is dishonest, even if done out of necessity.  

Yeah, there are a lot of guys out there who would bully us into being something we're not.  These men are grotesque thugs.  They are not honorable, and giving into them is not honorable.  And a man secure in himself would not care how effeminate or masculine another man is.

We need to fight homophobia, not wring out the effeminacy in gay men, or marginalize gay men "who don't act like other men in their daily lives" in the hopes of gaining acceptance.  Judging someone based on how effeminate they are is stupid.  And doing that is not in any way an essential element of manhood.  It's about bullies trying to get one up on their fellow men -- as well as women, BTW -- by way of intimidation.  These assholes need to be knocked down a peg or two, not appeased.  Being a dumbass ape is not the same thing as being a man.  It really is too bad some have internalized the homophobia in our society to such a degree that they confuse the two.

Oh, I'm betting these guys that think they are big ole butch gay guys, who think they are 'passing', really ain't.
 

That is what is so hilarious to me.

[brokeplex]

I don't know what women have in other countries, but I can tell you some of the things
we have here in Sweden. My guess is that most of them do not exist in the US, but I could be wrong.
* Unquestioned right to abortion. Counselling if you're in doubt.

so, is what you are describing in Sweden "abortion on demand"?

[brokeplex]

You can dress it up all you want, and you can even admit to your attraction to men, but if you restrain who you basically are in order to fit in, then you're still in the closet.  Some may feel the need to remain in the closet, but it's hardly honorable.  And not telling the truth about who you are is dishonest, even if done out of necessity.  

I don't feel particularly drawn to the Androphile movement, and don't feel compelled to defend it. But, I question any labelling the goals of the movement or its sympathizers as encouraging men to remain in closets or to become dishonest about themselves. Leading an honorable life is quite a bit more complicated than effectively wearing a sign around one's neck announcing one's sexual orientation. In my experience, most people live in glass houses anyway, and most of the people they come in contact with understand their orientations and just wink at it.

The issue is - what is the advantage of disadvantage of openly and loudly demanding acceptance and acknowledgement. I happen to be in favor of ss marriage and of hate crime laws being extended to "sexual minorities" (to use the current terminology of the PC left), but I see nothing dishonorable about a homosexual man refraining from loudly supporting changes in the law, if he is comfortable in his own life. 

[brokeplex]

Oh, I'm betting these guys that think they are big ole butch gay guys, who think they are 'passing', really ain't.
 
That is what is so hilarious to me.

To a certain degree, you are correct. I think that we all live in glass houses and no amount of posturing will change much.

But I can't entirely share your laughter, as there is often real pain behind the glass wall that most can't readily see. One of the outstanding achievements of Brokeback Mountain is that some of that pain was shared with the general population. Perhaps the empathy that so many Brokies have extended to "Ennis" and "Jack" could also be extended to real men who live in our real world and who still find it difficult to get beyond the glass wall.

[bailey1205]

To a certain degree, you are correct. I think that we all live in glass houses and no amount of posturing will change much.

But I can't entirely share your laughter, as there is often real pain behind the glass wall that most can't readily see. One of the outstanding achievements of Brokeback Mountain is that some of that pain was shared with the general population. Perhaps the empathy that so many Brokies have extended to "Ennis" and "Jack" could also be extended to real men who live in our real world and who still find it difficult to get beyond the glass wall.

That would be a lot easier for some to do if, those that are behind the glass wall did not proclaim, relentlessy on here,that feminine gays are inferior to them.

And, they have done that.

 

[brokeplex]

That would be a lot easier for some to do if, those that are behind the glass wall did not proclaim, relentlessy on here,that feminine gays are inferior to them.
And, they have done that.
 

I am not sure about your assertion that effeminate gays have been called "inferior". I haven't read that anywhere, and I certainly don't feel that way in the least bit. I enjoy a bit of camp myself, now and again - and all those "butch" men in my life seem to think I am quite amusing and worth keeping around. 

[bailey1205]

I am not sure about your assertion that effeminate gays have been called "inferior". I haven't read that anywhere, and I certainly don't feel that way in the least bit. I enjoy a bit of camp myself, now and again - and all those "butch" men in my life seem to think I am quite amusing and worth keeping around. 

The question to a certain person on here was:

Do you feel femine gays are inferior to masculine gay's.
That person replied "yes".

It is on this forum, if you care to look.

That person was also asked if he were intolerant of gays not like himm.
He responded, yes.

At least he had the balls to admit his misguided feelings.

Yes, someone on here did say that.

[brokeplex]

The question to a certain person on here was:
Do you feel femine gays are inferior to masculine gay's.
That person replied "yes".
It is on this forum, if you care to look.
That person was also asked if he were intolerant of gays not like himm.
He responded, yes.
At least he had the balls to admit his misguided feelings.
Yes, someone on here did say that.

Bailey, I don't know where to look for this thread, do you have a link? 

[brokeplex]

That is not what I meant when I referred to honesty.  I'm not talking politics here.  I'm talking about being true to yourself and being comfortable inside of your own skin. 
Attempting to conform to someone else's idea of masculinity in order to fit in is not being true to oneself.  And wrapping that kind of thing up with terms like “honor” is just a rationalization.  Then going so far as to denounce other men who have the courage to be more themselves is revolting.
It seems clear enough to me.  Not conforming to this exaggerated masculine ideal is viewed as an affectation and a weakness.  It's almost like these people are comparing being gay to being an alcoholic.  This crap about "entrenched effeminacy" and equating effeminacy with weakness is homophobic, sexist and just downright offensive.

"The issue is - what is the advantage of disadvantage of openly and loudly demanding acceptance and acknowledgement."

IMO, this statement has truth in both the political and nonpolitical worlds as it is often the quiet insistent voices that make change.
 
I agree that self realization and honesty are crucial in the development of a man.

Again, I am missing the posts from anyone on this forum railing against "entrenched effeminacy" and comparing effeminacy to weakness. I once saw a drag queen take a punch at a very large truck driver and knock him out cold - and then hop back up on on stage and continue with her impression of Barbara Streisand - the 70's were quite a trip.   

[brokeplex]

The post is in this thread. 

Gary, Gary! You have been quoting Milo out of context!

here is the full quotation I believe you are referring to:

"I'm not trying to bully anyone into anything, and neither is Jack. We're not looking for converts. He wrote androphilia for those of us who don't fit into the orthodox gay community, and those who are new to homosexuality who might be seeking an alternative. He did not write it for those who are already entrenched in effeminacy, and enjoy that sort of thing.  This is about more than just the individual man. Its about a collective mentality and practice that is seeping out into the larger population. Many authors have written extensively about the feminization of men and American culture. Some straight men feel that this direction is chipping away at our cultural fabric too."   

Milo isn't railing against "entrenched effeminacy", he is merely stating that the Androphile movement is geared towards those who are not interested in that segment of gay life.

[bailey1205]

Bill, it was Milo that answered honestly to my questions in another thread.... yet another thread..... regarding
gay's who were effiminate.  That thread was locked, but I, and others remember it well.  You don't have to look
that far on here to see where he has said it in other threads.

Why don't you ask him?

He was honest in his answer, and even owned up to it when questioned if he had indeed said it.

I don't agree with what he said, but he did have the balls to own up to the fact he said it, and felt it.

 

[bailey1205]

The post is in this thread. 

and about 100 others. 

[milomorris]

It seems clear enough to me.  Not conforming to this exaggerated masculine ideal is viewed as an affectation and a weakness.  It's almost like these people are comparing being gay to being an alcoholic.  This crap about "entrenched effeminacy" and equating effeminacy with weakness is homophobic, sexist and just downright offensive.

You keep throwing characterizations out there with no explanation of your position. Why do you think equating effeminacy with weakness is homophobic, sexist, and offensive?

I have explained in great detail why effeminacy is weak. I have described how being anti-effeminacy is not the same thing as being homophobic. And I have explained that there is nothing sexist about my dislike of effeminacy, because effeminacy has nothing to do with women. All of my analysis is there for all to read in the Gay Identity thread in Modern Manhood.

Where's your analysis, Gary? All I get from you is vitriol. I'm waiting for you to make a rational argument against my positions. You once told me that you would explain to me why my POV is so offensive to you, yet all you do is keep repeating that its offensive, and offer no explanation.

[bailey1205]

Gary, I would really let it go.

It's just giving these guys a platform........ once again.

They have to live with themselves, and what they think doesn't matter to us
at all.

We all know you to be the wonderful person you are.  What others think... pffffttttt.

Glass houses... and all that.

 

[bailey1205]

Thank you, Karen.   

 

You and I both know they aren't fooling anyone but themselves.

 

[milomorris]

Bill, it was Milo that answered honestly to my questions in another thread.... yet another thread..... regarding
gay's who were effiminate. 

For the record, I didn't use the word "inferior."

[milomorris]

I don't know how in the fucking hell you can say that effeminate gays aren't being declared inferior when effeminacy is being equated with a weakness.  And since the "orthodox" gay community is said to be "entrenched" in effeminacy, that would mean that most gay men, in these peoples' eyes, have some kind of weakness. 

I didn't create the effeminacy=weakness idea.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861607592

ef·fem·i·nate [ i fémmənət ]

adjective
Definition:
 
1. offensive term: an offensive term used to describe a man whose behavior, appearance, or speech is considered to be similar to that traditionally associated with women or girls

2. overrefined and lacking strength: weak through overrefinement or an absence of vigorous qualities (disapproving)


And there are many other dictionaries out there that use "weak" or "weakness" in their definitions.

[David In Indy]

I don't think there is anything wrong with being effeminate. I'm effeminate. I certainly don't throw a dress on and run up and down the streets singing show tunes, but I'm clearly not "butch" either. And I'm pretty damn proud of it. Because that is who I am.

I couldn't care less what those silly definitions say.

[milomorris]

I couldn't care less what those silly definitions say.

I just want to make sure that people here understand that I didn't make this stuff up.

[milomorris]

I believe that we all have traits that have been labeled masculine and feminine.  

Right. And as I have said before, it comes down to a matter of where a man's balance point is. Like it or not, society places boundaries on masculinity and femininity. Men and women who cross those boundaries cause friction.

I don’t really think that two people can get along with some kind of feminine energy at play.  And I certainly don’t think people can have sex without feminine energy coming into the equation.  When two men come together, then one of them has to give.  He has to take pleasure in giving pleasure.  He has to allow the other man to take him.  Of course both men can give of themselves at the same time, or they can switch off.  But at all times at least one of them has to be on his knees so to speak.  And I don’t think that this is weakness.  Giving is not weakness.  Yielding to someone else is not weakness if it’s something you want to do, and if it’s something you take pleasure in doing.  It’s a beautiful thing to want to do that for another human being.  Where would we be without this kind of desire?  What would we do without our feminine traits?

I'm not on board with this at all. A top is providing pleasure to the bottom at the same time that the bottom is providing pleasure to the top. Its a mutual exchange, IMO. Both partners take pleasure in providing pleasure. I don't understand how we can assign that dynamic to feminine energy. And this brings us right back around to the Vikings and other pre-Christian cultures. Because their understanding of sexuality was heteronormative, and because sex in those times was for the pleasure of the man (no understanding of female orgasm), they mistakenly assumed that the receptive male partner was doing all the giving, and the penetrating partner was doing all the taking.

[Clyde-B]

What is defined as "masculine" and "feminine" will depend on the males and females that make up the population you are making your generalizations about.

If you talk about the birds, food gathering and homemaking responsibilities are often shared.  If you talk about the bees, the women run the show and men are little more than lazy sperm donors.  If you talk about humans, it will depend on where in the world and what period of history you are looking at. 

That femininity is a weakness, seems to be a human male conceit.  I wouldn't torment a cub in front of a lioness.

[milomorris]

That femininity is a weakness, seems to be a human male conceit.  I wouldn't torment a cub in front of a lioness.

Not "femininity," Clyde, "effeminacy." The two words are different. See Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: fem·i·nine
Function: adjective

1: female 1a(1)
2: characteristic of or appropriate or unique to women <feminine beauty> <a feminine perspective>

and


Main Entry: ef·fem·i·nate
Function: adjective

1 : having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner
2 : marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement <effeminate art> <an effeminate civilization>


So you see, a woman is feminine. A man can be effeminate.

[Jeff Wrangler]

That femininity is a weakness, seems to be a human male conceit.  I wouldn't torment a cub in front of a lioness.

I wouldn't recommend getting between a sow bear and her cubs, either.

[Clyde-B]

Not "femininity," Clyde, "effeminacy." The two words are different. See Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: fem·i·nine
Function: adjective

1: female 1a(1)
2: characteristic of or appropriate or unique to women <feminine beauty> <a feminine perspective>

and


Main Entry: ef·fem·i·nate
Function: adjective

1 : having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner
2 : marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement <effeminate art> <an effeminate civilization>


So you see, a woman is feminine. A man can be effeminate.

Femininity regardless of whether it shows up in a man or a woman is considered by some to be a weakness.  Women have had to fight for rights as well.

And viewing feminine traits as a weakness is a conceit.

[delalluvia]

Femininity regardless of whether it shows up in a man or a woman is considered by some to be a weakness.  Women have had to fight for rights as well.

And viewing feminine traits as a weakness is a conceit.

Viewing that there are some traits specific to one sex is a conceit as well. 

Women are nurturing?  Well, so are men.
Men are brave?  Well, so are women.
Women want families?  Well, so do men.
Men are strong?  Well, so are women.

[milomorris]

Viewing that there are some traits specific to one sex is a conceit as well. 

Women are nurturing?  Well, so are men.
Men are brave?  Well, so are women.
Women want families?  Well, so do men.
Men are strong?  Well, so are women.

Good point. At the same time, its important to understand that some traits carry more weight with one gender than the other. For example, if a man is not very nurturing, nobody really thinks twice about it. If a woman lacks this trait, people think there is something out-of-sorts with her.

[Monika]

Right. And as I have said before, it comes down to a matter of where a man's balance point is. Like it or not, society places boundaries on masculinity and femininity. Men and women who cross those boundaries cause friction.

I love friction. Bring it on.

[Monika]

Not "femininity," Clyde, "effeminacy." The two words are different. See Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: fem·i·nine
Function: adjective

1: female 1a(1)
2: characteristic of or appropriate or unique to women <feminine beauty> <a feminine perspective>

and


Main Entry: ef·fem·i·nate
Function: adjective

1 : having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner
2 : marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement <effeminate art> <an effeminate civilization>


So you see, a woman is feminine. A man can be effeminate.

  Effeminate is a ridiculous term. I mean, exactly what qualities are untypical of men?
Or exactly what qualities make men less manly? 

[Clyde-B]

Viewing that there are some traits specific to one sex is a conceit as well. 

Women are nurturing?  Well, so are men.
Men are brave?  Well, so are women.
Women want families?  Well, so do men.
Men are strong?  Well, so are women.

Absolutely! 

One can wonder why people even create these bogus "standards" to begin with.  What purpose do they serve?  Are people expected to all act alike?  Or is the motivation to try and give certain people some kind of perceived advantage over others? 

Not only do the "standards" vary from culture to culture and within a culture over time, but nobody adheres to the "standards" 100% or even tries to.  Most people just relax and be themselves.

   

[milomorris]

One can wonder why people even create these bogus "standards" to begin with.  What purpose do they serve?  Are people expected to all act alike?  Or is the motivation to try and give certain people some kind of perceived advantage over others?  

I don't see what del posted as being "standards," but rather as trends or tendencies. These things do have value. For example, in the educational world, we are made aware that boys & girls learn differently, and therefore need different types of attention from teachers. Another example is in the corporate world: diversity/sensitivity trainers teach us that men and women often prioritize differently, and have divergent approaches to problem-solving. The point of the training is to make us aware of the differences so that we can better understand each other, and don't miss out on the value that a person of the opposite gender brings to the table.

[Clyde-B]

I don't see what del posted as being "standards," but rather as trends or tendencies. These things do have value. For example, in the educational world, we are made aware that boys & girls learn differently, and therefore need different types of attention from teachers. Another example is in the corporate world: diversity/sensitivity trainers teach us that men and women often prioritize differently, and have divergent approaches to problem-solving. The point of the training is to make us aware of the differences so that we can better understand each other, and don't miss out on the value that a person of the opposite gender brings to the table.

Why not take the time to get to know the individuals you are dealing with?  People create these "trends" and "tendencies" because it gives them a product to sell to others.  Books, seminars, lecture tours, it's become an industry.  It can also help create the false idea in people that they should themselves comply with these "trends" and "tendencies" whether the "trends" and "tendencies" fit them or not.

It would seem the most accurate results would be achieved by dealing with individuals as they are, not by playing the odds.

It may be a valid curiosity to ask how men and women are different.  The real answer may be - not much.  But I think that assuming we have the definitive answer already is mistaken.

[milomorris]

Why not take the time to get to know the individuals you are dealing with? 

The business analyst side of me says that is an inefficient use of resources. Frequently--very frequently at Verizon--I found myself working with teams in various parts of the country on projects. We always had tight deadlines to meet. There was not always time for face-to-face meetings. In that kind of high-pressure, fast-paced environment, there is no time to get know anybody. So leaning on trends & tendencies, along with plain old professional conduct, was about the best we could do.   

People create these "trends" and "tendencies" because it gives them a product to sell to others.  Books, seminars, lecture tours, it's become an industry. 

Incorrect. Marketers do not create the trends & tendencies, we identify and measure them. They are created organically among groups of people. Once we have them identified and measured, then we figure out how to sell products.

It can also help create the false idea in people that they should themselves comply with these "trends" and "tendencies" whether the "trends" and "tendencies" fit them or not.

To the extent that trends & tendencies translate into social codes, compliance, non-compliance, and the risks & benefits of each are managed by societies and each individual's interaction with their society.

[bailey1205]

Hasn't all this been covered, over , and over, and over again?

Trend, schmend.

 

[Sheriff Roland]

Moderator comment:

Just as important, all of this is WAY off topic.

If the subject at hand (gay vikings) is not getting discussed, perhaps this thread needs to be split. But then what you all are discussing HAS already be hashed out over and over again in Current Events and Safe Haven. So maybe this thread needs to be locked?

And it's always the same 3 or 4 people who contribute to the endless cycle.

Can't you'all just get along? Or at least play in dif'rent parts of the school yard.

sheriff roland

[milomorris]

Can't you'all just get along? Or at least play in dif'rent parts of the school yard.

You know, this thread was humming along quite nicely with a very interesting historical topic and then BLAM!!...Jeff came in and dropped androphilia on the table, and yet another feeding frenzy began. I'm not going to sit idly by and let misconceptions, mischaracterizations, misunderstandings, accusations, and flat-out lies about me or androphilia go unchallenged. This same scenario has been repeated over and over again here at Bettermost, and I always get blamed for hijacking threads.

So here's a suggestion: the next time anyone wants to go a few rounds with me on androphilia, drop your challenge in the Gay Identity thread where it belongs. Don't interrupt the flow of someone else's thread just to take pot-shots at me.

[Clyde-B]

Moderator comment:

Just as important, all of this is WAY off topic.

If the subject at hand (gay vikings) is not getting discussed, perhaps this thread needs to be split. But then what you all are discussing HAS already be hashed out over and over again in Current Events and Safe Haven. So maybe this thread needs to be locked?

And it's always the same 3 or 4 people who contribute to the endless cycle.

Can't you'all just get along? Or at least play in dif'rent parts of the school yard.

sheriff roland

I will cease and desist.

[Berit]

I don't know what to say....it just makes me sad......my English isn't good enough to completely understand the issue and my background is so different from both Milo's and Gary's. The whole thing just makes me want to cry.

I'm also sad for Sofia, she started the thread just to talk about vikings.....not for this.

[Sheriff Roland]

This is an important issue for me,      

Then you are welcome to invite the discussion to be continues (or rehashed) in your own blog, much as milo has done. In the meantime, in this thread, in this forum, milo is right about who hijacked this particular thread, with the rest of the 3 or 4 regular participants jumping in the water that had already been treaded over and over again.

You can have your views, but you must accept that you do not have a monopoly on views on the subject - and you aren't going to alter others' views on the matter.

le sheriff

[Sheriff Roland]

Alright

That's enough

I'm locking this thread.

It's turning into a gang up against anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I've removed the last 3 or 4 posts and locked this thread.