[Sawyer]

"I find it laughable that people would change their minds on the text based upon the authors sexuality."

It's not a book about auto mechanics, it's a book about how to be a man. The book may have merits. I have it but I have not read it. There is a level of dissonance that needs to be overcome when reading a homosexual-written book about how to be a man. Let's not deny that. That's a huge flaw right at the outset, even if it is jam-packed with useful information. He wants to tell me how to fix a car? Who cares who he fucks. How to be a man? Who he fucks starts to matter.

[Beyond Borders]

(12-19-2013 04:43 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

"I find it laughable that people would change their minds on the text based upon the authors sexuality."

It's not a book about auto mechanics, it's a book about how to be a man. The book may have merits. I have it but I have not read it. There is a level of dissonance that needs to be overcome when reading a homosexual-written book about how to be a man. Let's not deny that. That's a huge flaw right at the outset, even if it is jam-packed with useful information. He wants to tell me how to fix a car? Who cares who he fucks. How to be a man? Who he fucks starts to matter.

I agree. I was and am interested in reading the book on its own merits and will do so with an open mind. But Sawyer is right that you can't expect people not to raise an eyebrow and question the issue of his sexuality.

[Aliblahba]

A gay man is trying to normalize straight behavior. Accepting this book is one step closer to the end of men. It should be stricken from the record. I understand a lot of you guys are blue pill now, and I emphathize, but when you come to the ranks of red pill, you'll understand.

[Beyond Borders]

(12-19-2013 04:56 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

A gay man is trying to normalize straight behavior. Accepting this book is one step closer to the end of men. It should be stricken from the record. I understand a lot of you guys are blue pill now, and I emphathize, but when you come to the ranks of red pill, you'll understand.

You still on the pills, Blahba?

[All or Nothing]

(12-19-2013 04:56 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

A gay man is trying to normalize straight behavior. Accepting this book is one step closer to the end of men. It should be stricken from the record. I understand a lot of you guys are blue pill now, and I emphathize, but when you come to the ranks of red pill, you'll understand.

I know we are going off on a tangent here, but Ali why does his sexual orientation upset you so much?

[Aliblahba]

It doesn't upset me, I'm just stating the perils of a gay man writing a book of men and it being so readily accepted in mainstream males. I never said don't read it, or be gay. I really should endorse the book as it will continue to lessen my competition on every level in this world, excepting for sucking dick. I bow out of that one.

I've read many books over the years written by real men, not dykes with a penis. The market is by no means short on the subject, if you guys want to read on the subject.

[AnonymousBosch]

(12-19-2013 04:15 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 04:00 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

1. Seemingly every other book on masculinity is filtered through what women want from a man, and a notion of morality that is simply a tool to control men, and is outdated if women are no longer acting abiding by the same morality.

You can't learn masculinity from a book, just that it exists. In this day and age that is an accomplishment. Stop reading about it go do it.

(12-19-2013 04:00 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

2. The guys here and in the manosphere have huge bullshit detectors. Doesn't the fact the book hasn't been completely ridiculed and torn apart by us for being riddled with errors or coded gay messages suggest its offers something of worth?

Disagree.


http://www.returnofkings.com/14846/mark-...is-a-phony

Firstly, you're assuming it's an instruction manual for masculinity, and not a discussion of masculinity. It's stating what masculinity already is and always has been, not his personal beliefs to what it should be. If there's an agenda the book is advocating, he's clear about it: a return to tribalism.

Secondly, you're assuming I thought Minter was one of the guys with bullshit detectors I'm talking about. That's like saying everything on this forum is worthless because of IRT.

I'll agree to respectfully disagree.

[The Lizard of Oz]

A few things:

First, it is absurd to pretend that something as basic as a man's sexuality is irrelevant to a text he writes if it's not a purely technical text (how to fix a car, as Sawyer puts it). A man's sexuality colors his every thought and feeling about the world and it is always present behind and between the lines. It is a very large part of what gives any author's book its deepest and most permeating flavor.

Second, when it comes to gay men specifically, it is an impolite truth that their sexuality is ultimately a dark and corrupting one. It is a grimly efficient sexuality with no issue and little of the psychological complexity that tends to soften and humanize normal sexuality between men and women. It is happily savage when these men are young and gloomily depraved as they age. And a residue of this darkness and desperation subtly adheres to all sorts of texts written by homosexual men. It's like a strange bitter aftertaste that, in the end, is what you really remember about the dish.

Finally, a very interesting exception to this can be found in the writing of some men who were closeted and virtually non-practicing homosexuals, tormented by their aberrant sexuality and diverting their thwarted sexual energy into other channels; the brilliant Henry James is an example. While there is still a subtly distinct flavor to their writing, it doesn't have that bitter residue of corruption and can even radiate a strange kind of wholesomeness.

But to return to the original point, it is laughable to believe that the fact of the writer's being gay is "irrelevant". I haven't read Donovan's book and have no particular desire to, but I have no doubt that the aftertaste I was speaking about is there -- and it's the sort of spice where one pinch goes a very long way.

[Kimber]

Anyone who makes a judgment on the book without reading it automatically renders any points they make to be worthless.
Read the ducking book guys. It's not long and you might learn something, even if that something is that the book is trash. The major thing I took out of it was a need for role models and a need for a few close male friends with whom I can fuck around, and act like a dick. Which is something that everyone else in my life has told me I don't need.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(12-19-2013 10:17 PM)Kimber Wrote:  

Anyone who makes a judgment on the book without reading it automatically renders any points they make to be worthless.
Read the ducking book guys. It's not long and you might learn something, even if that something is that the book is trash. The major thing I took out of it was a need for role models and a need for a few close male friends with whom I can fuck around, and act like a dick. Which is something that everyone else in my life has told me I don't need.

Kimber, the point of my post was not to render a judgment on the book in the sense that it's necessarily bad or not worth reading. It may well be an interesting book. It was only to say that the fact that the book was written by a gay man is very relevant, and that the whole book will be more or less subtly saturated with the author's sexuality -- and that is something that can be known even without reading it.

[Tytalus]

Here's a quote from his post script:

Quote:

A common bumper sticker reads:

“Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.”

It should read:
Feminism is the radical notion that men should do whatever women say, so that women can
do whatever the hell they want.

Jack's got a good mind. Read the book and then judge. I don't think you'll get too infected with his homosexual agenda. In fact, he even has a very good explanation for why straight men are suspicious of homosexuals.

[Teedub]

(12-19-2013 05:00 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

I know we are going off on a tangent here, but Ali why does his sexual orientation upset you so much?

If I remember correctly Ali is a pretty serious Christian, so that could have something to do with why he's fervently against the book. I'm not saying that's definitely why, but it surely effects his thinking on it.

I've got the book and read it and in no way could you sense the author was gay. That's why everyone was who has read it was surprised when Jack's sexuality was revealed.

As someone else mentioned, Palahniuk is gay (in a lot more of a 'gay' way than Donovan) and he wrote the most red pill novel ever - Fight Club. This book is similar in that it advocates 'primitivism' over our modern society.

[AntiTrace]

(12-19-2013 04:49 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 04:43 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

"I find it laughable that people would change their minds on the text based upon the authors sexuality."

It's not a book about auto mechanics, it's a book about how to be a man. The book may have merits. I have it but I have not read it. There is a level of dissonance that needs to be overcome when reading a homosexual-written book about how to be a man. Let's not deny that. That's a huge flaw right at the outset, even if it is jam-packed with useful information. He wants to tell me how to fix a car? Who cares who he fucks. How to be a man? Who he fucks starts to matter.

I agree. I was and am interested in reading the book on its own merits and will do so with an open mind. But Sawyer is right that you can't expect people not to raise an eyebrow and question the issue of his sexuality.

I think you guys are talking more about learning of his sexuality before reading the book. I could see how that could alter the message you receive from the book.

I learned that Donovan was gay after reading the book. I had already read the book and digested the message that I received from it. Learning he was gay did absolutely nothing to change that. Would I have got a different message from the book if I had learned he was gay beforehand? Probably. I would have probably scrutinized it a bit more to be honest.

What I am saying is that whoever wrote the book doesn't change the actual text of the book and therefore doesn't change the message that was delivered.

I'm not a poetry guy but I had a chick recently tell me about Hitler's beautiful poetry. Does the fact that Hitler wrote it change the fact that it was beautiful poetry?

If a business book that I learned a lot from turns out to be written by a guy who has never ran a business, does that make the information any less valuable to me?

The sender of the message doesn't matter nearly as much as the content of message.

The sender of the message can have an impact on how it is interpreted though, I will agree on that.

[Aliblahba]

If Lindy West wrote a Bang guide, would you read it?

[AntiTrace]

(12-20-2013 08:24 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

If Lindy West wrote a Bang guide, would you read it?

The question is: If you read Day Bang, and then found out Lindy West wrote it, would you throw out all the information in it?

[reaper23]

This reveals both your biases on both issues.

Text should be read at face value and processed independently of the author.

If your claims are true, then the text will reveal whatever it is you think the author is bringing to the writing. But there is a chance that you'll find it useful as well.

Lots of times coaches didn't make the best players but they can coach well.

[Teedub]

(12-20-2013 08:31 AM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 08:24 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

If Lindy West wrote a Bang guide, would you read it?

The question is: If you read Day Bang, and then found out Lindy West wrote it, would you throw out all the information in it?

This is getting too surreal...!

[Marmite]

If you exist in a modality in which the sexual preferences of the author may cause some bias with regards to the perceived content of the text, then this book may not be for you.

I'm yet to read the book, but it is on my reading list.

I happen to have some friends who have a penchant for cock and bum fun, and I must say that not all homosexuals are created equal. There are some who are simply men who like to fuck and be fucked by other men, with no real effect on their masculine traits (although receiving anal sex is an incredibly submissive act!) , then there are the prissy little fairy queens that should be wiped off the face of the earth. I'm a little biased in that regard, and the gay men that I'm friends with would agree with me.

Whilst it is completely off topic, I would be interested to hear the opinions from those against homosexuality about lesbianism?

[Quintus Curtius]

I have not yet read Mr. Donovan's work, but I'm willing to give him a fair hearing. I do recognize the dismay some other posters have expressed about the author's sexuality. But if someone believes Donovan's sexuality renders him unqualified to offer guidance on masculinity, I respectfully dissent.

Masculinity is not an rigid or simple concept to define. If it were, there would be no need for forums like this. It's a concept that shifts and changes, and scuttles around on four legs. Simply because Donovan has a certain orientation should not disqualify his writings from our consideration. If we do this, where will we stop?

Should I avert my eyes from the Mona Lisa, and deny its beauty, simply because the painter (Leonardo DaVinci) was a homosexual?

Should I refuse to gaze in awe at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, because of Michelangelo's sexual preferences? Or should we throw into the melting furnace the great bronzes of antiquity, if their creators preferred young men as sexual partners?

Should I refuse to eat food served to me by a homosexual cook?

We need to recognize, once and for all, that homosexuality is part of the male experience. Jack Donovan is part of us. He is our brother in the struggle, a fellow traveler. Whether you like it, or not. His voice matters, and that is why I will read his book.

I am not a homosexual, of course, nor do I believe in institutionalized gay marriage. But we can't deny that homosexual behavior has been around for thousands of years and that some of the greatest works of art, music, and literature were made by them. If anything, his background may make him more relevant. Perhaps the experience of being an outsider has given him acute sensitivities to observe and comment on the condition of the modern man. I have had many homosexuals as clients over the years and have found them without exception to be remarkably sensitive and attuned to the environment around them.

Do not be too quick to judge others. I will read his book and judge for myself. If I like it, I will say so. If I do not, it will be because of his ideas, not his sexuality.

[MidniteSpecial]

Da Vinci was gay? No wonder Mona Lisa looks so homely.

I enjoyed the book. Easy read and learned some new things.

There are gay guys who will have your back in a fight quicker than straight dudes. I've experienced it first hand. A gay guy I didn't even know stepped into a fight for me, all be it he was friends with the girl I was banging but still. He was tougher than a lot of straight dudes I've rolled with.

[AnonymousBosch]

(12-20-2013 10:02 AM)Marmite Wrote:  

Whilst it is completely off topic, I would be interested to hear the opinions from those against homosexuality about lesbianism?

Two girls putting on a show doesn't do it for me, because faux-lesbians always reek of desperate performance, and the arrogance that they think it gives them control over me by offering me a highly-sort after male fantasy. The hookers I used to drive used to laugh about this: "They think the moment there's not a men around we're just all so desperate and horny that we lez out."

Real lesbians are too mannish. I could care less if they exist or not, except for the fact that, despite saying they don't need men, they never shut the fuck up about them.

[Beyond Borders]

(12-20-2013 08:13 AM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

I think you guys are talking more about learning of his sexuality before reading the book. I could see how that could alter the message you receive from the book.

I learned that Donovan was gay after reading the book. I had already read the book and digested the message that I received from it. Learning he was gay did absolutely nothing to change that. Would I have got a different message from the book if I had learned he was gay beforehand? Probably. I would have probably scrutinized it a bit more to be honest.

What I am saying is that whoever wrote the book doesn't change the actual text of the book and therefore doesn't change the message that was delivered.

I'm not a poetry guy but I had a chick recently tell me about Hitler's beautiful poetry. Does the fact that Hitler wrote it change the fact that it was beautiful poetry?

If a business book that I learned a lot from turns out to be written by a guy who has never ran a business, does that make the information any less valuable to me?

The sender of the message doesn't matter nearly as much as the content of message.

The sender of the message can have an impact on how it is interpreted though, I will agree on that.

I may have given the wrong impression; it didn't change or hiccup my desire to read the book at all. I'm a bit more accepting and open-minded about out-of-the-ordinary lifestyle choices than most men (or people in general) are though. I didn't make it very clear, but my main point was that we can't act surprised about people taking issue with it or pretend they're living in some dark age - as Sawyer said, dissonance is to be expected here.

Whether they're right or wrong isn't something I'm prepared to tackle, but their points are at least understandable and not surprising in the slightest. I don't find it "laughable," as one poster did, that men would question sexuality in this case.

I'm sure even Jack knew it was going to come up before he sat down and penned the book.

I guess what I meant to agree with is that it's a very reasonable subject of debate. Not a debate I'm likely to engage in but one that I can certainly understand.

[BIGINJAPAN]

You are guys are all missing the point ALI has raised.

You are promoting the gay agenda by accepting the fact a HOMO can tell you how to be a man. He might not promote said agenda in the book. But now you are giving credit to the fact that gays know just as much as straight guys when it comes to being masculine.

I have never met the author and I bet most of you haven't either or even youtubed an interview of him. Just because he is bald, tattoed doesnt make him masculine either. How do you know he doesn't sound like a fag with a huge lisp ?

Would you guys be defending the author if you knew he took it in the ass from his boyfriend ?

[Peregrine]

He doesn't sound like a fag and doesn't take it up the ass.

Like Beyond Borders said, his sexual orientation is not a complete non-issue given the topic at hand. Then again, an author's personality and characteristics are always informative. Even on this forum, I try to get a feel for where each guy is coming from when he writes what he does. In Donovan's case, keep his sexuality in mind as you critically assess his writing. But to disregard his writing because of a characteristic is lazy and a low level of disagreement. People do the same to Ted Kaczynski all the time, even though his writing has great value.

Disagree with a man because of his writing, not because of who he is. Same goes for "feminists". If Lindy West wrote "Bang" and the method gets me laid, why should I care who wrote it?

[Clyde Rules]

Just ordered it, so I'll give it a read and post my thoughts here.