Heterosexuality is Queer

Sexual orientation is in fact changeable, its Gender Orientation which is unchangeable for the most part. This is how the heterosexual identity has been made possible -- by forcing people to transfer all their sexual needs towards women, through innumerable psycho-social mechanisms.

Heterosexuality involves overcoming the natural barrier that exists between masculinity and femininity, that is naturally there between males and females. This natural barrier or repulsion is only absent in queer males or queer females... queer males tend not to have a natural resistance to women, and ditto with queer females. (Queer here means third gender, not 'homosexual').

In masculine males, this natural repulsion to women is only overcome during the short period when the men are 'in heat'. This happens rarely in nature, as most of the sexual needs of men are fulfilled with other men. It is during this short period -- the mating period -- that the masculine male loses his natural barrier and approaches the female, but as soon as his state of 'trance' is over, his natural repulsion to females returns.

Heterosexualization involves overcoming this natural repulsion or resistance to women by masculine males, through innumerable social mechanisms and conditioning. And this is not possible without queering men, which means developing a man's feminine side. This is made possible through various social mechanisms which force men to 'queer' themselves, ironically, in order to get social manhood and power. Men will do any thing for social manhood, even give up their natural manhood and adopt queerhood.

Of course, its not only men who are queered as part of heterosexualization. Women meet them half-way, as they are queered too -- i.e. they are 'masculinized'. And since men are attracted to power, once heterosexualized they get attracted to these socially powerful women. But in the process, men get pretty disempowered, vulnerable and broken from each other -- as individuals and as a group. Something they realise only once they fall out of women.

As also, that this heterosxualization process never totally queers men. Most of the heterosexuality that we see in the society is a pretense, a forced heterosexuality, which is nevertheless cherished by masculine males because they deep down, through conditioning associate it with 'manhood'. It is not easy to work out that conditioning out of them, especially as long as the society is being controlled by the Forces of Heterosexualization.

So, how do you liberate straight men, who don't even want to consider being liberated...? who believe that the oppressive mechanisms of man's oppression are actually doing them a great service by heterosexualizing them.

Freud was a great Fraud

The human civilisations have, for the past several thousands of years confused Gender with Sexual behaviour (not preferences or desires), by equating manhood with reproduction, and indirectly to penetrating women. So much so that the 'ability' to penetrate a woman became synoymous with being a man, and inability to do so classified a male as third gender. Thus Gender (masculinity) was confused with Sex act (penetration).


Then for at least the past 2,500 years, third gender or effeminacy in males (Gender) has been defined as the act of receiving anal penetration (Sex act). So, much so that by the end of the middle ages, male femininity became synonymous with the act of receiving anal sex... and conversely, the act of receiving penetration from men became a feminine trait. Thus again, through artificial engineering, the society started to confuse Gender with Sex acts.

The Western society manipulated these definitions further and started to define manhood as "sexual desire for women" and third gender as "sexual desire for men". The first they called heterosexuality, and the second 'homosexuality'.

The early Western scientists like Freud, who were too obssessed with the age-old concept of mixing Gender with Sex (and now Sexuality), that e.g. Freud considered the sexual desire in men for other men to be a part of their femininity that they have not been able to suppress. It should be noted that in non-Western contemporary societies, as well as in pre-modern West, a sexual desire for men (except a desire for receptive anal sex) was not considered feminine. But, Freud set the path for the current Western mindset that considers sexuality between men to be feminine. Thus, Freud has done a great disservice to not only science, but to the 'man'kind in general.

The West has taken this misrepresentation of facts to unbelievable heights and build an entire system of theories on sexuality, based upon it.

West confuses Gender with Sexual Orientation as a conspiracy against men

The West confuses Gender with Sexual Orientation... Masculine male Gender with Heterosexuality, and Feminine male gender with 'homosexuality' ... that is why it has changed the traditional "man" identity into 'heterosexual' identity (straight), and the "Third Sex/ Queer" identity into the 'homosexual' identity.

This confusion has been deliberately created by the Forces of Heterosexualization, by unacknowledging Gender as a natural trait, (ascribing it to mere social roles), and then going on to explain the gender differences between masculine and feminine males in terms of 'sexual orientation' -- the masculine males as 'heterosexuals', and the feminine males as 'homosexuals'.

This amounts to calling masculine as 'straight' and feminine as 'gay', (and this is why the 'gay' identity is unsuitable for masculine males who like men)

For the Forces of Heterosexualization, to create this confusion was difficult but not impossible because, the groundwork for this was already done through thousands of years of tying manhood with reproductive sex with women (although not heterosexuality as such), and at least two thousand five hundred years of tying queerhood/ effeminacy/ third sex with receptive anal sex (though not a sexual interest in men as such). To create this confusion required a huge social investment that was made possible only through the gains of industrialization, upon which the forces of heterosexualization had full control.

Eventhough the Western society and especially the Forces of Heterosexualization (and that includes the real gays, i.e. who fit in the 'gay' identity) insist on using the formal definitions that create confusion, in practice there are a number of evidences that the term straight is actually used for "masculine" and not necessarily 'heterosexual'... while the term 'gay' is actually used interchangeably for 'feminine' and not necessarily 'homosexual'. Examples are the concepts of "straight acting" (which mean masculine-acting, and not heterosexual acting) and "Queer heterosexual" (which means feminine heterosexual, not homosexual-heterosexual -- which is absurd). Similarly, a very common phrase in the Western world, used by gays themselves is, "he looks so 'gay'", which is meant as "he looks as if he is effeminate", and not that "he looks as if he likes men". Many gays complain that they don't like other gays wearing their gayness on the sleeve. What they're objecting to, in fact, is wearing their 'femininity' on the sleeve, and not their 'sexual attraction for men'. These are just confused as 'one' by the gays.

These double standards and befooling people with confusing identities suit the gays (i.e. queers who like men) perfectly well, since they are one of the biggest beneficiaries of the homosexualization of man-man love -- an integral part of a society's heterosexualization. But, it is in the interest of the masculine gendered males to use the actual definition of 'gay' and 'straight'. And these are:

1. Straight: A masculine gendered male, irrespective of sexual preferences.
2. Gay: A feminine gendered male, irrespective of sexual preferences.

You can see that to use these real definitions, you have to rebel against the concept of sexual orientation, to reject it altogether.

The 'heterosexual(ized)' straight men would be too happy with this definition, just like the non-heterosexualized straights, although, in the beginning, they may not have the courage to acknowledge their support -- again for the fear of being labelled 'gay'. But eventually, they will be the biggest beneficiaries of using these definitions for what they are, for they will be liberated from compulsory heterosexuality and foregoing their same-sex needs, in order to be 'one of the guys'.

Not acknowledging sexual need for men even in private is an important psycho-social mechanism of heterosexualization

Not acknowledging something is a great way of ignoring it, especially if it is done with the connivance of the entire society -- courtesy those who control it. You are what you believe you are, and if you never acknowledge that you have an interest in men, especially, when if it is already suppressed, then, you start believing you don't have it. This is an important part of the heterosexualization process of men.

(The other part is to hide behind 'sexual identities' and say, well, you're not really 'gay' unless these feelings become so overbearing that you have to continuously act on them or something -- which helps men to ignore these feelings)

That is why, apart from mutilating sexual need for men, not acknowledging whatever remains of straight male sexual desire for men, is a crucial part of the mechanisms that are built to put pressure on men as well as to provide a psycho-social support in men's fight with their own sexual feelings.

Indeed at the practical level, amongst masculine, normal males, the difference between Straight and Gay is not having a sexual need for men (ALL MEN HAVE A SEXUAL NEED FOR MEN), the difference is of acknowledgement. The man who indulges in sexual/ romantic liasioin with another man but never acknowledges his feelings is a straightman, while the one who acknowledges his interest in men is Gay.

And straight men will rather die than cross this STRAIGHT LINE. Well, this straight resistance can be broken only in extreme cases where the sexual bond created by the straight male is very very strong -- strong enough to make the straight man defy everything else. But this too takes an unusually long time in most cases -- around six years of being in an intense sexual romantic relationship with another guy, before the straight male can bring himself to acknowedge that he indeed has an interest in men.

Heterosexuality doesn't define manhood

It is not heterosexuality that defines manhood, but rather man's sexual desire for men that does, if we look at:

1. Natural incidence: Not all masculine males experience a sexual desire for females, and those who do it do not experience it constantly. Most males who experience a sexual desire for females experience it periodically, often only a couple of times in their entire life.

On the other, 100% of masculine gendered males in nature experience strong same-sex desires.

2. Nature of sexual desire: While the sexual desire for females amongst men is purely of a physical nature and of extremely short duration -- it doesn't lend itself naturally to an emotional or social bond of any meaningful duration and no committment -- the sexual desire for men amongst men, is naturally, more constant, strong and lends itself easily to long lasting, committed bonds.

......

Why does Gender equality stop at Sexuality?

If the West really so believes in equality between the genders, so much so that there is no difference between the male and female genders, and that they're all the same... then why does this equality stop at sexuality and marriage... heterosexuality is also a gender role for men, and if the man is free to break all his gender roles, then why can't he break this gender role and pick a man for a sexual bond, without having to be someone 'different'. If a woman doesn't become 'different' for her freedom to do strip search of male prisoners or a man doesn't become different for cooking or for wearing unisex clothes, then why should he be segregated as a 'different' male for choosing another male as a partner. Afterall, aren't men and women supposed to be the same?

Desiring and bonding with men made extremely costly for the common Western man

If there is so much of freedom in the West, why is desiring a man made so costly for the normal male, that one cannot do it without making that big crossover into the 'gay' ghetto and all the extreme social and individual costs involved with it, including the loss of manhood, and imposition of social queerhood, loss of the company of other normal, masculine males, that one is biologically a part of, and the forced company of queer males, that one is biologically different from and cannot relate with, even when he has to share the same identity and thus stereotypes with him. Why can't a normal man desire and bond sexually with another man being where he is, in the mainstream, straight world -- what is the pressing need to define 'straight' or normal as 'heterosexual'? When is the West ever going to look into the conspiracy behind all this?

If you respect and stay within the straight line of control, you're straight

Anyone who respects the straight 'line of control' and stays within, by not acknowledging any sexual interest in men, even if he may indulge in it... is straight... straight men are conscious about the 'image' they are supposed to create... just don't acknowledge whatever goes on behind the masks, and wear a (heterosexual) mask, and even if they know this mask is fake, they will respect it. You'll be given a space in the 'straight' world. 

The moment you disrespect the straight line or cross it, especially by acknowledging something for another male, you're gay.

The stricter this 'line of control', the less freedom men have of crossing the line of control and the more scared they are of doing it.

Straight men -- unite and fight now, you have nothing to lose but your chains...

Man's sexual need for men is a historically defeated trait... and the social place granted to it, along with the queers, both signifies and concretizes this defeat. And 'straight' men choose to abandon this falling/ fallen ship, and throw their lot with 'heterosexuality', which is the human trait that is the conqureror... not very noble or manly, but they do fight with their sexual need for men and conquer it. And, homosexuals are the ones that either accept to be 'slaves', deprived of manhood, because their sexual need for men has become their weakness and they can't leave it... or the ones who are already slaves (i.e. queers/feminine) and have no need for social manhood because of their femininity. The first kind of homosexuals are the 'unmanly' kinds. The second ones are the Third gender, they're just being themselves. But, in all this, there has not been many real men, who have neither abandoned the falling ship, nor accepted defeat by foregoing their manhood (by accepting the gay identity)... They are the ones who fought the enemy -- the anti-man forces, the Forces of Heterosexualization -- till there last breath... suffering a great deal in the process. Some such men have been Alfred Kinsey and Michel Foucalt... But I know there have been hundreds of more... Today, they have the means to get together and organise themselves (through the internet and the shrinking world)... and they should really get their act together and wage a real war -- Like real men do!

World against straight male to male intimacy

What the modern world has destroyed is straight male to male intimacy -- from sexual to social, and what is needed is social intervention at a grand scale to restore it, keeping in mind the severity, long history and the extent of the problem.

Male lovers a threat to a straight male's heterosexualization

Early youth is the time for men to develop his heterosexuality. Even if you've a tiny amount of sexual need for women, you know you can hold on to it and develop it into enough heterosexuality to fulfill your basic needs of sexual and emotional support... and then of course, you have all the social and power and status to help your life become worthwhile. When a straight man trying to build up his heterosexuality, but not yet fully successful finds himself unwittingly entangled in a relationship with another man, it comes as a big disruption in his heterosexualization, in fact, a big threat to it. Being with a man in a big burden in this precious time (youth) ... when he should have actually built his heterosexuality enough. So, he keeps trying to keep a female alongside his male lover... never depending on the male lover solely for his emotional/ sexual needs. He will never agree to divesting in the male lover all his sexual and emotional needs even for a short time. For, straight males know, once they allow themselves to do that, there's no coming back.

Whore vs Homoe

In the heterosexual society, the whore is seen as victim and protected, but the 'homo' is seen as a criminal, except when he is 'gay'.

Homosexuality = Sodomy

Apart from the Gender implications of the concept of 'homosexuality' (of painting man to man sexual interest as feminine in itself), the concept of 'homosexuality' also serves to discourage man to man desire in another way -- it has the same implications as calling a man who has sex with another male as being a sodomite (which doesn't have any third gender implications), but holds its stigma because of religious and social injunctions against the act of 'sodomy'.

A significant number of men, especially straight males, like other men sexually but are more interested in the bodies of the other men, rather than in performing 'sodomy' with them.

..

The role of 'sexual orientation' in pressurising men to disown their need for men

When the society defines a sexual interest in men as 'queer' or 'gay', then it makes the desire an extreme burden for men -- who are in an intense race for social manhood for survival, in which they have to prove that they are not queers, however queer is defined in that society. Its a competition that gays and women are just not aware of. They only know about straights what is told or shown to them.

Isn't this burdening of man-to-man desire a clear-cut social conspiracy against men in the name of 'Sexual Freedom'?

The role of 'Sexual Orientation' and 'Homosexuality' in heterosexualizing men

By shifting the definition of 'queer' from the act of being penetrated to include even manly sexual interest in men, the concept of Sexual Orientation has severely disadvantaged man to man intimacy by placing it entirely in the hands of Queers. 

And by defining all kinds of sexual/ social/ emotional interest in women as straight or manly, it has given extreme powers to heterosexuality, deciding the fate of men as a species which is pressurised to disown their sexual need for men and to be heterosexual.

Sexual Orientation as an institution of man's oppression

Sexual Orientation is the biggest tool of man's oppression in the modern world. Its the science's addition to the age old conspiracy against men, in the modern world, just as in the middle ages Religion added to the conspiracy by making anal sex between males a sin, while in the ancient world the conspiracy started by making receptive anal sex a disqualification for manhood and by making reproduction the basic criteria for granting manhood.

Why has the stigma shifted from getting fucked to liking men?

Why have straight men given up sex with men and disowned any sexual interest in men altogether when earlier they only avoided getting penetrated?

Why are straight men so scared of being even socially intimate with men in the West?

And the answer: Because of the invention of the concept of Sexual Orientation, homosexuality and 'gays'.

No history of "Sexual Orientation"

It is interesting that the rest of the world, both contemporary and ancient never had this theory of segregating men on the basis of preferring women or men. It is funny how West insists on the validity of its theory and distorting history as well as other societies construction of human gender/ sexuality by thrusting its point of view of them. 

The basis of man's oppression

The basis of the oppression of men is the wrong notion that the majority of men have a sexual need for women and that this need is the essence of being a man. 

Gays fighting against the stigma of effeminacy attached to man to man sexuality is stupid

What is the point in burdening a previously 'free' human aspect with a stigmatized identity, and then working unsuccesfully to remove the stigma. That is what is being done with man's sexual interest in men, which was previously not stigmatized as 'queer', but now is being forced to be.

The term MSM not suitable for Straight men who desire a male lover

The term Men who have sex with men (MSM) is again extremely unsuitable for Straight men who desire men sexually. The first reason is of course, because the term is also used for Queers who have sex with men, and so the root of the problem is the same as that with the terms 'gay' or 'homosexuality'.

The second problem is that most straight men either keep off totally from receptive anal/ oral sex with men or don't acknowledge a desire for it, even if they have it -- it is because of the age old notions of these acts being 'queer'. Many genuinely don't have an interest in it. MSM on the other hand, just like 'homosexuality' is strongly linked with act of receptive anal/oral sex -- at least, it doesn't distinguish between receptive anal/ oral sex and the penetrative one, making the identity immensely stigmatized for straight men.

But the third problem, and no less important, is that most straight men, when they have sex with another man, do it in an intimate, monogamous (as far as men are concerned) and emotional bond. The term MSM signifies promiscuity of the kind prevalent in the 'gay' world. These are not men who seek sex with differet men. They are not prone to HIV/AIDS or STDS common with MSMs. So, giving them the same identity can cause a number of unwarranted stigmas to straight men who desire a male lover... which force them to hide, reject or suppress their sexual feelings for men.

...

Difference between "Queers who have sex with men" and "men who have sex with men" is real

But even when the "Queer = receptive anal/ oral sex" is not naturally correct, it doesn't mean that there is no natural difference between Queers-who-have-sex-with-men and (Straight) Men-who-have-sex-with-men. It doesn't mean that their difference is just socially orchestrated. They are different to the core, but their difference constitutes of their Genders. The Queers are feminine gendered males, while Men are masculine gendered males.

The problem is with males who are inbetween queers and 'men' -- i.e. the meterosexuals, and it depends upon them where they want to be -- whether with the queers or with the men.

How we should fight to liberate men's sexuality for men...

Receptive anal/ oral sex has been associated with queerness for more than 3000 years... but it still is a big lie... for in nature it has no direct association with queerness. But, since those in power wanted it to be so, queer people started to define and see themselves as actively and exclusively desiring receptive anal/ oral sex, while 'men' (i.e. masculine gendered males0 started to shun it like hell. This, strengthened the artificial link between queerness and receptive anal/ oral sex with each passing generation -- and in 3000 years the concept can get very deep rooted indeed.

However, all through this a sexual interest in men per se (which was not centred around receptive anal/ oral sex) was never considered queer. Now, the Westernized society is pressing hard to make all kinds of sexual interest in men as 'queer'. But, this definition needs a lot of investment for restructuring social spaces and values -- in terms of financial, technical and social power -- which can only be afforded by industrialized societies (This is yet another ills of industrialization -- we can live without it)... and so only developed or developing spaces can implement this.

And, we should fight this redefinition of queer before it seeps deep enough in our societies to be rooted out. To fight the "Queer = receptive sex" is almost impossible right now... but the idea that "Queer = all male sexual interests in men" is still not deep rooted enough in non-industrialiazed world and so we can still fight it.

First, we should liberate men's sexual need for men from the process of homosexualization (i.e., the process of 'queering')... only then should we think about liberating the act of receptive anal/ oral sex from being misdefined as queer.

Gay logic...

Is a man who accepts he likes men, but rejects to call his sexual attraction 'homosexuality' or refuses to call himself 'gay' -- 'in closet' or unable to come to terms with his sexuality? Definitely not... That's so stupid to think that... because after all, he is clearly saying that yes, I do like men!

Stigma on third sex now transferred to 'liking men' thanks to the concept of homosexuality

The word Gay has exactly the same stigma for men as the earlier third sex identities had... Is it a mere co-incidence? How can it be a co-incidence, when its clear from the history of the origin of the concept of 'homosexuality' that it was based on the third sex community.

Stigma about 'Queer' now shifted to liking men

A 100 years ago, to call someone a 'queer' was to challenge his manhood, and a man's inability to remove that dishonour by proving he is not queer or by taking on the one who said that, even if he had to kill the guy... the man would stand to lose his manhood. (Women would not dare to say it, and if they did, they'd easily be considered 'whores'). Today, the word for Queer is 'Gay' and it means exactly the same to men -- to be called 'gay' is to rob one of one's manhood. Yet gays -- hiding behind the formal definition of themselves, which is silent about the gender part, and calls themselves 'men' (who like men) -- seem to be blissfully unaware of any such connotations of their identity.

Queering manhood

50 years ago in India, and 100 years ago in the west, if i loved men openly, but was not into receiving anal sex, no one would think im unmanly or different or queer or abnormal ... and there would not be any reason to suspect I'm into receiving anal sex, (unless, I was queer) and no one would call me gay (or what was an equivalent term) or even remotely be able to accuse me of being gay... today, if I do they can immediately rob me of my manhood by calling me Gay.

Does sexual freedom means licence to force heterosexualization?

In Westernized societies, the sexual freedom actually means the license to heterosexualize the society -- the permission to put pressure on especially men, to be heterosexual... to heterosexaulize all its social spaces and mores, so that any man who doesn't conform to heterosexuality is immediately seen as wierd, abnormal and 'gay' -- the new definition of 'namard'.

Sexual choice is not free in the West anymore, you have your gender identity at stake

Westernized, heterosexualized man has lost the capability and freedom to act upon his inherent sexual needs and desires.

The making of a sexual decision is no more a matter of personal decision. Who you're having sex with is something that now defines your very basic gender identity. How can Gays or anyone claim sexual identities to be a matter of just choice. Who would want to choose to be queer, if he can avoid it even by an inch.

Women power

The western world, including feminists talk about sexual openness and rights, but do not want to accept man to man relationships into the mainstream straight male space.

They want sexual freedom, but do not want to share their men with other men. Their idea of sexual freedom stops at demanding the freedom to relate sexually with men, not letting them be sexual or romantic with other men.

if men would be allowed to love men, they would not care to go to women

The problem with accepting male-male sexual desires within mainstream straight spaces is that if those straight men start fulfilling their sexual desires with other men, most men will not care to go to women... and that is why those who controlled human societies have been striking at these bonds, through social manhood, through religion, and now through science.

This fact, that all men are capable of satisfying their sexual and romantic desires better with another man, so as to endanger marriage or 'heterosexual sex' (to a large extent) has been shared by the older folks, as well as the religionists like Christians. They know the real issues involved in figthing male bonds. But, they also want to fight only as much as is required to keep long lasting male bonds from forming... they were not interested or rather capable of driving these desires altogether out of the mainstream male spaces. That is why they allowed it to flourish behind the scenes in mainstream male spaces.

But science, with immense economic and technological resources was capable and willing to drive out man to man desire totally out of the mainstream masculine male spaces. And, they did it by putting together a tool, fraudulently, that would isolate all kinds of man to man desires from these spaces and lump them together with the queers, as unmanly and effeminate. This tool is called 'sexual orientation', and it preaches the lie that only those that only these rare effeminate/ queers are sexually desirous of men, the rest are 'heterosexuals'.

I have lived and grown up in both heterosexualised and traditional spaces, and I have noticed people change their behaviours as they cross over from one space to the other -- when in Rome do as Romans do...

The same guys who will not as much as look at another guy in a BPO (westernized space) or mall, will eye each other or rub each other's crotch as soon as they board a bus outside the BPO (the Bus being a traditional space used by lower middle class or common working people).

Masculinity cannot express itself or develop itself in vulnerability or weakness. You can't be masculine if you're going through a debilitating period in your life, in front of those who have power over you.

Masculinity needs power to survive, to express itself, to exert itself and to develop.

To disempower men and to make them vulnerable is to demasculinise them... by robbing them of their manhood.

But disempowerment also puts the machoest man in touch with his femininity. Because, in vulnerability men develop their femininity... (although, they can't do it more than their natural potential for femininity). Femininity is nature's way to help them cope with vulnerable, weak, disempowering circumstances.

To disempower male sexual need for men by isolating it into the margins, is to demasculinise it. And to further, 'feminise' it.

...

Feminine sexuality for men is essentially different from masculine sexuality for men

Gay is not about any male sexuality for men... its about feminine male sexuality for men. And feminine male sexuality for men is much more different from masculine male sexuality for men than masculine male sexuality is different from masculine male sexuality for women. The primary differentiation is between masculine male sexuality and feminine male sexuality. Masculine male sexuality for men and women often exist in the same individual. You can't divide the individual. On the other hand, masculine and feminine males are essentially different people, with different sexualities, whether it is towards men or women. This principle is followed by the Western heterosexual societies for 'heterosexuals' (as signified by not allowing queer heterosexuals to be part of the straight identity)  but not for straight men who own up to like men.

Masculine male's and feminine males sexual need for men are different in every respect

Homosexuals see their desire to be 'women' (in various degrees) as an integral part of their liking men. To be fair to them, their sexuality for men is intricately linked with their feminine gender, and is indeed indistinguishable from it.

However, what gays don't realise (in traditional societies gays know that pretty well) is that masculine gendered males do not have a desire to be women, and when they like other men, they don't see themselves as women at all. Liking men does not fulfill their femininity, but enhances their manhood (at least, if it weren't for social femininity forcefully imposed on them by the heterosexualized society). for masculine gendered, or normal or regular or straight males, their sexuality for men is intricately linked with their masculinity and manhood, and is indistinguishable from the latter.

In this respect, Sexuality and Gender are not separate but intricately linked with each other, and quite indistinguishable from each other. However, not in the way that the concept of 'sexual orientation' prescribes.

Now, as we have seen, masculine gendered male's need and desire for other men (a combination of gender and sexuality) is totally different from a feminine male's sexual desire for men (again a combination of gender and sexuality). It is totally wrong to classify both of these two different sexual desires/ gender into one head as 'homosexuality' through the manipulative system of sexual orientation. Studying and stereotyping both of these using the third gender (feminine model) completely distorts nature of men's sexual need for men.

...

Heterosexuality represents the oppression of man

Heterosexuality represents the oppression of man. And so does homosexuality.

It is to force men to reproduce more than their real nature allowed, that the foundation of their oppression of laid. This oppression has today taken the shape of Heterosexuality, which they are expected to be... The irony is that we don't need enhanced reproduction anymore, and that you don't need to have a heterosexual orientation to reproduce... just sex with women once or twice every year.

Homosexuality represents the concretizing of the historical defeat of man to man bond, and its desire itself. It represents two stigmas attached to this desire by the modern, western, heterosexualized society.

1. The patholising of man to man desire,

2. The queering of this desire, by classifying it in the queer space.

Men's liberation means liberating man to man desire from the queer confinement

The only way to liberate men from forced heterosexuality, which is the basis of his overall oppression, is to liberate man to man desire from the confines of the queer space, where it is captured (as a defeated human trait) by the Forces of Heterosexuality -- and this invalid confinement is enabled by the concept of sexual orientation, which although distinguishes between 'queer heterosexuality' and 'straight heterosexuality' doesn't differentiate between straight sexual desire for men and queer sexual desire for men.

So, in essence the fight to liberate men is the fight against 'sexual orientation'.

Why do straight men seem to so hate male to male desire

It's because, in western heterosexualized societies, desiring another man has been associated with a group of freaks and effeminate male who feel different from normal men (through the concept of sexual orientation), that this desire has become extremely stigmatized.

STRAIGHT MEANS NORMAL, NOT HETEROSEXUAL

STRAIGHT means 'normal' in any context... and straight is used not only in the case of 'sexual identity' but in many different contexts, and everywhere its meaning is 'normal. 

Now its just so that the Western society and Gays specifically have defined the 'normal', 'regular' guy as 'heterosexual'. Does this mean that they are really heterosexual, at least exclusively heterosexual -- all or even a majority of them? Considering, that there is such immense pressure on 'normal', 'regular' guys to be heterosexual and to prove a repulsion towards male eroticism or intimacy with men, how can you be sure that the straight heterosexuality is not a mask put on to keep their 'normal', 'regular' status. In a world, where sex with women means social power, status and manhood, and a place in men's spaces, and a man is under immense pressure to prove his heterosexuality in order to be counted as 'normal' and 'regular', is it too 'wierd' to suspect that a lot of this heterosexuality may be fake? Especially, when there are strong evidences from non-Western societies -- and now, even from the Western world. 

You have to understand that the non-gays have such immense need to define themselves in a manner away from teh gays --- because of the ancient hatred of queers --- that they would give up anything that the society associates with the queers. 

Therefore, when the queers started to be defined as 'men who like men', the (straight) men gave up sexual desire for men altogether, at least, publicly. Earlier, when queer was defined as effeminate males who had receptive anal/ oral sex, Men had given up 'passive' sex altogether, at least publicly and would disown any interest in being penetrated. But they had no shame or qualms in accepting to penetrate a man or a queer.

...

The dilemma of straight men

When you try to realise your inner self, then they threaten to take away your manhood, the more you realise your inner self the more they deprive you of your manhood... and you're left isolated from other men, from men's spaces, even if its symbolic in the Western, industrialized world today.

That is the dilemma of being a (straight) man. Manhood is defined not on the basis of what masculine gendered males need biologically, but upon what they (those who control men's spaces and men's lives) want from men. Men are treated no more than livestock by these Forces of Heterosexualization.

The liberation of men should mean that men get to define manhood. Men get to define what is straight and what is gay, without any social engineering or manipulation by these Forces of Heterosexualization. When to attain manhood, a masculine gendered male will no more have to go against his nature... that is when man will be liberated. When social manhood will be synonymous with natural manhood.

It's the straight man with a near exclusive desire for men who is truly isolated and lonely

The mechanisms to wipe out man's sexual / love / intimacy  need for men from the men's (i.e. masculine males') spaces, has completely isolated the masculie male with an exclusively sexual / love need for men from men's spaces.

Alas, he is the one who cannot fit into the gay space. In Western, completely heterosexualized societies, he uses that space, even calls himself 'gay', he has no choice and no information on his real identity... he just follows whatever comes to him, there is no way for him to understand what's going on at the macro level (the conspiracy). But he's never comfortable with himself... his allotted place in the heterosexualized world... 

He's not really gay and his sexual needs are different from those of the queers. He needs to bond with other masculine gendered males. However there is hardly any social space for him to do that, whether he chooses the gay space/ identity or to live in the straight world as a heterosexual... considering gay is basically a third gender space. This makes him immensely lonely... he can't really realise his sexual needs in the 'gay' space.

He can't understand the cause of his immense discomfort and loneliness. In a society which has no social space to talk about manhood issues, especially the non-gay male sexuality for men (which is not even thought to be existent or technically possible)... he, who lives in practical isolation, whether in the gay or straight world, has no way to understand what's going on with him, because to know that you need to know things at the macro level. So he suffers in silence, thinking its his fate. Life's truly a hell for him, a punishment. But then who cares.

He may be extremely god gifted, with everything that could have made him lead the best possible life under natural circumstances. He could be extremely masculine, handsome and desirable for other straight men, who would died for him under natural conditions... he may have the best of qualities for a perfect bond, e.g. loyalty, love and committment... yet, everything that he has, goes waste, as he wastes away his life in loneliness, while other straight men who have been able to develop a sufficient sexual need for women, rule the world, after having sacrificed their sexual/romantic need for men.

What is needed is to organise this isolated man... who is the only power that can liberate men, from the age-old conspiracy against men... from his heterosexualization... So that men could live as men, as nature intended them to be, to their full potential, without being treated as a machine for reproduction.

...

Men can't verbalise their need and affection for another man -- not even to save a deep bond

A man may feel intensely for another man, and may need him more than anything else in life, but if he's leaving him, he will not go and hold his hand or plead or hug him to stop him... He might be agony, but he'll just stand there saying indirect things in order to let the other man know that he wants him not to go. Sometimes, this is just not enough.

But a man may feel less intensely for a woman, but if she's leaving, he will go to her hold her in his arms and kiss her and ask her to stay, tell her that he'll die without her, that he can't live without her, he will lie down on her feet, cry, weep, explain, say he'll change, and say 'sorry'.

He'll never say 'sorry' to a man, even if he feel intensely sorry... That is how the mechanisms to control men's behaviour have made men -- this is what their oppression is about, breaking them from another man, making him unable to give him his affection, making him unable to take his affection, while they both have love in their hearts,... just as the society further builds up the pressure by repeating it on a mike again and again that it is not natural for men to feel affection for other men, to care for other him as he would for a woman.

And the man, who cannot say anything to his male lover who means the earth to him, ... How can he open his mouth to challenge the society and its lies... He just keeps quiets, throws the intense emotions of loss and pain deep inside him in order to forget them, and with the storm brewing inside him, he puts on a composed facade and quietly joins the forces that cripple his power to bond with another man. He adds to the forces that enslave and oppress him. For he knows no other way to live.

Another strong case against Western Heterosexuality.

In traditional, non-western societies, marriage was only a social duty of men, with no obligation of any romantic/ emotional or social bonding, and hence very few marriages had these elements. Even the sexual oblitation of men was limited to sex for procreation.

Now, even in societies like India, which are highly westernized and heterosexualized, law has started to require that it is the duty of the spouse (especially men) to fulfill the sexual needs of the partner, even when the number of children desired has been reached. And if this need is not fulfilled then the other spouse (in most cases women) can sue for a divorce.

This law is extremely oppressive. Is law really concerned about fulfilling the sexual needs of people? Then, how can it prevent men from having sex with each other... then in fact, the law should come up with adequate provisions to safeguard such relationships.

If law is under no obligation to give people the right for sexual fulfillment, then it cannot force men to serve their wives sexually. After all, marriage is only for reproduction. 

There cannot be two standards

Another important discrepancy in the concept of 'sexual orientation'

The West defines 'homosexual' as someone who has exclusive sexual attraction for members of what they call 'same-sex'.

Now, if we agree that male sexuality is not divided between homo and hetero but exists in a continuum, with let's say 5% people are exclusively into men and 5% are exclusively into women, and the rest are somewhere in between. Then what is the rationale behind separating from the rest, the 5% exclusively into men as 'homosexuals' and classifying all the rest as 'heterosexual'. 

By same standards, a 'heterosexual' should be a person who has exclusive sexual attraction for members of the opposite sex. And that should, if there are no social pressures to identify themselves as exclusively heterosexual, amount to just 5%. But is not what the forces of heterosexualization want people to know.

Gender is a biological concept (and not social) distinct from sex

The Traditional Western society and its science, because of its Christian influence, considers Sex and Gender to be synonymous. The 'progressive' thought in the West seeks to oppose this belief by claiming that Gender is a social construct that has nothing to do with nature. They claim Gender is nothing but a set of arbitrarily defined gender roles ascribed to the male and female sex by different societies.

Thus both the traditional and progressive school of thoughts in the West consider Gender to be not a natural trait distinct from 'Sex'.

My contention is that both these schools of thought are essentially wrong, and have led to several faulty concepts in the West on human gender and sexuality.

The contemporary and ancient non-Western societies, as well as pre-modern West acknowledged Gender as a natural/ biological trait distinct from 'sex'. Gender in this respect is defined as the 'inner sex' of a person (or inner sense of being male or female) irrespective of his or her 'outer sex'. Sex of a person in this case refers to his or her outer sexual organs.

Thus a person born male could have a strong inner sense of being a female and so his Gender becomes feminine. This femininity doesn't need to be extreme... it could well be in different degrees.

Similarly a person born female could have a masculine 'inner sex' or Gender.

The Gender identity of a person cannot be decided just by his or her outer sex. The Gender identity is the basic identity of a person and is determined by the combination of 'Sex' (outer sex) and 'Gender' (Inner Sex). 

All non-Western societies classify their populations and social spaces/ identities based on these Gender identities into at least three distinct Genders:

1. Man: i.e. a predominantly masculine gendered male
2. Woman: i.e. a predominantly feminine gendered female
3. Third Gender (People who are partly male and partly female; Queer): Hermaphrodites, intersexed people, feminine gendered males and masculine gendered females.

Other societies (like the Balinese society) have as many as six different human genders.

These identities don't have anything to do with 'sexual orientation' of people.

The West confuses Gender identity with sexuality and classifies its population into a wierd combination of Gender and what it calls 'sexual orientation'. What is more of a concern that through the process of Globalization and its economic and technological might, the West imposes this invalid classification on the non-Western societies, which is nothing short of modern imperialism. It's a deliberate confusion created by the Forces of Heterosexualization, in order to misrepresent and misclassify man to man sexual instincts in order to discourage them.

Western science considers male femininity to be a 'disorder' and 'abnormality' not in the natural scheme of things. Female masculinity is better tolerated.

I feel there is a strong need for the West to learn from other cultures and broaden and improve some of its basic beliefs around human gender and sexuality.

.....

A major fault with the terms homosexual and heterosexual

The term homosexuality is ambiguously defined as referring both, even to a one time act of sex between two men, as well as to a "having sexual and romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to members of one’s own sex" (See Wikipedia).

Eventhough wikipedia defines heterosexuality as both referring to any sexual act between men and women, even one time, as well as to a predominant predisposition to sexuality towards women, in reality the term heterosexual is strictly defined in the west and even holding hands between two men can cost them their extremely important heterosexual status (because of its wrong association with manhood), leave alone a one time sexual act between men.

These ambiguities in the definitions of these terms of 'sexual identities' makes oppression of sexuality between 'straight' men quite easy.

Like mentioned before, even a small homosexual act by someone who is seen as 'predominantly heterosexual' can make people call him a 'homo', and refuse to accept him as 'heterosexual'. Because, one time sexual act between men is cleverly equated with a 'homosexual' orientation' because the word homosexual is used for a one time act as well as for a 'sexual orienation'.

This ambiguity too is intentional, and a product of the conspiracy hatched by the Forces of Heterosexualization against men.

How does the Western society impose its classfications on non-Western societies

The Western classification of humans beings, especially males into 'masculine heterosexual males' on one hand and everything else into 'queer' as LGBT, denotes the power structure in control in the West. Because, western identities are not based on facts or nature, but in almost every human aspect the divisions are made to suit the ruling class or trait in power, with the powerful trait always distinguished from the rest. Thus in the case of race, only pure 'white' is white, while even a slight mix of 'color' becomes 'black', even when its indistinguishable from white. There are no browns in this arrangement either.

But the problem when imposing this social division based on power politics on other cultures is that in other cultures divisions are still primarily based on nature of people, and the power structure prominent in the West is not yet powerful in non-westernized societies. One important difference is that in the West men's spaces have been totally destroyed/ heterosexualized and this has led to masculine male sexual desire/ need for men become vulnerable and disempowered, as masculine gendered males are no longer able to claim it... and so the trait is thrown in the 'queer' circle. The concept of 'homosexuality' comes especially handy in this.

Now, as long as the men's spaces are strong in the non-westernized societies, they are able to withstand this imposition of western classification, by changing the meaning and context of 'homosexuality' and 'gay'. Thus they both mean effeminate males (third sex) that have receptive sex with men.

However, when the Western society through its economic and technological power and the ongoing process of 'globalization' manages to westernize and thus heterosexualize these traditional societies, men's spaces are destroyed here too, and they become vulnerable, and when they are unable to protect men's sexual desire for men from being snatched from these heterosexualised spaces and pushed into 'queer' spaces, the western concepts are then able to be transplanted in these societies, with their immunity now totally compromised.

This is not good news for men (who are now labelled by gays as 'straights).

.....

Homosexuality is indeed a decrepit Western concept

Homosexuality as well as 'sexual orientation' are decrepit Western concepts. They are anti-man and part of the conspiracy against men.

The concept of Homosexuality identifies a man's sexual desire for men in such a stigmatized way that men have no other option but to disown their sexual need for men altogether.

All through the middle ages, men have dealt with their same sex needs by not acknowledging it outwardly, because of the hostilities and manhood roles, and indulge in it quietly in the safety of men's spaces. Not acknowledging their hidden sexual acts was extremely important for men to indulge in same-sex bonds.

The Forces of Heterosexualization, in order to force men to give up same-sex desires altogether, forcibly sought to 'acknowledge' this same-sex need in a blatant way through the concept of 'homosexuality'.

But this was not enough. The only males who were open about their liking for men and acknowledged it openly, were the third gendered males, who were not counted as men in the traditional set-up.

The forces of heterosexualization not only called them 'men' but defined them as the 'men who like men', or 'homosexuals'. And then having associated 'homosexuality' with this group of third gender, they then started to identify men's sexual desire for men as 'homosexual'. The hidden ghettoing together with the third sex was not lost on men (who were later defined by the gays as 'straights'), and the Forces of Heterosexualization built up the hositilities by stressing upon this hidden third sex factor. Gays themselves played it up, because for them it meant freedom to be who they were -- essentially transgendered. But for men it meant stigma all the way, and no other option but to leave their same-sex needs altogether.

Difference between Gay sexuality for men and Straight sexuality for men

The main difference between a Gay's sexuality for men and a man's sexuality for men is Gender. Let me explain this for a layman.

A man (or a straight man, if you please), when he desires a man (even if straight men don't do it openly because of the societal pressures), like him as a man -- that is they think of them as a man liking another man. This doesn't make them feel any different from other men, and he doesn't want another identity from other straight men for that. This is beside the point that all straight men have a strong sexual need for other men.

When a Gay likes another man, he does it so thinking he is a woman liking a man. In western societies he is made to think that his liking for men flows from his femininity, but that is basically wrong, because more than 90% of feminine or queer males are into women rather than men.
The Gay feels he is different from other men whom he calls 'straight'. Now, in a society which confuses gender with sexuality, he thinks it is because of his sexuality for him (which is termed as 'homosexuality', when actually its 'heterosexuality' because he is seeking a masculine man, when he himself is feminine).
Also, just like in India, feminine males don't think of themselves as 'women' even though they feel like women, they have a different identity -- third gender, so they think of themselves as a distinct gender from men and women. Likewise, gays too feel like they're women, but consider themselves a distinct identity from both men and women, which they identify as 'gay' or 'homosexual' (i.e. they wrongly explain this difference in terms of 'sexual orientation').
This is the reason, straight men don't identify with the concept of 'homosexuality' or with 'homosexuals' or with gays -- even when they themselves don't know the reason, they instinctively rather fight with their sexual feelings for men, rather than be considered 'homosexual'.
The concept of 'homosexuality' has integral links with male femininity, so homosexuality, although defined as a 'man's sexual feelings for men', actually means a 'queer's sexual feeling for men'. And so it can't be used to describe a man's sexual feelings for men (or a straight's sexual feeling for men), even if technically it fits the description. Just like, if you start calling 'sun' as the 'moon', then the actual 'moon' cannot be called 'moon' anymore, because then it becomes problematic. And in the case of gays, it is thousands times more problematic because of the stigma attached to male femininity (queerness).
Also, although the Western society says gender is not important, its only outer sex that is important, the fact is that most gays look for 'straight' men or at least 'straight-acting' men for sex -- (which means masculine acting, not really someone who pretends to be into women). And they do complain that there are hardly any gays who are good enough 'straight-acting'. Because, acting cannot be as good as the real thing.

Western society cripples the power of men to feel and then claim its biological

Western society is great...

First they cripple the emotionality of men, the power of men to feel emotions. They break men apart from their emotions. They force and condition men to suppress their feelings and only use their 'head' rather than their 'heart', and then they claim through their science that men don't feel, that they are not emotional, that they are more logical... that they don't want to talk about emotions is a biological trait, rather than something brought about by the social mechanisms of man's oppression.

Just like they cripple the sexual need and feelings of men for other men and then claim it doesn't exist biologically.

Homosexuals usurp straight male icons

After defining 'homosexuality' as love between males of all gender (including the queer, third gender males, who are not even men as per historical or traditional standards), gays have gone ahead with claiming the ancient men who love men as 'homosexuals', no matter if it was the majority of mainstream men (which can only mean straight men, since gays are only 10%)... and their love is included as history of gays and GLBT.

Nothing could be more wrong than this.

How can Alexander be a Catamite. It were the effeminate catamites who received penetrative sex from men who were the Catamites or the gay of the times. By changing the definition you can't change history or biology of people.

Third sex are not men. Men are not Third sex. That is why Queer heterosexuals are not counted as straights.

.....

Why do men hate femininity?

The only reason that men hate male femininity and queers is that it is held out as a threat to them for rebelling against social, fake manhood, that force men to behave in unmanly ways in order to be counted as men.

Men hate third gender because they see them as punishment.

And masculine men who accept their sexuality for men have a special reason to hate queers in the heterosexualized world. And it is the fact that they are forced to share the same identity as queers, and their own gender (man, masculine male) is negated. And that they are broken from the group that they really belong to (straight).

Otherwise, male femininity is very natural, and there's nothing in there to hate as such. In fact in ancient societies, the third gender was really respected and liked by all and sundry.

Heterosexuality belongs in the LGBT world, not man to man bonds

If anything belongs in the third gender, queer, LGBT world, its male heterosexuality, not masculine man to man bonds. These bonds are the base of manhood or straighthood.

Why should man-woman intimacy not be allowed in public in traditional societies

This is what I wrote in response to a remark about how straight men always hold hands in public as show of their masculine behaviour, while men hardly ever hold hands with women in public, and that it would be nice if that could happen too:

It would ideally be nice if men and women could hold hands in India in public as well. However, there is a problem...

This freedom comes with the Western kind of heterosexualization. And, this westernization creates severe disempowerment and hostility against man to man intimacy... so, the freedom given to male-female intimacy is inversely proportional to the freedom that men have to show intimacy with each other. Both of these privileges have been snatched from man to man intimacy long ago.

You must understand that sexuality for women has immense social power attached to it by heterosexualized societies. It's only matched by the disempowerment or queering of man to man intimacy. Under such circumstances, men start showing intimacy towards women just to gain that social power, and avoid intimacy with men in order to escape extreme disempowerment.,

Not only that. Not all straight men really want intimacy with females, If informal men's spaces are heterosexualized in this manner too (like allowing male-female intimacy), they will be forced to be socially intimate with women in order to retain their social position as a (straight) man. I am already seeing that happening a lot in Indian westernized spaces, including in schools and colleges.

Under such circumstances, it is much better not to allow male-female intimacy that freedom in the public sphere, because after all, men and women are allowed to be intimate in private, and in marriage they carry a lot of privileges and power, Both of these have been snatched from men a long time ago, from our societies.

Male to male intimacy has no place in our societies,,, except in men's personal spaces, where they're greatly valued by men, If male-female intimacy is going to grab this last space (like it did in the West) that male intimacy has, it is sure to drive out male-male intimacy by wielding its immense social power and manhood attached to it (which male-male intimacy has been denuded of) -- as wherever there's unreasonable, unearned power, there will be abuse of it. If this happens, male-male intimacy would be finally driven totally out of the social mainstream, into third sex gay ghettos, like in the West,

That would be really unfortunate,

Why does heterosexuality need to take all of the social mainstream, including formal and informal spaces? If in the formal space its been given total control, it should be content with leaving the informal mainstream space to men.
Posted 19 minutes ago.

......

Who is 'gay' for the straight men

Straight men are pretty aware about the fact that all men have strong sexual feelings towards other men... and no matter what the definitions formally, say, they are very clear in their minds about who is 'gay' and who is not. It is NOT being attracted to men that makes you gay... rather it is the following two things which does:

1) An acknowledgement of this sexual need for men.

2) A sexual disinterest in women/ or (in traditional societies) an 'inability' (or what is considered to be an inability) to have vaginal sex with women.

Heterosexual women

The whores of not too long back a time are redefined as 'heterosexual women' by the heterosexualized society.

Straight men can't take the rare opportunities to form sexual bonds with men because of their conditioning

Its not only that the society is so hostile that it doesn't allow sexual bonds between straight men that they can't happen -- the oppression against men runs so deep that it controls the depths of straight men's psyches -- that even with the best of intentions and desire, when men do get an opportunity to form a bond with another man, they are so conditioned to foresake such bonds that they lose those rare opportunities when they arise.

Killing same-sex needs like you kill bugs or an infection

We in the society are conditioned to strike out, mutilate and kill everytime we see glimpses of man to man eroticism or intimacy. We do it almost instinctively now (like we kill bugs, nevermind that we are killing an important part of us here) -- as this phobia has been ingrained deep into our psyche, even when we want to do otherwise -- to such feelings within us and outside of us -- without feeling remorse or guilt.

We are made to feel that we have done the right thing. We as men have already learned not to listen to our hearts... our innerselves, so its voice just doesn't matter.

.....

Forces of Heterosexualization glamourize 'whores'

The heterosexualized anti-man society glamourizes 'whores' like in this BIG, huge board for Big Boss TV programme with a huge picture of a whore-woman that attended it. They only take whores in their programme.

Every such glorification of whores and giving them space within the mainstream society and thus into men's spaces (which are no more their personal spaces). This renders men completely vulnerable to be sexually exploited by such women or to go through the stress of showing interest in them but avoiding sex as far as possible.

The problem is, that men think its their ultimate duty or destiny to steel themsevles up against sex with women, if they are to be men, and so they accept everything without uttering a word.

The real difference between Gay and Straight is 'gender' and not 'sexuality'

The definition of Gay actually consists of two parts:

One is the formal stated part and the other is the hidden unacknowledged part. Ironically, its the formal visible part of the difference that is wrong/ false/ fake. Only the unacknowledged difference is real.

The formal part is about sexuality, and it is a purely social difference with no natural or biological basis. Thus the only difference between the two males of masculine gender, one of whom is forced with the 'gay' identity and the other 'straight', is that of accepting their sexual need for men -- which is a social act... in terms of nature, both have same-sex needs.

Sexuality wise, you choose to be gay or straight. However, its the unacknoweldged difference between gay and straight which is not only a historical difference, but also a biological difference, which has been pushed behind the scenes under the Western conspiracy against men.

This unacknowledged difference is that of gender, i.e., masculine and feminine gender. This difference is not acknowledged, but this is the only difference that really works in real life (in that people actually, subconsciously take their decisions about whether they choose to be 'straight' or 'gay' based on their gender). Genderwise, you don't choose to be 'gay' or 'straight', its what you're born with.

Unless masculine male love for men is liberated from the 'gay' clutches, straight men cannot claim their own sexuality. And that is why the Western Forces of heterosxualization, under their conspiracy are hell bent on propagating same-sex needs as 'feminine' and 'unmanly'.

Straight men will only love men as much as the society gives them space

Straight men have a deep need to love other men... which they fight against all their life.

Straight men only give as much expression to their need to love men and only in such a manner that the society gives them scope within the straight space (i.e. men's space) -- especially through their politics of definitions and social classificiations. They will not cross the straight line to give expression to their same-sex needs. Their first and foremost loyalty is to their gender.

Since, in a heterosexual society there is no social space to do it in the straight space (i.e. men's space), straight men just don't acknowledge their sexual need for men at all -- but, if they get a chance they do have a relationship with another guy... only, they never talk about it or acknowledge it in anyway. Everything is done very very quietly and in a disguise, like making an excuse that girls are not present...

.....

The power to attract another masculine male is the real power and manhood of a masculine male

Considering men have so much natural power over other men, to move them and own them completely through emotional, sexual and physical attraction -- its definitely a natural power and part of natural masculinity.

The interest in women is a weakness, although, made artificially into a source of power. This natural power has been severely curtailed and mutilated by the society and because of which it loses its natural strength.

Globalized definitions of Straight and Gay:

The concept of 'sexual orientation' invented in the modern West requires a highly artificial society to make any sense. First it requires intense heterosexualizing of men's spaces and of men, and then generating intense fear amongst men's minds for any kind of man to man intimacy in the men's (straight) spaces, so that they can be banished from men's spaces into third sex 'gay' space.

The non-western societies, are still largely non-industrialized and thus do not have enough resources to bring about such artificial and unnatural reorganisation of their society. Therefore, when, under the process of globalization, the concepts of 'straight' and 'gay' are applied in the non-heterosexualized world, a new definition of these terms emerges -- which is a combination of the West and the Eastern viewpoints.

The following are the definitions that are finally emerging out of this process:

STRAIGHTS: Straights are members of men's spaces. The membership of these spaces, or in other words, the criteria for social manhood is different in heterosexualized and traditional societies.

In traditional societies 'straight' means any masculine gendered male. In terms of sexual preference he is supposed to be the penetrator, and may penetrate man, woman or gay.

In hetrosexualized societies, the membership to straight spaces are reserved only for man's sexual interest in women (whether real or not).

GAYS: Gays are members of the Third gender spaces. The membership of Gay spaces are also different in heterosexualized and traditional societies.

In traditional societies, 'gay' means effeminate males who have receptive anal sex with men.

In heterosexualized societies 'gay' is defined to include all kinds of non-woman sexual interest in men, including both a man's sexual interest in men and a queer's sexual interest in men.

Types of Straight men

Straight Men in heterosexualized spaces consist of the following:

All of the following have significant to exclusive sexual attraction for men, although most will never ever acknowledge it.

1. Straight acting heterosexuals: These are people who fit in the most snuggly in the heterosexualized spaces, because they are naturally capabale of an emotional and social bond with women and they relish it. They have a significant femininity inside them, which is often disguised by extreme social manhood granted to them under the straight identity. They also often have a strong desire to cross-dress or even transexual tendencies. Their visible feminine acts are often ignored by the enormous artificial 'masculine' image that comes with the 'heterosexual' tag in heterosexualized societies.

They are actually meterosexual males, that is they have a strong femininity, but also have enough masculinity to have a masculine ego. While they have a strong sexual desire for men, their emotional desire is partly or completely towards women. The more their emotional/ social bonding desire is towards women, the more queer they are.

Some of them are however, made 'heterosexual' through the various mechanisms of heterosexualization of men.

2. Real straights: These are males who are masculine and the real constituent of the men's spaces or the real 'straights'. Their primary characteristics include:

- they are predominantly masculine gendered.
- they have no natural desire for emotional or social bonding with women, in fact, by nature, they are quite averse to it.

Real straights can be further divided into two parts:

- Type 1: Those who have a purely physical desire for women (largely vaginal intercourse), ranging from strong to moderate. However, this desire is not constant but intermittant/ periodical, and is largely non-discriminatory, i.e. they usually just need a release and are not very choosy about who they take as a partner. However, if they have freedom, they are very choosy about who they choose as a male partner. Under natural circumstances, (which is altered by the heterosexualization of men and society) they tend to be promiscuous vis a vis women, but committed and monogamous vis a vis a man partner.

- Type II: Core Group: Those who, as far as their real nature is concerned, have minimal to no physical desire for women. However, they have to pretend such a desire to stay in the straight group in a heterosexualized society, and are one of the most disadvantaged groups.

The machoest straight men come from this group. This group is also the core of the straight space or the men's spaces. They hold the men's spaces together, and are the real strength or power of men's spaces and of men. The rest of their qualities are similar to those of Type I mentioned above.

The biological queer (heterosexual) is today classified as 'straight' and straight men are forced to copy him

It seems so ironical. The queer, non-man (shikhandi), two spirit male of yesteryears, who was despised for being too emotionally cozy with women, and who just didn't fit into the straight men's spaces and kept out of it because of the intense ridicule they heaped upon him (actually he never needed men's spaces, he was happy to be with women), is now the representative of the straight group since Straight is now equal to heterosexual. Today, straight men are forced to be like him and to copy him in order to remain in men's spaces and to save their manhood.

Really strange and pathetic!

......

Social conspiracy against men: Not having an interest in women = not being a man

For a man to admit that he doesn't have an interest in women (in a heterosexualized or semi-heterosexualized society) is for him to say that he is not a man... In traditional societies it was not so... All you needed to prove your manhood was a functioning penis... and if you could pour your seed into a vagina and produce a baby, you were man for sure.

To question a man's sexuality, therefore is to say that he is not a man... women don't know this and may easily ask a man if he is gay, if they have the slightest suspicion. For the man, its like someone just asked, "Are you really a man?", or "are you a queer, third sex?"

However, there is still a difference between "not being a man" and "being a third sex". You may not like a woman and live like an abnormal 'straight' man. But if you say you have an interest in men, it is then that you become third gender.

Many men pretend to be asexual in order to avoid being classified as 'third sex'. It is one of the mechanisms they have built to avoid this banishment. Others are:

1. Pretending to be stupid.
2. Pretending to be eccentric.

Sexual interest in women

There is enormous social power and manhood attached in the act of showing a "sexual interest in girls", and all men learn that from childhood. Its one major factor that forces them the maximum pressure in their heterosexualization process.

So, men know that to get that power, one must talk about girls and continuously prove one's sexual interest in women. It's an enormous pressure that men have, that gets multiplied severalfolds in a heterosexualized society.

Simultaneously, men also learn that there is immense disempowerment and stigma attached with not having a sexual interest in women, and this adds to the mechanism to force them into being heterosexualized.

So, if a girl is passing, a man will watch her, even if he doesn't really have an interest in her, and if a man who the man finds attractive pass by, the man will try to ignore him, by going all out to pretend that he doesn't even exist for him.

And, if you're in a room full of attractive young men, with even an unattractive girl, straight men will automatically look at that one odd girl, because looking at attractive guys is so disempowering.

Erection woes of men

I am almost certain that men worry about getting an erection if they are to be massaged by a male, and worry about not getting an erection if they are to be massaged by a woman.

Same, when being checked out for a physical...

.....

Disempowerment of men

It's a telling tale of the vulnerability and disempowerment of men that a man cannot say that he has no interest in girls, without losing his social manhood (straight identity in the west) or membership of the men's space.

......

Evidence that 'gay' is actually a conspiracy to banish men who don't give in to social pressure to "do" it with women

The word 'gay' is defined as a man who likes men, but in reality, even in the West where the term has originated, it is, in majority of cases only used by men who have no sexual interest in women, and who don't want to pretend to have it either -- i.e. men who just won't give in to the social pressure to have sexual intercourse with girls, even at the enormous risk of social marginalisation. Even the western society in real sense uses it only for such men, and leaves those who fulfill their 'social responsibility' of fucking women, and then do stuff with guys, alone.

This is proof enough that gay actually is a punishment for men who don't have sex with women, rather than a space for men who like men.

The fact that before the term 'gay' was invented, third sex was the space that was used for such men, as a banishment zone, is clear evidence that 'gay' is nothing but the 'third sex' space and identity of the pre-modernisation, traditional societies.

That the word 'queer', which means a feminine male who gets fucked, is used by gays to describe themselves, and that almost all discourse of homosexuality simultaneously involves a discourse on transgenderism, is again evidence that gay = third gender, rather than a masculine male who likes men.

......

Why is 'Lesbian' not so much stigmatized for women in heterosexual societies

1. Because the heterosexual society is not interested in controlling female sexuality. It wants to give women as much freedom as possible. It wants females to use their sexuality as a power to gain social control over men, and lesbian only adds to it.

2. Because, masculinity in females is not really stigmatised, especially in a heterosexual society its encouraged.

3. Because, women are not really bannished from the women's space the way men are banished into the gay space. There is no history or tradition of women been banished from the women's space, the way it is for men. The third sex space has been abolished even for females who are actually third gender (i.e. masculine women of whatever sexuality), so there's no question of real (feminine) women being isolated and banished wrongly into the third sex space, as masculine men are when they show interest in males. So, that deep rooted fear is not there.

4. Womanhood is not politicised and manipulated. And there's no great value attached to womanhood, the way it is attached to manhood. Women don't have to pass gruesome 'womanhood' tests, the way men have to. You cannot lose 'womanhood' the way you can lose 'manhood'.

5. Child bearing and rearing is the basic drive of women and they don't have to be forced into it, so, the society doesn't have any mechanisms to force women to reproduce. Hence, there has been no such deep-rooted conspiracy against women, as there exists against men to break women from women, neither is bonds, sexual or otherwise as basic a drive for women as (sexual) bonding with men is for men.

6. The heterosexual society, spreads the misinformation, that while amongst men a sexual interest in other men is rare, and only occurs in 'different' (read queer) males, it is much more common and normal in women. In this way, its creating space for women to like other women, without losing their 'woman' identity.

Scientific studies are bluffs

If I were to study a queer heterosexual as the sample for straight with women, don't you think I will come with the conclusion that that heterosexuals have brain structures similar to women, and they walk differently than masculine gendered males (men)?

.....

Straight men only love men as much as the society will give them space within the straight space!

Straight men have a strong need to love other men, but they will only do as much as is the social space available for them to do it (they just won't go to the third gender gay space to do it).

And, surprisingly, they even seem to do the impossible by trying to love men in the negative space available in heterosexual societies, where straight is defined as 'heterosexual'. There they love men by pretending with their lovers that they don't have any sexual feelings even for each other, and by hiding and camouflaging their love for each other and never talking about it... but nevertheless doing a lot of those emotional things that two people intensely in love do, but doing it silently, communicating through silence -- their interest, their hurts, and all those big and small things. They don't speak out even when the relationship they so intensely want is about to break and a small word from them can save it. They'd rather just watch in silence than speak out. They just won't cross the limits set up by the society -- in this case the 'heterosexual' society.

While, all the time their heart beats for their male lover, they keep talking only about women and do all kinds of pretenses to prove their heterosexuality, even when they may or may not have any interest in women.

Jai Mighty Hanuman

I found this information about Hanuman on the net:

The birthday of Hanuman - the supreme devotee of Sri Ram is celebrated on full moon day of the bright lunar phase, in the Hindu month of Chaitra.

The most powerful and valiant Hanuman who was also the gem of the scholars has been an inspiration for all of us since time immemorial. Because of his phenomenal strength and power, Hanuman is revered by the wrestlers.

Hanuman's bravery is unmatched. This is the reason why government of India has named the bravery award on him i.e. Mahavir-Chakra. Being inspired by Hanuman's phenomenal valiance, the supreme warrior Arjun, had established him on the flag of his chariot.

Hanuman is not only brave but he is also an example of supreme loyality and faithfulness, which he had towards his master - Sri Ram. If a man worships Hanuman and takes his refuge, then he will be able to have darshan of Sri Ram in no time - just like Tulsidas.

When Sri Ram met Hanuman for the first time he was very impressed by his knowledge. He told Laxman-"O Laxman, it seems this person (Hanuman) has thoroughly studied the grammar. That is the reason why he did not pronounce incorrectly even a single word, during such a long conversation with me."

Hanuman's high degree of knowledge can be understood from the following incident.

Once Sri Ram asked Hanuman as to who he was. Hanuman replied by saying-

"If you consider me just as the possessor of my physical body, then I am your servant. If you consider me as a soul then I am your 'Ansha' (part). My belief is based on the fact that my existence is not different from you in any way."

On Hanuman Jayanti the various games which are based on strength and power are organised, along with the traditional worship of Hanuman. People are made to understand the phenomenal character of Hanuman - the unmatched warrior of the Indian history...

Sri Rama asked Hanuman: "Hanuman, what
attitude do you cherish towards Me?"

Hanuman answered : "O Rama! When I think I am the body, You are the Master and I am Your servant, when I think I am the jivatman (embodied individual soul), You are the whole and I am a part ; but when I have the Knowledge of Reality, I see that you are I and I am You."

Another evidence that Homosexual = Third Gender

That gays mix their sexuality with gender, and that their gender is of primary importance for them, is clear from the fact that they have appropriated the 'heteroswexual' third sex symbols from history and mythology, e.g., Ardhnarishwar (Indian mythology), berdaches and fa 'afafine, etc, as their historical legacy.

Masculine males who like men exclusively are the backbone of straight space

There are only three kinds of humans: Men, women and third gender. And they all have their respective social spaces.

The men's spaces are very important to men. They are by far the most important thing for them, even more important than their male bonds. And what holds these men's spaces together? Its the emotional/social/sexual need of men for other men -- and that's the biological as well as spiritual significance of man's romantic/emotional/sexual need for men, which a civilisation obssessed with the greed for reproduction will never understand.

By debarring men's love for men from men's spaces, which in the Western societies are forcibly converted into mixed sex spaces (in the name of gender equality), the Western, heterosexualised societies have taken the essence of men's spaces out of them, and have thus weakened these spaces as well as weakened the men themselves, tremendously.

And, it were especially the macho men who were exclusively into loving another man, (like the mighty Hanuman of Indian mythology) who are are the backbone of men's spaces, who hold it together.

If these men cannot be a part of the men's spaces, then who else can be. Who else is more worthy of being in these spaces. Who else is more worthy of manhood. The men's spaces and the masculine man who exclusively loves another man are made for each other.

But, if the society debars these men from men's spaces, (men's spaces are called 'straight' spaces in the Western world, and defined as 'heterosexual'), they make life meaningless for these men, when they are meant to be the power of men and of men's spaces/ straight spaces. The men become weak and vulnerable second class citizens without the power of these men. They become like bonobo monkeys, forever dependant upon women for all their needs, whether they are emotional, physical, sexual or social needs or the need for social power/ status/ manhood. Like in the bonobos, the male becomes the second class citizen, who waits on the female, and whose status in the society is determined by the status of the woman whom the bonobo ape is related to.

Because, these men who are the backbone of men's spaces, and they and men's spaces are made for each other -- these men just can't imagine leaving the straight space for the third gender, half-man/ half-woman space redefined by the Forces of Heterosexualisation as 'homosexual' space. And because straight is defined now as 'heterosexual', these men have to kill their need for another man, and pretend to like women and live as the epitome of masculine heterosexuals.

Ironically, male heterosexuality is essentially queer in nature, and its the masculine man whose heart beats for another man, but who pretends to like women all his life, who makes heterosexuality seem masculine and straight.

Concepts of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality: Part of Western conspiracy against men

The concept of sexual orientation in general and homosexuality in particular, allows the Western society to keep an 'open' facade about things sexual, and at the sametime mess up extensively from behind the scenes, with the definitions, identities and spaces they have created -- of straights and gays.

So, from behind the scenes, they exert extreme pressures on men in the mainstream space (straight) to be (exclusively) heterosexual (sic), while at the sametime loading the homosexual identity with these extremely stigmatised and discriminatory and false baggages:

- That its different
- That its feminine
- That its a minority

And then the Forces of Heterosexualisation work overnight, manipulating powerful social institutions like science and media, to concretize these baggages on male-male sexuality and the extreme pressures on 'straight' defined men.

So, you have all these scientific theories proving that gays (which is assumed to include all males who like men, only because their own definition says so: Its a circulatory argument typical of Christian societies) are diferent from straights, (not only in terms of sexuality, but also in terms of gender) and are more like women. So, you have all these frivolous sounding researches proving, after spending loads of public money, that gays have brains like women, they walk like women, they react like women, and so on and so forth.

There is nothing wrong with these researches, except that gays actually represent only the feminine gendered males who like men, not all men who like men. And that most straight men have a strong sexual need, sometimes exclusive sexual need for men, even though they are conditioned and pressurised to hate, hide and disown this need. That the actual differnce between 'gay' and 'straight' is not that of sexuality (i.e. homosexual/ heterosexual), but of Gender (i.e. feminine/masculine). And that what these theories actually find out is that the feminine gendered males are different from masculine gendered males and are more like women. It has nothing to do with men liking men, but to do with the feminine gender of these males. Therefore, even if you study and compare feminine gendered males who like women, you will find the same differences. Would they, then, say that men who like women are dissimilar to straight men and similar to women?

The media on its part spreads these half-baked, ill conceived theories as gospel truths without ever questioning them. Because, Media is also part of the conspiracy against men, since its controlled by the Forces of Heterosexualisation.

Since the homosexual space is already built on the extremely stigmatised, different, queer (feminine), minority, third sex -- so the base to paint it as unmanly or half-male/ half-female is already there. The Forces of Heterosexualisation, through their formal definitions, just hide this essence/ basis of the homosexual space, so what appears from outside is male-male sexuality, but from behind the scenes, it manipulates the third sex aspect to the hilt. And in a way, that no one can question -- to question you would have to go the basics of the Western society which is very powerful.

DENYING MAINSTREAM MEN THE SPACE TO TALK POSITIVELY ABOUT MAN TO MAN SEXUALITY

By creating the concept of homosexuality in such an extremely manipulative and anti-man manner, the Western society successfully marginalises man to man sexuality and any discourse on the topic, for men in the mainstream, who are in any case forced to define themselves as (exclusively and perpetually) heterosexual. Man to man sexuality can only be discussed, analysed or studied within the limited context of the space allocated to it by the heterosexual society -- i.e., the marginalised third gender space. It's exactly the similar situation, when you seek to study homosexualtiy in the context of mental asylums, so you are bound to find out that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Likewise, when you study man to man sexuality in the context of the third sex 'homosexual' or 'gay' space, you are bound to infer that men who like men are different from 'straight' men (who are masculine) and similar to women (who are feminine).

Now isn't that something that the non-Western world always, always knew from time immemorial -- that the third sex is like women from inside. That is why they called them half men and half women. It is the Western society which had forgotten this and many other truths about natural male gender and sexuality, because of the Christian influence.

However, unlike the modern West, the ancients never confused third sex with man's sexual interest in men -- something they always considered a masculine trait. They always differentiated between a man's (in Western context, a straight man's) sexual love for men and a third gender's sexual interest in men. The former was much deeper and meaningful. The latter was more of a physical nature, seeking promiscuous receptive anal and oral sex from men. Exactly the stuff the homosexual identity is made up of.

If 'homosexual' just referred to sex between men it would not have been a problem.

If 'gay' or 'homosexual' just meant sex between men or sexual interest between two men, it would not have been a problem at all. If it was just used to refer to the sex acts that any (straight) man could indulge in or likely to have the desire to indulge in, without losing his manhood or the straight identity, it would not have been a problem at all.
In fact Indian straight men did not really mind using it at all in the beginning for their own sexuality for men, before the heterosexualisation process slowly started, because they thought it only meant 'sex between men'. So, a straight man could easily say, "let's have homo sex" to his pal without his manhood being threatened in anyway. All that changed about 6 years ago...
The real problem with these terms is that, they don't really just mean 'sexuality between men'. The concept of 'homosexuality' comes with lots of extremely invalid implicit and explicit assumptions and baggages, viz.:
1) It propagates and designates you as being 'different' from other men, when actually you are just one of them.
2) It propagates that only a minority of males have this trait, while the rest, designated as 'straights' do not, when the truth is that All men have a sexual need for men.
3) It is used to isolate you from the masculine mainstream male group, called 'straight' in the West, and throws you with the feminine gendered males in the third sex 'gay' space, when you're actually the hallmark of straight.
4) It propagates that gay or homosexuality is a feminine or effeminate trait, and people who have this trait are essentially 'different' from people who go by the straight identity and so are assumed not to have this trait.

Do you wonder why sex with women has been a criteria for granting manhood... ?

Because to most men, it sucks...

For most straight men, sex with women is a highly painful test, that they nevertheless have to go through, as a proof of their manhood. Something from which they have no escape. And they spend most of their youth trying to prepare themselves for the eventuality.

They do so much, date women to feel comfortable with them, eventually, watch loads and loads of girl porn to develop an interest eventually, masturbate over girl's pics, look at girls all the time, when they couldn't care less -- in fact making it their second nature to do so, rub their crotches with willing girls in crowded buses to feel arousal through girls in a non-threatening environment (as the girl cannot call them 'namard' or 'gay' for not getting an erection), chat with lots of different girls on internet, again to remove their emotional and social discomfort and thousands of such other maneuvres to help them prepare for the day, when one day they will

It is not very different from the ones that they had to go through several thousands years ago, when they had to go through excruciating painful tests like being engraved with knives all over their bodies. Only this is not a one time test, and men have to pretend that all the time that they just love it.

I see that happening all around me, and the more I learn about men, and their double lives, the more apparent this struggle of theirs becomes.

GAY = THIRD GENDER

Gay is only an extension of the third gender space. It represents the extreme politics of the Forces of Heterosexualisation (FoH) to wrongly redefine gender identity/ spaces in terms of sexuality.
Third gender, has for long been a discredited and much feared banishment zone for men. Gay in westernised societies does the same function. What other proof do you need that it is built to serve the same purpose, except that third gender could isolate only feminine males who had receptive anal sex, while the concept of gay can be used to isolate the entire spectrum of male to male sexuality.

QUEERING MASCULINITY

Its really funny when Western gays seek to study the third sex under the stream of 'masculinity'. For the feminine gays, anything to do with males, even feminine males, is 'masculinity' and should be studied as such. Thus they talk about masculinity not being a singular concept but of 'masculinities'. And, the most funny part is that they study male femininity as 'masculinity'. They work on the rights of the third sex, as a right of 'masculinity'. They thus unnecessarily stigmatise the very concept of 'masculinity' and people start relating it with 'gay'. They thus queer masculinity itself.

.....

How many kinds of Homosexuals are there?

Feminine gendered males who like men or the 'Homosexuals' can be divided into three parts:

- The transgendered males who like men -- the original third sex.

- The effeminate (but not transgendered) males who like men. When men's spaces were strong, these males existed as an inbetween between the men's spaces and the third sex... behaving like transgendered when in third sex spaces, and like men when in men's spaces. They rarely cross-dressed, and did so only in the third sex spaces.

- The 'straight-acting gay'. These males are partly feminine, partly masculine, but their masculinity is stronger than that of the effeminate male, but still superficial. When men's spaces were strong, they were part of the men's spaces, but would often interact with the third sex for sex. In the Westernised division between masculine 'straight' and 'feminine 'gay', they prefer to live as 'gays' rather than straight.
They believe themselves to be masculine, but this is because, the western society makes them feel masculinity is only skin deep and a matter of wearing clothes meant for men, and to adopt a couple of mannerisms. Therefore, they call themsevles 'straight acting'. However, meeting most of them makes it clear that they are 'different'.

The Western society wants complete eradication of man to man bonding

The modern Western society has waged a war against man to man sexuality like its a virus that needs to be completley eradicated from the men's population. The traditional society was content with suppressing this 'virus' so that it does not come in the way of marriage and reproduction, and did not need to be totally eradicated.

For this complete eradication of this 'virus' the Western society has created the strategy of quarantining man to man sexual need in the third sex 'homosexual' space, which has been specially created by the institution of science for this purpose.

However, in reality, its the Heterosexualisation which is really a disease. And the concept of sexual orientation, which needs to be fought by men.

But, how will they fight, as long as they are busy serving their oppressors for greed of the social powers granted by them.

Why not fight against this disease and snatch their powers to grant social manhood and power to us. Why not snatch our control of men's spaces from those Forces of Heterosexualisation? And be the masters of our own manhood and spaces.

Wrongly portraying man's sexual need for men as 'diffferent' and 'alternative'

They started portraying man's sexual need for men, and men who were seen to have this need as different.
How they achieved it was, they showed third sex that loved men as 'men who loved men'. That is, by deliberately ignoring the gender differences between the third sex and men (when it came to sexual need between men), they confused their (feminine male's) sexual interest and their femininity in the minds of the world.
Everything about the third sex is different from men, even when they have the outer body and sexual organs of a male.
The way they walk, talk conduct themselves, relate with each other and with the world -- it's all different from men. So, naturally, their sexual interest in men would be different from men too. But, what the Forces of Heterosexualisation suppressed with equal force was the fact that the third sex was also majorly into sexual interest in women, and that their sexual interest in women was different in essence from that of men too. It doesn't make 'men who like women' different from normal men.
Right now, the Westernisd forces of Heterosexualisation are busy doing the same manipulation in India. I was just now watching the movie 'partner' on TV, where a 'gay' (a feminine, limp wristed male) was singing "Aadmi hoon aadmi se pyaar karta hoon" (an old Hindi song that goes I'm a man and I love a man). However, this was never seen earlier to be applying to the third sex. It talk about a general love of mankind, in any case. But what I felt like asking the 'gay', Are you really a man? I mean Its only the westernised gays that consider them a 'man', because they think man is the same as male. And they accomodate their gender difference in their 'gay' identity, since the society confuses their sexual need for men as emanating from their femininity.The desi (vernacular, local) 'gays' have no qualms about calling themselves third sex, and they don't want to be called a man. Neither are they considered men.