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.