Saturday, November 28, 2009
In the pre-heterosexualized/ pre-modernized/ pre-westernized world, both men and women had their own share of burden, as far as sexuality is concerned. The consequences of the sexual roles may have had implications for women only in the sexual field for women, but for men it had far reaching consequences that permeated every aspect of their life. However, the good thing was that the various playing forces -- the anti-man forces (which ruled the formal space) and men's spaces (informal spaces) -- created a sort of balance, where both men and women were compensated for what they lost, and neither could exploit the other sexually.
Under the pre-modern system, while women were supposed not to have any sexuality for men, men were supposed to have an everready, never ending, sexuality for women, that was expected to define their very existence.
The modern West, with its anti-man forces getting extremely powerful through the wealths of industrianlization and the tools they developed (ab)using science, liberated women from their sexual burden and gave them space to be sexual with men.
However, they did not liberate the man from his sexual burden -- on purpose too -- in fact, they took these burden to the extreme and concretized them through science -- by reinventing the 'manhood' identity itself as 'heterosexual' thus making sure that there is no escape for men from their sexual enslavement to women.
This had the effect that:
1. The delicate balance created by the earlier humans between the inter-gender powers of men and women --both visible and invisble -- was lost.
2. Women now had extreme exploitation powers over men -- both, in the sexual arena and the social arena.
3. Men lost all leeway, and now they don't have any respite from their burdens. The only way to escape the pressures now is to leave manhood, and all its privilieges and take on the disempowered, third gender gay identity, which is not an option for men at all.
It's ironic when the same anti-man forces who have brought this about and who perpetuate and enforce this new system, talk passionately about women's rights.
Under the pre-modern system, while women were supposed not to have any sexuality for men, men were supposed to have an everready, never ending, sexuality for women, that was expected to define their very existence.
The modern West, with its anti-man forces getting extremely powerful through the wealths of industrianlization and the tools they developed (ab)using science, liberated women from their sexual burden and gave them space to be sexual with men.
However, they did not liberate the man from his sexual burden -- on purpose too -- in fact, they took these burden to the extreme and concretized them through science -- by reinventing the 'manhood' identity itself as 'heterosexual' thus making sure that there is no escape for men from their sexual enslavement to women.
This had the effect that:
1. The delicate balance created by the earlier humans between the inter-gender powers of men and women --both visible and invisble -- was lost.
2. Women now had extreme exploitation powers over men -- both, in the sexual arena and the social arena.
3. Men lost all leeway, and now they don't have any respite from their burdens. The only way to escape the pressures now is to leave manhood, and all its privilieges and take on the disempowered, third gender gay identity, which is not an option for men at all.
It's ironic when the same anti-man forces who have brought this about and who perpetuate and enforce this new system, talk passionately about women's rights.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The conspiracy behind 'gay'
The conspiracy behind 'gay' is that it abuses 'science' to give validity to the exclusion of men who don't have sex with women from manhood and mainstream men's spaces -- and it does it in the most concrete fashion.
It concretizes the 'third genderization' of such men, which was only 'loosely' done till the invention of the concept of 'homosexuality.'
It concretizes the 'third genderization' of such men, which was only 'loosely' done till the invention of the concept of 'homosexuality.'
Friday, November 13, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Liberating women, enslaving men
In a society where a man is not considered a man unless he has sex with women, and there is no space for men to say no to women without losing their manhood, in a society where women have been artificially invested with such immense power over men as the granters of manhood, it makes perfect sense to put restraints on women's sexuality, in order to create a balance. To stop men from becoming totally helpless and vulnerable, even as they do their best to fulfil their social roles, and to stop women from becoming exploitative.
It is under this background that the restrictions placed on women's sexuality -- from making them go in purdah, to disallowing them from wearing 'sexy' clothee, to stopping them from showing sexual feelings openly -- should be seen. The men's sexuality is chained too. But the chains are not outward, but inward, on their souls. And men are not even supposed to complain, if they have to retain their right to get social manhood.
The West sees the outer restrictions on women and cries foul and shouts about "lack of women's rights' in non-Western societies. But it fails to see the immense restrictions placed on men's sexuality, that are not readily visible. It's the typical Western outlook at life, symbolised by its insistence of 'science' as the means to understand the truth -- the axiom that "only that can be seen exists." So, since you can't see men's chains, they surely must not exist.
This mentality gives immense freedom to the anti-man forces to run amok and further tighten the restrictions placed on men, and concretizes the requirement of men to have sex with women in order to gain social manhood, into a 'heterosexual' identity, and requires men to have a constant and exclusive desire for men. Since men are forced to pretend to have such exclusive heterosexual desires, western 'science' then uses this as proof that heterosexuality is a basic man's trait. that defines manhood, since, "what appears has to be real" is the axiom that the superficial West goes by.
So, the West liberates women from the chains on their sexuality. In fact, it gives them space to be sexual in a way that is way more than what happens naturally, through the use of contraceptives and freeing women from the 'burden' of procreation -- while forcing men into sex with women on the pretext that it is important for procreation.
At the sametime, the West takes the internal chains of men's sexuality to its extreme, by introducing the system of 'sexual orientation' which takes away all space from men to be anything but heterosexual, to be a part of the men's spaces and social manhood.
It is no wonder then that most men turn out to be heterosexual. Some of it is real, some a pretense. But even the real ones aren't natural. They have been artificially heterosexualized through the politics of male gender and sexuality.
And this is the real story of man's enslavement, which Western science won't tell you.
It is under this background that the restrictions placed on women's sexuality -- from making them go in purdah, to disallowing them from wearing 'sexy' clothee, to stopping them from showing sexual feelings openly -- should be seen. The men's sexuality is chained too. But the chains are not outward, but inward, on their souls. And men are not even supposed to complain, if they have to retain their right to get social manhood.
The West sees the outer restrictions on women and cries foul and shouts about "lack of women's rights' in non-Western societies. But it fails to see the immense restrictions placed on men's sexuality, that are not readily visible. It's the typical Western outlook at life, symbolised by its insistence of 'science' as the means to understand the truth -- the axiom that "only that can be seen exists." So, since you can't see men's chains, they surely must not exist.
This mentality gives immense freedom to the anti-man forces to run amok and further tighten the restrictions placed on men, and concretizes the requirement of men to have sex with women in order to gain social manhood, into a 'heterosexual' identity, and requires men to have a constant and exclusive desire for men. Since men are forced to pretend to have such exclusive heterosexual desires, western 'science' then uses this as proof that heterosexuality is a basic man's trait. that defines manhood, since, "what appears has to be real" is the axiom that the superficial West goes by.
So, the West liberates women from the chains on their sexuality. In fact, it gives them space to be sexual in a way that is way more than what happens naturally, through the use of contraceptives and freeing women from the 'burden' of procreation -- while forcing men into sex with women on the pretext that it is important for procreation.
At the sametime, the West takes the internal chains of men's sexuality to its extreme, by introducing the system of 'sexual orientation' which takes away all space from men to be anything but heterosexual, to be a part of the men's spaces and social manhood.
It is no wonder then that most men turn out to be heterosexual. Some of it is real, some a pretense. But even the real ones aren't natural. They have been artificially heterosexualized through the politics of male gender and sexuality.
And this is the real story of man's enslavement, which Western science won't tell you.
Friday, October 9, 2009
"I'm harsh towards guys, but soft towards girls ..." -- Western manhood
After having fraudunlently established Heterosexuality as the new definition of Manhood, the Western society propagates male softeness -- in fact, male servility to women in sexual contexts (the only context in which men are expected to see women) as 'masculine' and 'manly'. This servility is easily carried forward in all interactions of men with women, since, in any case, sexuality is the only context in which manly men are expected to see women in the West.
At the sametime, manly, masculine males are expected not to be soft, and certainly never servile towards another man in a sexual context. That is propagated as the queerest of things to do. Men are expected to become hard like rock, indifferent and antagonistic to other men, in the sexual context. The anti-man forces, then easily carry forward this expectation from men into all interactions between men, and even non-sexual softness of a man for another is tagged as effeminate (i.e. 'gay').
This is only a small part of the politics of gender and sexuality which is part of the anti-man conspiracy, used by the Western society to manipulate not only the social and sexual behaviour or men, but even their very thoughts.
However, in reality, or, in nature, softness and servility towards a man who loves you, only enhances your manhood. This softness allows your masculinity to merge with the masculinity of another man, and this combination does wonders to the masculinity and manhood of each man.
In western, heterosexualized contexts, where each man is out to prove is repulsion for guys, and those who show softness towards other guys are disempowered artificially, if a man does show softness to another guy he loves, the other man, even if he loves the man too, will respond with rudeness, as he becomes extremely insecure about his own love for another man. This situation then harms the manhood of the man who shows softness towards the other. If he continues to show this softness/ servility to another man who continues to show rudeness to him, even while they share a 'relationship' of some sort, it makes the first male emasculated, and thus 'gay' or 'homosexual' while the other man keeps his manhood and remains 'straight'. But this is brought about through an unnatural, social engineering and doesn't reflect the reality.
In nature, softness and servility towards women, especially in sexual contexts severely depletes a man's masculinity and manhood, in a way, no other activity can. Softness and servility towards women tends to transfer the man's masculinity on to the woman and transfer her femininity on to the man. In the end, both are queered. Masculinity and femininity don't naturally merge. They negate each other.
However, in western, heterosexualized spaces, this natural process is reverted through artificial social engineering. When a man shows servility towards another female, his membership of the straight (manhood) is strengthened, which increases his manhood and power. His sense of manhood is artificially augmented and he is looked at as an ideal by his peers, who are all competing to achieve heterosexuality as the new 'manhood'. This of course, queers the men's gender as a whole. This manhood of a 'heterosexual' male servile to women, that makes him do extremely feminine stuff such as performing oral sex on women, or be emotionally bonding with the woman, may be a reality, but it has been brought about by an unnatural process, by reverting the process of nature through 'science.'
This is how modern science adds to the ancient politics of male gender and sexuality.
In every male dominated, macho, warrior cultures of the past or even the present, male servility to another man in a love bond was considered highly masculinizing for both the men. The most prominent example is the servility of Hanuman to Ram. Hanuman is THE deity of macho males in India. He is manhood deitified. He grants manhood to his worshippers. But, ancient societies are full of such examples. Indeed, the every warrior culture promoted such male romantic bonds where each man was servile to the other, but was disastrous for the enemy. Whether it was the sacred bond of Thebes or the mighty warriors of Samurais, male servility in a love bond with another man was rightly considered the ultimate act of manhood. And, unlike the manhood of modern west's heterosexuals, there was nothing unnatural about this. This happened naturally, through a natural process of development of manhood.
At the sametime, servility or softness to a woman, and thus a contact with a woman has been considered the ultimate queering or feminizing act or trait by a man. All these warrior cultures thrived by avoiding any contact with women, except for procreation. Any further contact apart from vaginal sex for procreation was avoided like plague by these warrior cultures, even within marriage, which had become a social duty of men in the societies by now. Eg. Hanuman stayed away from women, even their shadows. And his macho warrior followers called Pehelwans, to this day avoid even the shadow of women, and remain unmarried for their entire life. Even the married devout followers of Hanuman have only procreative sex with their wifes, while others stay away from sex with their wives/ girlfriends on Tuesdays. This is to please a god who grants manhood. Similarly, amongst the Greeks, it was believed that too much sex with women, even vaginal intercourse is a sign of femininity. In India, even today, a man who is servile to women is called "Joru ka ghulaam" a negative term that points to the lack of manhood in the male. Men in such societies will never even dream about performing oral sex on their women. And certainly will baulk at the idea of holding their hands, especially in public.
The Samurai warriors, although married, had romantic bonds only with another male, and had a very social, superficial relationship with their wives. It is said that Samurai warriors slept with their wives with a dagger below their pillows, because they did not trust their wives at all.
Indeed, there was also a time, at the very beginning of human civilization, when adolesent males were sown with the seeds of male sperm through anal sex in order to masculinize them and to remove the femininity that had accumulated in them through living with the females all these years, as can still be witnessed in the far off, Samoan warrior tribes of Papa New Guinea. These warrior cultures looked down upon 'whores' so much, that they were thought to be witches out to rob men of their manhood.
This hatred of 'whores' or sexually promiscuous or 'heterosexual' women is still rampant in male dominated, machoistic societies of the world. INterestingly, the Western feminine society glorifies the whores and their queered males bow before them.
At the sametime, manly, masculine males are expected not to be soft, and certainly never servile towards another man in a sexual context. That is propagated as the queerest of things to do. Men are expected to become hard like rock, indifferent and antagonistic to other men, in the sexual context. The anti-man forces, then easily carry forward this expectation from men into all interactions between men, and even non-sexual softness of a man for another is tagged as effeminate (i.e. 'gay').
This is only a small part of the politics of gender and sexuality which is part of the anti-man conspiracy, used by the Western society to manipulate not only the social and sexual behaviour or men, but even their very thoughts.
However, in reality, or, in nature, softness and servility towards a man who loves you, only enhances your manhood. This softness allows your masculinity to merge with the masculinity of another man, and this combination does wonders to the masculinity and manhood of each man.
In western, heterosexualized contexts, where each man is out to prove is repulsion for guys, and those who show softness towards other guys are disempowered artificially, if a man does show softness to another guy he loves, the other man, even if he loves the man too, will respond with rudeness, as he becomes extremely insecure about his own love for another man. This situation then harms the manhood of the man who shows softness towards the other. If he continues to show this softness/ servility to another man who continues to show rudeness to him, even while they share a 'relationship' of some sort, it makes the first male emasculated, and thus 'gay' or 'homosexual' while the other man keeps his manhood and remains 'straight'. But this is brought about through an unnatural, social engineering and doesn't reflect the reality.
In nature, softness and servility towards women, especially in sexual contexts severely depletes a man's masculinity and manhood, in a way, no other activity can. Softness and servility towards women tends to transfer the man's masculinity on to the woman and transfer her femininity on to the man. In the end, both are queered. Masculinity and femininity don't naturally merge. They negate each other.
However, in western, heterosexualized spaces, this natural process is reverted through artificial social engineering. When a man shows servility towards another female, his membership of the straight (manhood) is strengthened, which increases his manhood and power. His sense of manhood is artificially augmented and he is looked at as an ideal by his peers, who are all competing to achieve heterosexuality as the new 'manhood'. This of course, queers the men's gender as a whole. This manhood of a 'heterosexual' male servile to women, that makes him do extremely feminine stuff such as performing oral sex on women, or be emotionally bonding with the woman, may be a reality, but it has been brought about by an unnatural process, by reverting the process of nature through 'science.'
This is how modern science adds to the ancient politics of male gender and sexuality.
In every male dominated, macho, warrior cultures of the past or even the present, male servility to another man in a love bond was considered highly masculinizing for both the men. The most prominent example is the servility of Hanuman to Ram. Hanuman is THE deity of macho males in India. He is manhood deitified. He grants manhood to his worshippers. But, ancient societies are full of such examples. Indeed, the every warrior culture promoted such male romantic bonds where each man was servile to the other, but was disastrous for the enemy. Whether it was the sacred bond of Thebes or the mighty warriors of Samurais, male servility in a love bond with another man was rightly considered the ultimate act of manhood. And, unlike the manhood of modern west's heterosexuals, there was nothing unnatural about this. This happened naturally, through a natural process of development of manhood.
At the sametime, servility or softness to a woman, and thus a contact with a woman has been considered the ultimate queering or feminizing act or trait by a man. All these warrior cultures thrived by avoiding any contact with women, except for procreation. Any further contact apart from vaginal sex for procreation was avoided like plague by these warrior cultures, even within marriage, which had become a social duty of men in the societies by now. Eg. Hanuman stayed away from women, even their shadows. And his macho warrior followers called Pehelwans, to this day avoid even the shadow of women, and remain unmarried for their entire life. Even the married devout followers of Hanuman have only procreative sex with their wifes, while others stay away from sex with their wives/ girlfriends on Tuesdays. This is to please a god who grants manhood. Similarly, amongst the Greeks, it was believed that too much sex with women, even vaginal intercourse is a sign of femininity. In India, even today, a man who is servile to women is called "Joru ka ghulaam" a negative term that points to the lack of manhood in the male. Men in such societies will never even dream about performing oral sex on their women. And certainly will baulk at the idea of holding their hands, especially in public.
The Samurai warriors, although married, had romantic bonds only with another male, and had a very social, superficial relationship with their wives. It is said that Samurai warriors slept with their wives with a dagger below their pillows, because they did not trust their wives at all.
Indeed, there was also a time, at the very beginning of human civilization, when adolesent males were sown with the seeds of male sperm through anal sex in order to masculinize them and to remove the femininity that had accumulated in them through living with the females all these years, as can still be witnessed in the far off, Samoan warrior tribes of Papa New Guinea. These warrior cultures looked down upon 'whores' so much, that they were thought to be witches out to rob men of their manhood.
This hatred of 'whores' or sexually promiscuous or 'heterosexual' women is still rampant in male dominated, machoistic societies of the world. INterestingly, the Western feminine society glorifies the whores and their queered males bow before them.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Gays can't see the sexuality of straight males for each other, because its masked
Let's be very clear about one thing.
Men, i.e. those whom the western society today defines as 'straight' do not own their sexual desire for men only because, the third genders, whom the western society today calls the 'homosexuals' have taken it up as their identity.
For more than three thousand years, men have been avoiding like hell, anything that becomes associated with the third genders. Because, the politics of male gender and sexuality have marginalized the third genders and the third gender space/ identity has been (ab)used as banishment zone for men who don't conform to the manhood terms fixed by those controlling formal manhood. Men just hate that.
Let's also be clear that only those who are on the straight side are real men, those on the side of the LGBT's are third genders.
So, straight identified males deny they have any desire for men, because otherwise they'd be called 'gays' (third genders). They avoid any fashion, any set of behaviours that the society associates with the gays. And the anti-man forces that control manhood in the West today, know this very well and exploit this weakness of men to the hilt by propagating anything they want men to disown as 'gay'. The third genders (gays) feel powerful everytime a masculine male trait is attributed to them ... even if this empowerment is at the cost of men.
So, even if men have sexual play with each other, whenever they get the time, they like to see each other naked, touch each other, they would not do anything that is in the 'gay' zone. So, they may strip each other to see them naked, under a proper, acceptable excuse, they will not kiss each other or hold each other's hands, especially in public, because that is seen as 'gay'. It's not that they are averse to kissing another man or holding hands with them, but that is established as 'gay' by the anti-man forces.
Then again, they'd do that and a lot more in sports, because, there men's spaces are still strong and its not considered 'gay'.
So, its not surprising at all that the third genders (homosexuals) can't see the sexual need for each other that is hidden in the suppressed ways men (straight males) relate with each other physically. In fact, gays are so hung up on the relating sexuality with identity, that they will have a full-fledged relationship with a guy, who will keep refusing he has anything going for a guy, and still have monogamous sex with the 'gay' ... and the gay would still naively believe that the straight guy has no sexual feeling for gay. In his queer mind, if he did, he'd be 'gay', not 'straight'.
Men, i.e. those whom the western society today defines as 'straight' do not own their sexual desire for men only because, the third genders, whom the western society today calls the 'homosexuals' have taken it up as their identity.
For more than three thousand years, men have been avoiding like hell, anything that becomes associated with the third genders. Because, the politics of male gender and sexuality have marginalized the third genders and the third gender space/ identity has been (ab)used as banishment zone for men who don't conform to the manhood terms fixed by those controlling formal manhood. Men just hate that.
Let's also be clear that only those who are on the straight side are real men, those on the side of the LGBT's are third genders.
So, straight identified males deny they have any desire for men, because otherwise they'd be called 'gays' (third genders). They avoid any fashion, any set of behaviours that the society associates with the gays. And the anti-man forces that control manhood in the West today, know this very well and exploit this weakness of men to the hilt by propagating anything they want men to disown as 'gay'. The third genders (gays) feel powerful everytime a masculine male trait is attributed to them ... even if this empowerment is at the cost of men.
So, even if men have sexual play with each other, whenever they get the time, they like to see each other naked, touch each other, they would not do anything that is in the 'gay' zone. So, they may strip each other to see them naked, under a proper, acceptable excuse, they will not kiss each other or hold each other's hands, especially in public, because that is seen as 'gay'. It's not that they are averse to kissing another man or holding hands with them, but that is established as 'gay' by the anti-man forces.
Then again, they'd do that and a lot more in sports, because, there men's spaces are still strong and its not considered 'gay'.
So, its not surprising at all that the third genders (homosexuals) can't see the sexual need for each other that is hidden in the suppressed ways men (straight males) relate with each other physically. In fact, gays are so hung up on the relating sexuality with identity, that they will have a full-fledged relationship with a guy, who will keep refusing he has anything going for a guy, and still have monogamous sex with the 'gay' ... and the gay would still naively believe that the straight guy has no sexual feeling for gay. In his queer mind, if he did, he'd be 'gay', not 'straight'.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Christianity as well as western science has a need to distort truth to fit its ideology
Christianity lacks the ability to accept nature as it is. They must manipulate, distort, hide, suppress, exaggerate or destroy aspects of nature, in order to make it fit into their ideology.
Modern science has taken from this Christian attitude. Indeed, science developed as an antidote to western religion. Modern science too seeks to distort nature in order to fit its preconceived theories, that often are influenced by Christianity in the matters of "male gender & sexuality" and "manhood".
Modern science has taken from this Christian attitude. Indeed, science developed as an antidote to western religion. Modern science too seeks to distort nature in order to fit its preconceived theories, that often are influenced by Christianity in the matters of "male gender & sexuality" and "manhood".
Monday, August 31, 2009
Interesting Question
http://vishvaksaen.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-say-thou.html
what say thou??
Jul 25, 2009
i for once can never understand the concept of love and couple in college level.dating is fine.but the way they do it is sick.anywaystheres a dark alleyway that connects my house to the main road.very rarely used and has high buildings on both sides.in short ideal for our "couples" to romance.so i find one of my college couples standing there two days back.i dint care especially since the girl was not great looking.and then yesterday i saw them again in the evening there.both days they just stood there and spoke.today i saw them in the afternoon about 1pm.and four hours later they are still standing there!! no seriously.. four hours how can you stand in a lifeless place??only our "couples " could do that.
i always wondered what do couples have to speak hours and hours over the fone and in straight.i mean yeah let them start off with i got in the morning,brushed using close up paste,mom made idli,i put red jetti so on and so forth.let them give running commentary till what they are doing right now.but even then how can they speak for so long?.all these things at the maximum will take a couple of hours to speak about .what do they speak after that??hmmm.. yeah tell.. what are you doing..nothing..tell something..what tell something..something..ok something..hahaha ur very funny..thevdiya pasanga.give me a break. calls after calls,beaches,cinema,malls,college canteen,shady places .. every fucking spot.they just stand and talk. no seriously what do they talk?? i could never imagine talking for more than an hour or two.thats to say the most interesting subject with the most knowledgeable and sweetest person you can find.i would kill to know how others talk for so long and yet so pointless??i have heard love is blind.is it deaf too??
free
what say thou??
Jul 25, 2009
i for once can never understand the concept of love and couple in college level.dating is fine.but the way they do it is sick.anywaystheres a dark alleyway that connects my house to the main road.very rarely used and has high buildings on both sides.in short ideal for our "couples" to romance.so i find one of my college couples standing there two days back.i dint care especially since the girl was not great looking.and then yesterday i saw them again in the evening there.both days they just stood there and spoke.today i saw them in the afternoon about 1pm.and four hours later they are still standing there!! no seriously.. four hours how can you stand in a lifeless place??only our "couples " could do that.
i always wondered what do couples have to speak hours and hours over the fone and in straight.i mean yeah let them start off with i got in the morning,brushed using close up paste,mom made idli,i put red jetti so on and so forth.let them give running commentary till what they are doing right now.but even then how can they speak for so long?.all these things at the maximum will take a couple of hours to speak about .what do they speak after that??hmmm.. yeah tell.. what are you doing..nothing..tell something..what tell something..something..ok something..hahaha ur very funny..thevdiya pasanga.give me a break. calls after calls,beaches,cinema,malls,college canteen,shady places .. every fucking spot.they just stand and talk. no seriously what do they talk?? i could never imagine talking for more than an hour or two.thats to say the most interesting subject with the most knowledgeable and sweetest person you can find.i would kill to know how others talk for so long and yet so pointless??i have heard love is blind.is it deaf too??
free
Fear, hostility and anxiety helps in suppressing sexual desire for men
Just now there's a sexual counselling programme on Care World channel, where a caller asked that his wife doesn't want to have sex after getting pregnant.
The doctor said, although, the libido of the woman actually increases once she gets pregnant, however, in our country because women have a strong fear and anxiety that sex at this time may harm the foetus, this makes their libido comes down.
If negative feelings can make make changes in sexual desire, then it stands to reason that all that hostility, and the heavy price that is extracted of men for giving space to their sexual feelings for men, that causes immense fear and anxiety in them, will make their sexuality for men decrease several folds, thus paving the way for diverting this sexual libido for men into women (where it is not only allowed but promoted and awarded), as part of the heterosexualization process.
The doctor said, although, the libido of the woman actually increases once she gets pregnant, however, in our country because women have a strong fear and anxiety that sex at this time may harm the foetus, this makes their libido comes down.
If negative feelings can make make changes in sexual desire, then it stands to reason that all that hostility, and the heavy price that is extracted of men for giving space to their sexual feelings for men, that causes immense fear and anxiety in them, will make their sexuality for men decrease several folds, thus paving the way for diverting this sexual libido for men into women (where it is not only allowed but promoted and awarded), as part of the heterosexualization process.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The heterosexual society has made a complex mechanism to demasculinize men who log on to their sexuality for men, and don't respond to the social mechanisms meant to divert the male sexual desire for men towards women.
This process of demasculinization is formalized in the form of a gay identity that is originally the third sex identity redefined by a society meant to deny manhood to men who own up their desire for men, as a "man who like man" identity.
Gay stands for demasculinization of men.
This process of demasculinization is formalized in the form of a gay identity that is originally the third sex identity redefined by a society meant to deny manhood to men who own up their desire for men, as a "man who like man" identity.
Gay stands for demasculinization of men.
Friday, August 7, 2009
What is wrong with 'gay'?
What is wrong with gay is that although, its defined as "men who like men", biologically, socially and historically, it is about being 'third gender that likes men' not "men who like men".
Unless you negate the existence of third genders as a valid and separate entity on their own, you cannot mix 'men' with 'third genders' on the pretext that they both like men.
Afterall, the same western society separates 'queer heterosexuals' with 'gays' (LGBT), and not with straights, making it amply clear that it does make a distinction between 'men' and 'third genders' who like women.
Unless you negate the existence of third genders as a valid and separate entity on their own, you cannot mix 'men' with 'third genders' on the pretext that they both like men.
Afterall, the same western society separates 'queer heterosexuals' with 'gays' (LGBT), and not with straights, making it amply clear that it does make a distinction between 'men' and 'third genders' who like women.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Gender determines who you are, not sexuality
MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY ARE IMPORTANT
The homo-hetero division between men is baseless and invalid.
Men can't be divided socially on the basis of what and who they like in bed. It cannot define your identity. Just like men can't be divided socially on the basis of what you like to eat or drink, or what kind of entertainment you like.
Men can only be divided on the basis of who they are, i.e., what their gender identity is. And there are only two kinds of gender identities for men: Men with male gender identity, and men with female gender identity. That is the only biological, historical and practical distinction between men.
What you like or enjoy can never decide who you are socially. Only what you are (masculine or feminine) can decide your social identity.
Especially, when almost all males are open to sexuality with men, this homo-hetero division becomes pointless, unless the truth is distorted.
Gender orientation is the main difference that divides males, not sexual orientation.
The homo-hetero division has become so important and valid only because the society has artificially tied gender (which is what is so important)to sexuality. So, manhood is tied to heterosexuality and feminine gender is tied to homosexuality.
It's the confusion created by the western society between gender and sexuality that makes sexuality so important in the west.
When people who grow up in a society divided on the basis of homo-hetero relate to this division, they're actually relating to it as a 'gender' division, not sexual division. They are responding to the manhood artificially hidden in heterosexuality and the third gender artificially hidden in homosexuality.
And that is what is the source behind immense power attached to liking women, and the immense stigma attached to liking men in western societies is all about -- gender, not the sexual preference itself.
And the fact is that inspite of all this social politics of manhood -- of confusing gender with sexuality in order to control men's sexuality -- the truth is that still, in the straight space, masculine males who own up their sexuality for men enjoy a tacit approval and inclusion, while its the effeminate males who are excluded and persecuted -- often whether they like men or women.
And yet, the truth is that, biologically and historically, real natural masculinity is inherently tied with sexual-emotional bonds between men -- (not between gays, who are third gender (so let's rephrase it for the western society, as "with sexual-emotional bonds between straight men), and not just sex but the long lasting emotional and social bonding that results from it. While, its contact with women that queers men. And that is why all masculine cultures abhor this contact, apart from what is needed for procreation.
So, gender has a connection with sexuality (although not so strict), but its exactly the opposite of what is portrayed in the west.
We have come a long way from our natural manhood -- from how it occurs in nature and what the unnatural, western society has made of it -- totally opposite.
The homo-hetero division between men is baseless and invalid.
Men can't be divided socially on the basis of what and who they like in bed. It cannot define your identity. Just like men can't be divided socially on the basis of what you like to eat or drink, or what kind of entertainment you like.
Men can only be divided on the basis of who they are, i.e., what their gender identity is. And there are only two kinds of gender identities for men: Men with male gender identity, and men with female gender identity. That is the only biological, historical and practical distinction between men.
What you like or enjoy can never decide who you are socially. Only what you are (masculine or feminine) can decide your social identity.
Especially, when almost all males are open to sexuality with men, this homo-hetero division becomes pointless, unless the truth is distorted.
Gender orientation is the main difference that divides males, not sexual orientation.
The homo-hetero division has become so important and valid only because the society has artificially tied gender (which is what is so important)to sexuality. So, manhood is tied to heterosexuality and feminine gender is tied to homosexuality.
It's the confusion created by the western society between gender and sexuality that makes sexuality so important in the west.
When people who grow up in a society divided on the basis of homo-hetero relate to this division, they're actually relating to it as a 'gender' division, not sexual division. They are responding to the manhood artificially hidden in heterosexuality and the third gender artificially hidden in homosexuality.
And that is what is the source behind immense power attached to liking women, and the immense stigma attached to liking men in western societies is all about -- gender, not the sexual preference itself.
And the fact is that inspite of all this social politics of manhood -- of confusing gender with sexuality in order to control men's sexuality -- the truth is that still, in the straight space, masculine males who own up their sexuality for men enjoy a tacit approval and inclusion, while its the effeminate males who are excluded and persecuted -- often whether they like men or women.
And yet, the truth is that, biologically and historically, real natural masculinity is inherently tied with sexual-emotional bonds between men -- (not between gays, who are third gender (so let's rephrase it for the western society, as "with sexual-emotional bonds between straight men), and not just sex but the long lasting emotional and social bonding that results from it. While, its contact with women that queers men. And that is why all masculine cultures abhor this contact, apart from what is needed for procreation.
So, gender has a connection with sexuality (although not so strict), but its exactly the opposite of what is portrayed in the west.
We have come a long way from our natural manhood -- from how it occurs in nature and what the unnatural, western society has made of it -- totally opposite.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The name of the Game
We know that the modern western, heterosexual concept of "Sexual Orientation" is only good for isolating those men who want to openly and "blatantly" seek intimacy with other men. We also know that there never was any such concept in the world.
Societies give names to those human relationships that it wants to give importance to. E.g. the Indian society has elaborate names for a lot of blood relatives and in-laws, including separate names for maternal and paternal in-laws, maternal and paternal uncles and aunts and so on, because for the Indian society these relationships are very important and need to be recognized so that they fit into the kind of society Indian culture seeks.
Indian culture has just a broad name "dost" or friend for male friends, because the formal society doesn't want to promote or recognize such bonds. But since men's spaces have carried on their male friendships, and inspite of non-recognition by the society they continue to play an important part in men's lives, the word is still in use. Although, a male friend has no social or legal right or claim over his friend, and no social obligation or duties. Whatever there is between two male friends is just mutual, based on mutual trust.
Indian society has no name for love bonds or sexual intimacy between two masculine males (men), because it wants to portray that such intimacy is not even possible and doesn't exist at all, so that it may seem weird to men themselves to harbour such feelings (although everyone does, but they're also conditioned to feel ashamed for it!). Since, men did not have such bonds openly, they did not give even an informal name to it (although, they have given a name to sexual play between men called "masti"). However, men continued sexual and emotional intimacy with men behind the label of "friendships" which even provided them with safety against being barred socially from manhood.
But, the ancient Greek societies, and there are still such sociesties that exist in the most unlikely places -- and they're all macho, warrior societies -- placed great importance on romantic bonds between (straight) men. Therefore, they had special names for such relationships -- name for one's male lover ... since these bonds were constituted around age, there were separate names for the older and the younger lovers.
However, in none of these societies, were there names that differentiated between men who liked men and men who liked women. None of these names held a man who liked man as a different 'gender' of man, like the term 'homosexualit y' or 'homosexuality' suggests. The idea that males who like women and men are essentially and biologically different from each other form a different gender is purely a Western one, totally invalid and the most harmful part of the larger conspiracy against men.
However, even if the anti-man Forces of Heterosexualization were to implement this differentiation fairly, it would work against their very own interests. Because, then 90% of men will become homosexuals and it would sound strange to call the remaining heterosexuals as 'straight'. Because straight means 'normal', 'regular' and 'masculine'. Then Heterosexual would be the gays and be classified along with the Third Gender.
That would be the natural scheme of things.
However, the Forces of Heterosexualization are able to use this system of isolation against male-to-male intimacy only because the society has strong pscyho-sexual mechanisms and hostilities in place against man to man intimacy, which operate at the deepest level of man's existence, and which the forces of heterosexualization keep thrusting on men, perpetually.
It's due to these pressures continually applied on men that men are kept from choosing the 'homosexual' label, when this system of sexual apartheid is used, and which gives the heterosexual society and its men the present shape, which shows men as primarily, constantly and exclusively heterosexual, and the third gender minority as 'homosexual'.
Societies give names to those human relationships that it wants to give importance to. E.g. the Indian society has elaborate names for a lot of blood relatives and in-laws, including separate names for maternal and paternal in-laws, maternal and paternal uncles and aunts and so on, because for the Indian society these relationships are very important and need to be recognized so that they fit into the kind of society Indian culture seeks.
Indian culture has just a broad name "dost" or friend for male friends, because the formal society doesn't want to promote or recognize such bonds. But since men's spaces have carried on their male friendships, and inspite of non-recognition by the society they continue to play an important part in men's lives, the word is still in use. Although, a male friend has no social or legal right or claim over his friend, and no social obligation or duties. Whatever there is between two male friends is just mutual, based on mutual trust.
Indian society has no name for love bonds or sexual intimacy between two masculine males (men), because it wants to portray that such intimacy is not even possible and doesn't exist at all, so that it may seem weird to men themselves to harbour such feelings (although everyone does, but they're also conditioned to feel ashamed for it!). Since, men did not have such bonds openly, they did not give even an informal name to it (although, they have given a name to sexual play between men called "masti"). However, men continued sexual and emotional intimacy with men behind the label of "friendships" which even provided them with safety against being barred socially from manhood.
But, the ancient Greek societies, and there are still such sociesties that exist in the most unlikely places -- and they're all macho, warrior societies -- placed great importance on romantic bonds between (straight) men. Therefore, they had special names for such relationships -- name for one's male lover ... since these bonds were constituted around age, there were separate names for the older and the younger lovers.
However, in none of these societies, were there names that differentiated between men who liked men and men who liked women. None of these names held a man who liked man as a different 'gender' of man, like the term 'homosexualit y' or 'homosexuality' suggests. The idea that males who like women and men are essentially and biologically different from each other form a different gender is purely a Western one, totally invalid and the most harmful part of the larger conspiracy against men.
However, even if the anti-man Forces of Heterosexualization were to implement this differentiation fairly, it would work against their very own interests. Because, then 90% of men will become homosexuals and it would sound strange to call the remaining heterosexuals as 'straight'. Because straight means 'normal', 'regular' and 'masculine'. Then Heterosexual would be the gays and be classified along with the Third Gender.
That would be the natural scheme of things.
However, the Forces of Heterosexualization are able to use this system of isolation against male-to-male intimacy only because the society has strong pscyho-sexual mechanisms and hostilities in place against man to man intimacy, which operate at the deepest level of man's existence, and which the forces of heterosexualization keep thrusting on men, perpetually.
It's due to these pressures continually applied on men that men are kept from choosing the 'homosexual' label, when this system of sexual apartheid is used, and which gives the heterosexual society and its men the present shape, which shows men as primarily, constantly and exclusively heterosexual, and the third gender minority as 'homosexual'.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
When societies become vulgarly rich by exploiting nature through industrialization, the anti-man vested interests that controlled the society so far, but could not annihilate men's spaces or men's sexual bonds altogether, became extremely powerful through the financial and technolgical powers gotten through industrialization, since they controlled its benefits. They also had two new extremely powerful social institutions -- science and media at their control, and they have abused them to the full.
With this unnatural power, they became 'gods' (or devils), and for the first time were able to destroy men's spaces. One's they did that, it was easy for them to isolate and banish intimacies between men into the gay ghetto.
With this unnatural power, they became 'gods' (or devils), and for the first time were able to destroy men's spaces. One's they did that, it was easy for them to isolate and banish intimacies between men into the gay ghetto.
Friday, February 13, 2009
It's by attaching power and manhood with 'sexual/ romantic/ social interest in women' that the society makes us vulnerable whether directly, indirectly, explicitly or implictly...
Unless this extremely oppressive politics is done away with any amount of freedom given to men to like men is worthless, useless... and will continue to result in the oppression of men...
Unless this extremely oppressive politics is done away with any amount of freedom given to men to like men is worthless, useless... and will continue to result in the oppression of men...
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Homosexuals are part and parcel of the heterosexual ideology
The concept of 'homosexuality' and the 'homosexuals' are based upon the 'heterosexual ideology' and are an integral part of it. The heterosexual ideology believes that human male is primarily, exclusively and innately heterosexual, except for a few 'abnormalities' (these abnormalities basically refer to 'effeminate males' -- since the concept of homosexuality is based upon them -- and they today use more politically correct terms for this abnormality -- sexual minority, 'alternate', 'different', etc.).
The effeminate, third gender males believe this heterosexual ideology, that equates masculinity with liking women and femininity with liking men, because it suits their own experience of desiring men. They are O.K. with being a considered 'different', 'alternate', etc... but masculine males are not comfortable with this entire system.
Just to understand how much the homosexuals are part of the heterosexual agenda, just suggest on a gay forum that heterosexuality may not be as natural, or that men are not really geared for emotional intimacy with women and see how the homosexuals get rubbed the wrong way. And nothing threatens the gays and their identity more than the suggestion that All men may have a sexual need for men -- because, then their 'difference' is automatically null and void. You would think that a population that is supposed to represent men's sexual need for men -- even if they find it unbelievable, would at least not be agitated by this suggestion.
However, the fact is that the homosexuals DO NOT represent man's sexual need for men, nor are they Men who like men. They are queers who like men, and they will keep tainting men's sexual need for men in their own queer colour.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Homosexuality is Queer!!!
the essence of homosexuality is being a female inside a male (and not a man's sexual desire for men).
The homosexual male doesn't see himself as a man but a woman. And he wants to love a man like a woman, not like a man.
Therefore it hurts his sensibility to share the same identity with men. And that is why they seek a different identity from them... which the Western society provides in the form of a 'sexual identity' in order to stigmatize men's sexual feelings for men by combining them with queer's sexual feeling for men.
The homosexual male doesn't see himself as a man but a woman. And he wants to love a man like a woman, not like a man.
Therefore it hurts his sensibility to share the same identity with men. And that is why they seek a different identity from them... which the Western society provides in the form of a 'sexual identity' in order to stigmatize men's sexual feelings for men by combining them with queer's sexual feeling for men.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Another problem with Sexual Orientation
Another problem with the term homosexuality and heterosexuality is that the term is used to denote various differing aspects of a man's sexuality, including, (a) Sexual desire or lust, (b) Sexual behaviour (c) love and romantic feelings (d) sexual acts (e) sexual relationships, and (e) social identity
There are elements of a man's sexual nature, of his sexual behaviour, of social interactions and his social identity in the above, all of which may actually be totally different arenas in the modern world, because of various kinds of pressures and other factors seeking to contorl male sexual life.
Denoting all of them with the same word is inviting immense scope for ambiguity and confusion.
This ambiguity and confusion is widely used by the Forces of Heterosexualization in order to muddle the facts about and true nature of male gender and sexuality.
To take an example, when you say a male is heterosexual, what does it mean. Does it mean he has exclusive sexual feelings for the opposite sex, or that he just has feeling for them (but not exclusive)? Are we referring to his social identity which may or may not reflect his exact sexual needs or even behaviour, some of which may be hidden? Are we referring to his sexual desires which may be different from his sexual behaviour or identity or relationships? Are we referring to his feelings of lust or of romantic needs, both of which may be differently oriented?
The Forces of Heterosexualization (FOH) uses this ambiguity to distort the facts to mean what they want. E.g. when they say 10% of population is homosexual, they mean they are the ones that are exclusively into men. But that is meant to mean that the rest of the population is totally heterosexual. They never say that 10% of the population is 'heterosexual' (the rest being bisexual).
However, in practise, even if a heterosexual displays the minutest of interest in intimacy with men, he is labelled a 'homo' or a 'bi' (the fear of which keeps them from showing intimacy towards other men). But he won't be counted so when talking about figures.
There are elements of a man's sexual nature, of his sexual behaviour, of social interactions and his social identity in the above, all of which may actually be totally different arenas in the modern world, because of various kinds of pressures and other factors seeking to contorl male sexual life.
Denoting all of them with the same word is inviting immense scope for ambiguity and confusion.
This ambiguity and confusion is widely used by the Forces of Heterosexualization in order to muddle the facts about and true nature of male gender and sexuality.
To take an example, when you say a male is heterosexual, what does it mean. Does it mean he has exclusive sexual feelings for the opposite sex, or that he just has feeling for them (but not exclusive)? Are we referring to his social identity which may or may not reflect his exact sexual needs or even behaviour, some of which may be hidden? Are we referring to his sexual desires which may be different from his sexual behaviour or identity or relationships? Are we referring to his feelings of lust or of romantic needs, both of which may be differently oriented?
The Forces of Heterosexualization (FOH) uses this ambiguity to distort the facts to mean what they want. E.g. when they say 10% of population is homosexual, they mean they are the ones that are exclusively into men. But that is meant to mean that the rest of the population is totally heterosexual. They never say that 10% of the population is 'heterosexual' (the rest being bisexual).
However, in practise, even if a heterosexual displays the minutest of interest in intimacy with men, he is labelled a 'homo' or a 'bi' (the fear of which keeps them from showing intimacy towards other men). But he won't be counted so when talking about figures.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Homosexuality is a conspiracy
The 'homosexual' identity can also be seen as a clever attempt by the queer, passive males to minimize their stigma by taking an identity that ignores the difference between them and the 'normal' males who penetrated them.
As a result, their position is slightly improved in the society, but the condition of those who penetrate and man to man sexual desire as such has become extremely stigmatized, but still not quite as much as the passive, effeminate male.
As a result, their position is slightly improved in the society, but the condition of those who penetrate and man to man sexual desire as such has become extremely stigmatized, but still not quite as much as the passive, effeminate male.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Men and non-men
The entire question about segregating males between two categories has been of who's a man, and who's not.
The earlier, most basic distinction was based on natural gender.
The males who innately felt to be females, were classified as 'third gender' and not 'men'.
The others were 'men'.
Then the distinction shifted from natural gender to what was socially defined as the roles of men and third gender.
This role hinged on being the penetrator or the penetrated. It was (wrongly) held that the it is the female role to be penetrated, and hence only the third gender were allowed that, and it was extremely stigmatized for men. The situation continued for more than two thousand years, and this distinction between men is practised till today in all non-western socities -- which don't divide males on the basis of homo-hetero, but on the basis of active and passive. The active is 'man' or 'straight', and the passive is 'third gender' or 'gay'.
In the west, the roles of men and third gender were further misdefined, and men were now supposed to desire only women, while all kinds of male desire for men was thought of as effeminate and hence belonging to the 'third gender'.
Men were no defined as 'heterosexual' or 'straight' males, and the third gender were defined as 'homosexual' or 'gay' males.
However, the crux of the two categories remain as that of 'men' and 'third gender', or 'men' and 'non-men' or 'men' and 'queer', and straight or heterosexual males are widely thought of as being the real men, while gays are considered to be effeminate, queers.
It is true to a large extent, because mostly, only effeminate males take on the 'gay' identity while the masculine males don the 'straight' identity, that may not reflect their true sexuality but it reflects their masculine gender, which is more important for men.
The earlier, most basic distinction was based on natural gender.
The males who innately felt to be females, were classified as 'third gender' and not 'men'.
The others were 'men'.
Then the distinction shifted from natural gender to what was socially defined as the roles of men and third gender.
This role hinged on being the penetrator or the penetrated. It was (wrongly) held that the it is the female role to be penetrated, and hence only the third gender were allowed that, and it was extremely stigmatized for men. The situation continued for more than two thousand years, and this distinction between men is practised till today in all non-western socities -- which don't divide males on the basis of homo-hetero, but on the basis of active and passive. The active is 'man' or 'straight', and the passive is 'third gender' or 'gay'.
In the west, the roles of men and third gender were further misdefined, and men were now supposed to desire only women, while all kinds of male desire for men was thought of as effeminate and hence belonging to the 'third gender'.
Men were no defined as 'heterosexual' or 'straight' males, and the third gender were defined as 'homosexual' or 'gay' males.
However, the crux of the two categories remain as that of 'men' and 'third gender', or 'men' and 'non-men' or 'men' and 'queer', and straight or heterosexual males are widely thought of as being the real men, while gays are considered to be effeminate, queers.
It is true to a large extent, because mostly, only effeminate males take on the 'gay' identity while the masculine males don the 'straight' identity, that may not reflect their true sexuality but it reflects their masculine gender, which is more important for men.
Sexual Orientation is not fixed, its changeable, esp. in initial years.
In the West, Christianity classified sodomy (I wish scholars could use the terms that was historically used, and not use 'homosexuality' for sodomy and thus confuse everyone) between men to be unnatural for so long, that in modern West, the entire focus of 'liberating' 'homosexuality' was focussed on proving it to be natural -- which came to mean it was innate and not a choice, as the society believed earlier.
Thus, the modern Western society, goaded by gays, has held that 'sexual orientation' in itself is innate and unchangeable and fixed from birth.
The truth is that, although sexual orientation is innate, it is also affected and influenced by nature uptill a certain age -- the formative years of sexuality. Usually a person has the capability to grow either way -- towards both the genders, but the society intervenes by suppressing one part, so that a person becomes unisexual. Some others, may get fixated on the sexuality that is actually sought to be suppressed if they have a positive experience of it -- and this exclusive fixation may have something to do with the social sanctions against it. Other causes for fixation may be the gender roles -- a queer male who identifies as a 'female' from within, may get fixated on receiving anal sex from men in order to fulfil his/her inner femaleness or femininity.
On the other hand, it may be relatively single sided for a minority of individuals, but for the rest it is double sided, and that is where it becomes a matter of choice. The society tries to influence this choice by creating extreme hostile conditions for one type and forcing the other type on people.
It is because, sexuality is changeable in initial years that there are such extreme social mechanisms, including pressures and rewards in order to force men to become heterosexuals.
Without social intervention, sexuality will remain double-sided and fluid for most men, throughout their lives.
Thus, the modern Western society, goaded by gays, has held that 'sexual orientation' in itself is innate and unchangeable and fixed from birth.
The truth is that, although sexual orientation is innate, it is also affected and influenced by nature uptill a certain age -- the formative years of sexuality. Usually a person has the capability to grow either way -- towards both the genders, but the society intervenes by suppressing one part, so that a person becomes unisexual. Some others, may get fixated on the sexuality that is actually sought to be suppressed if they have a positive experience of it -- and this exclusive fixation may have something to do with the social sanctions against it. Other causes for fixation may be the gender roles -- a queer male who identifies as a 'female' from within, may get fixated on receiving anal sex from men in order to fulfil his/her inner femaleness or femininity.
On the other hand, it may be relatively single sided for a minority of individuals, but for the rest it is double sided, and that is where it becomes a matter of choice. The society tries to influence this choice by creating extreme hostile conditions for one type and forcing the other type on people.
It is because, sexuality is changeable in initial years that there are such extreme social mechanisms, including pressures and rewards in order to force men to become heterosexuals.
Without social intervention, sexuality will remain double-sided and fluid for most men, throughout their lives.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Why do straight males seem so selfish/ mean?
That's the stereotype of straight males, and they're true to a large extent.
But why is it so? Is there a connection between masculinity and selfishness/ meanness? Is masculinity after all a negative, destructive quality?
Definitely not. It has been made into one by the social brand of (fake) masculinity represented by social roles of men.
Natural masculinity has both positive and negative aspects, and it can be just as selfish or mean as femininity but just as selfess and caring too. That is why in the olden days, when social manhood closely reflected natural manhood, masculine, straight males were full of character, propriety, selfless, etc.
However, the social roles of manhood, especially those prevalent in the West --- the heterosexual ones, force men to be selfish and mean towards their own inner-self and towards others as well, in order to compete in the intense anti-man race for (social) manhood. By encouraging, rather forcing men to participate in this race, the FOH train them to be selfish in order to survive. The more selfish you are, the farther you will go in the race. And those who appear at the top, the stereotypes of which straight males are made of, are always the one which are the most selfish -- this selfishness is both inherent -- and a learned thing. While the selfless, honest, courageous, real men, don't make it to the top -- because that means that you will also be honest to yourself -- and then you won't be really all that heterosexual.
But why is it so? Is there a connection between masculinity and selfishness/ meanness? Is masculinity after all a negative, destructive quality?
Definitely not. It has been made into one by the social brand of (fake) masculinity represented by social roles of men.
Natural masculinity has both positive and negative aspects, and it can be just as selfish or mean as femininity but just as selfess and caring too. That is why in the olden days, when social manhood closely reflected natural manhood, masculine, straight males were full of character, propriety, selfless, etc.
However, the social roles of manhood, especially those prevalent in the West --- the heterosexual ones, force men to be selfish and mean towards their own inner-self and towards others as well, in order to compete in the intense anti-man race for (social) manhood. By encouraging, rather forcing men to participate in this race, the FOH train them to be selfish in order to survive. The more selfish you are, the farther you will go in the race. And those who appear at the top, the stereotypes of which straight males are made of, are always the one which are the most selfish -- this selfishness is both inherent -- and a learned thing. While the selfless, honest, courageous, real men, don't make it to the top -- because that means that you will also be honest to yourself -- and then you won't be really all that heterosexual.
Why is masculinity itself stigmatized amongst straight males
straight men don't talk about their own masculinity... why because there is a huge stigma upon discussing it... the stigma was there in the olden days too, but after a society's westernization/ heterosexualization/ modernization, this stigma becomes extreme as it is now associated with 'gay', as more and more 'gays' start using it to define -- ironically, their femininity. In any case, masculinity has a relationship with intmacy between men which is stigmaitzed in heterosexualized spaces as queer, adding to the stigma about discussing masculinity.
How about using the word 'straighthood' or manhood.
How about using the word 'straighthood' or manhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)