"I like men" vs "I am gay"

There's a world of difference between saying "I like men." and that, "I am homosexual."

The first means that you're a man that happens to desire men. The second means that you're an entirely different gender from men. A third gender. That you're effeminate, and have either a strong female identity, or at least a weak male identity.

The fact is that almost all men have the inner desire for other men, and therefore, there should be no need to say, "I like men." It would be like saying, "I have two eyes." Everyone has two eyes. However, its because of the intense politics of western male gender and sexuality, that has made it appear as if most masculine gendered males are heterosexuals -- and exclusively so -- that one even needs to say, what should have been self-evident from the fact that you're a man.

...

The stigma of third gender has been conspiratorially transferred by the anti-man forces onto male desire for men, through the concept of homosexuality

Intimacy and sexual desire between men has been stigmatized for men in Western societies, NOT because of religion, but PRIMARILY, because of its association with the term 'gay' or 'homosexual.' And this is so, because Gay is nothing but a rehash of the traditional third gender identity and repackaging it as 'men who like men.' By doing this, the anti-man forces have cleverly shifted the stigma from male femininity and receptive anal sex to the very desire between men.

Unfortunately, with entire generations now being brainwashed in the West, people have -- on the conscious level -- forgotten this third gender basis of the stigma behind desiring other men, although, it still operates as the primary source of stigma, yet unacknowledged. And this makes it all the more tricky. Because, now this stigma of third gender has been totally transferred into the trait of male desire for men, and people have forgotten the 'third gender' stigma totally.

And unless, this anti-man mechanism is exposed and 'homosexuals' are exposed for who they really are -- third genders that like men (that makes them want a separate category), we can never liberate the man's power to bond with another man, and thus, we can never liberate the man himself.

young male children want to look at private parts

The western societies keep telling us things like its "biological" or "natural" that very young boys (5 year olds) will want to look at private parts of small girls ... however, this tendency, although present is some boys, is far more outnumbered by the tendency of young boys to look at the willies of other boys. And this desire runs way too long, through adolescence and into adulthood, where it goes underground due to heterosexualization.

It's a big pointer to the invalidity of the concept of 'homosexuality' and that it is malafide, that the concept of 'homosexual' came first and that of 'homosexuailty' came later.

Had it been a valid concept, the concept of 'homosexuality' would have preceded the concept of 'homosexuals.'

.....

As long as the feminine gendered males who lust for men, continue to fill up the 'gay' category created by the anti-man forces, and thus give it validity, these anti-man forces will continue to enforce sexual apartheid/ seggregation (sexual orientation) on men, and claim at the sametime that they are actually giving freedom to male need for men (which they equate with 'gay').

Science and Religion are two peculiarly Western concepts. While Science is organized interpretation of nature and its laws and its application to get what human societies presumably want, Religion is organized spirituality.

However, both these western concepts are corrupt and have done humankind and indeed mother earth, immense harm.

Just like Religion takes away the power to connect to god from the common man and places it in the hands of a few powerful people who are in connivance with the ruling forces, Science takes away the power to observe and comprehend nature and places it in the hands of a few, who work in connivance with the ruling forces too.

Both science and religion thus are organized tools that serve the ruling forces to help them forward their agenda, help them control the lives of people in a way they never could earlier, and thus immensely disempower the individual.

Both science and religion (i.e. Western religions of Judeo/ Chrisian/ Islamic backgrounds) then go on to abuse their power by distorting, misrepresenting and exploiting spirituality and nature to become powerful. Indeed, they even go on to define nature and spirituality on their own terms, and thus starts the real oppression of people at their hands.

Western spirituality (religion) is no spirituality at all. Spirituality is not about whimsical laws to do this and not to do that, in a completely inexplicable way, not related with human or individual betterment at all, but only to serve the organized body or the ruling forces or whimsical interpretations of spirituality or god by the organized, crooked body.

Western science arose with a good intention, in order to oppose organized spirituality by creating organized institution that worked on the principle of logical thinking. Unfortunately, just like antibodies of a virus have to look and work like the virus itself, so an institution that was built to oppose religion took on its shape and structure. But soon, science was taken over by the same ruling social forces that controlled religion, in certain key areas. So, now, while still seemingly opposing religion from the outside, science now forwards the agenda of religion which is actually the agenda of the ruling forces, and it does in a way that religion could never do.

There was never a science or religion before the West invented it (There was just an understanding of laws of nature, and 'spirituality') Just as there was no 'sexuality.' Religion created science and science created sexuality.

The Western 'freedom' is deceptive ... its a Fucked up society!!!

advertisementWhen those males who lack in manhood, who belong to the erstwhile 'intermediate sex' start to define themselves as "men who like men,' or 'homosexual' and start defining the males with manhood as 'men who like women' or heterosexuals, in a background where desiring women has long been fixed as a pre-requisite for granting 'social manhood,' ... then the anti-man forces who control the heterosexualized Westernized society, grab this opportunity to stigmatize the very male desire for men, and is only too happy to give formal/ scientific/ political validity to this group of 'intermediate sexers' and say, "well fine, you can define yourself as 'men who like men." and then says to the men with manhood, the masculine gendered males, known as 'straights,' "Well, you know, we're a sexually liberated society, and we are open minded enough to let men have sex with men or to love them. Any man who wants to acknoweledge his sexuality for men, is more than free to do so, but he will have to leave the identity and space of the 'males with manhood' and become one of the 'males who lack manhood,' the 'intermediate sex'." Everyone sees the freedom, especially the so-called gays (the intermediate sex) and women, who doesn't understand the difference between males with manhood, and males without manhood. Or who confuse males with manhood with those who desire women, and males who lack manhood with males who desire men.

Talk to the same society about labelling and isolating women who indulge in men sexually as different women (after all, they were a stigmatized group and rare to come about at one time in the West, enough to call for a distinct identity) ... and they will cry, "That's anti-woman," "You can't do that." And, "Why can men have sex with several women, but when women have sex with men, you call them whores." The point is, its not just that men CAN have sex with women, but that the heterosexual society ordains that "MEN MUST HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN," Not only that, They must have a sexual desire for women as well, if they want to be counted as a 'normal' male with manhood. And the point is that "WHY CAN'T A MAN DESIRE ANOTHER MAN without having to be isolated into a 'different' category from males with manhod, through the system of sexual apartheid created by the concept of 'Sexual Orientation." Why must a man lose his social manhood, in this age and era, in a so-called free, modern and open-minded Western society, in order to be able to desire another man?

The peculiar ways of Western Religion and Science

The Western culture since the time of Christianity, and because of its influence works in a peculiarly conceited way. Just like Christianity claimed to speak for 'god' and put words in his mouth, to suit the whims and fancies of those who controlled Christianity and the church ... its the common Western practise, including that of Western institution of science, to build pre-conceived notions and pictures of things like god and human nature, based on half-lies, what appears from the outside, and the whims and fancies of those who control that particular Western institution. And when something from the nature doesn't fit into the pre-conceived notions of that institution ... then they call it a 'sin' (religion) to be punished or prosecuted, or a 'disease' or 'abnormality' (science) to be cured. And then the persecution of that part of nature gets wide public support ... as both religion and science has immense blind faith amongst Westerners. The most funny part is that they can really get carried away with this process ... and like for science, so many commonly occurring things in nature becomes an abnormality to be adjusted or a disease to be cured, and they find pretty funny names for them too. It makes them sound all methodical and educated.

.....

How were straight males forced to define themselves as 'heterosexual'

It was not their sexual desire for women that defined the manly men, today known as straight or heterosexual males. Indeed, it was not even a universal trait for them. And it was certainly not constant nor exclusive, even where it was present. However, the men did not have a choice, when the society ruled by the anti-man forces defined them as 'men who desired women.' Indeed, the men could not speak for or defend their identity, definition and space, as they were already long silenced through centuries of politics of male gender and sexuality (conspiracy against men). They had only two options: either to leave manhood and become a 'non-man' or to acknowledge a real or exaggerated or outright fake sexual desire for women as the essence of their being. Indeed, like trained and conditioned, dogs, men just went about competing with each other trying to fit into the new definition for manhood provided by their masters, creating one of the biggest myths of this world -- that of sexual orientation being the defining features of a male; of the hetero-homo division between males, and of the hetero-masculine-'normal'-healthy-straight-majority and the homo-feminine-'different'-abnormal/anomaly-queer-minority. Indeed, the third genders fit into the 'homosexual' slot pretty well, and they keep the myth of the 'homosexual' alive and kicking.

The politics of Western manhood:

Western manhood says any kind of intimacy whether physical-social or emotional intimacy between men is essentially unmanly and 'gay.' So straight males are conditioned/ prssurised to avoid it like hell.

The politics is that they first attribute sexual intimacy between men with the group of transgenders and call the resultant phenomenon 'Homosexuality'. And then as more and more of third genders choose this 'homosexuality' they use it to politicize manhood by using the third genders as a proof that intimacy between males is indeed unmanly, feminine and 'gay'.