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'.

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.

The Western society wants complete eradication of man to man bonding

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

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

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

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

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