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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be really unfortunate,

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

As long as there'll be poverty, there will be men's spaces.

Heterosexuality, as an artificial man-made thing is not possible without lots of money that comes from industrialisation. And even in the most Heterosexualised US, there are pockets of poor people, the working class, where men's spaces are still strong and heterosexuality non-existent -- at least not of the kind practised in middle class spaces (e.g. working class males do not have this extreme fear of gay; they don't believe having sex with men makes you gay... and everything else that comes with men's spaces).

So, as long as there is poverty in India, and industrialisation doesn't become rampant, there's hope for men's spaces. It may sound negative to link men's spaces with poverty, but if you look at it, poverty keeps us in touch with our nature. Industrialisation is anti-nature. When you kill mother earth, how can you remain untouched from the consequences. You also kill the nature within you. If men don't reproduce through enforced heterosexuality there will be no poverty even without industrialisation, and man can get everything he needs from nature itself.