Sexual Orientation is absurd

If there are three kinds of genders in the society:

Women, Men and Transgendered

Now if you regroup the people on the basis of the western concept of sexual orientation, and then divide the society on its basis, even for purposes other than sex, then let's say if you start a school for homosexual males and one for heterosexual males.

then the masculine gendered boys who like men will have to go to school with feminine gendered gays, the types who call each other by girl's names and treat each other as girls. Will he fit in there. No way.

Masculine gendered boys who like men can't be given a separate identity than than masculine gendered males who don't (or at least claim they don't) -- this is assuming that the 'heterosexual' boys are genuinely heterosexual, and there is no social pressure on boys to pretend or force themselves to be heterosexual -- and clubbed with the queers. A masculine gendered boy can only relate to and grow up as an equal amongst other masculine gendered males whatever their sexual and other likes and dislikes maybe. And then upon reaching adulthood too, they can't suddenly be expected to start relating with the fems and think of themselves as "different" from the straight men.


People relate to each other on the basis of gender, not on the basis of sexuality.

A masculine gendered male will not think of himself the same as the homosexual queen because as per the 'heterosexualised' society's definition they both have the 'same' sexuality. They don't even have the same sexuality since, even their sexual needs for men are different from each other's. While the masculine gendered male thinks of himself as a man liking another man. The Queen will think of 'herself' as a girl liking a man. There's no similarity between the two.

Or, there's as much similarity between a masculine gendered male who likes men and a homosexual (queen) as there is between him and a woman who likes men. Can you club the masculine male who likes men together with women who like men in a single identity group? Absurd.

Today masculine gendered male's are totally disempowered to claim their sexual need for men, that's why the gays refuse to change the definition of homosexuality and refuse to discuss the viability of the heterosexual concept of 'sexual orientation'. But this is exactly what the oppression of men is all about.

The conspiracy against Men

They force you to share an identity with the feminine male and then falsely accuse you of being feminine. That is the trick, and that is the reason behind creating the social concept of sexual orientation.

Why straight men don't fall in love with each other

Men keep fighting their need to love another man all their life. When they find a man they're attracted to, they have sexual fun with him -- and keep it at that level only -- an unacknowledged physical lust, but never even think about getting emotionally involved. They don't even think about that path, leave alone treading on it. This is because of social conditioning.

But when a man he is attracted to is drawn to him and removes the outer block that they've created and enters into his personal, emotional/ sexual space, then the man starts getting emotionally involved. But he is really scared to fall in love with another man.

So, he keeps fighting his emotional involvement and stops it from growing. He kills it with extreme cruelty. It's like fighting one's own self.

Why do men talk so much about girls in even in men's spaces

Under natural circumstances, the last thing that men would talk about, when they are in the company of other men --- that is, in their own space --- is "girls". Men thoroughly enjoy the company of each other, and it fulfills their sexual need perfectly too, so that they don't need to talk about girls -- certainly not as much as they do in our societies.

But men do it (i.e., talk about girls incessantly, even in each other's company) only because the society puts immense pressure on them to do it, besides, it conditions, trains and rewards them immensely to do it. It (talking about girls) also protects them from being thrown into the "third sex" category (in the Western parlance, "gay" category). And it gets them the much needed "social manhood" points to compete in the "race for manhood".

This talking about 'girls' is much less in traditional societies, and as the heterosexualisation of the society increases, men talk more and more about girls, of course due to social pressures.

Calling man's love for men as mere "sexuality" is demeaning

If there is good and evil in this world, then 'sex' in itself, devoid of either love/ bonding or reproduction is simply lust, and thus evil.

But when it is a part of "love", "affection", "togetherness" and "committment", sex becomes godly, a thing to be celebrated.

By referring to man's feeling of love for other men in the contest of "sexuality" (as in homosexuality) diminishes it to its basest component "sex". And then, it is seen only as a matter of sex, and not as something much broader and superior that it is.

Please remember, that while sex between male and female in nature is basically devoid of love and bonding, it is 'godly' because it involves reproduction. While, sex between two males is important and 'godly' only because (and when) it involves love and bonding.

Sexual jealousy between 'straight' men

Men don't understand how much it hurts the guy that loves them, when someone touches their sexual aura -- and how much jealousy and pain it generates, unless they go through it themselves. Till then they think that they can hurt the other guy only by letting women into their sexual space. Observing this phenomena can give important insights into men's behaviour and their oppression.

How women try to keep the pressure on men to keep off other men

Right now I am learning in my office, how K***** puts down A***** calling him (even if half-jokingly, half seriously), "abnormal" and other such stuff, and how A***** tries to reinforce more and more of a heterosexual image, especially by emphasising and exaggerating his sexual indulgence in girls.

Right after a put down by K*****, A***** becomes quite hostile towards male-male sexuality, but, interestingly, with me around he is subconsciously (because, although we flirt with each other we never acknowledge it or talk about male-male thing, except deridingly) learning to be more comfortable about it and to withstand K*****'s slurs without getting panicky or insecure about his manhood (i.e. straighthood in Western parlance).

Actually, its my confidence about liking other men without letting others impose the 'gay' label on me, even if I have to hide my sexual attraction, and being a Real Man even with it, that is subconsciously helping A******. And hopefully, this will give me a clue as to how to fight this social oppression of men at a larger scale.

Oppressing men by controlling their behaviour through the threat of 'Gay':

First they establish the third sex concept of 'homosexual' or 'gay' with official sanction and make sure that it is a fate worse than death for men (to be labelled 'gay'). Then they go on further controlling men's life with the threat of its imposition, as in:

- If you like men or desire sexual pleasure from men, you're gay... then...
- If you don't like women you're Gay... then...
- If you hold hands with men, you're Gay... then...
- If you don't date girls you're Gay... then...
- If you're not comfortable with girls in your personal space, you're Gay... and...
- If you want your privacy from women, you're Gay... and so on and so forth.

Of course, that you're Gay is actually meant to mean you're third sex... which means you're a woman in a man's body, if you don't do all that...

Notice that most of the fears and threats around 'Gay' have been carefully socially engineered by the institution of Media and entertainment industry which is totally controlled by the Forces of Heterosexualisation (including by the socially powerful Gays).

And the society has a foolproof tool for imposing these oppressive threats on men through the channel of Peer-Pressure, where men are made to compete with each other, and trample down each other by imposing this threat on each other. So that men may never relax as far as these rules are concerned. The more you impose these rules on the other guy, the more "social manhood" points you gain, and the more secure you become in the "race for manhood", and the less vulnerable to be isolated or labelled as 'gay' yourself. Of course, before you impose it on the others, you have to impose it on yourself.

And this is how this entire system engineered by the Media works.

In the beginning of course, before sexuality between men was classified together with the Mollies and gays as 'homosexuals', it was considered a manly albeit vice -- a result of hyper-machoism, if you please. But as the society merged this sexuality with those of the third sex (homosexuals), slowly, masculine gendered men either opted out or went in the background.

This is also clear from a study of vintage porn. Till about 1960s, male porn (for men) consists of masculine, macho, 'straight' regular men. This was due to the fact that the earlier association of male-male sexuality with maschismo had still not worn out. But after the 60s, as the third sex, gay community took control of the 'homosexual' space, men, or rather straight men, slowly went out of the scene.

And if you look at 'gay' porn today, even the 'masculine' ones are so clearly feminine -- out of the ordinary, freaks.

The Western society often castigates the Classical Greek society for having separate spaces for men and women. They portray it as a society oppressive to women because women and men do not mix with each other and lead separate lives. And as they claim, "women are often combined to their homes, and confined to bearing and bringing up children."

But as an scholar herself claimed in a discovery channel programme, the Greek women did not see themselves as oppressed. Actually, this is the aggressive Western society imposing its values on an ancient society and judging it accordingly and inventing oppression where none existed.

Actually, apart from the fact that for a majority of women bringing up and raising young ones is the most important and fulfilling thing for their lives -- whether in nature or in civilisation, the Greek society had a lot of real freedom for them. In fact, Queer women (i.e. masculinised women, not women who liked women) also had a respectable place in the society. There were women armies and women gladiators. Women had a lot of REAL choice, unlike the Western societies of today. It just so happened that most women wanted to bring up children and build homes. They had no desires to be the "same as men" as the heterosexual society forces them to be, nor to do politics or fight in armies.

And, the few heterosexual (i.e., what the west would today describe as 'heterosexual') women as well as men were free to lead their lifestyles too -- as is clear from the fact that while most men stuck with each other, including romantically, a very small percentage of men actually shunned the male only groups and lived in heterosexual spaces, which were more like harems and had a gala time.

Heterosexual living order is unjust and oppressive

The root of all problems and tussles between men and women is heterosexuality... that is forcing men and women to share common spaces. Now, since mammalian males and females are so different from each other and that they tend to lead separate and different social lives, when they're forced together, under a common system, the system will be either favourable to men or women -- whichever is powerful.

The Heterosexual system favours women, but is extremely unfavourable to men. Their spaces are made primarily keeping women in mind, but totally hostile to the needs and concerns of men. This system can never be considered to be the ideal one.

The most ideal society would be one -- somewhat like the classical Greek society -- where men and women lead separate social lives and meet occasionally for mating etc. purposes. They have separate rules and values for their respective spaces. And separate leaders for themselves.