No wonder men talk about women so much!

Of course men keep talking about women, not because they really need them so much, but because, it is crucial for them not only to get their manhood, but to secure their position as a man and prevent their isolation as third sex (by whatever name it is known, even if it is disguised in misleading definitions under 'gay').

But, men also talk about women a lot in order to hide their sexual need for men and since there is so much of sexual need for men to hide, it is no wonder that men talk about women so much, that they seem to be obssessed with them. But all this is just pretense and show.

Men especially use talk about women, or a display of their exaggerated sexual need for women, especially when they are forced by their inner instincts to seek sexual gratification (I'm not talking about anal sex, but for just bodily touch and stuff as well as emotional bond) from men. Then it is used profusely in order to safeguard their position while bonding sexually with another guy. (Straight) Men do it instinctively. It's their survival skill, in order to survive in this society as a man.

That should tell those who don't understand why men are so dependant on manhood, how much it actually means to them. It certainly can't be a shallow thing.

A minute analysis of the Heterosexualisation of Men

The society, long, long ago, had introduced "outer" mechanisms to restrict sexual bonding between men, and at the sametime, to force them to marry and reproduce. This gave rise to vested interests in the form of forces of heterosexualisation, which in due course of time developed several mechanisms that sought to totally crush the male instinct to bond sexually with other men. The most important ones of the, outer mechanisms and more importantly the sophisticated and invisible inner mechansisms, sought to work from inside the male psyche, by twisting it so badly, that it would work to destroy its own basic instincts, and be on a lifelong war with himself. The forces of heterosexualisation have installed a deep rooted inner-mechanism, which is invisible and very sophisticated, inside the psyche of men, by twisting it severely. These inner mechansims work in close tandem with, and are controlled by the "outer" mechansisms, some of which are blatant and visible, but most of which are again, invisible, very complex and sophisticated, and of course, not allowed to be questioned (which is the most important).

Somewhere in the adolescence (western societies do it at ridiculousldy young ages -- as young as 4 and 5), when its time for sexuality to take shape, these mechanisms -- the one which is closest to the adolescent, and thus most effective, is Peer Pressure -- start their work. Stroke by stroke, they dismember male sexual need for men. It is extremely painful for the boy, but then like in the tribal days, he is not supposed to utter a word, and bear all the pain silently. The dismemberment is not accomplished at one go -- The sexual need for men, which is still undeveloped, is still too strong, besides they need to do it slowly, so that the process doesn't create noise (they need to keep it invisible). And, of course, they have different successes with different boys. In some its totally crushed. In the most, however, it is only badly mutilated, but still survives -- however, it is now sufficiently weakened and can hardly be called living.

How does this decapitation create heterosexuality -- that is, an unnatural tendency in men to seek sexual, emotional and romantic bonds with women? In much the same way, as when a man loses his eyes from an early age, he is then likely to develop the other senses more strongly than is natural, especially if he is encouraged, trained and conditioned to do so. So, he may start to sense people and things with his ears or nose.

You can also compare this dismemberment of a man's sexual need for men and its divergence towards women (heterosexualisation of man) to a hypothetical situation, where the right arm of a man -- the arm that he is naturally inclined to use for most purposes -- is decapacitated from an early age. Then, the man will learn to use his left hand for almost everything, especially with training. Some may do it extremely well, and may never miss their right arm, others may have lots of difficulty, but they'll still go by. It depends on how early and how effectively, your right arm was cut off. But, what if a stub with sensations remain in many men, where their right arm was. Then they would feel the urge and the sensation to use it, especially when some one or thing triggers this sensation. They will badly feel like using their right arm at times, when this sensation becomes strong. But they'll be unable to do it. It will all end up in frustration.

The case of dismembering or mutilating the sexual need of men for men -- which is the primary sexual need of men -- is much the same, but still somewhat different -- because here, the sexual need of men for men tends to grow back again, as soon as the mechanisms are loosened, or inspite of the mechanisms -- and this happens more often than not -- when an outward trigger happens -- when suddenly another man seeks to enter into the man's sexual space and triggers this need. Then, inspite of the inner mechanisms, most men's sexual need for men is suddenly aroused and it painfully struggles to break free from inner mechanisms to reach out to the other man. The inner mechanisms seem to give way at this point and on their own are helpless to control this rebirth of manhood. It is then, that the outer mechanisms intervene, and through instilling fear of extreme punishments (that includes ridicule, isolation from men's spaces and deprivation of social manhood), that the inner mechanisms are again strengthened enough, to try to crush it.

And then starts a great struggle within. As long as the outer trigger -- the man who loves this man -- is there in the man's life, this inner need of man to bond sexually with him will not be dismembered again -- nature becomes too strong here. But, the social mechanisms working from within the man's psyche will continuously fight it. The collective social power is strong too. This fight will tear the man apart. He will never really reach out to the man -- actually, he will only partly reach out. While outwardly he will behave in manner that is sexually very hostile towards the other man, inwardly, quietly and secretly, he will reach out to him, through subtle ways -- begging him not to go away.

But, the other man cannot stay on forever, in the face of this outer sexual hostility. It requires, utmost confidence in oneself, and immense love, for another man to wait, while the man fights with himself, for years and years. So, one day, the other man leaves. The man heaves a sigh of relief. Because, he had been caught in an impossible situation. The social mechanisms -- both inner and outer -- will never let his needs for men to survive. And the lover in his vicinity will never allow it to die. For the man, as an individual pitted against the power of the society, the best thing to do is to leave the environment that triggers his sexual need for men. That is the only way for the man to survive. And heterosexuality is all about survival.

But, while he heaves a sigh of relief, suddenly, he will be aware of an immense vaccum within him. It will create a life long longing within him for the other man. And, deep within himself, he will always keep longing for him, wanting him to come back.

How do you make men join this movement...

the problem as I am beginning to realise is that men will join a movement like this -- in a society which is now sufficiently heterosexualised, like India -- only if the male to male sexuality part is hidden. The moment it becomes visible, the forces of heterosexualisation will promptly tag the whole thing as 'gay' and this is what men are terribly scared of.
So, how do you talk about men's liberation without talking about sexuality between men? If you cover it up, then like so many men's movements, it will fail to address the most important issues, and if you don't it will get stigmatise and may never take off.

Is the concept of "Homosexuality" or "gay" natural?

Is it natural for masculine gendered males to be isolated or seggregated from other masculine gendered males on the basis that they have a sexual preference for men rather than women?

Does it happen in nature?

Has it happened in any human society before the concept was developed and was vigorously forced upon the society by the media and the institution of science, through its abuse?

Male sexual bonds were celebrated till the times of the ancient Greeks. But then with the advent of religion, it came down heavily upon these bonds, in the name of god, by declaring it a sin, and then persecuting men in millions.

After things died down, and civilisation got another chance, the society devised other less violent ways of keeping male sexual bonds down. The formal society sought to classify male sexual need for men together with the need of the third sex for men (gay in today's parlance). This made man to man sexual need go behind the scenes, where it flourished like anything in the strong male spaces.

But then came science in the modern age. The science institution gave formal credence to this isolation of man by giving its stamp to the concept of gay/ homosexuality, which sought to classify men who like men together with the third sex.
Now, there are no men's spaces left for men to seek refuge in.

Men who have a strong female within crave for female company and prefer females over males, including for love, sex and in children.

Men (straight men in the West) have been so much imprisioned and restricted by the social rules of manhood that they have to steal sexual solace from other men quietly, in deep fear, without uttering a word... and this solace is very, very superficial.
The irony is that man is made to feel manly when he succumbs to this pressure.