Western Society Makes Queers Of Men

Today's westernised society in India is making namards (roughly translated in American English as 'queers') of men. In my office, I am unfortunately seeing how 19 and 20 year old guys are being deprived of their manhood, while the namards are now being defined as the real men (although they're still not called straights in India).

This society is also making men weak socially, by breaking man from man and by destroying men's spaces.

In my days, which is not really far off -- just about seven years ago, things were far more better. I have painfully watched men's manhood being taken through the Westernisation of the society, without being able to do something about it.

In my days, a young guy who spent time with the girls, because he was madly in love with one of them, was highly teased as Shikhandi (again 'queer'). Today, I see my 19 year old friend desperately trying to fit with the girls, so that they don't consider him 'queer'.

Spending time with girls really makes you queer (i.e. a half-man/ half woman, not someone who likes men), and its visible in the way these guys conduct themselves. Today, spending time with girls does give them social manhood, status and power as a man -- and that may hide their inner lack of manhood that the society has created. But, internally they are not men anymore.

In societies closer to nature, like innumerable tribal societies, as well as in traditional non-Christian societies, there have always been three groups of people -- Men, Women and Queers (i.e. people who were both men and women; only they were not seen as freaks, but normal people, and Queers were more likely to be heterosexual).

As in my days, in all these societies, it was a matter of great discredit for a man to go in the women's spaces. A normal man would not be seen dead in their spaces and would avoid female company normally. Likewise, the only women who'd even dare to venture into men's spaces were 'whores'. In tribal as well as traditional societies, only Queers (who were more often than not heterosexuals) would like to transgress male and female spaces.

Being a namard is not only an outer thing (i.e. being a eunuch)... One can also be a namard from inside. Being a namard (or queer or gay) is also not necessarily about taking it up the ass -- although a lot of eunuchs take it in because for them a social symbol of 'womanhood'/ queerhood.

Being a namard/ Queer/ Gay is about having both male and female both inside the same body. A hermaphrodite is one kind of namard. Another kind of namard -- and which is more ocmmon is the one who has a male body but is internally female. So, he would behave like women. Being a Gay is not about "liking another man", (all men are capable of liking another man!) as the Westernised society today propagates, but it is about being a female in male's body who likes men -- which in the case of gays or eunuchs, basically boils down to wanting to be penetrated by men.

So, what is being a Man or mard all about then.

Being a mard is not about 'fucking' a woman -- otherwise Hanuman would not have been the God of 'mards'. Being a man is about having a male body as well as soul. And socially, its about being a part of the men's spaces. Those who have men's body as well as soul naturally care about men's spaces. That's where they draw their strength and their manhood from. Witout men's spaces they are nothing. They become weak and vulnerable.

And that is what they have become today, after India's Westernisation.

Today's society teaches young men that being a man is about liking women. And, it is only about liking women and wanting to bond with them socially and emotionally, apart from sexually. So, that's what today's youth strives to do all the time -- love women. How it actually affects their manhood is a different matter.

In my own time, all one had to do to be a man was to get married and reproduce (at least for ordinary men...). Till then, you could relax and enjoy the men's spaces and male bonding, though, if you wanted to gain points over peers, you could also talk and talk about girls, or be more adventurous and evetease (today's generation doesn't seem to know what it meant to their predecessors), and a few would actually go and hump girls and then have a story to tell to their friends for the rest of their lives (although, it seems that the ones that really cared for sex with women, did it quietly without making a hullaballoo about it, and those who made hullaballoo were more likely than not exaggerating. We called them Badmaash!). There was no pressure to date whatsoever, and to be seen with girl/ girls was actually quite disreputable for a man, and even those micro minority who actually had a 'relationship' (they were always the older men, younger guys won't think much about it!) would do it sneakly.

Isn't it funny that ancient and traditional societies, all through the history considered contact with women to be an antithesis for manhood, and it was almost mandatory for warriors and pehalwans to keep away from women (they only did it for reproduction, much later in life). Even sexual contact was included as manly, only later in the course of human history -- that too to encourage reproduction.

Has nature changed since then? for the modern, Westernized society, it is not only the cursory sexual contact with women, but a complete emotional, social, mental and sexual contact which has become mandatory for men to be a man -- otherwise, they risk being isolated as 'gay'.

Obviously one of the societies is lying. Obviously only one could be correct -- for these are the two extremes. So which one is the correct one? Did the ancients knew better or does the 'scientific' West know it all?

While, I would like you to ponder over this, I'd like to touch upon a few other important points.

(more to come...)