Double standards of a Heterosexual society

the double standards are clear frm the fact that the moment you prove your heterosexuality, you can be damn feminine without losing your manhood and do all those things that were unacceptable for men in traditional societies.

Fake heterosexual role models for boys

One factor in the heterosexuaisation process is the fake heterosexual role models built by the society.

.....

.....

Destroying male-male love on the pretext of destroying male-male lust

Sexuality is the source of both lust and love. They started to malign male-male sexuality by showing only the lust part of it, in order to paint it as bad. But to throw male-male sexuality altogether, in order to throw out male-male lust, is like throwing the baby with the water.

Media celebrates Heterosexuality and only heterosexuality.

Media celebrates heterosexuality and nothing else but heterosexuality.
they want heterosexuality to be the end all and be all -- nothing else is important or should be given any space in the society (as per the media, which is totally in the control of the Forces of Heterosexualisation, just like Science and religion).

male-male bonds thrive in nature, male-female bonds industrialised/ heterosexualised/ Western societies

In nature (i.e. under natural circumstances) masculine male-male (sexual) bonds have a natural advantage, while in man-made heterosexual societies its the male-female bonds that have a natural advantage (because of heavy manipulation by the forces of heterosexualisation).
This is because under natural circumstances, the masculinity of men makes it impossible for them to relate with women, socially, emotinally or sexually. The heterosexual society crushes this natural masculinity, replaces it with queer/ heterosexual brand of social masculinity and suppresses the ability of men to form bonds with men, except for superficial social bonds.
It is then (after this heterosexualisation takes place, something which requires immense social resources which industrialisation brought) male-female bonds get a social advantage over natural male-male bonds.

Heterosexual society is basically for feminine males

Apart from real heterosexuals who are in any case, at least partly feminine gendered, the other group that really flourishes in a heterosexual set up is the real gay, both, when he takes the gay identity by openly accepting his sexual need as well as when he hides it and lives as 'straight'. It is very easy for him to fit into the heterosexual set up because his femininity makes it easier to be socially comfortable with women. He can also have a relationship with women without feeling any discomfort but for the sexual part, and to be really frank, if you are otherwise comfortable with women, and you have logged on to your feminine side, which means that you don't have an ego problem with them, then sex is not really a problem. That's a minor thing. So, pretending to be Heterosexual is a lot easier for them, and they're less likely to feel any pressures.

If men are not pressurised most will not even notice girls

One of the several cliches made popular in men's spaces include "(for girls) if we don't look at you, your make-up and beautifying yourself will be in vain."
The fact is that, if there's no social pressure on men, most men would normally won't care to look at women.

Accepting man to man relationship as 'normal' is not the same as accepting it as 'gay'

There's a world of difference between accepting (by the society) sexual feelings of men as normal, and accepting them as 'gay'.

Lies rule through force

All lies basically thrive through force. Some people know its a lie, but have to bow before it. Others bow before it hoping to please it and draw powers. And some start believing it as the truth -- it's the same whether its Islam or Communism or Heterosexuality.

00000

It's the greed of man for social power that makes him easy prey for heterosexualisation

It's strange... but its like all straight men realise that all of them have a sexual thing for men. But, still they want to pretend to really believe in heterosexuality -- as the exclusive, strongest, sexual need of men. How does the society fool men in entrapping them into this self-destructive behaviour, so that they become mute servants of the social forces of oppression. This is how:

We can draw a parrellel between how they entrap men and how catchers of wild animals who sell them in villages and town in traditional India entraps these simple beings. What they do is, these catchers have developed mechansisms after first finding out, what are the weaknesses of these animals that they wanted to trap. Then they devise mechansisms to exploit their weaknesses and entrap them. E.g. for catching monkeys, the catchers found out that monkeys have a weakness for grams (chana in Hindi). They put grams in clay pots with very narrow openings. When the monkey smells the gramms in the pots, it puts its hands inside to take them out. its hands go in, but when he grabs gramms in them, it becomes thicker and doesn't come out of the pot. Now, the monkey is in a dilemmna. He doesn't want to let go of the grams from his hands, out of greed... he hopes that he will somehow take his hand out, but no matter how hard he tries, he can't do it. He doesn't even break the clay pot, because he thinks he will lose all the grams. So, he's stuck with them, until the catcher comes and grabs him. The irony is that other monkeys see what happened to one of them, but unmindful of his fate, each thinks that he is better than the unfortunate companion who got caught, and that he will be able to take out the gram without getting caught. But all of them get caught eventually.

This is more or less what happens with men. The society (those who controlled it, the rulers for instance) figured early on, that although men are the strongest human gender and you cannot enslave them through physical power, they found out that men's spaces were there weakness, and that they would do anything to become a part of it. And men's spaces came to be represented by Manhood. So, the society controlled these spaces by manipulating the definition of manhood and what men had to do to get manhood (and a place in the men's spaces). Man is so greedy of the manhood that he gets from those who control men's spaces, that when he gets it, he can't leave it, but he can't really use it for his benefit. He is just caught, like the poor greedy monkey, who is eventually caught and made a slave to the catcher.
Similarly, they trick wild parrots.

Social masculinity and social femininity work like magnets

Social masculinity works like magnet on you, by bringing out your inner natural masculinity.

Similarly, social femininity also acts like a magnet on you, bringing out your femininity, however small it is...

It is one of the reasons gays seem more feminine that they would be if social femininity was not imposed on them, and guys who are 'heterosexual' but are equally naturally feminine as the gays, appear much less feminine... their femininity is also masked by extreme social masculinity, which further subdues their femininity.

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.

To have a girlfriend before marriage is really stupid.

For men to keep girlfriends before marriage is so stupid (of course, that they do it under pressures, most of them, is another matter).

When they have to get bound with a woman for all his life, ruining his freedom, then why give up your freedom earlier? Youth is the time to enjoy your freedom and do your thing, not to take up the responsibility of a girl.

And, of course, it is an oppression of straight men that they are forced by the society to do this. When you're a member of a community or social order, you have to do the needful -- that is the things that the community requires for membership. And if men have to be in the straight space (and not be thrown into the gay space) they too must do the needful and constantly prove their sexual interest in girls, whioh is only possible by keeping a girl with you all the time.

/////

Double standards of Heterosexual society

They want men to be emotional in front of women to not hide their emotions from women, but they want to train, condition and force men to hide their emotions from other men.

Men put masks of heterosexuality not so much for social power but for survival as men

While watching the serial "Man vs Wild", where the 'hero' who was trying to survive in the jungle, and was trying to escape from something -- I don't know what, i came late -- it was either predators or mafia, but they were all around and they were out to get him, and the only way he could survive was by camouflaging himself. He did it by putting on masks and stuff that made him mix with the environment -- rubbing mud on himself, especially everything that shone or stood out, and putting plants on himself.

I could immediately relate it with how men have been forced to live all these centuries and especially in the modern heterosexual society. It's so damn hostile to the real man in them, that it will kill them the moment it sees it. So they survive by putting on masks -- masks of heterosexuality. They do a thousand things, just so to mix with the environment, so that the oppressive forces don't find them, isolate them and then banish them from the society and take away their very identity from them.

And, then suddenly I recalled how Sameer was dating women, even when our relationship was just getting strong -- and I left him thinking he had decieved me, that social power meant more to him. But, he wasn't doing it for social power. He was doing it only because he needed it to survive. He just doesn't have the skills to protect himself, if they catch him. All those scary and hostile heterosexual masks that he wore was to hide himself -- a survival skill, just like that 'hero' in the serial 'Man vs. Wild'. And then the oppression of men became even more stark and obvious. Because this is pretty much what most other straight men do. And it also gave me an idea. If I want men to feel safe to come to our movement, then I must camouflage my ownself, our movement and give them a space where they can safely come without jeopardising their identity and existence. At least in the beginning.

The answer to the problems of the traditional Indian society is not westernisation

The traditional culture had developed certain problems which needed to be sorted -- sometimes at the basic level, but to overthrow it completely for blindly copying everything that is negative about the West, in return for their money and technology, is certainly not the best thing to have happened to our civilization.

.....

.....

Science... don't think too high of it!

Science just cannot give you wisdom. It can just tell you about how the powerful group that controls the human civilisation views or wants to view the visible 'data' about life.

E.g. Science will tell you that you can extract unlimited 'wealth' from the earth, but it does not give you the wisdom to have restraint while exploiting mother earth.

It doesn't teach you moderation and restraint, which are extremely important for humans, especially in these hard times. To get back this wisdom, we have to move away from science, and say, we will only give you (science) this much space/ power in our lives and not more than that. Actually one can totally do away with science and replace it with philosophy and wisdom.

Men don't know what it is to live without the stress of being whatever you're not!

As a man who did not build in him the mechanisms or go through the conditioning to suppress my needs and build thousands of minute inner resistances and pretences to hide and kill my natural needs and do what is required for the society, it seems so tortuous to see people like Sameer go through all those painstaking things, sacrificing one's intense and most basic needs and desires in the process, and thinking nothing of it.

Naturally heterosexual males are more at liberty to indulge in male eroticism

Men are not supposed to notice other men's body or clothes and stuff, especially as to how good it looks at them. But, I'm not surprised that its the only really heterosexual guy amongst us in my office, who keeps noticing my and other people's clothes.

And why, he 's the only one who had the courage to put sexy men's pictures on his computer... and since sometime after meeting me (because I've brought out his sexual need for men), he only puts pictures of men on his computer desktop -- sexy and handsome men. First he did it gingerly, and now he has become extremely confident of it).

.....

.....

Eversince i started talking about girls, and have been able to create a 'heterosexual' image, it has become very easy for me to talk about being close to men without my social manhood being threatened.

And that's what Sameer used to do. He would establish his interest in girls and then would comfortably be intimate with me in public, but although we never met in private, i know that he would never show such intimacy with me in private, because that would put him face to face with what he thinks is 'gay'.

Who is a 'gay' really?

till the modern west's heterosexual values came about a 'gay' was only considered someone who was (a) feminine + (b) into receptive anal sex as an identity. It was never used for real men who showed interest in men. By classifying things in such a way that these real men are not categorised along iwth the 'gays' who like men, the heterosexual society has conspired to force men to give up their need for men.

It is this misconstrued concept of 'sexual orientation' which has made real men vulnerable to be told, "your'e a bunch of gaandus", if they let their sexual interest in men become visible.

10% numbers is a compromise reached between the two powerful forces of heterosexualisation -- the heterosexual forces of heterosexualisation and heterosexually active women on the one hand and the homosexual forces of heterosexualisation on the other.

However, the number is both right and wrong.

If you say 10% of men are attracted to other men, there is nothing far from the truth.

But if you say that 10% of males are 'gay', then it is perfectly true, if you consider the real meaning of 'gay' and not as it is defined by the heterosexual society formally. And in actuality, gay means "third gender" who are attracted to men, or effeminate males who're attracted to men. Such males are no more than 10% of the total male population, if you consider the entire spectrum of strongly feminine gendered males who like men.

.....

.....

Like women some men will have to come forward and ignite the flame of male liberation.

There was a time when girls too did not have any space to talk about their things. Today, they have because some women fought for that space for decades.

Social Heterosexuality fails to give true heterosexual men look manly

The artificial power granted to heterosexuality doesn't seem to do anything for truly heterosexual men. Its because, first of all, they are too queer, and then they are not really after power... and they don't really kill their feelings to develop bonds with women... but men who sacrifice their feelings to become heterosexual do it for power, and it shows on them. So, if you see a powerful 'heterosexual' guy, you know he is an artificial heterosexual.

Its a pity when such manly men suck up to women to be called men

It's so painful, i can't tell you, to watch such brilliant and manly guys like Sameer think so low of their own sexual feelings and not being able to see the reality but forcing themelves to like girls by any means whatsoever.

.....

.....

The problem with heterosexuality is that to make men heterosexual, you have to break men from men.

Men are not for women

Its a fallacy spread by the society that men are for women and women are for men

.....

What does it mean when a man is called 'gay'?

In a heterosexualised society, to say a man does not have interest in women is to question his being a man. In traditional societies it was not about interest but about performance. If you could produce a baby (the actual sex happened in strict privacy)it was assumed by the society (this was of course deliberately, the society where men's spaces still had a lot of say, wanted to give men that leeway, where their disinterest in women was not visible to anyone since sex happened in absolute privacy and the woman could not talk about what happened within closed walls) that the man can have an erection and can perform. Of course, it was also true, because, eventually it didn't matter if the erection came after a lot of cajoling... that it did get erect was the symbol of 'manhood'. The men of course sacrificed a lot of their freedom and inner self to fit into this tradtional role, but still they had a lot of leeway.
But the heterosexual society leaves men no leeway. You have to show an active interest in girls. And when there is no social barrier between men and women, that interest cannot just be in words. You have to materialise that into action. And it becomes really oppressive for men.

So, when a man is asked if he doesn't have an interest in girls, it means basically to challenge his manhood, his place in the men's space (which is although now heterosexualised). And if the male is masculine gendered he is going to be extremely upset. Of course, men never want to be in a situation where anyone can say that. So they do everything to avoid that. They go through a lot of stress to invent a sexual need for women, even where none exists.

Of course, who would say such a thing. When a friend says this, this is to exert peer-pressure... but when a unfriendly person says that, it is a direct challenge to your manhood... and this can only be said if you are vulnerable, socially week (in the sense that you don't have enough social manhood).

Stop English education around the world, for they are the vehicle of the evil that is Westernisation.

Instead of teaching english language that is the vehicle for our westernisation, we should not teach our students our own dying languages and cultures.

Men danced with other men in India just a few years ago!

(posted on a different date)
In this programme I am watching right now kumaoni men and women are doing a seemingly traditional dance together (although, there are no couples, and men and women hold hands only when forming a circle and never as couples or lovers). But although this dance is presented as traditional, this is only partially traditional, for although men and women have been dancing like this in cultural programmes for a while now, its not what the culture of Kumaon is like. I know because when i went to live in Kumaon, like in the rest of india, men and women had no concept of dancing together. So much so that when we were doing ball dance, I danced with the other guys, almost in embrace, while the girls danced amongst each other.

.....

Heterosexualising cultures

The forces of heterosexualisation, all over the world have destroyed original dance forms involving male only dances and female only dances and replaced them with heterosexual groups or couple dance forms.

.....

Unless men learn to own up their sexual need for men, they will snatch away everything that's ever been really important to them

Since men lost their power to claim their own sexual need for men, the next big attack on them has come in the form of heterosexualisation. In this attack, the vested interests, the forces of heterosexualisation are snatching from them everything that was dear to them, their very basic necessities in life, their spaces, their dignity, their right -- yet since their power to claim their sexual need for each other is lost, they can no longer even complain... they must now be a mute spectator as the forces of heterosexualisation take away their freedom and rights one by one. Because in order to speak up, first they will have to acknowledge their sexual need for men. its a vicious circle, becuase if they do that, they'd immediately be thrown out of the men's spaces into the third sex 'homosexual' space. In any case, men can't do that as long as they are competing with each other and trying their best to avoid the gay label, which can come as easily as going to a movie with a male friend, or forming an emotional bond with a male friend.

There was no heterosexuality in Indian culture just a few years ago

(I thought about this as i was watching a video song on Bharati channel, a welcome change from all the heterosexualised channels, a channel which still kept its Indianness. The video song was about India and its people and culture. There were clippings from various parts of India from Jammu and Kashmir to Kerala. And in the entire song, in all the parts of India, men were seen with other men, while women with other women -- in whatever they were doing. All the dance forms (except one dance from Christian tribals in the northeast) were of males dancing together, and females dancing in separate groups. There were no 'heterosexual' dances.

I think of how the forces of heterosexualisation have gradually changed everything. They have converted our traditional dances into heterosexual dances. Now its stigmatised for two men to dance together, while, men and women are encouraged to dance together).

Forces of Heterosexualization aren's natural but man made!

Perhaps, there is no 'natural' vested interest group or "forces of heterosexualisation".

It is possible that this Force has been totally created by man, like a machine which was originally meant to serve man, but then started to rule him instead. Now this monster created by humans is out of men's control, and they are unable to stop him. So, they have no option but submit to it.

How? This is how... When humans (the ruling class in all probability) started to devise mechanisms to force new definitions of manhood on men (that forced them to have sex with women, to get married to them to produce more and more children), the most potent thing that they developed was the "race for social manhood". Through this race they brought in the concept of peer-pressure. Men were rewarded for killing their inner-selves and fulfilling the demands of social manhood. In this process when the more they mowed down other men in the fray, the more social manhood points they got. So men willingly started to compete with each to put each other down, to throw the pressures already devised by the society on each other, and just doing that ensured that they got loads of social manhood without doing much. They were amply rewarded for this cut throat competition.

And today, when the societies have been suitably heterosexualised, (in which again this cut throat competition played a strong part), men have been given new more stringent and anti-man rules of social manhood and more severe punishments in the form of 'gay', men force these new labels on each other in order to get those precious extra manhood points -- which are even more useful for survival as men now -- which they also need to aurvive in this 'heterosexualised' space.

So, the people who invent new mechanisms and keep the old ones going do it not because they are naturally made to benefit from the fruits of their actions, but because they hope to get short terms gains in the race for social manhood, out of it.

They are the least mindful of (not that they know this) how badly this would affect men as a whole in the future.

How to make men strong enough to beat the fear of 'gay'

I had another revelation today...

It seems with changed circumstances, with heavy heterosexualisation of the society, knowledge is not enough to empower men to liberate. Perhaps, just knowledge is never enough to liberate... though about seven years ago, things were a lot different... when men's spaces were strong, mere knowledge would be very liberating, since the men's spaces provided the space and the opportunity to implement that knowledge.

But today, the heterosexualised spaces have created such extreme fear around 'gay', and any kind of association with men is seen as 'gay', so much so that, you may give men all the information, but they don't want to come near anything which may be considered 'gay', they will disassociate themselves from it.

In such cirumstances, it becomes extremely difficult to even get this knowledge to them, since the mainstream community doesn't allow such knowledge to reach them (I got its taste when I raised this issue at several Western net forums -- they were very open to all kinds of information, however negative -- they even allowed a terrorist who kept threatening everyone with murder, to be there. But they asked me to leave, because they didn't want me to use that space to spread pro-men information).

And, the heterosexual society has created extreme mental blocks iin men from accessing information on other networks, which might be thought of as 'gay'.

It s an enormous challenge then to break this vicious circle and get this information to men. But then, this is not enough, so what more could be done.

I think men must feel safer only then will they join such a movement. We have to tread very cautiously. We have to find a way of avoiding the 'gay' tag while at the same time creating a strong men's spaces. I am sure the Forces that are with RamHanuman will show me the way.

Fight against Gay for men's liberation

The day man loses the fear of 'gay', he will be truly liberated. Then no force in the world will be able to hold him down.

Love between two men, not "gay love"

Men would get their right the day people say about a man falling in love iwht another man and not and ot a 'gay' man fell in love with another gay man, or two male pair instead of a 'gay' pair,

.....

masculinity needs social power to come out

It seems your inner masculinity needs social power to come out. I walk so proud eversince i established my interest in girls in my office, which earlier I had deliberately not done.

Men's spaces value masculine men who are open about their sexual need for men

It’s so damn oppressive. Men really value someone amidst them who is masculine and and open about his interest in men. They really make that guy feel special in men’s spaces. But in heterosexualised spaces, they create such extreme fears that the same guys then make such fun of male to male sexuality that no straight man can dare to show interest in men. The only ones that do then, are the effeminate ones.

Heterosexuality denotes removal of man from his nature

Heterosexuality denotes the extreme removal of man from his nature. And that is why it is the most unnatural, most unmanly and most feminine thing to do. Yet it is propagated as the opposite, the most natural, the most manly and the most masculine thing to do or be.

/.....

It's not about Masculinity, but Manhood

It's not masculinity that controls and governs men's life, because its not really masculinity that they are after. Instead, its Manhood, or rather Social manhood. They are willing to sacrifice their masculinity and embrace femininity, if it can give them social manhood. And that's how they have brought themselves down to the level of Heterosexuality.

Therefore, Men will even agree to wear sarees and put on make up and jewellery if it is required to get social manhood.

However, ironically, those who get social manhood without having to sacrifice anything, because they fit in so well with the feminine criteria for it, don't need manhood in the first place and couldn't care for it less. For, they have no use for manhood which signifies men's spaces. They want to be in women's spaces.

crushing the soul of men: That's how the society oppresses men

I have been in love relationships with many straight men.

I found, in each one of them, an extremely strong emotional longing and bond for me -- as strong as I had for them. But, I also found that their needs and feelings were heavily controlled by their minds (brain as against heart) which did not allow the longing to be expressed openly.

And I found all of them struggling bitterly within themselves. I realised that the society has divided them into two parts. One part wanted to be with me -- more than anything else in this world. One part that was willing to die for me. And the other part, which was completely in control of the society which was not going to allow the relationship to come out at all, although it allowed it to form it secretly without being acknowledged.

All the relationships finally broke, because the part that the society controlled were much more powerful. And, I was always heart broken, thinking the love wasn't reald. But its not true. Their love was as pure as mine. As devoted and as committed.

Then why couldn't they leave the society, even in secret and in private, for me -- why were they scared to accept and acknowledge their love for me, when faced with the choice. And left me rather than fight the society with the intense love that they had. Afterall, you know all those male-female couples that die for each other, when they cannot meet because of social pressures. Then can we say that male-female love is stronger than male-male love.

Definitely not. The love I experienced for these men, and the love that I saw they had for me, was the strongest that can be in this world. Then why did our relationship break? The answer to this question, I feel, is finally going to explain a lot of things, and probably pave the way to finding a solution in the future. It was not 1% less than the love that makes a man and woman decide to commit suicide together when the society makes it impossible for them to meet. In fact it was a lot more than that.

The thing is that the social mechanisms have forced the men into breaking themsevles into two parts. The mechanims break their inner souls from their bodies, so that the inner-soul doesn't have any control over the outer body, and what it does. The inner soul represents our feelings, desires and basic needs. While the outer body, which is directly in control of the society is represented by the head (brain) which is in complete control of the outer body, his actions, his attitudes, etc.

Why does the society break straight men into two parts? Because, the society cannot control the inner-soul. That is determined by the nature. So, it cuts off the portion that it cannot control and keeps the body and the brain under its direct control.

And this is where the oppression of men start.

The brain, which becomes a puppet of the society (which in turn is controlled by the forces of heterosexualisation) doesn't let the inner-soul see the light of the day. it doesn't give it any space. In fact, it develops a hatred for that inner-soul. The body and the brain were supposed to be a vehicle for the inner-soul to realise itself into this material world. But, since in men the inner-soul lose this vehicle, the soul has no space to live. It is left somewhere deep down, mutilated by the brain, in a damp, suffocated dungeon, where it never sees the light of the day.

And then if without suspecting, the outer body allows another man to come close to the soul, the soul falls in love with him. The body doesn't like that, and it tries its best to end this there and then. But the body can also feel the sensual pleasure that the other man brings, and it is enticed to give in a little -- in fact a lot, but as long as the inner soul is not bared/ exposed to the outside world, it allows the relationship to flourish.

The inner soul, which is weak by now, and undeveloped, falls deeply in love with this man who reaches out his hand to touch it... And, eventhough the body doesn't want it and probably doesn't even know, the inner-soul develops a deep bond with the other man.

And then a time comes, when the bond becomes so strong that it starts forcing to come out, to see the light of the day, even if in private, between the two men. This is unacceptable to the body, which through its control of the society, is not allowed to ever, ever let that soul come out. Not even in privacy.

So, then it is time for the body to take action. He does still try to settle matters without having the inner-soul to come out. But, when the bond demands that the soul be allowed out, in a limited way, then the body takes the ultimate action. It kills the bond, mutilating the inner-soul beyond recognition and forcing it inside the deep dungeon again, with an intensity/ cruelty that was not shown at it ever so far.

The bond dies, and in a way, the inner-soul too dies, in both the men. And it is no different from two people -- a man and a woman who commit suicide because they couldn't be together.

I was different from the men I was in relationship with. Because, I had learned to rebel, to fight the social mechanisms -- and it was divine intervention. There are very few straight men who get the opportunity to escape these mechansisms that break them into two parts and control their bodies.

My inner-sould and my body were still one. My inner-soul controls my body, and my body works for my inner soul, as its vehicle. I don't suppress my inner soul, but I allow it to grow, as far as possible considering that the outer world (society) is so hostile to it, that it will kill it through other social mechanisms, the moment it spots it (ridicule, peer-pressure, throwing with the third gender).

But in the straight men, this is the reason why they never think of fighting the society for their inner-soul. When ever a fight erupts, they just kill their inner-soul.

And, liberating men would imply liberating their bodies and brain from the various psycho-social mechanisms that control it. So that eventually, the inner-soul is liberated and is allowed to see the light of the day. So that they too can fulfill the purpose for which each soul comes to this earth, to realise itself through the body.

How to liberate the bodies is still a mystery!

member
Reclaiming Natural Manhood site

If men could get the right leadership they will definitely get united once again to fight the forces of heterosexualisation

aadmi ye ladai buri tarah haar gaye hain (Men have badly lost their battle). So they must efface themselves in order to be counted as men. What men forget is that the society is made by us. We may be the losers, but we lost because of circumstances. And, todayd, if we get the right leadership, and the right wisdom and motivation, we can once again fight and defeat our oppressors.

Afterall, we are the strongest human gender. For us to live like this in an undignified manner, mutilating our inner-selves and bending over backwards to fit into their social manhood, doesn't behove us.

Difference between 'deshi' and things 'Western'

There is an important difference between everything that is modern and western and those that are traditional and non-Western.

While everything that is western or originates from the West is obssessed with the materialistic aspect, the physical aspect, of how things look -- so much so that only what can be seen becomes important. What is behind what is visible becomes unimpportant, useless. Extreme value is attached to what can be seen.

So, everything looks larger than life in the West. Looks more glamoruous, more attractive. But, the moment you look within or behind that larger than life image, its completely hollow, beswaad.

The traditional/ non-western things lay more stress on the inside, though not necessarily ignoring the outside. They rather stress on a balance between outside and inside. So, the more backwards you go in time, things have more essence, they're solid. And that is what really counts.

We call the traditional/ non-western as "deshi".

To take an example, the hybrid variety of pudina brought from the West, looks extra large. it's really big and dark green in colour. So, naturally it looks more enticing than the 'deshi' pudina, which is much smaller in size and much less 'glamorous' in front of its 'western' counterpart.

But when you eat that western pudina (mint), it is so tasteless, so bland, lifeless. And when you eat the deshi pudina, its so full of taste, so full of life. If you have eaten that deshi pudina, which unfortunately, is not widely availalble in Indian cities today, you will never like to have the western ones, no matter how good they look.

It's the same with western social manhood and traditional social manhood.

asli cheez asli cheez hi hoti hai. Khali dikhane se koi asli nahin ho jaataa.

Their sexual need for women however little is made social extremely valuable for men

Most men use their limited natural physical sexual urge for women, which is periodical, to hang on to social manhood in heterosexual societies by forming emotional/ romantic and social bonds with women on its basis. for this they try their best to expand on their limited natural sexual need and make it more constant. They succeed in various degrees. The rest they just pretend. And so, this heterosexuality is from inside actually, almost hollow, based on pretenses.

.....

Queers are ruling men's spaces

It is said somewhere in Hindu scriptures that in kaliyug (modern times), the third gender will rule.

And indeed its heterosexuality which is ruling in the garb of 'real men'.

But, the scriptures did not say that this rule will go on forever. Maybe the Kalka avatar of Ram will wipe out this unholy rule of the negative elements of the third gender (in the form of 'real' heterosexuals and homosexuals) when he comes to save the world, as told by the scriptures. Perhaps, I as an d'avatar' of Hanuman have been sent to earth to create the groundwork for this avatar, using which the Kalka avatar of Ram can rid the earth of the evil.

.....

Giving in to social manhood pressures maybe the easy way out, but it is harmful in the long run

Giving in to the pressures and learning to fit in, may be the easiest way out. And you may actually feel proud of yourself for having mastered it, and in return you are not only rewarded by the society, you also are able to withstand the pressures and it makes you feel like an achiever, a survivor.

But, this is still the easy way out. In the long run this approach is going to harm you. Because, it comes at the cost of effacing your inner-self. Your actual self. You'll lead your entire life without knowing or being who you really are. If you don't care for who you really are, then who will.

It's ultimately getting back to nature that will save you.

Just like using chemical dyes to colour your hair may be the easy way out. But ultimately, it will not only make all your hair white. it will slowly damage your inner organs, so that, by the time you're thirty or forty you will be inflicted with several lifestyle related serious diseases, inlcuding blood pressure, kidney problems, diabetes, etc.

But, if you take the natural way out, it will be hard, but it will give you naturally black hair (yes it is possible to do it, if you do it before you damage your hair too much with chemicals). You can have your black hair back naturally, without any damage to any of your organs. But like I said, it will require hard work and to make some sacrifices and changes in your lifestyle/ attitude.

If you are a real man, you should go for the hard way, not the easy way. Unfortunately, the modern society gives extreme value to the 'easy ways' and encourages them, while the things earned through the hard way are not really valued by the society. However, the real things earned through the natural hard way will always reward you much more than society can ever do.

Queers are those which are unaffected by feminised pressures of social manhood

The unnatural and unmanly pressures of social manhood affect all men (men means masculine gendered males, not femdinine gendered males). But there is only one kind of males who does not suffer because of the pressures or feel their heat. And this group is that of the Queers, i.e., feminine gendered males. These males, in the current western setups are spread into the following two groups:

(1) true heterosexuals

(2) true homosexuals.

Therefore, if follwows that you are a Queer if the pressures of men generated by the immense mechanisms of men's oppression do not affect you.

It includes gays (i.e. feminine gendered males who like men and those true heterosexuals who fit in perfectly well without being discomforted, into the social manhood roles.

Queer means, "not a man", though a male.

reminding about the correct usage of 'Straight'

Straight is a term coined by the gays in Western heterosexualised societies, who have become extremely powerful to define labels and classifications for men -- having been given that power by the powerful forces of heterosexualisation that rule men's spaces in the West.

The word straight is meant to define the group that comprises of the masculine gendered males, and since in the westernised/ heterosexualised societies manhood is intricately tied with a sexual interest in women, so much so that both are seen as synonymous, 'straight' is defined as 'heterosexual'. So much so that, actually, heterosexual came first and then 'straight'.

However, since the heterosexuality of the straight group is just a fallacy, only its masculinity is real.

thus straight actually means masculine gendered males, and that is how we will use the word. Not in the misplaced sense of 'heterosexual'.

People don't choose identities based on their natural traits, but based on power magnets

When the basic human identities like Gender (or any other identity based on one's characteristics) is heavily politicised, their definitions are arbitrarily and unnaturally fixed, and some identities are given extreme powers while others extreme disempowerment, then people don't choose their social identities based on their actual traits but based on where the social powers are.

The conspirators against men have placed power magnets with the heterosexual identity. while it is defined as 'heterosexual', its basically the masculine gendered male space.

Now anyone with the slightest sexual need for women attaches himself to the power magnets that say "heterosexuality", rather than go to the disempowered 'homosexual' identity. Although, the true heterosexuals don't really fit into the 'masculine' magnet of the heterosexual identity, they get to taste the powers because of their heterosexuality.

Then come men (i.e. masculine gendered males) who may not have any sexual need for women at all, but they realise that the 'heterosexual' space is actually their space -- for masculine gendered males. So, they hang on to it using their masculinity, although for it, they not only have to pretend sexual interest in girls, they also have to suppress, like the 100% of other straight men, that their sexual interest in men.

It is only when one is left out of the 'heterosexual' group, both because of a lack of heterosexuality and a lack of masculinity, that one is forced to think about leaving the powerful 'heterosexual' group and joining the 'homosexual' space.

.....