Another strong case against Western Heterosexuality.

In traditional, non-western societies, marriage was only a social duty of men, with no obligation of any romantic/ emotional or social bonding, and hence very few marriages had these elements. Even the sexual oblitation of men was limited to sex for procreation.

Now, even in societies like India, which are highly westernized and heterosexualized, law has started to require that it is the duty of the spouse (especially men) to fulfill the sexual needs of the partner, even when the number of children desired has been reached. And if this need is not fulfilled then the other spouse (in most cases women) can sue for a divorce.

This law is extremely oppressive. Is law really concerned about fulfilling the sexual needs of people? Then, how can it prevent men from having sex with each other... then in fact, the law should come up with adequate provisions to safeguard such relationships.

If law is under no obligation to give people the right for sexual fulfillment, then it cannot force men to serve their wives sexually. After all, marriage is only for reproduction. 

There cannot be two standards

Another important discrepancy in the concept of 'sexual orientation'

The West defines 'homosexual' as someone who has exclusive sexual attraction for members of what they call 'same-sex'.

Now, if we agree that male sexuality is not divided between homo and hetero but exists in a continuum, with let's say 5% people are exclusively into men and 5% are exclusively into women, and the rest are somewhere in between. Then what is the rationale behind separating from the rest, the 5% exclusively into men as 'homosexuals' and classifying all the rest as 'heterosexual'. 

By same standards, a 'heterosexual' should be a person who has exclusive sexual attraction for members of the opposite sex. And that should, if there are no social pressures to identify themselves as exclusively heterosexual, amount to just 5%. But is not what the forces of heterosexualization want people to know.

Gender is a biological concept (and not social) distinct from sex

The Traditional Western society and its science, because of its Christian influence, considers Sex and Gender to be synonymous. The 'progressive' thought in the West seeks to oppose this belief by claiming that Gender is a social construct that has nothing to do with nature. They claim Gender is nothing but a set of arbitrarily defined gender roles ascribed to the male and female sex by different societies.

Thus both the traditional and progressive school of thoughts in the West consider Gender to be not a natural trait distinct from 'Sex'.

My contention is that both these schools of thought are essentially wrong, and have led to several faulty concepts in the West on human gender and sexuality.

The contemporary and ancient non-Western societies, as well as pre-modern West acknowledged Gender as a natural/ biological trait distinct from 'sex'. Gender in this respect is defined as the 'inner sex' of a person (or inner sense of being male or female) irrespective of his or her 'outer sex'. Sex of a person in this case refers to his or her outer sexual organs.

Thus a person born male could have a strong inner sense of being a female and so his Gender becomes feminine. This femininity doesn't need to be extreme... it could well be in different degrees.

Similarly a person born female could have a masculine 'inner sex' or Gender.

The Gender identity of a person cannot be decided just by his or her outer sex. The Gender identity is the basic identity of a person and is determined by the combination of 'Sex' (outer sex) and 'Gender' (Inner Sex). 

All non-Western societies classify their populations and social spaces/ identities based on these Gender identities into at least three distinct Genders:

1. Man: i.e. a predominantly masculine gendered male
2. Woman: i.e. a predominantly feminine gendered female
3. Third Gender (People who are partly male and partly female; Queer): Hermaphrodites, intersexed people, feminine gendered males and masculine gendered females.

Other societies (like the Balinese society) have as many as six different human genders.

These identities don't have anything to do with 'sexual orientation' of people.

The West confuses Gender identity with sexuality and classifies its population into a wierd combination of Gender and what it calls 'sexual orientation'. What is more of a concern that through the process of Globalization and its economic and technological might, the West imposes this invalid classification on the non-Western societies, which is nothing short of modern imperialism. It's a deliberate confusion created by the Forces of Heterosexualization, in order to misrepresent and misclassify man to man sexual instincts in order to discourage them.

Western science considers male femininity to be a 'disorder' and 'abnormality' not in the natural scheme of things. Female masculinity is better tolerated.

I feel there is a strong need for the West to learn from other cultures and broaden and improve some of its basic beliefs around human gender and sexuality.

.....

A major fault with the terms homosexual and heterosexual

The term homosexuality is ambiguously defined as referring both, even to a one time act of sex between two men, as well as to a "having sexual and romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to members of one’s own sex" (See Wikipedia).

Eventhough wikipedia defines heterosexuality as both referring to any sexual act between men and women, even one time, as well as to a predominant predisposition to sexuality towards women, in reality the term heterosexual is strictly defined in the west and even holding hands between two men can cost them their extremely important heterosexual status (because of its wrong association with manhood), leave alone a one time sexual act between men.

These ambiguities in the definitions of these terms of 'sexual identities' makes oppression of sexuality between 'straight' men quite easy.

Like mentioned before, even a small homosexual act by someone who is seen as 'predominantly heterosexual' can make people call him a 'homo', and refuse to accept him as 'heterosexual'. Because, one time sexual act between men is cleverly equated with a 'homosexual' orientation' because the word homosexual is used for a one time act as well as for a 'sexual orienation'.

This ambiguity too is intentional, and a product of the conspiracy hatched by the Forces of Heterosexualization against men.

How does the Western society impose its classfications on non-Western societies

The Western classification of humans beings, especially males into 'masculine heterosexual males' on one hand and everything else into 'queer' as LGBT, denotes the power structure in control in the West. Because, western identities are not based on facts or nature, but in almost every human aspect the divisions are made to suit the ruling class or trait in power, with the powerful trait always distinguished from the rest. Thus in the case of race, only pure 'white' is white, while even a slight mix of 'color' becomes 'black', even when its indistinguishable from white. There are no browns in this arrangement either.

But the problem when imposing this social division based on power politics on other cultures is that in other cultures divisions are still primarily based on nature of people, and the power structure prominent in the West is not yet powerful in non-westernized societies. One important difference is that in the West men's spaces have been totally destroyed/ heterosexualized and this has led to masculine male sexual desire/ need for men become vulnerable and disempowered, as masculine gendered males are no longer able to claim it... and so the trait is thrown in the 'queer' circle. The concept of 'homosexuality' comes especially handy in this.

Now, as long as the men's spaces are strong in the non-westernized societies, they are able to withstand this imposition of western classification, by changing the meaning and context of 'homosexuality' and 'gay'. Thus they both mean effeminate males (third sex) that have receptive sex with men.

However, when the Western society through its economic and technological power and the ongoing process of 'globalization' manages to westernize and thus heterosexualize these traditional societies, men's spaces are destroyed here too, and they become vulnerable, and when they are unable to protect men's sexual desire for men from being snatched from these heterosexualised spaces and pushed into 'queer' spaces, the western concepts are then able to be transplanted in these societies, with their immunity now totally compromised.

This is not good news for men (who are now labelled by gays as 'straights).

.....

Homosexuality is indeed a decrepit Western concept

Homosexuality as well as 'sexual orientation' are decrepit Western concepts. They are anti-man and part of the conspiracy against men.

The concept of Homosexuality identifies a man's sexual desire for men in such a stigmatized way that men have no other option but to disown their sexual need for men altogether.

All through the middle ages, men have dealt with their same sex needs by not acknowledging it outwardly, because of the hostilities and manhood roles, and indulge in it quietly in the safety of men's spaces. Not acknowledging their hidden sexual acts was extremely important for men to indulge in same-sex bonds.

The Forces of Heterosexualization, in order to force men to give up same-sex desires altogether, forcibly sought to 'acknowledge' this same-sex need in a blatant way through the concept of 'homosexuality'.

But this was not enough. The only males who were open about their liking for men and acknowledged it openly, were the third gendered males, who were not counted as men in the traditional set-up.

The forces of heterosexualization not only called them 'men' but defined them as the 'men who like men', or 'homosexuals'. And then having associated 'homosexuality' with this group of third gender, they then started to identify men's sexual desire for men as 'homosexual'. The hidden ghettoing together with the third sex was not lost on men (who were later defined by the gays as 'straights'), and the Forces of Heterosexualization built up the hositilities by stressing upon this hidden third sex factor. Gays themselves played it up, because for them it meant freedom to be who they were -- essentially transgendered. But for men it meant stigma all the way, and no other option but to leave their same-sex needs altogether.

Difference between Gay sexuality for men and Straight sexuality for men

The main difference between a Gay's sexuality for men and a man's sexuality for men is Gender. Let me explain this for a layman.

A man (or a straight man, if you please), when he desires a man (even if straight men don't do it openly because of the societal pressures), like him as a man -- that is they think of them as a man liking another man. This doesn't make them feel any different from other men, and he doesn't want another identity from other straight men for that. This is beside the point that all straight men have a strong sexual need for other men.

When a Gay likes another man, he does it so thinking he is a woman liking a man. In western societies he is made to think that his liking for men flows from his femininity, but that is basically wrong, because more than 90% of feminine or queer males are into women rather than men.
The Gay feels he is different from other men whom he calls 'straight'. Now, in a society which confuses gender with sexuality, he thinks it is because of his sexuality for him (which is termed as 'homosexuality', when actually its 'heterosexuality' because he is seeking a masculine man, when he himself is feminine).
Also, just like in India, feminine males don't think of themselves as 'women' even though they feel like women, they have a different identity -- third gender, so they think of themselves as a distinct gender from men and women. Likewise, gays too feel like they're women, but consider themselves a distinct identity from both men and women, which they identify as 'gay' or 'homosexual' (i.e. they wrongly explain this difference in terms of 'sexual orientation').
This is the reason, straight men don't identify with the concept of 'homosexuality' or with 'homosexuals' or with gays -- even when they themselves don't know the reason, they instinctively rather fight with their sexual feelings for men, rather than be considered 'homosexual'.
The concept of 'homosexuality' has integral links with male femininity, so homosexuality, although defined as a 'man's sexual feelings for men', actually means a 'queer's sexual feeling for men'. And so it can't be used to describe a man's sexual feelings for men (or a straight's sexual feeling for men), even if technically it fits the description. Just like, if you start calling 'sun' as the 'moon', then the actual 'moon' cannot be called 'moon' anymore, because then it becomes problematic. And in the case of gays, it is thousands times more problematic because of the stigma attached to male femininity (queerness).
Also, although the Western society says gender is not important, its only outer sex that is important, the fact is that most gays look for 'straight' men or at least 'straight-acting' men for sex -- (which means masculine acting, not really someone who pretends to be into women). And they do complain that there are hardly any gays who are good enough 'straight-acting'. Because, acting cannot be as good as the real thing.

Western society cripples the power of men to feel and then claim its biological

Western society is great...

First they cripple the emotionality of men, the power of men to feel emotions. They break men apart from their emotions. They force and condition men to suppress their feelings and only use their 'head' rather than their 'heart', and then they claim through their science that men don't feel, that they are not emotional, that they are more logical... that they don't want to talk about emotions is a biological trait, rather than something brought about by the social mechanisms of man's oppression.

Just like they cripple the sexual need and feelings of men for other men and then claim it doesn't exist biologically.