Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Liberating women, enslaving men
In a society where a man is not considered a man unless he has sex with women, and there is no space for men to say no to women without losing their manhood, in a society where women have been artificially invested with such immense power over men as the granters of manhood, it makes perfect sense to put restraints on women's sexuality, in order to create a balance. To stop men from becoming totally helpless and vulnerable, even as they do their best to fulfil their social roles, and to stop women from becoming exploitative.
It is under this background that the restrictions placed on women's sexuality -- from making them go in purdah, to disallowing them from wearing 'sexy' clothee, to stopping them from showing sexual feelings openly -- should be seen. The men's sexuality is chained too. But the chains are not outward, but inward, on their souls. And men are not even supposed to complain, if they have to retain their right to get social manhood.
The West sees the outer restrictions on women and cries foul and shouts about "lack of women's rights' in non-Western societies. But it fails to see the immense restrictions placed on men's sexuality, that are not readily visible. It's the typical Western outlook at life, symbolised by its insistence of 'science' as the means to understand the truth -- the axiom that "only that can be seen exists." So, since you can't see men's chains, they surely must not exist.
This mentality gives immense freedom to the anti-man forces to run amok and further tighten the restrictions placed on men, and concretizes the requirement of men to have sex with women in order to gain social manhood, into a 'heterosexual' identity, and requires men to have a constant and exclusive desire for men. Since men are forced to pretend to have such exclusive heterosexual desires, western 'science' then uses this as proof that heterosexuality is a basic man's trait. that defines manhood, since, "what appears has to be real" is the axiom that the superficial West goes by.
So, the West liberates women from the chains on their sexuality. In fact, it gives them space to be sexual in a way that is way more than what happens naturally, through the use of contraceptives and freeing women from the 'burden' of procreation -- while forcing men into sex with women on the pretext that it is important for procreation.
At the sametime, the West takes the internal chains of men's sexuality to its extreme, by introducing the system of 'sexual orientation' which takes away all space from men to be anything but heterosexual, to be a part of the men's spaces and social manhood.
It is no wonder then that most men turn out to be heterosexual. Some of it is real, some a pretense. But even the real ones aren't natural. They have been artificially heterosexualized through the politics of male gender and sexuality.
And this is the real story of man's enslavement, which Western science won't tell you.
It is under this background that the restrictions placed on women's sexuality -- from making them go in purdah, to disallowing them from wearing 'sexy' clothee, to stopping them from showing sexual feelings openly -- should be seen. The men's sexuality is chained too. But the chains are not outward, but inward, on their souls. And men are not even supposed to complain, if they have to retain their right to get social manhood.
The West sees the outer restrictions on women and cries foul and shouts about "lack of women's rights' in non-Western societies. But it fails to see the immense restrictions placed on men's sexuality, that are not readily visible. It's the typical Western outlook at life, symbolised by its insistence of 'science' as the means to understand the truth -- the axiom that "only that can be seen exists." So, since you can't see men's chains, they surely must not exist.
This mentality gives immense freedom to the anti-man forces to run amok and further tighten the restrictions placed on men, and concretizes the requirement of men to have sex with women in order to gain social manhood, into a 'heterosexual' identity, and requires men to have a constant and exclusive desire for men. Since men are forced to pretend to have such exclusive heterosexual desires, western 'science' then uses this as proof that heterosexuality is a basic man's trait. that defines manhood, since, "what appears has to be real" is the axiom that the superficial West goes by.
So, the West liberates women from the chains on their sexuality. In fact, it gives them space to be sexual in a way that is way more than what happens naturally, through the use of contraceptives and freeing women from the 'burden' of procreation -- while forcing men into sex with women on the pretext that it is important for procreation.
At the sametime, the West takes the internal chains of men's sexuality to its extreme, by introducing the system of 'sexual orientation' which takes away all space from men to be anything but heterosexual, to be a part of the men's spaces and social manhood.
It is no wonder then that most men turn out to be heterosexual. Some of it is real, some a pretense. But even the real ones aren't natural. They have been artificially heterosexualized through the politics of male gender and sexuality.
And this is the real story of man's enslavement, which Western science won't tell you.
Friday, October 9, 2009
"I'm harsh towards guys, but soft towards girls ..." -- Western manhood
After having fraudunlently established Heterosexuality as the new definition of Manhood, the Western society propagates male softeness -- in fact, male servility to women in sexual contexts (the only context in which men are expected to see women) as 'masculine' and 'manly'. This servility is easily carried forward in all interactions of men with women, since, in any case, sexuality is the only context in which manly men are expected to see women in the West.
At the sametime, manly, masculine males are expected not to be soft, and certainly never servile towards another man in a sexual context. That is propagated as the queerest of things to do. Men are expected to become hard like rock, indifferent and antagonistic to other men, in the sexual context. The anti-man forces, then easily carry forward this expectation from men into all interactions between men, and even non-sexual softness of a man for another is tagged as effeminate (i.e. 'gay').
This is only a small part of the politics of gender and sexuality which is part of the anti-man conspiracy, used by the Western society to manipulate not only the social and sexual behaviour or men, but even their very thoughts.
However, in reality, or, in nature, softness and servility towards a man who loves you, only enhances your manhood. This softness allows your masculinity to merge with the masculinity of another man, and this combination does wonders to the masculinity and manhood of each man.
In western, heterosexualized contexts, where each man is out to prove is repulsion for guys, and those who show softness towards other guys are disempowered artificially, if a man does show softness to another guy he loves, the other man, even if he loves the man too, will respond with rudeness, as he becomes extremely insecure about his own love for another man. This situation then harms the manhood of the man who shows softness towards the other. If he continues to show this softness/ servility to another man who continues to show rudeness to him, even while they share a 'relationship' of some sort, it makes the first male emasculated, and thus 'gay' or 'homosexual' while the other man keeps his manhood and remains 'straight'. But this is brought about through an unnatural, social engineering and doesn't reflect the reality.
In nature, softness and servility towards women, especially in sexual contexts severely depletes a man's masculinity and manhood, in a way, no other activity can. Softness and servility towards women tends to transfer the man's masculinity on to the woman and transfer her femininity on to the man. In the end, both are queered. Masculinity and femininity don't naturally merge. They negate each other.
However, in western, heterosexualized spaces, this natural process is reverted through artificial social engineering. When a man shows servility towards another female, his membership of the straight (manhood) is strengthened, which increases his manhood and power. His sense of manhood is artificially augmented and he is looked at as an ideal by his peers, who are all competing to achieve heterosexuality as the new 'manhood'. This of course, queers the men's gender as a whole. This manhood of a 'heterosexual' male servile to women, that makes him do extremely feminine stuff such as performing oral sex on women, or be emotionally bonding with the woman, may be a reality, but it has been brought about by an unnatural process, by reverting the process of nature through 'science.'
This is how modern science adds to the ancient politics of male gender and sexuality.
In every male dominated, macho, warrior cultures of the past or even the present, male servility to another man in a love bond was considered highly masculinizing for both the men. The most prominent example is the servility of Hanuman to Ram. Hanuman is THE deity of macho males in India. He is manhood deitified. He grants manhood to his worshippers. But, ancient societies are full of such examples. Indeed, the every warrior culture promoted such male romantic bonds where each man was servile to the other, but was disastrous for the enemy. Whether it was the sacred bond of Thebes or the mighty warriors of Samurais, male servility in a love bond with another man was rightly considered the ultimate act of manhood. And, unlike the manhood of modern west's heterosexuals, there was nothing unnatural about this. This happened naturally, through a natural process of development of manhood.
At the sametime, servility or softness to a woman, and thus a contact with a woman has been considered the ultimate queering or feminizing act or trait by a man. All these warrior cultures thrived by avoiding any contact with women, except for procreation. Any further contact apart from vaginal sex for procreation was avoided like plague by these warrior cultures, even within marriage, which had become a social duty of men in the societies by now. Eg. Hanuman stayed away from women, even their shadows. And his macho warrior followers called Pehelwans, to this day avoid even the shadow of women, and remain unmarried for their entire life. Even the married devout followers of Hanuman have only procreative sex with their wifes, while others stay away from sex with their wives/ girlfriends on Tuesdays. This is to please a god who grants manhood. Similarly, amongst the Greeks, it was believed that too much sex with women, even vaginal intercourse is a sign of femininity. In India, even today, a man who is servile to women is called "Joru ka ghulaam" a negative term that points to the lack of manhood in the male. Men in such societies will never even dream about performing oral sex on their women. And certainly will baulk at the idea of holding their hands, especially in public.
The Samurai warriors, although married, had romantic bonds only with another male, and had a very social, superficial relationship with their wives. It is said that Samurai warriors slept with their wives with a dagger below their pillows, because they did not trust their wives at all.
Indeed, there was also a time, at the very beginning of human civilization, when adolesent males were sown with the seeds of male sperm through anal sex in order to masculinize them and to remove the femininity that had accumulated in them through living with the females all these years, as can still be witnessed in the far off, Samoan warrior tribes of Papa New Guinea. These warrior cultures looked down upon 'whores' so much, that they were thought to be witches out to rob men of their manhood.
This hatred of 'whores' or sexually promiscuous or 'heterosexual' women is still rampant in male dominated, machoistic societies of the world. INterestingly, the Western feminine society glorifies the whores and their queered males bow before them.
At the sametime, manly, masculine males are expected not to be soft, and certainly never servile towards another man in a sexual context. That is propagated as the queerest of things to do. Men are expected to become hard like rock, indifferent and antagonistic to other men, in the sexual context. The anti-man forces, then easily carry forward this expectation from men into all interactions between men, and even non-sexual softness of a man for another is tagged as effeminate (i.e. 'gay').
This is only a small part of the politics of gender and sexuality which is part of the anti-man conspiracy, used by the Western society to manipulate not only the social and sexual behaviour or men, but even their very thoughts.
However, in reality, or, in nature, softness and servility towards a man who loves you, only enhances your manhood. This softness allows your masculinity to merge with the masculinity of another man, and this combination does wonders to the masculinity and manhood of each man.
In western, heterosexualized contexts, where each man is out to prove is repulsion for guys, and those who show softness towards other guys are disempowered artificially, if a man does show softness to another guy he loves, the other man, even if he loves the man too, will respond with rudeness, as he becomes extremely insecure about his own love for another man. This situation then harms the manhood of the man who shows softness towards the other. If he continues to show this softness/ servility to another man who continues to show rudeness to him, even while they share a 'relationship' of some sort, it makes the first male emasculated, and thus 'gay' or 'homosexual' while the other man keeps his manhood and remains 'straight'. But this is brought about through an unnatural, social engineering and doesn't reflect the reality.
In nature, softness and servility towards women, especially in sexual contexts severely depletes a man's masculinity and manhood, in a way, no other activity can. Softness and servility towards women tends to transfer the man's masculinity on to the woman and transfer her femininity on to the man. In the end, both are queered. Masculinity and femininity don't naturally merge. They negate each other.
However, in western, heterosexualized spaces, this natural process is reverted through artificial social engineering. When a man shows servility towards another female, his membership of the straight (manhood) is strengthened, which increases his manhood and power. His sense of manhood is artificially augmented and he is looked at as an ideal by his peers, who are all competing to achieve heterosexuality as the new 'manhood'. This of course, queers the men's gender as a whole. This manhood of a 'heterosexual' male servile to women, that makes him do extremely feminine stuff such as performing oral sex on women, or be emotionally bonding with the woman, may be a reality, but it has been brought about by an unnatural process, by reverting the process of nature through 'science.'
This is how modern science adds to the ancient politics of male gender and sexuality.
In every male dominated, macho, warrior cultures of the past or even the present, male servility to another man in a love bond was considered highly masculinizing for both the men. The most prominent example is the servility of Hanuman to Ram. Hanuman is THE deity of macho males in India. He is manhood deitified. He grants manhood to his worshippers. But, ancient societies are full of such examples. Indeed, the every warrior culture promoted such male romantic bonds where each man was servile to the other, but was disastrous for the enemy. Whether it was the sacred bond of Thebes or the mighty warriors of Samurais, male servility in a love bond with another man was rightly considered the ultimate act of manhood. And, unlike the manhood of modern west's heterosexuals, there was nothing unnatural about this. This happened naturally, through a natural process of development of manhood.
At the sametime, servility or softness to a woman, and thus a contact with a woman has been considered the ultimate queering or feminizing act or trait by a man. All these warrior cultures thrived by avoiding any contact with women, except for procreation. Any further contact apart from vaginal sex for procreation was avoided like plague by these warrior cultures, even within marriage, which had become a social duty of men in the societies by now. Eg. Hanuman stayed away from women, even their shadows. And his macho warrior followers called Pehelwans, to this day avoid even the shadow of women, and remain unmarried for their entire life. Even the married devout followers of Hanuman have only procreative sex with their wifes, while others stay away from sex with their wives/ girlfriends on Tuesdays. This is to please a god who grants manhood. Similarly, amongst the Greeks, it was believed that too much sex with women, even vaginal intercourse is a sign of femininity. In India, even today, a man who is servile to women is called "Joru ka ghulaam" a negative term that points to the lack of manhood in the male. Men in such societies will never even dream about performing oral sex on their women. And certainly will baulk at the idea of holding their hands, especially in public.
The Samurai warriors, although married, had romantic bonds only with another male, and had a very social, superficial relationship with their wives. It is said that Samurai warriors slept with their wives with a dagger below their pillows, because they did not trust their wives at all.
Indeed, there was also a time, at the very beginning of human civilization, when adolesent males were sown with the seeds of male sperm through anal sex in order to masculinize them and to remove the femininity that had accumulated in them through living with the females all these years, as can still be witnessed in the far off, Samoan warrior tribes of Papa New Guinea. These warrior cultures looked down upon 'whores' so much, that they were thought to be witches out to rob men of their manhood.
This hatred of 'whores' or sexually promiscuous or 'heterosexual' women is still rampant in male dominated, machoistic societies of the world. INterestingly, the Western feminine society glorifies the whores and their queered males bow before them.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Gays can't see the sexuality of straight males for each other, because its masked
Let's be very clear about one thing.
Men, i.e. those whom the western society today defines as 'straight' do not own their sexual desire for men only because, the third genders, whom the western society today calls the 'homosexuals' have taken it up as their identity.
For more than three thousand years, men have been avoiding like hell, anything that becomes associated with the third genders. Because, the politics of male gender and sexuality have marginalized the third genders and the third gender space/ identity has been (ab)used as banishment zone for men who don't conform to the manhood terms fixed by those controlling formal manhood. Men just hate that.
Let's also be clear that only those who are on the straight side are real men, those on the side of the LGBT's are third genders.
So, straight identified males deny they have any desire for men, because otherwise they'd be called 'gays' (third genders). They avoid any fashion, any set of behaviours that the society associates with the gays. And the anti-man forces that control manhood in the West today, know this very well and exploit this weakness of men to the hilt by propagating anything they want men to disown as 'gay'. The third genders (gays) feel powerful everytime a masculine male trait is attributed to them ... even if this empowerment is at the cost of men.
So, even if men have sexual play with each other, whenever they get the time, they like to see each other naked, touch each other, they would not do anything that is in the 'gay' zone. So, they may strip each other to see them naked, under a proper, acceptable excuse, they will not kiss each other or hold each other's hands, especially in public, because that is seen as 'gay'. It's not that they are averse to kissing another man or holding hands with them, but that is established as 'gay' by the anti-man forces.
Then again, they'd do that and a lot more in sports, because, there men's spaces are still strong and its not considered 'gay'.
So, its not surprising at all that the third genders (homosexuals) can't see the sexual need for each other that is hidden in the suppressed ways men (straight males) relate with each other physically. In fact, gays are so hung up on the relating sexuality with identity, that they will have a full-fledged relationship with a guy, who will keep refusing he has anything going for a guy, and still have monogamous sex with the 'gay' ... and the gay would still naively believe that the straight guy has no sexual feeling for gay. In his queer mind, if he did, he'd be 'gay', not 'straight'.
Men, i.e. those whom the western society today defines as 'straight' do not own their sexual desire for men only because, the third genders, whom the western society today calls the 'homosexuals' have taken it up as their identity.
For more than three thousand years, men have been avoiding like hell, anything that becomes associated with the third genders. Because, the politics of male gender and sexuality have marginalized the third genders and the third gender space/ identity has been (ab)used as banishment zone for men who don't conform to the manhood terms fixed by those controlling formal manhood. Men just hate that.
Let's also be clear that only those who are on the straight side are real men, those on the side of the LGBT's are third genders.
So, straight identified males deny they have any desire for men, because otherwise they'd be called 'gays' (third genders). They avoid any fashion, any set of behaviours that the society associates with the gays. And the anti-man forces that control manhood in the West today, know this very well and exploit this weakness of men to the hilt by propagating anything they want men to disown as 'gay'. The third genders (gays) feel powerful everytime a masculine male trait is attributed to them ... even if this empowerment is at the cost of men.
So, even if men have sexual play with each other, whenever they get the time, they like to see each other naked, touch each other, they would not do anything that is in the 'gay' zone. So, they may strip each other to see them naked, under a proper, acceptable excuse, they will not kiss each other or hold each other's hands, especially in public, because that is seen as 'gay'. It's not that they are averse to kissing another man or holding hands with them, but that is established as 'gay' by the anti-man forces.
Then again, they'd do that and a lot more in sports, because, there men's spaces are still strong and its not considered 'gay'.
So, its not surprising at all that the third genders (homosexuals) can't see the sexual need for each other that is hidden in the suppressed ways men (straight males) relate with each other physically. In fact, gays are so hung up on the relating sexuality with identity, that they will have a full-fledged relationship with a guy, who will keep refusing he has anything going for a guy, and still have monogamous sex with the 'gay' ... and the gay would still naively believe that the straight guy has no sexual feeling for gay. In his queer mind, if he did, he'd be 'gay', not 'straight'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)