An 'internet' incredulous 'gay' friend couldn't believe that a man who shows repulsion towards the idea of sexual/ romantic intimacy with men can actually have a need for intimacy with men, deep inside him -- a need that has been mutilated by social conditioning.

Another 'gay' person, who has somewhat progressed towards 'straight' after having a series of relationships with straight guys told me during 'counselling' that his new straight lover bit him bitterly in contempt as he was brushing his hands on his cheeks, lovingly. Of course, men when they get into relationships with a man, even when on one hand they show intense desire, emotions and sexual attraction, (which is nevertheless veiled and never directly acknowledged), on the other hand, they start off with being 'repulsed' by any explicitly intimate action -- such as brushing hands on one's cheeks. This repulsion takes sometime, actually, a lot of time and patience to go away, allowing the real feelings of the man -- of his need to give and take affection to be able to express itself freely. And it is also hard on the ego of the person who has to take the brunt of it.

The point is, the repulsion is not an evidence of men's lack of need of sexual/ romantic for men. This is a product of social conditioning and actually hides a deep such need. In fact, as long as men are under the influence of this socially generated repulsion men behave absolutely violently when someone makes a sexual advance towards them -- although, such cases almost always occur only when the other person is either 'feminine' or 'not desirable' or too 'old,' so the repulsion is towards the undesirability of the male, not the fact that one is a male. But, that is how men portray this repulsion.

So, you have men who are in intense relationships with either another man or a gay, and yet they hit violently someone who makes advances towards them -- and then claim that this is because they are 'repulsed' by man on man action.

The misuse of media

It's a pity that instead of using the powerful medium of 'media' to showcase genuine Indian culture and explore genuine Indian issues, it is being used merely either as a vehicle of westernization or as a vehicle of mindless heterosexualization.

The anti-man role: Those who cannot penetrate women are 'third genders'

In the "Comedy circus" episode telecast today (with hippo as the theme), comedian Rajesh makes a 'punch' like this, (he is playing a Hijra), "hamein tali ke siwa kuch bajana aataa hi nahin," (we can't do anything but clap).

"bajana" is a verb, that means to 'play' a musical instrument or to 'beat' a drum. 'Tali bajana' means to clap. As a vulgar slang, it also means to 'penetrate' sexually.

This was a dig at the common anti-man manhood role that says that a man who cannot 'do' women is a Hijra. That is the (mis)definition of Hijra most common in India, that Hijras are those that cannot have sex with women (it is assumed that it is because either they are castrated or they cannot physically achieve an erection, because of physical problems).

Marriages were social contracts not based on romance

the idea that marriages be based on romance and love between men and women was so unique to India -- even after decades of heterosexualized Hindi movie industry (copying from the west) propagated male-fenmale romance as their relentless theme -- that finally, when a few people started to enter into such marriages, they started a new name for them -- 'love marriages,' as opposed to normal marriages where love, romance and sexuality were never even considered.