The stigma of third gender has been conspiratorially transferred by the anti-man forces onto male desire for men, through the concept of homosexuality

Intimacy and sexual desire between men has been stigmatized for men in Western societies, NOT because of religion, but PRIMARILY, because of its association with the term 'gay' or 'homosexual.' And this is so, because Gay is nothing but a rehash of the traditional third gender identity and repackaging it as 'men who like men.' By doing this, the anti-man forces have cleverly shifted the stigma from male femininity and receptive anal sex to the very desire between men.

Unfortunately, with entire generations now being brainwashed in the West, people have -- on the conscious level -- forgotten this third gender basis of the stigma behind desiring other men, although, it still operates as the primary source of stigma, yet unacknowledged. And this makes it all the more tricky. Because, now this stigma of third gender has been totally transferred into the trait of male desire for men, and people have forgotten the 'third gender' stigma totally.

And unless, this anti-man mechanism is exposed and 'homosexuals' are exposed for who they really are -- third genders that like men (that makes them want a separate category), we can never liberate the man's power to bond with another man, and thus, we can never liberate the man himself.

The name of the Game

We know that the modern western, heterosexual concept of "Sexual Orientation" is only good for isolating those men who want to openly and "blatantly" seek intimacy with other men. We also know that there never was any such concept in the world.

Societies give names to those human relationships that it wants to give importance to. E.g. the Indian society has elaborate names for a lot of blood relatives and in-laws, including separate names for maternal and paternal in-laws, maternal and paternal uncles and aunts and so on, because for the Indian society these relationships are very important and need to be recognized so that they fit into the kind of society Indian culture seeks.

Indian culture has just a broad name "dost" or friend for male friends, because the formal society doesn't want to promote or recognize such bonds. But since men's spaces have carried on their male friendships, and inspite of non-recognition by the society they continue to play an important part in men's lives, the word is still in use. Although, a male friend has no social or legal right or claim over his friend, and no social obligation or duties. Whatever there is between two male friends is just mutual, based on mutual trust.

Indian society has no name for love bonds or sexual intimacy between two masculine males (men), because it wants to portray that such intimacy is not even possible and doesn't exist at all, so that it may seem weird to men themselves to harbour such feelings (although everyone does, but they're also conditioned to feel ashamed for it!). Since, men did not have such bonds openly, they did not give even an informal name to it (although, they have given a name to sexual play between men called "masti"). However, men continued sexual and emotional intimacy with men behind the label of "friendships" which even provided them with safety against being barred socially from manhood.

But, the ancient Greek societies, and there are still such sociesties that exist in the most unlikely places -- and they're all macho, warrior societies -- placed great importance on romantic bonds between (straight) men. Therefore, they had special names for such relationships -- name for one's male lover ... since these bonds were constituted around age, there were separate names for the older and the younger lovers.

However, in none of these societies, were there names that differentiated between men who liked men and men who liked women. None of these names held a man who liked man as a different 'gender' of man, like the term 'homosexualit y' or 'homosexuality' suggests. The idea that males who like women and men are essentially and biologically different from each other form a different gender is purely a Western one, totally invalid and the most harmful part of the larger conspiracy against men.

However, even if the anti-man Forces of Heterosexualization were to implement this differentiation fairly, it would work against their very own interests. Because, then 90% of men will become homosexuals and it would sound strange to call the remaining heterosexuals as 'straight'. Because straight means 'normal', 'regular' and 'masculine'. Then Heterosexual would be the gays and be classified along with the Third Gender.

That would be the natural scheme of things.

However, the Forces of Heterosexualization are able to use this system of isolation against male-to-male intimacy only because the society has strong pscyho-sexual mechanisms and hostilities in place against man to man intimacy, which operate at the deepest level of man's existence, and which the forces of heterosexualization keep thrusting on men, perpetually.

It's due to these pressures continually applied on men that men are kept from choosing the 'homosexual' label, when this system of sexual apartheid is used, and which gives the heterosexual society and its men the present shape, which shows men as primarily, constantly and exclusively heterosexual, and the third gender minority as 'homosexual'.

Homosexuality is a conspiracy

The 'homosexual' identity can also be seen as a clever attempt by the queer, passive males to minimize their stigma by taking an identity that ignores the difference between them and the 'normal' males who penetrated them.

As a result, their position is slightly improved in the society, but the condition of those who penetrate and man to man sexual desire as such has become extremely stigmatized, but still not quite as much as the passive, effeminate male.

World against straight male to male intimacy

What the modern world has destroyed is straight male to male intimacy -- from sexual to social, and what is needed is social intervention at a grand scale to restore it, keeping in mind the severity, long history and the extent of the problem.

The role of 'sexual orientation' in pressurising men to disown their need for men

When the society defines a sexual interest in men as 'queer' or 'gay', then it makes the desire an extreme burden for men -- who are in an intense race for social manhood for survival, in which they have to prove that they are not queers, however queer is defined in that society. Its a competition that gays and women are just not aware of. They only know about straights what is told or shown to them.

Isn't this burdening of man-to-man desire a clear-cut social conspiracy against men in the name of 'Sexual Freedom'?

The role of 'Sexual Orientation' and 'Homosexuality' in heterosexualizing men

By shifting the definition of 'queer' from the act of being penetrated to include even manly sexual interest in men, the concept of Sexual Orientation has severely disadvantaged man to man intimacy by placing it entirely in the hands of Queers. 

And by defining all kinds of sexual/ social/ emotional interest in women as straight or manly, it has given extreme powers to heterosexuality, deciding the fate of men as a species which is pressurised to disown their sexual need for men and to be heterosexual.

Sexual Orientation as an institution of man's oppression

Sexual Orientation is the biggest tool of man's oppression in the modern world. Its the science's addition to the age old conspiracy against men, in the modern world, just as in the middle ages Religion added to the conspiracy by making anal sex between males a sin, while in the ancient world the conspiracy started by making receptive anal sex a disqualification for manhood and by making reproduction the basic criteria for granting manhood.

Why has the stigma shifted from getting fucked to liking men?

Why have straight men given up sex with men and disowned any sexual interest in men altogether when earlier they only avoided getting penetrated?

Why are straight men so scared of being even socially intimate with men in the West?

And the answer: Because of the invention of the concept of Sexual Orientation, homosexuality and 'gays'.

The basis of man's oppression

The basis of the oppression of men is the wrong notion that the majority of men have a sexual need for women and that this need is the essence of being a man. 

Masculine male's and feminine males sexual need for men are different in every respect

Homosexuals see their desire to be 'women' (in various degrees) as an integral part of their liking men. To be fair to them, their sexuality for men is intricately linked with their feminine gender, and is indeed indistinguishable from it.

However, what gays don't realise (in traditional societies gays know that pretty well) is that masculine gendered males do not have a desire to be women, and when they like other men, they don't see themselves as women at all. Liking men does not fulfill their femininity, but enhances their manhood (at least, if it weren't for social femininity forcefully imposed on them by the heterosexualized society). for masculine gendered, or normal or regular or straight males, their sexuality for men is intricately linked with their masculinity and manhood, and is indistinguishable from the latter.

In this respect, Sexuality and Gender are not separate but intricately linked with each other, and quite indistinguishable from each other. However, not in the way that the concept of 'sexual orientation' prescribes.

Now, as we have seen, masculine gendered male's need and desire for other men (a combination of gender and sexuality) is totally different from a feminine male's sexual desire for men (again a combination of gender and sexuality). It is totally wrong to classify both of these two different sexual desires/ gender into one head as 'homosexuality' through the manipulative system of sexual orientation. Studying and stereotyping both of these using the third gender (feminine model) completely distorts nature of men's sexual need for men.

Heterosexuality represents the oppression of man

Heterosexuality represents the oppression of man. And so does homosexuality.

It is to force men to reproduce more than their real nature allowed, that the foundation of their oppression of laid. This oppression has today taken the shape of Heterosexuality, which they are expected to be... The irony is that we don't need enhanced reproduction anymore, and that you don't need to have a heterosexual orientation to reproduce... just sex with women once or twice every year.

Homosexuality represents the concretizing of the historical defeat of man to man bond, and its desire itself. It represents two stigmas attached to this desire by the modern, western, heterosexualized society.

1. The patholising of man to man desire,

2. The queering of this desire, by classifying it in the queer space.

Why do straight men seem to so hate male to male desire

It's because, in western heterosexualized societies, desiring another man has been associated with a group of freaks and effeminate male who feel different from normal men (through the concept of sexual orientation), that this desire has become extremely stigmatized.

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.

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.

Homosexuals usurp straight male icons

After defining 'homosexuality' as love between males of all gender (including the queer, third gender males, who are not even men as per historical or traditional standards), gays have gone ahead with claiming the ancient men who love men as 'homosexuals', no matter if it was the majority of mainstream men (which can only mean straight men, since gays are only 10%)... and their love is included as history of gays and GLBT.

Nothing could be more wrong than this.

How can Alexander be a Catamite. It were the effeminate catamites who received penetrative sex from men who were the Catamites or the gay of the times. By changing the definition you can't change history or biology of people.

Third sex are not men. Men are not Third sex. That is why Queer heterosexuals are not counted as straights.

Why do men hate femininity?

The only reason that men hate male femininity and queers is that it is held out as a threat to them for rebelling against social, fake manhood, that force men to behave in unmanly ways in order to be counted as men.

Men hate third gender because they see them as punishment.

And masculine men who accept their sexuality for men have a special reason to hate queers in the heterosexualized world. And it is the fact that they are forced to share the same identity as queers, and their own gender (man, masculine male) is negated. And that they are broken from the group that they really belong to (straight).

Otherwise, male femininity is very natural, and there's nothing in there to hate as such. In fact in ancient societies, the third gender was really respected and liked by all and sundry.