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'.

Male lovers a threat to a straight male's heterosexualization

Early youth is the time for men to develop his heterosexuality. Even if you've a tiny amount of sexual need for women, you know you can hold on to it and develop it into enough heterosexuality to fulfill your basic needs of sexual and emotional support... and then of course, you have all the social and power and status to help your life become worthwhile. When a straight man trying to build up his heterosexuality, but not yet fully successful finds himself unwittingly entangled in a relationship with another man, it comes as a big disruption in his heterosexualization, in fact, a big threat to it. Being with a man in a big burden in this precious time (youth) ... when he should have actually built his heterosexuality enough. So, he keeps trying to keep a female alongside his male lover... never depending on the male lover solely for his emotional/ sexual needs. He will never agree to divesting in the male lover all his sexual and emotional needs even for a short time. For, straight males know, once they allow themselves to do that, there's no coming back.

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.

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.

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).

Why should man-woman intimacy not be allowed in public in traditional societies

This is what I wrote in response to a remark about how straight men always hold hands in public as show of their masculine behaviour, while men hardly ever hold hands with women in public, and that it would be nice if that could happen too:

It would ideally be nice if men and women could hold hands in India in public as well. However, there is a problem...

This freedom comes with the Western kind of heterosexualization. And, this westernization creates severe disempowerment and hostility against man to man intimacy... so, the freedom given to male-female intimacy is inversely proportional to the freedom that men have to show intimacy with each other. Both of these privileges have been snatched from man to man intimacy long ago.

You must understand that sexuality for women has immense social power attached to it by heterosexualized societies. It's only matched by the disempowerment or queering of man to man intimacy. Under such circumstances, men start showing intimacy towards women just to gain that social power, and avoid intimacy with men in order to escape extreme disempowerment.,

Not only that. Not all straight men really want intimacy with females, If informal men's spaces are heterosexualized in this manner too (like allowing male-female intimacy), they will be forced to be socially intimate with women in order to retain their social position as a (straight) man. I am already seeing that happening a lot in Indian westernized spaces, including in schools and colleges.

Under such circumstances, it is much better not to allow male-female intimacy that freedom in the public sphere, because after all, men and women are allowed to be intimate in private, and in marriage they carry a lot of privileges and power, Both of these have been snatched from men a long time ago, from our societies.

Male to male intimacy has no place in our societies,,, except in men's personal spaces, where they're greatly valued by men, If male-female intimacy is going to grab this last space (like it did in the West) that male intimacy has, it is sure to drive out male-male intimacy by wielding its immense social power and manhood attached to it (which male-male intimacy has been denuded of) -- as wherever there's unreasonable, unearned power, there will be abuse of it. If this happens, male-male intimacy would be finally driven totally out of the social mainstream, into third sex gay ghettos, like in the West,

That would be really unfortunate,

Why does heterosexuality need to take all of the social mainstream, including formal and informal spaces? If in the formal space its been given total control, it should be content with leaving the informal mainstream space to men.
Posted 19 minutes ago.

.....

Forces of Heterosexualization glamourize 'whores'

The heterosexualized anti-man society glamourizes 'whores' like in this BIG, huge board for Big Boss TV programme with a huge picture of a whore-woman that attended it. They only take whores in their programme.

Every such glorification of whores and giving them space within the mainstream society and thus into men's spaces (which are no more their personal spaces). This renders men completely vulnerable to be sexually exploited by such women or to go through the stress of showing interest in them but avoiding sex as far as possible.

The problem is, that men think its their ultimate duty or destiny to steel themsevles up against sex with women, if they are to be men, and so they accept everything without uttering a word.

The Western society wants complete eradication of man to man bonding

The modern Western society has waged a war against man to man sexuality like its a virus that needs to be completley eradicated from the men's population. The traditional society was content with suppressing this 'virus' so that it does not come in the way of marriage and reproduction, and did not need to be totally eradicated.

For this complete eradication of this 'virus' the Western society has created the strategy of quarantining man to man sexual need in the third sex 'homosexual' space, which has been specially created by the institution of science for this purpose.

However, in reality, its the Heterosexualisation which is really a disease. And the concept of sexual orientation, which needs to be fought by men.

But, how will they fight, as long as they are busy serving their oppressors for greed of the social powers granted by them.

Why not fight against this disease and snatch their powers to grant social manhood and power to us. Why not snatch our control of men's spaces from those Forces of Heterosexualisation? And be the masters of our own manhood and spaces.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.