Men run after women for the same reason that they run away from men... Social manhood.

STRAIGHT MEANS NORMAL, NOT HETEROSEXUAL

STRAIGHT means 'normal' in any context... and straight is used not only in the case of 'sexual identity' but in many different contexts, and everywhere its meaning is 'normal. 

Now its just so that the Western society and Gays specifically have defined the 'normal', 'regular' guy as 'heterosexual'. Does this mean that they are really heterosexual, at least exclusively heterosexual -- all or even a majority of them? Considering, that there is such immense pressure on 'normal', 'regular' guys to be heterosexual and to prove a repulsion towards male eroticism or intimacy with men, how can you be sure that the straight heterosexuality is not a mask put on to keep their 'normal', 'regular' status. In a world, where sex with women means social power, status and manhood, and a place in men's spaces, and a man is under immense pressure to prove his heterosexuality in order to be counted as 'normal' and 'regular', is it too 'wierd' to suspect that a lot of this heterosexuality may be fake? Especially, when there are strong evidences from non-Western societies -- and now, even from the Western world. 

You have to understand that the non-gays have such immense need to define themselves in a manner away from teh gays --- because of the ancient hatred of queers --- that they would give up anything that the society associates with the queers. 

Therefore, when the queers started to be defined as 'men who like men', the (straight) men gave up sexual desire for men altogether, at least, publicly. Earlier, when queer was defined as effeminate males who had receptive anal/ oral sex, Men had given up 'passive' sex altogether, at least publicly and would disown any interest in being penetrated. But they had no shame or qualms in accepting to penetrate a man or a queer.

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.

Erection woes of men

I am almost certain that men worry about getting an erection if they are to be massaged by a male, and worry about not getting an erection if they are to be massaged by a woman.

Same, when being checked out for a physical...

Disempowerment of men

It's a telling tale of the vulnerability and disempowerment of men that a man cannot say that he has no interest in girls, without losing his social manhood (straight identity in the west) or membership of the men's space.

If men are not pressurised most will not even notice girls

One of the several cliches made popular in men's spaces include "(for girls) if we don't look at you, your make-up and beautifying yourself will be in vain."
The fact is that, if there's no social pressure on men, most men would normally won't care to look at women.

Men don't know what it is to live without the stress of being whatever you're not!

As a man who did not build in him the mechanisms or go through the conditioning to suppress my needs and build thousands of minute inner resistances and pretences to hide and kill my natural needs and do what is required for the society, it seems so tortuous to see people like Sameer go through all those painstaking things, sacrificing one's intense and most basic needs and desires in the process, and thinking nothing of it.