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'.

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

West confuses Gender with Sexual Orientation as a conspiracy against men

The West confuses Gender with Sexual Orientation... Masculine male Gender with Heterosexuality, and Feminine male gender with 'homosexuality' ... that is why it has changed the traditional "man" identity into 'heterosexual' identity (straight), and the "Third Sex/ Queer" identity into the 'homosexual' identity.

This confusion has been deliberately created by the Forces of Heterosexualization, by unacknowledging Gender as a natural trait, (ascribing it to mere social roles), and then going on to explain the gender differences between masculine and feminine males in terms of 'sexual orientation' -- the masculine males as 'heterosexuals', and the feminine males as 'homosexuals'.

This amounts to calling masculine as 'straight' and feminine as 'gay', (and this is why the 'gay' identity is unsuitable for masculine males who like men)

For the Forces of Heterosexualization, to create this confusion was difficult but not impossible because, the groundwork for this was already done through thousands of years of tying manhood with reproductive sex with women (although not heterosexuality as such), and at least two thousand five hundred years of tying queerhood/ effeminacy/ third sex with receptive anal sex (though not a sexual interest in men as such). To create this confusion required a huge social investment that was made possible only through the gains of industrialization, upon which the forces of heterosexualization had full control.

Eventhough the Western society and especially the Forces of Heterosexualization (and that includes the real gays, i.e. who fit in the 'gay' identity) insist on using the formal definitions that create confusion, in practice there are a number of evidences that the term straight is actually used for "masculine" and not necessarily 'heterosexual'... while the term 'gay' is actually used interchangeably for 'feminine' and not necessarily 'homosexual'. Examples are the concepts of "straight acting" (which mean masculine-acting, and not heterosexual acting) and "Queer heterosexual" (which means feminine heterosexual, not homosexual-heterosexual -- which is absurd). Similarly, a very common phrase in the Western world, used by gays themselves is, "he looks so 'gay'", which is meant as "he looks as if he is effeminate", and not that "he looks as if he likes men". Many gays complain that they don't like other gays wearing their gayness on the sleeve. What they're objecting to, in fact, is wearing their 'femininity' on the sleeve, and not their 'sexual attraction for men'. These are just confused as 'one' by the gays.

These double standards and befooling people with confusing identities suit the gays (i.e. queers who like men) perfectly well, since they are one of the biggest beneficiaries of the homosexualization of man-man love -- an integral part of a society's heterosexualization. But, it is in the interest of the masculine gendered males to use the actual definition of 'gay' and 'straight'. And these are:

1. Straight: A masculine gendered male, irrespective of sexual preferences.
2. Gay: A feminine gendered male, irrespective of sexual preferences.

You can see that to use these real definitions, you have to rebel against the concept of sexual orientation, to reject it altogether.

The 'heterosexual(ized)' straight men would be too happy with this definition, just like the non-heterosexualized straights, although, in the beginning, they may not have the courage to acknowledge their support -- again for the fear of being labelled 'gay'. But eventually, they will be the biggest beneficiaries of using these definitions for what they are, for they will be liberated from compulsory heterosexuality and foregoing their same-sex needs, in order to be 'one of the guys'.

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' 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.

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.

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.

Killing same-sex needs like you kill bugs or an infection

We in the society are conditioned to strike out, mutilate and kill everytime we see glimpses of man to man eroticism or intimacy. We do it almost instinctively now (like we kill bugs, nevermind that we are killing an important part of us here) -- as this phobia has been ingrained deep into our psyche, even when we want to do otherwise -- to such feelings within us and outside of us -- without feeling remorse or guilt.

We are made to feel that we have done the right thing. We as men have already learned not to listen to our hearts... our innerselves, so its voice just doesn't matter.

Sexual interest in women

There is enormous social power and manhood attached in the act of showing a "sexual interest in girls", and all men learn that from childhood. Its one major factor that forces them the maximum pressure in their heterosexualization process.

So, men know that to get that power, one must talk about girls and continuously prove one's sexual interest in women. It's an enormous pressure that men have, that gets multiplied severalfolds in a heterosexualized society.

Simultaneously, men also learn that there is immense disempowerment and stigma attached with not having a sexual interest in women, and this adds to the mechanism to force them into being heterosexualized.

So, if a girl is passing, a man will watch her, even if he doesn't really have an interest in her, and if a man who the man finds attractive pass by, the man will try to ignore him, by going all out to pretend that he doesn't even exist for him.

And, if you're in a room full of attractive young men, with even an unattractive girl, straight men will automatically look at that one odd girl, because looking at attractive guys is so disempowering.

Social masculinity and social femininity work like magnets

Social masculinity works like magnet on you, by bringing out your inner natural masculinity.

Similarly, social femininity also acts like a magnet on you, bringing out your femininity, however small it is...

It is one of the reasons gays seem more feminine that they would be if social femininity was not imposed on them, and guys who are 'heterosexual' but are equally naturally feminine as the gays, appear much less feminine... their femininity is also masked by extreme social masculinity, which further subdues their femininity.

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.