Gender determines who you are, not sexuality

MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY ARE IMPORTANT

The homo-hetero division between men is baseless and invalid.

Men can't be divided socially on the basis of what and who they like in bed. It cannot define your identity. Just like men can't be divided socially on the basis of what you like to eat or drink, or what kind of entertainment you like.

Men can only be divided on the basis of who they are, i.e., what their gender identity is. And there are only two kinds of gender identities for men: Men with male gender identity, and men with female gender identity. That is the only biological, historical and practical distinction between men.

What you like or enjoy can never decide who you are socially. Only what you are (masculine or feminine) can decide your social identity.

Especially, when almost all males are open to sexuality with men, this homo-hetero division becomes pointless, unless the truth is distorted.

Gender orientation is the main difference that divides males, not sexual orientation.

The homo-hetero division has become so important and valid only because the society has artificially tied gender (which is what is so important)to sexuality. So, manhood is tied to heterosexuality and feminine gender is tied to homosexuality.

It's the confusion created by the western society between gender and sexuality that makes sexuality so important in the west.

When people who grow up in a society divided on the basis of homo-hetero relate to this division, they're actually relating to it as a 'gender' division, not sexual division. They are responding to the manhood artificially hidden in heterosexuality and the third gender artificially hidden in homosexuality.

And that is what is the source behind immense power attached to liking women, and the immense stigma attached to liking men in western societies is all about -- gender, not the sexual preference itself.

And the fact is that inspite of all this social politics of manhood -- of confusing gender with sexuality in order to control men's sexuality -- the truth is that still, in the straight space, masculine males who own up their sexuality for men enjoy a tacit approval and inclusion, while its the effeminate males who are excluded and persecuted -- often whether they like men or women.

And yet, the truth is that, biologically and historically, real natural masculinity is inherently tied with sexual-emotional bonds between men -- (not between gays, who are third gender (so let's rephrase it for the western society, as "with sexual-emotional bonds between straight men), and not just sex but the long lasting emotional and social bonding that results from it. While, its contact with women that queers men. And that is why all masculine cultures abhor this contact, apart from what is needed for procreation.

So, gender has a connection with sexuality (although not so strict), but its exactly the opposite of what is portrayed in the west.

We have come a long way from our natural manhood -- from how it occurs in nature and what the unnatural, western society has made of it -- totally opposite.

Straight men have inherent sexual value for male body. But Straight males have only penetrative value for the female body.

Females and Gays too only have penetrative value for men's bodies (with men being the penetrators). Men's bodies don't have intrinsic value for women and homosexuals.

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'.

When societies become vulgarly rich by exploiting nature through industrialization, the anti-man vested interests that controlled the society so far, but could not annihilate men's spaces or men's sexual bonds altogether, became extremely powerful through the financial and technolgical powers gotten through industrialization, since they controlled its benefits. They also had two new extremely powerful social institutions -- science and media at their control, and they have abused them to the full.

With this unnatural power, they became 'gods' (or devils), and for the first time were able to destroy men's spaces. One's they did that, it was easy for them to isolate and banish intimacies between men into the gay ghetto.

It's by attaching power and manhood with 'sexual/ romantic/ social interest in women' that the society makes us vulnerable whether directly, indirectly, explicitly or implictly...

Unless this extremely oppressive politics is done away with any amount of freedom given to men to like men is worthless, useless... and will continue to result in the oppression of men...

Men are not only given extreme powers for proving a disinterest in men but also for upholding the mechanisms to put pressure on men, e.g. through putting the pressures on other men.

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