An 'internet' incredulous 'gay' friend couldn't believe that a man who shows repulsion towards the idea of sexual/ romantic intimacy with men can actually have a need for intimacy with men, deep inside him -- a need that has been mutilated by social conditioning.

Another 'gay' person, who has somewhat progressed towards 'straight' after having a series of relationships with straight guys told me during 'counselling' that his new straight lover bit him bitterly in contempt as he was brushing his hands on his cheeks, lovingly. Of course, men when they get into relationships with a man, even when on one hand they show intense desire, emotions and sexual attraction, (which is nevertheless veiled and never directly acknowledged), on the other hand, they start off with being 'repulsed' by any explicitly intimate action -- such as brushing hands on one's cheeks. This repulsion takes sometime, actually, a lot of time and patience to go away, allowing the real feelings of the man -- of his need to give and take affection to be able to express itself freely. And it is also hard on the ego of the person who has to take the brunt of it.

The point is, the repulsion is not an evidence of men's lack of need of sexual/ romantic for men. This is a product of social conditioning and actually hides a deep such need. In fact, as long as men are under the influence of this socially generated repulsion men behave absolutely violently when someone makes a sexual advance towards them -- although, such cases almost always occur only when the other person is either 'feminine' or 'not desirable' or too 'old,' so the repulsion is towards the undesirability of the male, not the fact that one is a male. But, that is how men portray this repulsion.

So, you have men who are in intense relationships with either another man or a gay, and yet they hit violently someone who makes advances towards them -- and then claim that this is because they are 'repulsed' by man on man action.

The misuse of media

It's a pity that instead of using the powerful medium of 'media' to showcase genuine Indian culture and explore genuine Indian issues, it is being used merely either as a vehicle of westernization or as a vehicle of mindless heterosexualization.

The anti-man role: Those who cannot penetrate women are 'third genders'

In the "Comedy circus" episode telecast today (with hippo as the theme), comedian Rajesh makes a 'punch' like this, (he is playing a Hijra), "hamein tali ke siwa kuch bajana aataa hi nahin," (we can't do anything but clap).

"bajana" is a verb, that means to 'play' a musical instrument or to 'beat' a drum. 'Tali bajana' means to clap. As a vulgar slang, it also means to 'penetrate' sexually.

This was a dig at the common anti-man manhood role that says that a man who cannot 'do' women is a Hijra. That is the (mis)definition of Hijra most common in India, that Hijras are those that cannot have sex with women (it is assumed that it is because either they are castrated or they cannot physically achieve an erection, because of physical problems).

Marriages were social contracts not based on romance

the idea that marriages be based on romance and love between men and women was so unique to India -- even after decades of heterosexualized Hindi movie industry (copying from the west) propagated male-fenmale romance as their relentless theme -- that finally, when a few people started to enter into such marriages, they started a new name for them -- 'love marriages,' as opposed to normal marriages where love, romance and sexuality were never even considered.

"I like men" vs "I am gay"

There's a world of difference between saying "I like men." and that, "I am homosexual."

The first means that you're a man that happens to desire men. The second means that you're an entirely different gender from men. A third gender. That you're effeminate, and have either a strong female identity, or at least a weak male identity.

The fact is that almost all men have the inner desire for other men, and therefore, there should be no need to say, "I like men." It would be like saying, "I have two eyes." Everyone has two eyes. However, its because of the intense politics of western male gender and sexuality, that has made it appear as if most masculine gendered males are heterosexuals -- and exclusively so -- that one even needs to say, what should have been self-evident from the fact that you're a man.

...

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.