WHY VALENTINE DAY SHOULD BE OPPOSED BY MEN, ESPECIALLY IN NON-WESTERN COUNTRIES LIKE INDIA:

When the society decided to force men into 'compulsory' sex with women through marriage, and as a major corollary, decided to ban male-male sexuality entirely from the formal space, it made men and men's spaces extremely vulnerable in front of the vested interest groups, including women. However, the deal was that the society will keep enough tabs on male-female sex/ intimacy, including prohibiting its public display and restricting all powers and benefits granted to it within the institution of marriage, and in fact penalising male-female sex outside of marriage much more than male-male sex — which the society tended to ignore when it occured behind the scenes. This deal was the main pillar of the entire 'plan' as it created a kind of 'balance'. Especially important was the reigning in of female sexuality because of the immense power that was otherwise placed into females, as 'manhood' became dependant upon serving women sexually. Without this 'balance', men and men's spaces would have become totally vulnerable to being persecuted and exploited by the vested interest groups, that tended to gain by the restraining of men.

With this deal the following was ensured:

- The only motive for the society to invest so heavily into the persecution of men, was reproduction and (secondarily) marriage; so, while other forms of sexual needs —— primarily man-man sexuality —— were persecuted, man-to-woman sexuality, too, was not unfairly benefitted —— at least, not beyond what was necessary. And, extremely important was the fact that women's capability to harm men through the artificial 'sexual power' granted to them through the route of manhood, was also heavily reigned in. In a way, everyone —— including the vested interest groups —— sacrificed for the sake of reproduction. Some more, some less. All of this at least had a purpose. The society as a whole was being 'benefitted' —— at least, that is what was believed.

- Other forms of sexual intimacy, again, primarily male-male sexual bonds, thrived behind the scenes —— even if superficially (i.e., their intensity was controlled) —— in the men's spaces, which were very strong and served as breathing spaces for men, for periodic respites from social persectuion. The society was o.k. with it as long as it was not acknowledged and it didn't come in the way of marriage or reproduction. This provided a great behind-the-scene-vent to men, to air their same-sex sexual and bonding needs, even if it meant that the society was intentionally promoting 'hypocrisy'. Leading 'double lives' was extremely important in order to maintain 'unnatural' social structures without making life unbearable.

But today, it amounts to a gross injustice, when, riding on the back of westernisation, the society is being forcefully heterosexualised, whereby the human needs long forced underground are being buried further into the ground and then it is claimed that male-female bonding is the only sexual need present in humans (especially men) —— and goes ahead to remove tabs from it, including tabs that were placed on female sexuality —— all in the name of openness, fairness and freedom. The result is that the anti-men forces gain complete control of the formal, mainstream social spaces. Then, they start persecuting men to the extreme by weeding out man-to-man sexuality even from the secret underground hideouts that they'd built in the mainstream —— and throwing them into the 'third gender' fringes through the invalid western concept of 'homosexuality'. Indeed, in heterosexual societies like the US, two men cannot even hold hands on the street without being thought of, or even abused as, third gender/ gay/ effeminate.

These forces also bring upon men, especially the youth, immense pressure to, not only have sex with, but even to bond emotionally and socially with women.

The irony is that this new brand of male-female sex is non-reproductive (casual) and is termed as 'heterosexuality'. For all the social investment that goes into reigning in men to the extreme, and forcing them into 'heterosexuality', the society does not gain anything in return. The only people to gain are the vested interest groups —— which include some men, women and members of the third sex (gay) — who are immensely empowered (and the irony is that they believe this is all 'naturally' predestined). These vested interest forces are actually a minority, which is only made extremely powerful after men have been chained in through the age-old conspiracy against them.

And this is why the introduction of western 'heterosexual' celebrations like the "Valentine Day" should be opposed in India, alongwith other facets of heterosexualisation.