The way the western society inculcates a strong hatred for one's own sexuality for men, which is a universal and constant male quality, is by basing one's personal sense of manhood on 'heterosexuality,' rather exclusive heterosexuality, through a complex set of visible and invisible psycho-social mechanisms that condition, train and pressurise males right from their forming years of manhood and sexuality. Once, one's personal sense of manhood is firmly based on being free of sexual need for men, it makes sure that the man would himself, even when no one else is looking, fight till death his own sexuality for men. Condemning those in others is only a way to reinforce this fight, which tends to weaken by those who openly accept it.
The more the desire for men, the greater the need to fight and reinforcements through public condemnations.
... and the invention of the concept of 'homosexuality' (that actually is about a third gender's sexuality for men) and creation of the separate category of 'homosexuals' based on the erstwhile third genders, serves perfectly well to reinforce the lie that desiring men is an unmanly trait. That is what the politics of male gender and sexuality is all about.
And that is what is the essence of conspiracy against men. Deep rooted behind this conspiracy is the age-old greed for more and more population, in order to compete with the other 'tribes' and the fear -- not totally baseless --that if men are allowed to be sexual with other men, few would like to go to women so regularly. And if they start forming committed bonds, it would be impossible to sustain the 'marriage' institution.
What we need to do as a society is to come out of this fear psychosis, because, we don't need all that population anymore, and its time to liberate men from the burden of compulsory procreation in order to prove they're men, because it doesn't prove anything.
As long as men are bound in the heterosexual identity, where manhood is defined as 'heterosexuality' itself, and the third genders keep defining themselves as 'men who like men' this seems impossible to attain.
Oct 24, 2009
Oct 23, 2009
Sexual identities misrepresent the true sexual needs of men
Sexual identities represented by the concept of 'sexual orientation' or the 'homo-hetero' divide represent only the acknowledged sexual behaviour of males. And men will acknowledge only those sexual behaviours that fall inside the society's purview of manhood, especially taking care to disown sexual behaviours or desires that are distinctly labelled as queer/ effeminate/ third gender, the experiences of 'gay' identitied males notwithstanding.
There are a number of extremely complex pscycho-social mechanisms that are part of a complex, yet invisible politics of male gender and sexuality, that create a wide gap between the deepest sexual desires and needs of males and the final sexual behaviour that is acknowledged socially, again, the experiences of 'gay' identified males (who're actually third gender males, not 'men', the latter being masculine gendered males), notwithstanding.
There are several gaps and steps between the deepest, orignal sexual needs of men and the final sexual behaviour they acknowledge socially, and there is intense, hidden but complex politics, manipulation and oppression of male gender and sexuality at each step. There are the "deepest sexual needs", many parts of which otten lie latent due to social politics, then the sexual needs which find space in the subconscious mind, then there are those that find space to grow in the conscious mind, then tthere are those that find the space to grow in the 'personal' social space, and finally, there is the acknowledged sexual behaviour. Because of the presence of politics of male gender and sexuality, none of these steps may tally with each other. E.g. most men do not even allow the sexual needs that exist at the conscious level to find expression even in there private, personal social behaviour, let alone being acknowledged. Others may give them expression but not acknowledge them.
For Western science, to conveniently assume that the sexual categories defined by the West represent the deepest sexual needs of males, and to study these sexual identities for their biological connections is too simplistic, not to be a part of science's way to contribute the age-old conspiracy against men.
The truth is that these sexual categories suit only the 'gay' identified males, whose deepest sexual thoughts tally with their chosen identities. And it is so for a reason. Because, these identities have been tailor made for them, although, they're a gross misrepresentation of the male gender and sexuality as a whole. It's like groping the tail of the elephant and then defining the entire elephant as a rope.
What is so different about the 'gay' identified males that makes their case special. You will not understand the real difference unless you acknowledge human gender (masculine vs feminine identity) as a real, valid phenomenon. Unfortunately, western society makes it very difficult if not impossible for people, esp. gays, to acknowledge human gender. Gays also have a personal stake in not recognizing gender, since their binary sexual identity depends on the negation of gender and its confusion with sexuality.
Gays are third genders, not men, if we define 'men' as masculine gendered males (not necessarily macho), and 'third genders' as transgendered males. And the truth is that the sexual identities defined by the West have been rooted in politics of gender and sexuality, and there basis is strongly gender rather than sexuality. Thus, the 'homosexual' identity is actually, the original and biological third gender/ transgendered male identity redefined as 'men who like men'. This gender factor is however hidden and westerners are incapable of seeing it due to their cultural disability. But, this is the only reason that some males fit in so nicely in this 'sexual categorization' with hidden gender baggage and others struggle or prefer to hide or suppress their sexual feelings for men, rather than take on the 'gay' identity. For the gays they're just people incapable with dealing with their sexuality. But in reality, they are reacting to the hidden feminine gender attached with the 'homosexual' identity, that is inimical to their masculine gender.
And this is the reason, why, for gays their deepest sexual desires matches their sexual identity, but for straights it often mismatches, in different degrees. To built the scientific theories of human male sexuality, especially of man's sexuality for men, on the basis of the experiences or the biology of 'gay' identified males is a gross abuse of the scientific process and the spirit of science.
Human gender plays such a strong part in the entire social-sexualization of men, and in their final choice of sexual behaviours and even conscious desires, that for science to understand the truth about human sexuality without acknowledging human gender is suicidal for the truth.
The problem is, this is what the western scientific institution really wants. To muddle the truth. But westerners will never accept that. Because, they worship the scientific institution like it were god. Like their ancestors worshipped the Church, and believed everything the church said about god.
There are a number of extremely complex pscycho-social mechanisms that are part of a complex, yet invisible politics of male gender and sexuality, that create a wide gap between the deepest sexual desires and needs of males and the final sexual behaviour that is acknowledged socially, again, the experiences of 'gay' identified males (who're actually third gender males, not 'men', the latter being masculine gendered males), notwithstanding.
There are several gaps and steps between the deepest, orignal sexual needs of men and the final sexual behaviour they acknowledge socially, and there is intense, hidden but complex politics, manipulation and oppression of male gender and sexuality at each step. There are the "deepest sexual needs", many parts of which otten lie latent due to social politics, then the sexual needs which find space in the subconscious mind, then there are those that find space to grow in the conscious mind, then tthere are those that find the space to grow in the 'personal' social space, and finally, there is the acknowledged sexual behaviour. Because of the presence of politics of male gender and sexuality, none of these steps may tally with each other. E.g. most men do not even allow the sexual needs that exist at the conscious level to find expression even in there private, personal social behaviour, let alone being acknowledged. Others may give them expression but not acknowledge them.
For Western science, to conveniently assume that the sexual categories defined by the West represent the deepest sexual needs of males, and to study these sexual identities for their biological connections is too simplistic, not to be a part of science's way to contribute the age-old conspiracy against men.
The truth is that these sexual categories suit only the 'gay' identified males, whose deepest sexual thoughts tally with their chosen identities. And it is so for a reason. Because, these identities have been tailor made for them, although, they're a gross misrepresentation of the male gender and sexuality as a whole. It's like groping the tail of the elephant and then defining the entire elephant as a rope.
What is so different about the 'gay' identified males that makes their case special. You will not understand the real difference unless you acknowledge human gender (masculine vs feminine identity) as a real, valid phenomenon. Unfortunately, western society makes it very difficult if not impossible for people, esp. gays, to acknowledge human gender. Gays also have a personal stake in not recognizing gender, since their binary sexual identity depends on the negation of gender and its confusion with sexuality.
Gays are third genders, not men, if we define 'men' as masculine gendered males (not necessarily macho), and 'third genders' as transgendered males. And the truth is that the sexual identities defined by the West have been rooted in politics of gender and sexuality, and there basis is strongly gender rather than sexuality. Thus, the 'homosexual' identity is actually, the original and biological third gender/ transgendered male identity redefined as 'men who like men'. This gender factor is however hidden and westerners are incapable of seeing it due to their cultural disability. But, this is the only reason that some males fit in so nicely in this 'sexual categorization' with hidden gender baggage and others struggle or prefer to hide or suppress their sexual feelings for men, rather than take on the 'gay' identity. For the gays they're just people incapable with dealing with their sexuality. But in reality, they are reacting to the hidden feminine gender attached with the 'homosexual' identity, that is inimical to their masculine gender.
And this is the reason, why, for gays their deepest sexual desires matches their sexual identity, but for straights it often mismatches, in different degrees. To built the scientific theories of human male sexuality, especially of man's sexuality for men, on the basis of the experiences or the biology of 'gay' identified males is a gross abuse of the scientific process and the spirit of science.
Human gender plays such a strong part in the entire social-sexualization of men, and in their final choice of sexual behaviours and even conscious desires, that for science to understand the truth about human sexuality without acknowledging human gender is suicidal for the truth.
The problem is, this is what the western scientific institution really wants. To muddle the truth. But westerners will never accept that. Because, they worship the scientific institution like it were god. Like their ancestors worshipped the Church, and believed everything the church said about god.
Oct 9, 2009
The oddities of Western manhood
After having fraudulently established Heterosexuality as the new definition of Manhood, the Western society propagates male softeness -- in fact, male servility to women in sexual contexts (the only context in which men are expected to see women) as 'masculine' and 'manly'. This servility is easily carried forward in all interactions of men with women, since, in any case, sexuality is the only context in which manly men are expected to see women in the West.
At the sametime, manly, masculine males are expected not to be soft, and certainly never servile towards another man in a sexual context. That is propagated as the queerest of things to do. Men are expected to become hard like rock, indifferent and antagonistic to other men, in the sexual context. The anti-man forces, then easily carry forward this expectation from men into all interactions between men, and even non-sexual softness of a man for another is tagged as effeminate (i.e. 'gay').
This is only a small part of the politics of gender and sexuality which is part of the anti-man conspiracy, used by the Western society to manipulate not only the social and sexual behaviour or men, but even their very thoughts.
However, in reality, or, in nature, softness and servility towards a man who loves you, only enhances your manhood. This softness allows your masculinity to merge with the masculinity of another man, and this combination does wonders to the masculinity and manhood of each man.
In western, heterosexualized contexts, where each man is out to prove is repulsion for guys, and those who show softness towards other guys are disempowered artificially, if a man does show softness to another guy he loves, the other man, even if he loves the man too, will respond with rudeness, as he becomes extremely insecure about his own love for another man. This situation then harms the manhood of the man who shows softness towards the other. If he continues to show this softness/ servility to another man who continues to show rudeness to him, even while they share a 'relationship' of some sort, it makes the first male emasculated, and thus 'gay' or 'homosexual' while the other man keeps his manhood and remains 'straight'. But this is brought about through an unnatural, social engineering and doesn't reflect the reality.
In nature, softness and servility towards women, especially in sexual contexts severely depletes a man's masculinity and manhood, in a way, no other activity can. Softness and servility towards women tends to transfer the man's masculinity on to the woman and transfer her femininity on to the man. In the end, both are queered. Masculinity and femininity don't naturally merge. They negate each other.
However, in western, heterosexualized spaces, this natural process is reverted through artificial social engineering. When a man shows servility towards another female, his membership of the straight (manhood) is strengthened, which increases his manhood and power. His sense of manhood is artificially augmented and he is looked at as an ideal by his peers, who are all competing to achieve heterosexuality as the new 'manhood'. This of course, queers the men's gender as a whole. This manhood of a 'heterosexual' male servile to women, that makes him do extremely feminine stuff such as performing oral sex on women, or be emotionally bonding with the woman, may be a reality, but it has been brought about by an unnatural process, by reverting the process of nature through 'science.'
This is how modern science adds to the ancient politics of male gender and sexuality.
In every male dominated, macho, warrior cultures of the past or even the present, male servility to another man in a love bond was considered highly masculinizing for both the men. The most prominent example is the servility of Hanuman to Ram. Hanuman is THE deity of macho males in India. He is manhood deitified. He grants manhood to his worshippers. But, ancient societies are full of such examples. Indeed, the every warrior culture promoted such male romantic bonds where each man was servile to the other, but was disastrous for the enemy. Whether it was the sacred bond of Thebes or the mighty warriors of Samurais, male servility in a love bond with another man was rightly considered the ultimate act of manhood. And, unlike the manhood of modern west's heterosexuals, there was nothing unnatural about this. This happened naturally, through a natural process of development of manhood.
At the sametime, servility or softness to a woman, and thus a contact with a woman has been considered the ultimate queering or feminizing act or trait by a man. All these warrior cultures thrived by avoiding any contact with women, except for procreation. Any further contact apart from vaginal sex for procreation was avoided like plague by these warrior cultures, even within marriage, which had become a social duty of men in the societies by now. Eg. Hanuman stayed away from women, even their shadows. And his macho warrior followers called Pehelwans, to this day avoid even the shadow of women, and remain unmarried for their entire life. Even the married devout followers of Hanuman have only procreative sex with their wifes, while others stay away from sex with their wives/ girlfriends on Tuesdays. This is to please a god who grants manhood. Similarly, amongst the Greeks, it was believed that too much sex with women, even vaginal intercourse is a sign of femininity. In India, even today, a man who is servile to women is called "Joru ka ghulaam" a negative term that points to the lack of manhood in the male. Men in such societies will never even dream about performing oral sex on their women. And certainly will baulk at the idea of holding their hands, especially in public.
The Samurai warriors, although married, had romantic bonds only with another male, and had a very social, superficial relationship with their wives. It is said that Samurai warriors slept with their wives with a dagger below their pillows, because they did not trust their wives at all.
Indeed, there was also a time, at the very beginning of human civilization, when adolesent males were sown with the seeds of male sperm through anal sex in order to masculinize them and to remove the femininity that had accumulated in them through living with the females all these years, as can still be witnessed in the far off, Samoan warrior tribes of Papa New Guinea. These warrior cultures looked down upon 'whores' so much, that they were thought to be witches out to rob men of their manhood.
This hatred of 'whores' or sexually promiscuous or 'heterosexual' women is still rampant in male dominated, machoistic societies of the world. INterestingly, the Western feminine society glorifies the whores and their queered males bow before them.
At the sametime, manly, masculine males are expected not to be soft, and certainly never servile towards another man in a sexual context. That is propagated as the queerest of things to do. Men are expected to become hard like rock, indifferent and antagonistic to other men, in the sexual context. The anti-man forces, then easily carry forward this expectation from men into all interactions between men, and even non-sexual softness of a man for another is tagged as effeminate (i.e. 'gay').
This is only a small part of the politics of gender and sexuality which is part of the anti-man conspiracy, used by the Western society to manipulate not only the social and sexual behaviour or men, but even their very thoughts.
However, in reality, or, in nature, softness and servility towards a man who loves you, only enhances your manhood. This softness allows your masculinity to merge with the masculinity of another man, and this combination does wonders to the masculinity and manhood of each man.
In western, heterosexualized contexts, where each man is out to prove is repulsion for guys, and those who show softness towards other guys are disempowered artificially, if a man does show softness to another guy he loves, the other man, even if he loves the man too, will respond with rudeness, as he becomes extremely insecure about his own love for another man. This situation then harms the manhood of the man who shows softness towards the other. If he continues to show this softness/ servility to another man who continues to show rudeness to him, even while they share a 'relationship' of some sort, it makes the first male emasculated, and thus 'gay' or 'homosexual' while the other man keeps his manhood and remains 'straight'. But this is brought about through an unnatural, social engineering and doesn't reflect the reality.
In nature, softness and servility towards women, especially in sexual contexts severely depletes a man's masculinity and manhood, in a way, no other activity can. Softness and servility towards women tends to transfer the man's masculinity on to the woman and transfer her femininity on to the man. In the end, both are queered. Masculinity and femininity don't naturally merge. They negate each other.
However, in western, heterosexualized spaces, this natural process is reverted through artificial social engineering. When a man shows servility towards another female, his membership of the straight (manhood) is strengthened, which increases his manhood and power. His sense of manhood is artificially augmented and he is looked at as an ideal by his peers, who are all competing to achieve heterosexuality as the new 'manhood'. This of course, queers the men's gender as a whole. This manhood of a 'heterosexual' male servile to women, that makes him do extremely feminine stuff such as performing oral sex on women, or be emotionally bonding with the woman, may be a reality, but it has been brought about by an unnatural process, by reverting the process of nature through 'science.'
This is how modern science adds to the ancient politics of male gender and sexuality.
In every male dominated, macho, warrior cultures of the past or even the present, male servility to another man in a love bond was considered highly masculinizing for both the men. The most prominent example is the servility of Hanuman to Ram. Hanuman is THE deity of macho males in India. He is manhood deitified. He grants manhood to his worshippers. But, ancient societies are full of such examples. Indeed, the every warrior culture promoted such male romantic bonds where each man was servile to the other, but was disastrous for the enemy. Whether it was the sacred bond of Thebes or the mighty warriors of Samurais, male servility in a love bond with another man was rightly considered the ultimate act of manhood. And, unlike the manhood of modern west's heterosexuals, there was nothing unnatural about this. This happened naturally, through a natural process of development of manhood.
At the sametime, servility or softness to a woman, and thus a contact with a woman has been considered the ultimate queering or feminizing act or trait by a man. All these warrior cultures thrived by avoiding any contact with women, except for procreation. Any further contact apart from vaginal sex for procreation was avoided like plague by these warrior cultures, even within marriage, which had become a social duty of men in the societies by now. Eg. Hanuman stayed away from women, even their shadows. And his macho warrior followers called Pehelwans, to this day avoid even the shadow of women, and remain unmarried for their entire life. Even the married devout followers of Hanuman have only procreative sex with their wifes, while others stay away from sex with their wives/ girlfriends on Tuesdays. This is to please a god who grants manhood. Similarly, amongst the Greeks, it was believed that too much sex with women, even vaginal intercourse is a sign of femininity. In India, even today, a man who is servile to women is called "Joru ka ghulaam" a negative term that points to the lack of manhood in the male. Men in such societies will never even dream about performing oral sex on their women. And certainly will baulk at the idea of holding their hands, especially in public.
The Samurai warriors, although married, had romantic bonds only with another male, and had a very social, superficial relationship with their wives. It is said that Samurai warriors slept with their wives with a dagger below their pillows, because they did not trust their wives at all.
Indeed, there was also a time, at the very beginning of human civilization, when adolesent males were sown with the seeds of male sperm through anal sex in order to masculinize them and to remove the femininity that had accumulated in them through living with the females all these years, as can still be witnessed in the far off, Samoan warrior tribes of Papa New Guinea. These warrior cultures looked down upon 'whores' so much, that they were thought to be witches out to rob men of their manhood.
This hatred of 'whores' or sexually promiscuous or 'heterosexual' women is still rampant in male dominated, machoistic societies of the world. INterestingly, the Western feminine society glorifies the whores and their queered males bow before them.
Oct 4, 2009
An analysis of the actual differences between 'Straight' and 'gay'
AT THE BROADER, societal level, the actual difference between 'straight' and 'gay' is not of sexuality, but that of 'normal'/ masculine/ regular/ mainstream/ majority guys vs the 'third gender' or 'males with a female identity'. And so, even if, one rejects the notion of dividing males on the basis of their sexual attraction, the differences of gender, and hence two different identities will always be there. Those who have been identifying themselves as 'homosexuals' will then just start calling themselves 'third gender', but they will still be different. The 'heterosexual' (sic) third genders will also be merged with this category (who actually are already merged with the gays as the "T" in LGBT).
But within the 'normal'/ masculine/ regular/ mainstream/ majority guys, at the practical level, the actual difference between 'straight' and 'gay' becomes not that of having sexual feelings for men or of acting on them (of course, 100% of this population has a strong sexual need for men which may be suppressed), but that of acknowledging these feelings.
So, straight males give vent to their sexual feelings for men all the time, at least in their youth or when they're in an all-male company, albeit, superficially, without acknowledging these, and it doesn't make them 'gay'. This is why, finding an excuse for vending their attraction for men, is so important for straight males, even if these excuses may be flimsy.
This applies even when a straight male is actually in a 'relationship' with another straight male, where fidelity is expected of each other. But, nothing is ever acknowledged. Everything is done quietly, and it doesn't affect their 'straight' identity.
However, the moment, these feelings, or the secondary feelings or acts that emanates from them -- of jealousy, possessiveness, hurt, cajoling each other, being angry at each other, missing each other, or any of the relationship issues, however slight or intense, are even slightly acknowledged, the straight identity is threatened.
And this is why, within the straight/ normal/ masculine/ mainstream/ majority male population, the difference between 'straight' and 'gay' is extremely superficial.
But within the 'normal'/ masculine/ regular/ mainstream/ majority guys, at the practical level, the actual difference between 'straight' and 'gay' becomes not that of having sexual feelings for men or of acting on them (of course, 100% of this population has a strong sexual need for men which may be suppressed), but that of acknowledging these feelings.
So, straight males give vent to their sexual feelings for men all the time, at least in their youth or when they're in an all-male company, albeit, superficially, without acknowledging these, and it doesn't make them 'gay'. This is why, finding an excuse for vending their attraction for men, is so important for straight males, even if these excuses may be flimsy.
This applies even when a straight male is actually in a 'relationship' with another straight male, where fidelity is expected of each other. But, nothing is ever acknowledged. Everything is done quietly, and it doesn't affect their 'straight' identity.
However, the moment, these feelings, or the secondary feelings or acts that emanates from them -- of jealousy, possessiveness, hurt, cajoling each other, being angry at each other, missing each other, or any of the relationship issues, however slight or intense, are even slightly acknowledged, the straight identity is threatened.
And this is why, within the straight/ normal/ masculine/ mainstream/ majority male population, the difference between 'straight' and 'gay' is extremely superficial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)