ARTIFICIALLY "MASCULINIZNG" THE FEMININE TRAIT OF "HETEROSEXUALITY" -- PART OF POLITICS OF MALE GENDER AND SEXUALITY

Before the West invented the concept of "Heterosexuality" few males, if ever cared for relationships with women. The roles of social manhood were still much closer to the natural phenomenon of manhood, except for the fact that "social manhood" was attached to the act of penetrating (whether it was a man or a woman was immaterial) and marriage and reproduction were seen as a compulsory proofs of this capability to 'penetrate.' Therefore, that is what men competed to achieve. Desire was not important, performance was important. So, men thought and behaved very differently from modern western males, back then.

Afterall, its 'social manhood' that men really, really care for, more than anything else in life. And they're willing to change the course of their life wherever "social manhood" lies.

Thus, in the past, only the act of occasional vaginal intercourse was considered manly. Any other intimacy with women -- whether sexual, social or emotional was considered effeminizing (and hence queer), even in the West. There were even derogatory terms for males who were addicted to vagina -- terms that are similar to "faggot," in that they refer to the unmanliness of the male (e.g. "Chutiya" in Hindi).

In any male dominated society, where men's spaces are strong, men have a lot of power to define manhood, except for the fact that they are still compulsorily tied to marriage, penetrative sex and reproduction through the "social manhood" route. But, after bowing down to this social demand -- (and the one that renders the act of being penetrated as unmanly and hence 'third gender' and hence something that liables a man to be isolated and banished into a 'different' zone from 'normal' men) -- men are pretty much free to be themselves and to define "social manhood" in a way that corresponds with their "natural manhood." Therefore, women have little sexual value in macho societies. Most of the sexual value that women have is limited to the formal space, particularly marriage.

However, the Western society, triggered by its Christian past that wanted to see "men having relationships with women" and to be broken from other men, first developed the concept of homosexuality -- in order to isolate the very desire between men, (much like isolating the HIV virus) especially if it was exclusive or prominent or acknoweldged -- and then developed the concept of heterosexuality and thus of heterosexuals. While "homosexuality' was artificially built on the earlier group of 'third genders' that was basically for feminine males who got penetrated, the concept of 'heterosexual' was artificially built upon the erstwhile, proud, "Men" identity -- that made up the mainstream men's spaces.

This gave a totally new dimension to the age old politics of male gender and sexuality and a great filip to the anti-man forces. Suddenly, everything that involved a desire for or a sexual/ social or emotional act with women, no matter how feminine it was in nature, or in past societies, suddenly came into the purview of 'manliness'. Indeed, manliness was now itself defined as 'heterosexuality' and started to be confused with it.

Thus, today, men compete to indulge in things and to acquire or show desires, even when they don't have it -- that involve more and more proximity with women, as signs of supposed manhood -- when these desires and acts are decidedly unmanly (e.g. "licking vaginas" or being "subdued by women" or even "deep kissing" or "hand holding" with women and so on). Indeed, a desire for women is an absolutely must to get a membership of any western(ized) men's space (gay spaces are not men's spaces, they're third gender spaces, devoid of manhood and disempowered). Furthermore, western(ized) men's spaces, controlled by anti-man forces, presume a universal, constant and exclusive male desire for women, and forbid any positive portrayal or display of affectional needs between men ... which must only be allowed by the anti-man forces, in the unmanly 'gay' ghettos.

At the sametime, any desire or sexual act between men (and not necessarily the act of being penetrated) was artificially associated with 'unmanliness" or feminine by the western anti-male politics of manhood; as 'queer' became defined as "desire between men" (homosexuality) itself, and "liking men" became synonymous with being 'unmanly'. And, so men (non-feminine males) don't have the space to acknowledge their desire for men, leave alone form meaningful bonds with other men. If you want to do that, you must leave the men's space and idenitity, leave manhood and power, and agree to join the disempowered and unmanly 'different', marginalized and disempowered, third gender male space by taking on the 'gay'/ 'homosexual' label.

This is what the anti-man forces had always wanted to do, eversince, they were first created by injunctions on men, that gave power to the act of penetrating women for reproduction as a basic criteria for granting 'social manhood', and bonds between men started losing their importance because they don't bring babies (population) to those who rule the society. This is how the politics of male gender and sexuality was started in the first place.