The males are not divided between 'males who like men' and 'males who like women.'
Neither is male sexuality divided between 'male sexuality for men' and 'male sexuality for women.'
If at all 'sexual orientation' needs to be configured, male sexuality is divided between:
-masculine male sexuality for men
-feminine male sexuality for men
-masculine male sexuality for women
-feminine male sexuality for women
masculine male sexuality for men and feminine male sexuality don't come into the same category. They are essentially different in nature. The masculine male meets another male as a man. The feminine male meets another male as a woman (in different degrees). When a masculine male is approached by another male, he is approached as a man. When a feminine male is approached by another male, he is approached as someone who is half-male/half-female. Only the feminine male sexuality for men calls for a separate category.
The western world knows that masculine male sexuality for women does not come into the same category as feminine male sexuality for women. So, while the former are part of the straight category, the latter are a part of the LGBT category.
The masculine male sexuality for men and the masculine male sexuality for women come into the same category of men. Instead of being divided over people, these two different forms of sexuality, in nature, form part of the same man, but during different stages. While youth is for sexual bonding between males, reproductive sex is indulged in by many mammalian males in the latter part of adulthood, often without forgoing male bonds. They are both phases a man goes through. Of course, many males do not go through the second phase, but they intensify the first one. That doesn't make these males a part of the feminine males who have the same outer sex of sexual partners.
Likewise, feminine male sexuality for women and feminine male sexuality for men forms part of the same category. In nature, only the feminine gendered male has any long term or emotional 'sexual orientation' for women. With humans, of course, there are other factors than biology that comes into play, in order to heterosexualise the non-feminine males. Feminine male sexuality for men that is exclusive is an exception rather than the rule.
It should also be noted that while masculine male sexuality for men is more oriented towards emotional and social bonding (apart from a deep sexual bonding) and so is much more monogamous and long lasting, even lifelong ... the feminine male sexuality for men (gay) is often promiscuous by nature, limited only to the physical part of it. The feminine male is more geared to form emotional and social bonds with women.
Showing posts with label Site Article. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Site Article. Show all posts
May 21, 2010
What makes the concept of 'homosexuality' valid in the West
This article analyses how the western religious, cultural and scientific obsession with reproduction, mistaking it as the primary purpose of life (an obsession that is truly pathological), has created the myth of 'homosexuality,' i.e., of 'male's desire for men' as a distinct human trait (considered an abnormality for all practical purposes!) that deserves a separate terminology, and category. And the lack of this attitude towards reproduction is one of the primary reasons why none of the non-western or indigenous societies have anything even close to the concept of homosexuality or homosexuals, even when the incidence of sexual intimacy between males is far larger in these societies.
'Homosexuality' is NOT just a term to denote 'sexuality between males.' It's an entire concept, with a whole set of baggages, which is unique to the west. This concept cannot exist without the 'unnatural' assumptions that pre-empt it and surround it, and that is rendered invalid under more natural circumstances, including in non-western and indigenous cultures. It's a term made possible by a particular set of social/ political developments in the west, triggered by immense social engineering, often through violence and bloodshed, by Christianity. Its this base of conditions and attitudes created by Christianity, over two milleniums -- and then pursued vigorously and built upon by science (which has developed them beyond recognition), by employing/ abusing highly scientific tools.
It is not that the non-Western societies have not been obsessed with reproduction. But, they only forced it upon men as an important social role of manhood, never gave it a 'scientific' or biological facade like they did in the West, where everything, especially concerning males, is expected to compulsorily revolve around reproduction, or it is held to be there by mistake. Christianity has created a mindset, inherited today by western science, where they artificially create non-existing notions about nature, start believing in them zealously, and then expect nature to fit into it. When it doesn't, as is bound to happen, then they browbeat nature to fit into their preconceived notions. No method is held unfair in order to achieve this -- and both, the Christians as well as the scientists feel they're actually doing god/ nature a favour when they employ these unfair means. They ignore nature, suppress nature, even destroy nature -- without as much as a tinge of guilt -- so that it fits their pre-conceived notions. Whatever of nature remains after this strong persecution, they isolate, marginalize, penalize and stigmatize. When the enemy is male's sexual need for men, then its especially a "no-holds barred" war for the western society -- and after all, as westerners believe, everything is fair in love and war. While religion made man's need for sexual intimacy with a man into a sin, and succeeded to remove it from the formal, dignified scene, science, with its highly sophisticated tools, has converted it into an 'anomaly' and quarrantined it into the 'gay' pocket, together with the third genders. With its advanced technology, science has been able to achieve in this war against men, what religion could never achieve.
No wonder, western science is obsessed with finding out the 'cause' of homosexuality. This obssession quite clearly reflects the western cultural attitude towards male sexuality mentioned above, that treats sexual desire between men as something that got there by mistake. And, what can be described as the typical western attitude, when science starts to research male sexuality on this, it starts with this assumption that such a desire is an anomaly (esp. if its exclusive) and occurs only in individuals in whom some part of biology goes awry. So, it takes for given that there is a separate biological category of individuals and so it uses, without any qualms, the third genders who constitute the homosexual category, as its samples to study male sexuality for men. With this kind of predetermined research, when they already know what they want to find, the results will be predetermined as well. You find what you seek.
People in non-Judeo/ Christian/Islamic societies just don't have this concept of god wanting to run our lives through diktats that go against our natural needs and desires. For those who are in-charge of these medival religions, human beings are just slaves to fulfill the whims and fancies of what they hold to be the 'god.' The non-Judeo/Christian/Islamic cultures also don't understand the immense zealousness of the Jews, Christians and Muslims -- as a people -- to go to any extreme, unfair violent including that which is most obviously inhuman (like terrorism) to force human nature to fit into how their 'god' (who is the one and only 'one') wants nature to be.
One of the wrong assumptions that the western concept of "Homosexuality" is based upon is that the "normal," natural or biological sexuality of males is towards women, and furthermore, exclusively so, (the reason given being, that only male-female sex leads to reproduction and reproduction is pre-determined by the western culture to be the primary and only purpose of sex -- indeed, of life itself) and for male sexual desire to be towards men is an anomaly, and occurs only when something doesn't go in the natural direction, where it should, especially, if there is a lack of desire to copulate with women.
Along with the sexual desires, then every other male desire for men that usually accompanies sexuality --including social, physical and emotional desires -- also become unnatural, abnormal or simply an anomaly (a more politically correct term for 'abnormality'), even when they're purely non-sexual.
A lack of such an attitude towards male sexual needs and desires is one of the primary reasons, why the concept of 'homosexuality' becomes invalid in the non-West, or in the pre-modern west and in indigenous societies. In all these cultures, even though, men are expected to reproduce as well as to perform sexually with women, they are not really expected to have a desire for women -- its the performance that is important, not desire. Having sex with women is rightfully seen, just as the most important gender-sexual role of men, not something that is necessarily their desire. In fact, in a way, men are only expected to have only reasonable amounts of this desire for women, and excessive desire, whether it is sexual, social or emotional, is seen as problematic. (In the west, the more the desire the more powerful the man is made in the race for manhood, the more his social status amongst his peers improves -- and this strengthens men's heterosexual identities).
At the sametime, unlike in the Christian west, in the non-West, a desire for sexual and social intimacy, even emotional intimacy with men is seen as a universal male trait, something that is an integral part of manhood. It is the desire to be penetrated which is heavily stigmatised for men in the non-west, especially, if it is exclusive (as only those with a female soul are beleived to have such exclusive desires). It is not that a sexual desire for men is not stigmatized per se, BUT, it is not seen as 'unnatural,' or an 'anomaly' like in the West. It is just seen as something that although all men have, men ought to fight against and not give in to, for upholding social mores. Therefore, it gives a lot of psychological space to men to desire other men, which the west denies to men, by making men feel that desiring men biologically makes them inferior. Thus, in the non-west, 'straight' males routinely have not only sex, but also long term secretive romantic liasions with other men, especially in their youth, till they're not married. It's only that, they don't talk about it or acknowledge it openly or in formal spheres.
What also gives them a strong social space to develop such romantic liasions with each other is the immense social freedom to be 'socially' and physically intimate with other men that they enjoy -- because the men's spaces are pretty strong. Strong and committed sexual liasions between males flourish unspoken, behind this socially allowed intimacy between men. It is no wonder that the anti-man forces in the west, that want to use 'scientific' tools to make men heterosexual by denying them any social or pscychological space to be sexual with men, target specifically, the social and physical intimacy between them as well.
Although, western scientific institution restricts itself largely to rendering 'abnormal' or 'below normal' the sexual part of male to male intimacy, this groundwork created by it (as its contribution to the conspiracy to break men from men) is stretched far beyond by other western social institutions and psycho-social mechanisms (which all contribute to this anti-man conspiracy), including the powerful media and male 'peer-pressure.' This marginalization (in the form of 'homosexualization) of sexual intimacy between men is then further, aggressively built upon to marginalize the social and physical intimacy between men (as 'gay' too). A strongly Christian cultural background has given the western society a kind of zeal to work against male to male intimacy that is unimaginable under normal circumstances.
Thus, the western society conspires to create psycho-social mechanisms where men are afraid to hold each other's hands, when this comes naturally to men who live under more natural circumstances. Men feel insecure in westernized spaces, unless if they're all by themselves, unless, they're accompanied by women. As long as they are without female company, they become much more guarded about their behaviour towards each other -- due to extreme fearful environment created by the western culture.
'Homosexuality' is NOT just a term to denote 'sexuality between males.' It's an entire concept, with a whole set of baggages, which is unique to the west. This concept cannot exist without the 'unnatural' assumptions that pre-empt it and surround it, and that is rendered invalid under more natural circumstances, including in non-western and indigenous cultures. It's a term made possible by a particular set of social/ political developments in the west, triggered by immense social engineering, often through violence and bloodshed, by Christianity. Its this base of conditions and attitudes created by Christianity, over two milleniums -- and then pursued vigorously and built upon by science (which has developed them beyond recognition), by employing/ abusing highly scientific tools.
It is not that the non-Western societies have not been obsessed with reproduction. But, they only forced it upon men as an important social role of manhood, never gave it a 'scientific' or biological facade like they did in the West, where everything, especially concerning males, is expected to compulsorily revolve around reproduction, or it is held to be there by mistake. Christianity has created a mindset, inherited today by western science, where they artificially create non-existing notions about nature, start believing in them zealously, and then expect nature to fit into it. When it doesn't, as is bound to happen, then they browbeat nature to fit into their preconceived notions. No method is held unfair in order to achieve this -- and both, the Christians as well as the scientists feel they're actually doing god/ nature a favour when they employ these unfair means. They ignore nature, suppress nature, even destroy nature -- without as much as a tinge of guilt -- so that it fits their pre-conceived notions. Whatever of nature remains after this strong persecution, they isolate, marginalize, penalize and stigmatize. When the enemy is male's sexual need for men, then its especially a "no-holds barred" war for the western society -- and after all, as westerners believe, everything is fair in love and war. While religion made man's need for sexual intimacy with a man into a sin, and succeeded to remove it from the formal, dignified scene, science, with its highly sophisticated tools, has converted it into an 'anomaly' and quarrantined it into the 'gay' pocket, together with the third genders. With its advanced technology, science has been able to achieve in this war against men, what religion could never achieve.
No wonder, western science is obsessed with finding out the 'cause' of homosexuality. This obssession quite clearly reflects the western cultural attitude towards male sexuality mentioned above, that treats sexual desire between men as something that got there by mistake. And, what can be described as the typical western attitude, when science starts to research male sexuality on this, it starts with this assumption that such a desire is an anomaly (esp. if its exclusive) and occurs only in individuals in whom some part of biology goes awry. So, it takes for given that there is a separate biological category of individuals and so it uses, without any qualms, the third genders who constitute the homosexual category, as its samples to study male sexuality for men. With this kind of predetermined research, when they already know what they want to find, the results will be predetermined as well. You find what you seek.
People in non-Judeo/ Christian/Islamic societies just don't have this concept of god wanting to run our lives through diktats that go against our natural needs and desires. For those who are in-charge of these medival religions, human beings are just slaves to fulfill the whims and fancies of what they hold to be the 'god.' The non-Judeo/Christian/Islamic cultures also don't understand the immense zealousness of the Jews, Christians and Muslims -- as a people -- to go to any extreme, unfair violent including that which is most obviously inhuman (like terrorism) to force human nature to fit into how their 'god' (who is the one and only 'one') wants nature to be.
One of the wrong assumptions that the western concept of "Homosexuality" is based upon is that the "normal," natural or biological sexuality of males is towards women, and furthermore, exclusively so, (the reason given being, that only male-female sex leads to reproduction and reproduction is pre-determined by the western culture to be the primary and only purpose of sex -- indeed, of life itself) and for male sexual desire to be towards men is an anomaly, and occurs only when something doesn't go in the natural direction, where it should, especially, if there is a lack of desire to copulate with women.
Along with the sexual desires, then every other male desire for men that usually accompanies sexuality --including social, physical and emotional desires -- also become unnatural, abnormal or simply an anomaly (a more politically correct term for 'abnormality'), even when they're purely non-sexual.
A lack of such an attitude towards male sexual needs and desires is one of the primary reasons, why the concept of 'homosexuality' becomes invalid in the non-West, or in the pre-modern west and in indigenous societies. In all these cultures, even though, men are expected to reproduce as well as to perform sexually with women, they are not really expected to have a desire for women -- its the performance that is important, not desire. Having sex with women is rightfully seen, just as the most important gender-sexual role of men, not something that is necessarily their desire. In fact, in a way, men are only expected to have only reasonable amounts of this desire for women, and excessive desire, whether it is sexual, social or emotional, is seen as problematic. (In the west, the more the desire the more powerful the man is made in the race for manhood, the more his social status amongst his peers improves -- and this strengthens men's heterosexual identities).
At the sametime, unlike in the Christian west, in the non-West, a desire for sexual and social intimacy, even emotional intimacy with men is seen as a universal male trait, something that is an integral part of manhood. It is the desire to be penetrated which is heavily stigmatised for men in the non-west, especially, if it is exclusive (as only those with a female soul are beleived to have such exclusive desires). It is not that a sexual desire for men is not stigmatized per se, BUT, it is not seen as 'unnatural,' or an 'anomaly' like in the West. It is just seen as something that although all men have, men ought to fight against and not give in to, for upholding social mores. Therefore, it gives a lot of psychological space to men to desire other men, which the west denies to men, by making men feel that desiring men biologically makes them inferior. Thus, in the non-west, 'straight' males routinely have not only sex, but also long term secretive romantic liasions with other men, especially in their youth, till they're not married. It's only that, they don't talk about it or acknowledge it openly or in formal spheres.
What also gives them a strong social space to develop such romantic liasions with each other is the immense social freedom to be 'socially' and physically intimate with other men that they enjoy -- because the men's spaces are pretty strong. Strong and committed sexual liasions between males flourish unspoken, behind this socially allowed intimacy between men. It is no wonder that the anti-man forces in the west, that want to use 'scientific' tools to make men heterosexual by denying them any social or pscychological space to be sexual with men, target specifically, the social and physical intimacy between them as well.
Although, western scientific institution restricts itself largely to rendering 'abnormal' or 'below normal' the sexual part of male to male intimacy, this groundwork created by it (as its contribution to the conspiracy to break men from men) is stretched far beyond by other western social institutions and psycho-social mechanisms (which all contribute to this anti-man conspiracy), including the powerful media and male 'peer-pressure.' This marginalization (in the form of 'homosexualization) of sexual intimacy between men is then further, aggressively built upon to marginalize the social and physical intimacy between men (as 'gay' too). A strongly Christian cultural background has given the western society a kind of zeal to work against male to male intimacy that is unimaginable under normal circumstances.
Thus, the western society conspires to create psycho-social mechanisms where men are afraid to hold each other's hands, when this comes naturally to men who live under more natural circumstances. Men feel insecure in westernized spaces, unless if they're all by themselves, unless, they're accompanied by women. As long as they are without female company, they become much more guarded about their behaviour towards each other -- due to extreme fearful environment created by the western culture.
Dec 13, 2009
Creating pressures on men to be openly heterosexual in order to avoid losing manhood
What they (the anti-man forces who control various traditional and modern human institutions like science and media) do, is to create extreme expectations on men to be heterosexual, if they're straight, mainstream, regular guys. And since 'heterosexuality' is seen as synonymous with manhood, men have this extreme pressure to oblige. They have no space to say they don't want to date women. Because it means you're not a man and you lose your position in the race for manhood as well as your public following if you're a celebrity.
This pressure that media keeps creating in a yet non-heterosexualized society like India seems extremely contrasting, when many macho male superheroes find it difficult to answer questions about who they're dating and what they like to date. Because they don't date. In fact, it is a serious affront to Indian culture which has no space for dating between unmarried males and females to be asked such a question. Men in most cases just keep quiet or fib.
But, then there are some who run away with it, and exploit this new criteria of manhood being enforced by the media and give it power.
The westernized media needs celebrities to be heterosexual in order to support its heterosexualization agenda.
A similar pressure is being build up on young males through Peer-pressure and through social networking internet channels like Orkut, that ask your sexual orientation as well as whether or not you're interested in dating. Now, with dating being increasingly being enforced as the new proof of manhood for the youth, as part of building up a previously unexisting 'heterosexual' identity, it is impossible for men to live their life according to their natural instincts and needs. I know innumerable common straight males who don't do dating (or are only forced to do it), but they keep on their profile accounts stuff like, "looking for dating women" and sexual orientation 'straight' (which is wrongly defined as being heterosexual).
This pressure that media keeps creating in a yet non-heterosexualized society like India seems extremely contrasting, when many macho male superheroes find it difficult to answer questions about who they're dating and what they like to date. Because they don't date. In fact, it is a serious affront to Indian culture which has no space for dating between unmarried males and females to be asked such a question. Men in most cases just keep quiet or fib.
But, then there are some who run away with it, and exploit this new criteria of manhood being enforced by the media and give it power.
The westernized media needs celebrities to be heterosexual in order to support its heterosexualization agenda.
A similar pressure is being build up on young males through Peer-pressure and through social networking internet channels like Orkut, that ask your sexual orientation as well as whether or not you're interested in dating. Now, with dating being increasingly being enforced as the new proof of manhood for the youth, as part of building up a previously unexisting 'heterosexual' identity, it is impossible for men to live their life according to their natural instincts and needs. I know innumerable common straight males who don't do dating (or are only forced to do it), but they keep on their profile accounts stuff like, "looking for dating women" and sexual orientation 'straight' (which is wrongly defined as being heterosexual).
Dec 10, 2009
The various levels of diffference between 'Gay' and 'Straight'
Because of the intense politicisation of manhood and men's spaces, and the intense fight between the men's spaces and the anti-man forces that control the larger society, in which the men's spaces have finally lost in the Western society, defeated first by the Judeo/Christian religion and then by Western science -- the difference between 'gay' and 'straight' exists in the society at several levels.
1. On the one extreme end is the invalid definition of the 'gay'-'straight' divide forwarded by the anti-man forces, and validated by (psuedo)-science ... even if authorized by the Western scientific institution ... that represents the formal definition accepted and enforced in the West, that says "Straight" means exclusively heterosexual, which it claims is the vast majority of masculine gendered males, who were erstwhile known as 'men'. And "Gay" means any male who is exclusively into another male.
This formal definition of "Gay" and "Straight" is totally based on the claimed or practices sexuality of males and has no element of 'Gender' in it, at least, at the outset.
2. On the other end is the original difference between 'gay' and 'straight', which existed in every human society of the past, and is still the very basis of the 'gay' and 'straight' divide even in the modern WEst (although this basis is not formally acknowledged) and which is also based on the actual biological differences between "Gay" and "Straight." This definition is totally about "Gender" and has no element of sexuality in it, at least at the outset.
3. In-between these two extreme positions taken by the anti=man forces and the men's spaces respectively -- that represents politicization of manhood and male identity on one hand and the male biology on the other == are numerous other definitions of 'gay' and 'straight' divide that still operate in the society, simultaneously, albeit in different situations and levels of the same society.
(i) Closer to the biological definition of 'straight' and 'gay' is the more medieval distinction of straight and gay, that although hinges basically on 'Gender' and thus doesn't negate the gender angle like the modern West's definition, yet defines Gender not in terms of masculinity and femininity itself, but rather, who does the penetration and who is penetrated. The penetrator is the 'masculine' gender, and thus 'man', while the penetrated is the feminine gender, and thus 'gay' according to this definition.
This definition is still practised in the entire non-Westernized world, although, Western Science is destroying this definition claiming to represent the truth itself.
This definition still exists in the modern Western 'Gay' and 'STraight' spaces as well, and lots of 'straight' males still have sex with other men, but claim only to penetrate and thus retain their straighthood, and lots of 'gays' have sex with straight males but since they get penetrated see the penetrators as straights (as long as the penetrator doesn't acknowledge his interest in men.
(ii) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SEXUAL INTEREST: Closer to the modern western definition of 'gay' and 'straight' is the distinction that is widely practised, though not acknowledged as such, by both 'gay' and 'straight' identified males, and is the definition that really rules the roost in the straight spaces, as well as the larger society.
As per this definition, the one who acknowledges his sexual interest in men is 'gay', while the one who doesn't accept this interest, although, he may have sex with males, even exclusively, (as long as he keeps displaying or proving that he actually has a sexual interest in women, and has no sexual interest in men).
Therefore, men never acknowledge their sexual interest in men in WEstern societies, and the trait of liking the male gender is restricted only to the population identified as 'gay' -- i.e. those who acknowledge their sexual interest in men (who're mostly the third genders).
Thus, the formal Western definitions, when enforced upon the male population boils down to this acknowledgement of sexual interest in men, with those who acknowledge it becoming 'gay' and those who don't acknowledge it become 'straight' == thus strengthening the myth that the majority of men are exclusively heterosexual.
(iii) There are also several auxilliary definitions of 'gay' and 'straight' that function within the Westernized 'gay' and 'straight' set ups, characterized by the formal definitions.
E.g.:
(a) The Gay world is divided between the gay 'gays' (denoting the third genders) and the 'straight-acting' gays (that represent the supposedly masculine gendered males).
(b) The Straight world is divided between the 'real men' and the 'lesser men' often derogatorily reffered to as 'gay.' E.g. accusing someone of being gay for not eating meat or for holding another male's hands even as friends. Here too, the real men are used for more masculine males, while 'gay' is used for males who are seen as less masculine or effeminate (as defined by the Western social roles of manhood/ straighthood).
1. On the one extreme end is the invalid definition of the 'gay'-'straight' divide forwarded by the anti-man forces, and validated by (psuedo)-science ... even if authorized by the Western scientific institution ... that represents the formal definition accepted and enforced in the West, that says "Straight" means exclusively heterosexual, which it claims is the vast majority of masculine gendered males, who were erstwhile known as 'men'. And "Gay" means any male who is exclusively into another male.
This formal definition of "Gay" and "Straight" is totally based on the claimed or practices sexuality of males and has no element of 'Gender' in it, at least, at the outset.
2. On the other end is the original difference between 'gay' and 'straight', which existed in every human society of the past, and is still the very basis of the 'gay' and 'straight' divide even in the modern WEst (although this basis is not formally acknowledged) and which is also based on the actual biological differences between "Gay" and "Straight." This definition is totally about "Gender" and has no element of sexuality in it, at least at the outset.
3. In-between these two extreme positions taken by the anti=man forces and the men's spaces respectively -- that represents politicization of manhood and male identity on one hand and the male biology on the other == are numerous other definitions of 'gay' and 'straight' divide that still operate in the society, simultaneously, albeit in different situations and levels of the same society.
(i) Closer to the biological definition of 'straight' and 'gay' is the more medieval distinction of straight and gay, that although hinges basically on 'Gender' and thus doesn't negate the gender angle like the modern West's definition, yet defines Gender not in terms of masculinity and femininity itself, but rather, who does the penetration and who is penetrated. The penetrator is the 'masculine' gender, and thus 'man', while the penetrated is the feminine gender, and thus 'gay' according to this definition.
This definition is still practised in the entire non-Westernized world, although, Western Science is destroying this definition claiming to represent the truth itself.
This definition still exists in the modern Western 'Gay' and 'STraight' spaces as well, and lots of 'straight' males still have sex with other men, but claim only to penetrate and thus retain their straighthood, and lots of 'gays' have sex with straight males but since they get penetrated see the penetrators as straights (as long as the penetrator doesn't acknowledge his interest in men.
(ii) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SEXUAL INTEREST: Closer to the modern western definition of 'gay' and 'straight' is the distinction that is widely practised, though not acknowledged as such, by both 'gay' and 'straight' identified males, and is the definition that really rules the roost in the straight spaces, as well as the larger society.
As per this definition, the one who acknowledges his sexual interest in men is 'gay', while the one who doesn't accept this interest, although, he may have sex with males, even exclusively, (as long as he keeps displaying or proving that he actually has a sexual interest in women, and has no sexual interest in men).
Therefore, men never acknowledge their sexual interest in men in WEstern societies, and the trait of liking the male gender is restricted only to the population identified as 'gay' -- i.e. those who acknowledge their sexual interest in men (who're mostly the third genders).
Thus, the formal Western definitions, when enforced upon the male population boils down to this acknowledgement of sexual interest in men, with those who acknowledge it becoming 'gay' and those who don't acknowledge it become 'straight' == thus strengthening the myth that the majority of men are exclusively heterosexual.
(iii) There are also several auxilliary definitions of 'gay' and 'straight' that function within the Westernized 'gay' and 'straight' set ups, characterized by the formal definitions.
E.g.:
(a) The Gay world is divided between the gay 'gays' (denoting the third genders) and the 'straight-acting' gays (that represent the supposedly masculine gendered males).
(b) The Straight world is divided between the 'real men' and the 'lesser men' often derogatorily reffered to as 'gay.' E.g. accusing someone of being gay for not eating meat or for holding another male's hands even as friends. Here too, the real men are used for more masculine males, while 'gay' is used for males who are seen as less masculine or effeminate (as defined by the Western social roles of manhood/ straighthood).
Nov 13, 2009
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.
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.
Jan 18, 2009
The Western politics of Sexual identity
Sexuality is naturally fluid for most most men, only for a small minority is it fixed and concretized.
Each box, but especially, the main box meant for 'normal' men has built-in mechanisms, and what guys consider 'support systems' to help men kill that part of themselves which doesn't fit into that box (We're talking about the 'heterosexual box').
The society has prescribed only three boxes into which men can mould their sexualities during their formative years. And the concept of sexual orientation enforces that men must choose between one of the boxes. The three boxes are:
'heterosexual', 'homosexual' and 'bisexual'
However, 'homosexual' and 'bisexual' are combined together into a common box alongwith the transgendered.
So, there are practically two boxes:
'straight' and 'queer'
Now, the Straight box is marked heterosexual, but alongwith the package is tied masculinity, however it is not mentioned in the label. So when guys want to choose masculinity, they can only choose the 'heterosexual' box, and develop their sexuality along heterosexual lines, by suppressing their sexual need for men. The society uses this choice of the 'heterosexual box' as proof that the majority desire the 'heterosexual box' (without mentioning the 'masculinity' aspect, which is truly the deciding factor).
The 'gay' or 'homosexual'/ 'bisexual' or 'queer' box is labelled 'man to man sexuality', however, the package is ties with feminine gender/ transgender and passive sex. Now, when masculine males refuse the 'gay' box, or choose the 'heterosexual' box it is seen as a sign that they don't need men sexually, when in reality they are rejecting the box for its feminine gender (which is not even acknowleged on the label, but widely propagated by the society to discourage men from choosing it.).
At the sametime, most of the males that do choose the 'gay' or 'homosexual' box are males who are primarily third gender or feminine males who happen to like men. Now, these males confuse their preference of the feminine gender with their sexual need for men, influenced by social propaganda and so when they're choosing the 'gay' identity, the major determinant of their choice is their feminine gender, and not a sexual need for men per se, since most masculine males who also feel that attraction do sacrifice it because it is not available in a box with manhood.
This is how the Western politics of male Gender and Sexuality, enforced through the oppressive concept of Sexual Orientation works to make the majority heterosexual and the minority homosexual.
Sep 19, 2008
The Conspiracy against men
This is a post that one of our members made at a discussion net forum:
IT IS NOT not man-woman sexual interest that defines men, rather its a sexual inclination towards men. It is only too evident in nature, where (in mammals: read Bruce bagemihl, Johann Roughgarden, etc.) from 90% to 100% of males have been found to indulge in sexual relations with other males, while male-female sex happens only during the breeding season, and only a handful of males indulge in it at any given time. In other mammalian species, a handful of males control big harems of females, while most males live in male only groups and have sex largely with other males. Also, there is hardly any sexual/ emotional and romantic bonds between male-female, and any committed, lifelong sexual-romantic bonds exist only between males.
That is how humans lived at the beginning of the human civilisation, as is evident from several initial tribes that survived till the beginning of the modern era (e.g. the Melanisian tribes). In their society, males and females live in separate spaces, and meet only for reproductive sex, once a year... while 'marriage' happens only between men. In such societies, the reproduction is quite less -- but as per the rules of nature, but not to supply for human greed.
In nature, only a small portion of males ever breed, and even a smaller fraction does so with any regularity (i.e. in every reproductive season).
Long ago, societies decided to force its men (And it were the rulers, both men and of the third sex, who did that in what they thought was in the interest of the society) into reproductive sex with women, in order to increase their population -- It was necessitated because humans had started to migrate to far off, uninhabited lands, and they wanted people to inhabit their emerging civilisations. It soon evolved into a competitive situation where societies had to keep up their population levels to much more than what nature had intended, in order to survive the rivals.
In the beginning they invented the man-woman marriage, but male-bonds were so strong that they wouldn't leave them to live with women. Eversince, there has been a struggle by those who control the society (the rulers) and men's spaces. The rulers have been conspiring to:
a) break men from men
b) force them into sex with women
Men will not be forced into sex with women, unless they are broken from each other. The concept of 'homosexuality' is only the latest addition to theh conspiracy to break men from men. And if you look at how Western men are even afraid to hold each other's hands, and how they're scared of uniting on men's issues, for the fear of thought of as 'gay', you will understand that the conspirators have been really successful.
The rulers, iniitally, while they forced the common men into sex with women, kept themselves free from this pressure. So, for a large part of the history, man to man relations was thought to be fit only for the nobility but not for the common man, who had to be forced into reproductive sex, especially in a time when both child and adult mortality was high.
In any case... till the times of the Greeks, man to man sexual/ romantic bonds continued paralled to man-woman marriage, and while the first half of a man's life was devoted to bonds with men, the second half was for the society, to breed for it and to form a family. In the entire world, marriage is seen by men as a social duty, rather than something they really want to do. And men have been traditionally running away from marriage, as can be seen by innumerous marriage jokes, men have made to deal with this pressure.
Now, were all these men 'gay' -- certainly not... gay means queer, out of the ordinary, while straight means something that is normal, done by the majority. And, thus it was male-male sexual bonds that were straight, while it was male-female romantic bonds (that was indulged in by less than 3% of males, who were also effeminate) was 'gay'.
In any case... this fight against men's spaces, to break them from men, especially sexually, and to force them with women... is a contnuous fight, because nature exerts itself, the moment the rulers (that I call, the forces of heterosexualisation (FOH)) get lax. So, inspite of the fact that the FOH have heavily invested into building huge 'fixed' infrastructures, in the form of mechanisms, and into making these infrastructure 'invisible', especially by denying a space to talk about them,... they have to build new infrastructures in each age... as men's spaces find ways to fight the old ones.
Thus, by the time of the greeks, the man to man bonds were again resurfacing and had become strong. So, the FOH developed the concept of Religion by organising faith into an institution... and pronounced Sex between men as a Sin against God. And then, that gave them the authority and the power to persecute men (and not just gays), to keep them from forming relations with other men.
In fact, more than religion, the most important tool for the FOH to control men's sexuality was to manipulate and politicise 'manhood'. Because, manhood signified men's spaces -- the most important thing for men, biologically as well as socially. So, first they changed the definition of 'manhood' to say only those who reproduce are 'men'. In fact, they associated 'manhood' with penetration, which meant men could penetrate women, men as well as members of the third sex without losing their manhood.
Side by side, they also changed the definition of 'third sex', which originally was an identity for feminine gendered males without any consideration to their sexuality -- which was, unlike men, largely towards women. Third sex used to be a respectable group, but after politicisation, became a punishment space for outcaste men, who rebelled against social manhood... of course no one did.
Thus, while straight men loved other men, they disowned receptive anal sex, which the third sex took up as an identity.
After they brought in god, all kinds of sex with men became bad, it still remained 'masculine' although, only anal sex was a sin.
However, feminine gendered males, the third sex, was now heavily organised around receptive anal sex, and the FOH, to serve their nefarious designs allowed them space. Naturally, the third sex combined the desire for anal sex with their femininity and feminine lifestyles, and the two became synonymous. Of course, the majority of third gender who liked women, went underground, just like straight male sexual desire for men.
The sexual bonds between men however flourished underground. That means that although they could not accept indulging in such relations or to have the desire (not because it was feminine but because it was BAD and a sin) in formal spaces, in men's spaces, they openly talked about it and indulged in it.
When the modern times came, the power of religion started to vain, and Science started gaining power. The FOH, quickly gained control of the institution of science, and through it, invented the concept of Homosexuality (originally a disease) a term which was used for the feminine gendered males who indulged in receptive anal sex. They ignorend their feminine gender (also because Christianity had wiped out the concept of third sex from its society, at least formally) and their third sex status and defined them as 'men'. And that too 'men' who had sexual interest in men.
It was common knowledge that all men have a strong sexual interest in men. However, because of the immense religious and social hostility, men could not come up and say, hey, its not only these third sex people who like men, we like men too. They just couldn't. Soon, they were afraid to say this also because, they would be thought of as femininie or third sex themselves.
And the FOH, side by side, also started to destroy the men's spaces by bringing women into it, and increasing to the extremes, the pressure on men to bond sexually and socially with women. It was these men's spaces that were the power of men, and the FOH wanted to destroy them long ago, but it was only through science that they could finally do it.
They threatened any stragiht man who resisted this destruction as being outcasted as 'gay'. Some men were better 'heterosexualised' and fitted better in the new heteroseuxal set ups than the others and these men became the vested interests. But these men were not really the masculine ones, but rather the 'meterosexual' ones. The masculine ones became truly disempowered and to this day strive to fit into heterosexual roles with all sincerity.
The 'homosexual' or 'gay' space became strong as a lot of meterosexual guys, apart from the extremely transgendered guys who originally made up the gay space, took to it, and what helped them was the fact that formally, the concept of 'homosexuality' did not acknowledge the femininity of its members, and defined them only in terms of their sexual need for men. It also helped remove the stigma around receptive anal sex, by bringing all kinds of sexual interest under the stigma, and making it much wider. So, now the burden was equally shared, at least formally, by those who penetrated and those who did not indulge in anal sex at all. Any kind of sexual or emotional or romantic interest in men now became 'gay' or indirectly became 'feminine' or 'third sex'.
Because, these meterosexual 'gays' have a strong femininity in them, and because the society also acknowlegdes 'sexual interest between men' as feminine, the gays strongly feel that liking men and femininity are synonymous. And, they fuel the stereotypes.
While, all through the middle ages, and in contemporary non-westernised societies, manhood is still dependant on reproduction, and if you have a baby, you're straight... actually, you don't even need to actually have a baby, if you can prove that you are physically capable of having a child, you're straight. The Western societies have renamed 'manhood' as 'straight', and defined it in terms of exclusive sexual interest in women, which is not only illogical, its anti-man, anti-nature and without any precedence in history. Third sex, too was renamed as 'gay' and redefined in terms of a male sexual interest in men.
The third sex space for long has been a place for males who have been debarred from manhood, and 'gay' is the modern West's version of that space. That is why men are so scared of it.
So, straight men are continually pitted against their own nature, to love men... and to develop or pretend a sexual interest in women, so that they are not thrown into the third sex 'gay' group. And the society makes this pressure really strong. Most gays do not understand the straight male fear or phobia against 'gays'... They think its because of the religious or social stigma... well, its not... its a very personal thing... and this has to do with the 'third sex' angle, the politics of misdefining manhood and third sex.
So, straight men still indulge in sex with men ... but those who really do and talk about it, even secretly, are a miniscule. The majority of straight men never get down to actually doing it. But, their continuous struggle with a deep rooted sexual need for men, that they don't allow to grow and keep cutting off psychologically, manifests itself indirectly, in small spaces that they can still find to give vent to some of that need -- e.g. in hazing practices or in jokingly stripping each other... or doing masti (sexual fun) with each other. In India, before its extreme heterosexualisation recently, it was accepted as an integral part of manhood for men to like doing masti with other men. But now, men don't acknowledge that because of fear of being labelled gay.
In fact, I'm observing two college friends of mine closely who are straight and who are trying their best to fit into the new heterosexual roles by forcing themselves to be with girls and to cut off themselves from guys sexually and emotionally. Its a pressure we did not have to feel about seven years ago.
I am observing them closely, and seeing how they don't have much interest in women, and how uncomfortable they feel in the company of girls, yet they make all kinds of webs in order to have a straight image (there's no concept of straight as yet... but all they want is to avoid being 'gay'), and that they'd really like to be involved with a man.
IT IS NOT not man-woman sexual interest that defines men, rather its a sexual inclination towards men. It is only too evident in nature, where (in mammals: read Bruce bagemihl, Johann Roughgarden, etc.) from 90% to 100% of males have been found to indulge in sexual relations with other males, while male-female sex happens only during the breeding season, and only a handful of males indulge in it at any given time. In other mammalian species, a handful of males control big harems of females, while most males live in male only groups and have sex largely with other males. Also, there is hardly any sexual/ emotional and romantic bonds between male-female, and any committed, lifelong sexual-romantic bonds exist only between males.
That is how humans lived at the beginning of the human civilisation, as is evident from several initial tribes that survived till the beginning of the modern era (e.g. the Melanisian tribes). In their society, males and females live in separate spaces, and meet only for reproductive sex, once a year... while 'marriage' happens only between men. In such societies, the reproduction is quite less -- but as per the rules of nature, but not to supply for human greed.
In nature, only a small portion of males ever breed, and even a smaller fraction does so with any regularity (i.e. in every reproductive season).
Long ago, societies decided to force its men (And it were the rulers, both men and of the third sex, who did that in what they thought was in the interest of the society) into reproductive sex with women, in order to increase their population -- It was necessitated because humans had started to migrate to far off, uninhabited lands, and they wanted people to inhabit their emerging civilisations. It soon evolved into a competitive situation where societies had to keep up their population levels to much more than what nature had intended, in order to survive the rivals.
In the beginning they invented the man-woman marriage, but male-bonds were so strong that they wouldn't leave them to live with women. Eversince, there has been a struggle by those who control the society (the rulers) and men's spaces. The rulers have been conspiring to:
a) break men from men
b) force them into sex with women
Men will not be forced into sex with women, unless they are broken from each other. The concept of 'homosexuality' is only the latest addition to theh conspiracy to break men from men. And if you look at how Western men are even afraid to hold each other's hands, and how they're scared of uniting on men's issues, for the fear of thought of as 'gay', you will understand that the conspirators have been really successful.
The rulers, iniitally, while they forced the common men into sex with women, kept themselves free from this pressure. So, for a large part of the history, man to man relations was thought to be fit only for the nobility but not for the common man, who had to be forced into reproductive sex, especially in a time when both child and adult mortality was high.
In any case... till the times of the Greeks, man to man sexual/ romantic bonds continued paralled to man-woman marriage, and while the first half of a man's life was devoted to bonds with men, the second half was for the society, to breed for it and to form a family. In the entire world, marriage is seen by men as a social duty, rather than something they really want to do. And men have been traditionally running away from marriage, as can be seen by innumerous marriage jokes, men have made to deal with this pressure.
Now, were all these men 'gay' -- certainly not... gay means queer, out of the ordinary, while straight means something that is normal, done by the majority. And, thus it was male-male sexual bonds that were straight, while it was male-female romantic bonds (that was indulged in by less than 3% of males, who were also effeminate) was 'gay'.
In any case... this fight against men's spaces, to break them from men, especially sexually, and to force them with women... is a contnuous fight, because nature exerts itself, the moment the rulers (that I call, the forces of heterosexualisation (FOH)) get lax. So, inspite of the fact that the FOH have heavily invested into building huge 'fixed' infrastructures, in the form of mechanisms, and into making these infrastructure 'invisible', especially by denying a space to talk about them,... they have to build new infrastructures in each age... as men's spaces find ways to fight the old ones.
Thus, by the time of the greeks, the man to man bonds were again resurfacing and had become strong. So, the FOH developed the concept of Religion by organising faith into an institution... and pronounced Sex between men as a Sin against God. And then, that gave them the authority and the power to persecute men (and not just gays), to keep them from forming relations with other men.
In fact, more than religion, the most important tool for the FOH to control men's sexuality was to manipulate and politicise 'manhood'. Because, manhood signified men's spaces -- the most important thing for men, biologically as well as socially. So, first they changed the definition of 'manhood' to say only those who reproduce are 'men'. In fact, they associated 'manhood' with penetration, which meant men could penetrate women, men as well as members of the third sex without losing their manhood.
Side by side, they also changed the definition of 'third sex', which originally was an identity for feminine gendered males without any consideration to their sexuality -- which was, unlike men, largely towards women. Third sex used to be a respectable group, but after politicisation, became a punishment space for outcaste men, who rebelled against social manhood... of course no one did.
Thus, while straight men loved other men, they disowned receptive anal sex, which the third sex took up as an identity.
After they brought in god, all kinds of sex with men became bad, it still remained 'masculine' although, only anal sex was a sin.
However, feminine gendered males, the third sex, was now heavily organised around receptive anal sex, and the FOH, to serve their nefarious designs allowed them space. Naturally, the third sex combined the desire for anal sex with their femininity and feminine lifestyles, and the two became synonymous. Of course, the majority of third gender who liked women, went underground, just like straight male sexual desire for men.
The sexual bonds between men however flourished underground. That means that although they could not accept indulging in such relations or to have the desire (not because it was feminine but because it was BAD and a sin) in formal spaces, in men's spaces, they openly talked about it and indulged in it.
When the modern times came, the power of religion started to vain, and Science started gaining power. The FOH, quickly gained control of the institution of science, and through it, invented the concept of Homosexuality (originally a disease) a term which was used for the feminine gendered males who indulged in receptive anal sex. They ignorend their feminine gender (also because Christianity had wiped out the concept of third sex from its society, at least formally) and their third sex status and defined them as 'men'. And that too 'men' who had sexual interest in men.
It was common knowledge that all men have a strong sexual interest in men. However, because of the immense religious and social hostility, men could not come up and say, hey, its not only these third sex people who like men, we like men too. They just couldn't. Soon, they were afraid to say this also because, they would be thought of as femininie or third sex themselves.
And the FOH, side by side, also started to destroy the men's spaces by bringing women into it, and increasing to the extremes, the pressure on men to bond sexually and socially with women. It was these men's spaces that were the power of men, and the FOH wanted to destroy them long ago, but it was only through science that they could finally do it.
They threatened any stragiht man who resisted this destruction as being outcasted as 'gay'. Some men were better 'heterosexualised' and fitted better in the new heteroseuxal set ups than the others and these men became the vested interests. But these men were not really the masculine ones, but rather the 'meterosexual' ones. The masculine ones became truly disempowered and to this day strive to fit into heterosexual roles with all sincerity.
The 'homosexual' or 'gay' space became strong as a lot of meterosexual guys, apart from the extremely transgendered guys who originally made up the gay space, took to it, and what helped them was the fact that formally, the concept of 'homosexuality' did not acknowledge the femininity of its members, and defined them only in terms of their sexual need for men. It also helped remove the stigma around receptive anal sex, by bringing all kinds of sexual interest under the stigma, and making it much wider. So, now the burden was equally shared, at least formally, by those who penetrated and those who did not indulge in anal sex at all. Any kind of sexual or emotional or romantic interest in men now became 'gay' or indirectly became 'feminine' or 'third sex'.
Because, these meterosexual 'gays' have a strong femininity in them, and because the society also acknowlegdes 'sexual interest between men' as feminine, the gays strongly feel that liking men and femininity are synonymous. And, they fuel the stereotypes.
While, all through the middle ages, and in contemporary non-westernised societies, manhood is still dependant on reproduction, and if you have a baby, you're straight... actually, you don't even need to actually have a baby, if you can prove that you are physically capable of having a child, you're straight. The Western societies have renamed 'manhood' as 'straight', and defined it in terms of exclusive sexual interest in women, which is not only illogical, its anti-man, anti-nature and without any precedence in history. Third sex, too was renamed as 'gay' and redefined in terms of a male sexual interest in men.
The third sex space for long has been a place for males who have been debarred from manhood, and 'gay' is the modern West's version of that space. That is why men are so scared of it.
So, straight men are continually pitted against their own nature, to love men... and to develop or pretend a sexual interest in women, so that they are not thrown into the third sex 'gay' group. And the society makes this pressure really strong. Most gays do not understand the straight male fear or phobia against 'gays'... They think its because of the religious or social stigma... well, its not... its a very personal thing... and this has to do with the 'third sex' angle, the politics of misdefining manhood and third sex.
So, straight men still indulge in sex with men ... but those who really do and talk about it, even secretly, are a miniscule. The majority of straight men never get down to actually doing it. But, their continuous struggle with a deep rooted sexual need for men, that they don't allow to grow and keep cutting off psychologically, manifests itself indirectly, in small spaces that they can still find to give vent to some of that need -- e.g. in hazing practices or in jokingly stripping each other... or doing masti (sexual fun) with each other. In India, before its extreme heterosexualisation recently, it was accepted as an integral part of manhood for men to like doing masti with other men. But now, men don't acknowledge that because of fear of being labelled gay.
In fact, I'm observing two college friends of mine closely who are straight and who are trying their best to fit into the new heterosexual roles by forcing themselves to be with girls and to cut off themselves from guys sexually and emotionally. Its a pressure we did not have to feel about seven years ago.
I am observing them closely, and seeing how they don't have much interest in women, and how uncomfortable they feel in the company of girls, yet they make all kinds of webs in order to have a straight image (there's no concept of straight as yet... but all they want is to avoid being 'gay'), and that they'd really like to be involved with a man.
Aug 3, 2008
Homosexuality is an invalid concept
Not only is the word 'homosexuality' not found in any of the pre-modern civilisations even in the west, there has not been even a concept anywhere near it. There are several flaws not only in the concept of 'homosexuality' but in that of 'sexual orientation' itself. In this article we try to pinpoint the exact reasons why the concept of homosexuality is invalid.
(v) The term is supposed to define a man's sexuality/ sexual preferences, in terms of what is the (outer) sex of his sexual partner.
The politics of who is the same-sex and who is opposite:
SEXUAL ORIENTATION ITSELF IS AN INVALID CONCEPT!
The problem with the definitions provided by the heterosexual society and its science is that........
...... they create definitions based on how they would want the society to look, without any consideration for how people really are.......
...... and then force people to fit into them by bending and breaking them.
People are simple. They will believe in the definitions that come from a position of authority without challenging them. In any case as individuals they don't have the power to challenge them, and the definitions make sure that they remain powerless and isolated to do so.
And the thing about the concept of sexual orientation is that western(ized) people don't have the knowledge to challenge these definitions, because the western culture just does not recognize gender as a valid and distinct human trait, so westerners lack the ability to consciously consider it as a key player in the whole issue of sexuality.
And then what happens is a great distortion of natural traits and needs of people, of the kind that happens in the west (in India too, but only to a lesser extent). Thus e.g., when 'straight' (whose real meaning is masculine gendered males who are socially accepted as 'men') is defined as 'heterosexual', then the majority of men will bend and break themselves to be heterosexual. The fault lies totally with the definitions which are invented and forced from the top.
And likewise, since (male) homosexuality is defined as the sexual attraction of a male for another male, cleverly ignoring the important differences of gender (----- on the assumption that it is the desire itself which forms feminine) gender in males, and this definition is primarily built on the Hijra/eunuch/ faggot space/ trait, then straight identified men will shirk their sexual need for men like anything......... because although the formal definitions just talk about 'male sexual desire for men', in reality it is actually used for the 'third sex' which has (apart from being a denigrated feminine gendered male space) been the space for men banished from the men's community, since the ancient times.
While at the practical level feminine gender and receptive anal/ oral sex is the deciding factor between who will fit into 'homosexuality' and who 'into' straight......
..... at the formal level the difference is "exclusive sexual interest in men".
Do you know what that means? It exposes the motives of the vested interest group in devising the concept of homosexuality. It exposes their conspiracy very clearly.
It is not really "liking men" which is the problem here. The deciding factor is ------ WHETHER OR NOT YOU DO IT TO A WOMAN?
It is not liking men which makes you different from straight men (because most straight men like men) and force you in the homosexual space. It is not doing it with women that does.
And once you understand that you will also begin to see how this exactly tallies with the mechanisms of male oppression built thousands of years ago. There is a clear-cut non-breaking pattern in this conspiracy running during all these ages ----- it says:
Isolate the man who refuses to have sex with a woman (initially in order to reproduce) and debar him from manhood. Banish him into the fringes of the society.
Societies have sought to do this in order to force men with women, ever since these mechanisms were developed in order make the marriage institution viable. Because like in (mammalian) nature very few men had sex willingly with women in any reproductive season, unless forced, because they were too busy with their male bonds.
This is what created a strong vested interest over the ages, which have time and time again sought to consolidate their powers by seeking to isolate any kind of male-to-male bonds from the mainstream. They were unsuccessful because male spaces were very strong in the past. Religion was the first major defeat that men suffered at the hands of these vested interests. The other major and probably the final defeat came with industrialization, which gave these vested interests the power to destroy completely the male-spaces and heterosexualise them.
Science was abused (like religion) to give the vested interest group a tool to isolate male-male sexuality in a banished and denigrated third-sex space. This tool was called 'homosexuality'. This is the first time that the straight population was totally forced to give up male-male sexuality. Before that male-male sexuality had thrived for 2000 years quietly in mainstream (straight) male spaces, under the disguise and protection of male solidarity. And this is the story IN the west.
The vested interest group also finally managed to make male-female sexual desire itself the criteria for new manhood and converted this privilege into a powerful 'heterosexual' identity. Indeed they defined straight (or the status of being 'real regular/ mainstream/ masculine gendered men) itself as "heterosexuality'. Whereas earlier it was male-female sex and not sexual desire which made men eligible for social manhood. So you could absolutely disdain women, but if you married and just had enough sex to reproduce, you were then a 'man'. Today you're a man only if you have a sexual desire for women.
And because sexual desire was never a criteria for granting or denying manhood there was never ever a concept of 'sexuality'.
The objection to the word and concept of 'homosexuality' is not only about its definition. There are at least the following 7 serious drawbacks with the concept of 'homosexuality':
1. DEFINITION:
Incomplete definition:
(i) It does not take into account the important human facet of 'gender'. 'Gender' is defined as the inner male or female, irrespective of one's outer sex.
(ii) This silence on gender leaves enough room for its underhand manipulation and further distortion of meaning during usage. (e.g. gay = feminine, thus liking men = feminine).
(iii) It does not make any difference between 'sexual behavior' and 'actual sexual needs'. The two can be quite different in case of men.
(iv) People and their feelings/ needs need to be defined and classified on the basis of their nature, not on the whims and fancies of a few with vested interests.
1. DEFINITION:
Incomplete definition:
(i) It does not take into account the important human facet of 'gender'. 'Gender' is defined as the inner male or female, irrespective of one's outer sex.
(ii) This silence on gender leaves enough room for its underhand manipulation and further distortion of meaning during usage. (e.g. gay = feminine, thus liking men = feminine).
(iii) It does not make any difference between 'sexual behavior' and 'actual sexual needs'. The two can be quite different in case of men.
(iv) People and their feelings/ needs need to be defined and classified on the basis of their nature, not on the whims and fancies of a few with vested interests.
(v) The term is supposed to define a man's sexuality/ sexual preferences, in terms of what is the (outer) sex of his sexual partner.
The politics of who is the same-sex and who is opposite:
To an individual, what would suffice would be to say that he is a man attracted to another man. Thus I'm a 'mansexual' ought to make sense.
As an individual, a man's sexuality is not figured to judge who is the 'same' as him and then respond sexually to him. And individual responds to the masculine gendered man or feminine gendered male or a woman or both/ all.
But to use the word 'homo' or 'hetero' brings in the judgement of the society as to who it considers to be the same as me and who it doesn't. That is problematic and it reveals the real motives of the society. And this is another place where gender is manipulated at the back.
The society does not really want to help me by defining my sexuality but rather it is defining it to see whether I'm liking the same or the opposite, so they can isolate me.
In fact the basic purpose is to see who is not liking women. Therefore, whereas they make a distinction between masculine men who like women and feminine males who like women, they don't make a distinction between masculine men who like men and feminine males who like men because the society is not bothered about our differences.
For the isolation purpose it suffices it to say that these males are not interested in women. They are given a common label and shoved in a common space. As long as you don't like the opposite sex, you're all the 'same'.
(vi) And the idea of defining my sexuality in terms of whether the outer sex of the partner I desire is the same as my outer sex is rather far fetched. What difference should it make to the society? There are enough babies even if I don't make one, and if I must make babies, I can make it whether or not I desire women.
2. MOTIVES:
A study of manhood from its historical perspective makes it clear that the vested interests have, ever since they became powerful, tried to isolate men's sexual need for men from the men's community as a disqualification for manhood, and into the denigrated 'third sex' group.
They were only partly successful, as male-only groups were very strong and they held on to male-male sexual bonds amongst masculine gendered men. Therefore, the vested interests could only isolate receptive anal/ oral sex
It is not difficult to see that the concept of 'homosexuality' is an extension of the same age-old conspiracy, which the vested interests could finally succeed in implementing, with the powers they obtained from industrialization and the institution of science.
Otherwise, when every man has a sexual need for men, there is no sense in segregating some men in another category, based on their openness about same-sex needs.
3. ORIGIN/ HISTORY:
(a) The term 'homosexuality' was coined for a medical/ clinical condition, on the assumption that liking a man by a male was a pathological condition. Of course the underlying idea was that almost all men have exclusive feelings for women, which is just not true.
(b) There were many factors that this concept of 'disease' was associated with….. they were the symptoms of this disease so to speak. E.g. it was associated with cross-dressing, transgenderism, desire for receptive anal/oral sex, psychological disorder, etc.
This served as the basis for the proposition that males who like men are different from males who like women, which is the basic presumption behind the term 'homosexuality' (or 'sexual orientation).
(c) Therefore, the term was originally coined for the half-males/half-females of the western world which were known as mollies and gays. (gay was earlier used for a person of loose moral character). How can you build a positive identity/ concept on such negativity?
(d) Thus the concept of sexual desire between men, in the heterosexual society was built upon the earlier extremely denigrated (especially for men) 'third sex' identity which had been there since time immemorial --- however never representing sexual desire between men as such (but only feminine male's sexual desire for men ----- which was considered 'heterosexual', i.e. between opposites, and not the 'same' as the western definition claims ------ and it specifically included only receptive anal/ oral sex particularly of the promiscuous and exclusive kind).
Earlier, sexuality between men had survived behind the scenes for two thousand years, under men's solidarity (inspite of being persecuted by society/ religion in the formal space), before the usage of the term 'homosexual' became popular, and used along with the heterosexualisation to isolate it and drive it out from men's spaces. The very use of the term 'homosexuality suggests that such an attraction is 'different' and so is the person having it ------ and thus paves the way for the man's exclusion from the mainstream men's world. When all that a straight (masculine) man really cares for is to be the 'same' as other straight (masculine) men.
Straight men are not individualistic. They are extremely community oriented (primarily towards the masculine male community)......(although, they may become individualistic if broken from the masculine male community, like many masculine men burdened with the homosexual identity do). Straight men just detest to be singled out. They go to great lengths to 'prove' that they are just like the other straight men. That is another reason why 'peer pressure' plays such an important role in a man's life.
The concept of 'homosexuality' insinuates that liking men will make them 'different' and isolate them from their commnity.
4. ASSUMPTION / FOUNDATION
The term and the concept of 'homosexuality' is based upon several wrong and misleading concepts, e.g.:
(1) that the majority of men have no sexual need for men.
(2) That it is possible to differentiate between those who have a sexual need for men from those who have a sexual need for women.
(3) That male sexual need for women is the same as 'masculinity' while male sexual need for men is the same as 'femininity' in males. This is the premise for terming the heterosexual identity as 'straight' and the 'homosexual' identity as 'queer' or 'gay'.
(4) That the 'claimed' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do hide their sexual behavior behind masks.
(5) That even the 'actual' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do behave contrary to their real feelings and needs. (because the need for social manhood is far greater than their sexual needs, which are already weakened by social conditioning).
(6) That there are no social pressures that work on men to condition and force them to like women and hate male-eroticism.
5. USAGE
Because the very concept of 'homosexuality' is impractical, and based on mischievous motives, its usage is quite contrary to how the word is defined ----- for people who define themselves as 'homosexuals', for the straights and for the society at large. Even those who have coined the definitions (the institution of science) use the term quite differently than the actual definition.
The actual usage has several hidden and obvious baggages which are clearly not mentioned in the stated dictionary definition. This hiding of important factors associated with the concept of homosexuality, is crucial for the forces of heterosexualisation to maintain their conspiracies.
(1) Homosexuality is in practical sense used (because of its history, origin, practicality and motives) only for anal/ oral sex between men which is considered to be the same as male transvestitism.
To take 2 examples, in India the law against anal/ oral intercourse (which is equally applicable to male-female couples) is known as the "law against homosexuality", when most people who like men do not have to do anything with anal/oral sex.
The second example is that the religious injunction against anal sex between men is known as the injunction against 'homosexuality' even by the academic/ scientific world (when there was no such concept as sexual desire for men existing as a separate entity in those days), and neither Christianity nor Islam talk about love or sex between men per se.
It is ironic that the academic world gets away with this blatant misuse of terms and their stated definitions that they themselves have created. That they can get away with such fallacies says a lot about the credibility of these institutions.
(2) If we look at it practically, even in the heterosexual society, most males who relate with the homosexual identity are feminine gendered or fixated on receptive anal/ oral sex and most often both. Most men on the other hand prefer to stay with the 'straight' label, while many others who join the 'gay' identity are fooled by the definitions.
Thus the usage in this regard is not really incorrect, except that the definition claims to represent all male sexuality for men.
(3) While the definition doesn't talk anything about the gender angle, in usage 'homosexuality' is widely associated with male femininity. So much so that the equivalent terms for 'homosexual' are faggot, pansy, queer, gay, fruit, and so on.
Like someone discussing this issue on a 'straight-acting', 'gay' site once said, "the feminine gays are those who flaunt their sexuality on their sleeves."
Many Indian men have no idea before they come to the gay community that there is a strong feminine aspect to it. They are shocked to find that 'gay' parties and events are populated by Hijras and cross-dressers.
The definitions are quiet on this gender connection and thus they are built to mislead. What good are definitions that don't reflect the reality!
(4) While the definition only says "homosexual is a man attracted to a man", the actual usage goes more like: "a man who openly likes men", since secretly (almost) all men like men. And this further highlights the conspiracy. That the society wants to punish those who dare to be open about their same-sex needs.
(6) Because of the faults in definition, history, origin, assumptions and usage, sexuality between men and transgenderism are discussed ----- both at the scholarly/ scientific level and at the layman level ----- at the same breadth as if the two issues are one and the same.
e.g., consider this scholarly statement: "homosexuality was accepted in the Indian tribes of America. They had berdaches who were men who openly lived as women".
6. ABUSE AND MANIPULATION
This playing on the side with the all important human trait of gender makes way for large scale manipulation by various social institutions serving the forces of heterosexualisation.
1.) e.g. While both masculine gendered and feminine gendered males who like men are considered the "same", for the 'homosexual' label, .......... ........feminine gendered males who like women are not included in the 'heterosexual' label. They are shunted together with the gays as 'transsexuals'/ transgendered. Only masculine gendered guys who like women can be 'straight'. Thus there is both double standards, and an underhand play on 'gender' even when it is not formally recognized.
This leads to a lot of manipulation of facts. E.g. Science compares the feminine gendered 'homosexuals' with the masculine gendered 'heterosexuals' but on paper they are only acknowledged as 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals' with no reference to their gender. Any difference in their biology that should actually be because of the gender, is easily ascribed to 'sexuality'. This also exposes another angle of the conspiracy ----- which is also age-old: To represent men's need for men as feminine, so that men are denied manhood on its basis, and the majority of men (straights) continue to suppress their own sexual need for men. Thus science is abused to give its stamp to the propaganda that 'men who like men are a different species of men and are feminine".
7. RESULT/ CONSEQUENCES:
Thousands of years of persecution of male sexual need for men (which eventually led to the emergence of 'sexual attraction towards men' becoming a distinct concept) ----- by the end of middle ages made men indulge in such bonds only within the safety of men's spaces. The men's spaces have to be very strong for this purpose, which ensures that heterosexual vested interests don't get strong in it.
Like mentioned before, social manhood is the most important factor that decides the life course of a man. And men will only indulge in that much of their sexual need for men and only in that manner as will not harm their social manhood or make them weak in the race for manhood, which is basically a survival issue for men. They want to play absolutely safe.
In the men's spaces, men can become quite open about their same sex needs without their manhood being threatened at all. But in formal spaces and where there are women/ third sex, men must put on their masks of 'heterosexuality' (sic). It was the same in middle ages, as it is now in a heterosexual society.
The forces of heterosexualisation could figure out the weakness of men's bonds flourishing secretly in men only spaces. These prime weaknesses were:
1. The key is to destroy men's spaces: You induce even one woman in the male space, and suddenly all that male-sexual bonding or that open acceptance/ indulgence of male-male desire evaporates into thin air. Suddenly, everyone puts on a mask, as if there never was such a need amongst men at all.
Case Study:
As an individual, a man's sexuality is not figured to judge who is the 'same' as him and then respond sexually to him. And individual responds to the masculine gendered man or feminine gendered male or a woman or both/ all.
But to use the word 'homo' or 'hetero' brings in the judgement of the society as to who it considers to be the same as me and who it doesn't. That is problematic and it reveals the real motives of the society. And this is another place where gender is manipulated at the back.
The society does not really want to help me by defining my sexuality but rather it is defining it to see whether I'm liking the same or the opposite, so they can isolate me.
In fact the basic purpose is to see who is not liking women. Therefore, whereas they make a distinction between masculine men who like women and feminine males who like women, they don't make a distinction between masculine men who like men and feminine males who like men because the society is not bothered about our differences.
For the isolation purpose it suffices it to say that these males are not interested in women. They are given a common label and shoved in a common space. As long as you don't like the opposite sex, you're all the 'same'.
(vi) And the idea of defining my sexuality in terms of whether the outer sex of the partner I desire is the same as my outer sex is rather far fetched. What difference should it make to the society? There are enough babies even if I don't make one, and if I must make babies, I can make it whether or not I desire women.
2. MOTIVES:
A study of manhood from its historical perspective makes it clear that the vested interests have, ever since they became powerful, tried to isolate men's sexual need for men from the men's community as a disqualification for manhood, and into the denigrated 'third sex' group.
They were only partly successful, as male-only groups were very strong and they held on to male-male sexual bonds amongst masculine gendered men. Therefore, the vested interests could only isolate receptive anal/ oral sex
It is not difficult to see that the concept of 'homosexuality' is an extension of the same age-old conspiracy, which the vested interests could finally succeed in implementing, with the powers they obtained from industrialization and the institution of science.
Otherwise, when every man has a sexual need for men, there is no sense in segregating some men in another category, based on their openness about same-sex needs.
3. ORIGIN/ HISTORY:
(a) The term 'homosexuality' was coined for a medical/ clinical condition, on the assumption that liking a man by a male was a pathological condition. Of course the underlying idea was that almost all men have exclusive feelings for women, which is just not true.
(b) There were many factors that this concept of 'disease' was associated with….. they were the symptoms of this disease so to speak. E.g. it was associated with cross-dressing, transgenderism, desire for receptive anal/oral sex, psychological disorder, etc.
This served as the basis for the proposition that males who like men are different from males who like women, which is the basic presumption behind the term 'homosexuality' (or 'sexual orientation).
(c) Therefore, the term was originally coined for the half-males/half-females of the western world which were known as mollies and gays. (gay was earlier used for a person of loose moral character). How can you build a positive identity/ concept on such negativity?
(d) Thus the concept of sexual desire between men, in the heterosexual society was built upon the earlier extremely denigrated (especially for men) 'third sex' identity which had been there since time immemorial --- however never representing sexual desire between men as such (but only feminine male's sexual desire for men ----- which was considered 'heterosexual', i.e. between opposites, and not the 'same' as the western definition claims ------ and it specifically included only receptive anal/ oral sex particularly of the promiscuous and exclusive kind).
Earlier, sexuality between men had survived behind the scenes for two thousand years, under men's solidarity (inspite of being persecuted by society/ religion in the formal space), before the usage of the term 'homosexual' became popular, and used along with the heterosexualisation to isolate it and drive it out from men's spaces. The very use of the term 'homosexuality suggests that such an attraction is 'different' and so is the person having it ------ and thus paves the way for the man's exclusion from the mainstream men's world. When all that a straight (masculine) man really cares for is to be the 'same' as other straight (masculine) men.
Straight men are not individualistic. They are extremely community oriented (primarily towards the masculine male community)......(although, they may become individualistic if broken from the masculine male community, like many masculine men burdened with the homosexual identity do). Straight men just detest to be singled out. They go to great lengths to 'prove' that they are just like the other straight men. That is another reason why 'peer pressure' plays such an important role in a man's life.
The concept of 'homosexuality' insinuates that liking men will make them 'different' and isolate them from their commnity.
4. ASSUMPTION / FOUNDATION
The term and the concept of 'homosexuality' is based upon several wrong and misleading concepts, e.g.:
(1) that the majority of men have no sexual need for men.
(2) That it is possible to differentiate between those who have a sexual need for men from those who have a sexual need for women.
(3) That male sexual need for women is the same as 'masculinity' while male sexual need for men is the same as 'femininity' in males. This is the premise for terming the heterosexual identity as 'straight' and the 'homosexual' identity as 'queer' or 'gay'.
(4) That the 'claimed' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do hide their sexual behavior behind masks.
(5) That even the 'actual' sexual behavior of men represents their true sexual needs, when men do behave contrary to their real feelings and needs. (because the need for social manhood is far greater than their sexual needs, which are already weakened by social conditioning).
(6) That there are no social pressures that work on men to condition and force them to like women and hate male-eroticism.
5. USAGE
Because the very concept of 'homosexuality' is impractical, and based on mischievous motives, its usage is quite contrary to how the word is defined ----- for people who define themselves as 'homosexuals', for the straights and for the society at large. Even those who have coined the definitions (the institution of science) use the term quite differently than the actual definition.
The actual usage has several hidden and obvious baggages which are clearly not mentioned in the stated dictionary definition. This hiding of important factors associated with the concept of homosexuality, is crucial for the forces of heterosexualisation to maintain their conspiracies.
(1) Homosexuality is in practical sense used (because of its history, origin, practicality and motives) only for anal/ oral sex between men which is considered to be the same as male transvestitism.
To take 2 examples, in India the law against anal/ oral intercourse (which is equally applicable to male-female couples) is known as the "law against homosexuality", when most people who like men do not have to do anything with anal/oral sex.
The second example is that the religious injunction against anal sex between men is known as the injunction against 'homosexuality' even by the academic/ scientific world (when there was no such concept as sexual desire for men existing as a separate entity in those days), and neither Christianity nor Islam talk about love or sex between men per se.
It is ironic that the academic world gets away with this blatant misuse of terms and their stated definitions that they themselves have created. That they can get away with such fallacies says a lot about the credibility of these institutions.
(2) If we look at it practically, even in the heterosexual society, most males who relate with the homosexual identity are feminine gendered or fixated on receptive anal/ oral sex and most often both. Most men on the other hand prefer to stay with the 'straight' label, while many others who join the 'gay' identity are fooled by the definitions.
Thus the usage in this regard is not really incorrect, except that the definition claims to represent all male sexuality for men.
(3) While the definition doesn't talk anything about the gender angle, in usage 'homosexuality' is widely associated with male femininity. So much so that the equivalent terms for 'homosexual' are faggot, pansy, queer, gay, fruit, and so on.
Like someone discussing this issue on a 'straight-acting', 'gay' site once said, "the feminine gays are those who flaunt their sexuality on their sleeves."
Many Indian men have no idea before they come to the gay community that there is a strong feminine aspect to it. They are shocked to find that 'gay' parties and events are populated by Hijras and cross-dressers.
The definitions are quiet on this gender connection and thus they are built to mislead. What good are definitions that don't reflect the reality!
(4) While the definition only says "homosexual is a man attracted to a man", the actual usage goes more like: "a man who openly likes men", since secretly (almost) all men like men. And this further highlights the conspiracy. That the society wants to punish those who dare to be open about their same-sex needs.
(6) Because of the faults in definition, history, origin, assumptions and usage, sexuality between men and transgenderism are discussed ----- both at the scholarly/ scientific level and at the layman level ----- at the same breadth as if the two issues are one and the same.
e.g., consider this scholarly statement: "homosexuality was accepted in the Indian tribes of America. They had berdaches who were men who openly lived as women".
6. ABUSE AND MANIPULATION
This playing on the side with the all important human trait of gender makes way for large scale manipulation by various social institutions serving the forces of heterosexualisation.
1.) e.g. While both masculine gendered and feminine gendered males who like men are considered the "same", for the 'homosexual' label, .......... ........feminine gendered males who like women are not included in the 'heterosexual' label. They are shunted together with the gays as 'transsexuals'/ transgendered. Only masculine gendered guys who like women can be 'straight'. Thus there is both double standards, and an underhand play on 'gender' even when it is not formally recognized.
This leads to a lot of manipulation of facts. E.g. Science compares the feminine gendered 'homosexuals' with the masculine gendered 'heterosexuals' but on paper they are only acknowledged as 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals' with no reference to their gender. Any difference in their biology that should actually be because of the gender, is easily ascribed to 'sexuality'. This also exposes another angle of the conspiracy ----- which is also age-old: To represent men's need for men as feminine, so that men are denied manhood on its basis, and the majority of men (straights) continue to suppress their own sexual need for men. Thus science is abused to give its stamp to the propaganda that 'men who like men are a different species of men and are feminine".
7. RESULT/ CONSEQUENCES:
Thousands of years of persecution of male sexual need for men (which eventually led to the emergence of 'sexual attraction towards men' becoming a distinct concept) ----- by the end of middle ages made men indulge in such bonds only within the safety of men's spaces. The men's spaces have to be very strong for this purpose, which ensures that heterosexual vested interests don't get strong in it.
Like mentioned before, social manhood is the most important factor that decides the life course of a man. And men will only indulge in that much of their sexual need for men and only in that manner as will not harm their social manhood or make them weak in the race for manhood, which is basically a survival issue for men. They want to play absolutely safe.
In the men's spaces, men can become quite open about their same sex needs without their manhood being threatened at all. But in formal spaces and where there are women/ third sex, men must put on their masks of 'heterosexuality' (sic). It was the same in middle ages, as it is now in a heterosexual society.
The forces of heterosexualisation could figure out the weakness of men's bonds flourishing secretly in men only spaces. These prime weaknesses were:
1. The key is to destroy men's spaces: You induce even one woman in the male space, and suddenly all that male-sexual bonding or that open acceptance/ indulgence of male-male desire evaporates into thin air. Suddenly, everyone puts on a mask, as if there never was such a need amongst men at all.
Case Study:
In a pond in Delhi crowded by young men, they used to go wild with male eroticism ----- both subdued and open kind. But enter homosexuals (Hijras) and suddenly a lot of that masculine male eroticism fades, because the Hijras think that only fellow Hijras who want to be fucked anally or suck dicks have a sexual interest in masculine (straight) men.
But lately, women have intruded the space, emboldened by a changing society. They just sit on the edge and watch the half-naked men or sometimes they also enter the water. And I observe how quickly the male eroticism evaporates into thin air. Boys who used to get naked for each other's benefit, suddenly become conscious, and all sexual games with each other stop. It may happen that someone may make a sexual gesture aimed at the woman to score a point over others, but most men would just avoid and just bathe and leave being very shy/ cautious of their (semi) nakedness.
This is why the forces of heterosexualisation are so keen on destroying every bit of male-only spaces ----- by heterosexualising them. It is only by inducing women into every male space that they can ensure the death of same-sex feelings in that space. If you do it from the beginning (schools) the male will never get a chance to develop or explore those feelings.
2. label male-male sexual bonds and the desire itself: The vested interests could see that although men form deep and long lasting sexual and emotional bonds that last for years, but their weak point is that they are never acknowledged as such. There would always be a disguise of a sexual need for women. The most important thing was that the moment someone broke this secrecy and acknowledged the relationship or sexual interest, the other party will deny ever having such an interest. What helped these bonds ironically was that there was a taboo on the discussion of men's sexuality for each other, and as far as the formal society was concerned it did not exist. Only the third-sex did that kind of thing, formally speaking. And this non-talking provided a cover.
This is why the vested interests instinctively knew that they needed a mechanism whereby they can acknowledge, identify and label male to male feelings in such a way that they are denied this secrecy. That would expose them instantly.
So the vested interests responded in ways:
a). they opened up the society heterosexually. This meant that everything was forced out in the open. But while male-female sex was encouraged and given social space even without marriage, male-male sexuality was condemned. Male-male sexuality dies as soon as it comes out in the open because it is weak. It needs the protection of male only spaces (not gay spaces though).
b). they developed the concept of 'homosexuality' through which they could label anyone who displayed even the slightest same-sex feelings. All you had to do to avoid this labelling was to hide your same-sex feelings, and hide it for good. Now, since there were no hidden spaces, as they had all been heterosexualised and opened up, the heterosexual vested interests had become extremely powerful in these and they would shout 'homo' the moment they see trace of male-male sexuality, as if they have done a brave and socially productive deed. This would jeopardize the 'manhood' of the victim man instantly, and threaten his survival in the men's race for manhood.
c) the vested interests have propagated using every social institution from media to science to portray man's sexual need for men as 'feminine', 'minority' and 'different'. Of course since the spaces are defined in such a way, it surely looks that way from the outside. And 'homosexuals' who fit in the space allocated for male-male sexual need are just as benefited by this process. So they support it full fledged.
d) The forces of heterosexualisation keep up the hostility in the men's space (now called straight) on male-male sexual desire or bonds. Thus the media would encourage and inculcate such hype where men are even scared to hold each other's hands in public.
e) any discussion of male-male sexuality takes place only in the homosexual space or context. Which means that it will be talked about as a freaky, abnormal thing or a 'different, 'feminine', 'minority' thing at best.
all this makes sure that straight men disown their same-sex feelings while homosexuals (half-males/ half-females and sexual freaks) claim all of it aggressively.
But lately, women have intruded the space, emboldened by a changing society. They just sit on the edge and watch the half-naked men or sometimes they also enter the water. And I observe how quickly the male eroticism evaporates into thin air. Boys who used to get naked for each other's benefit, suddenly become conscious, and all sexual games with each other stop. It may happen that someone may make a sexual gesture aimed at the woman to score a point over others, but most men would just avoid and just bathe and leave being very shy/ cautious of their (semi) nakedness.
This is why the forces of heterosexualisation are so keen on destroying every bit of male-only spaces ----- by heterosexualising them. It is only by inducing women into every male space that they can ensure the death of same-sex feelings in that space. If you do it from the beginning (schools) the male will never get a chance to develop or explore those feelings.
2. label male-male sexual bonds and the desire itself: The vested interests could see that although men form deep and long lasting sexual and emotional bonds that last for years, but their weak point is that they are never acknowledged as such. There would always be a disguise of a sexual need for women. The most important thing was that the moment someone broke this secrecy and acknowledged the relationship or sexual interest, the other party will deny ever having such an interest. What helped these bonds ironically was that there was a taboo on the discussion of men's sexuality for each other, and as far as the formal society was concerned it did not exist. Only the third-sex did that kind of thing, formally speaking. And this non-talking provided a cover.
This is why the vested interests instinctively knew that they needed a mechanism whereby they can acknowledge, identify and label male to male feelings in such a way that they are denied this secrecy. That would expose them instantly.
So the vested interests responded in ways:
a). they opened up the society heterosexually. This meant that everything was forced out in the open. But while male-female sex was encouraged and given social space even without marriage, male-male sexuality was condemned. Male-male sexuality dies as soon as it comes out in the open because it is weak. It needs the protection of male only spaces (not gay spaces though).
b). they developed the concept of 'homosexuality' through which they could label anyone who displayed even the slightest same-sex feelings. All you had to do to avoid this labelling was to hide your same-sex feelings, and hide it for good. Now, since there were no hidden spaces, as they had all been heterosexualised and opened up, the heterosexual vested interests had become extremely powerful in these and they would shout 'homo' the moment they see trace of male-male sexuality, as if they have done a brave and socially productive deed. This would jeopardize the 'manhood' of the victim man instantly, and threaten his survival in the men's race for manhood.
c) the vested interests have propagated using every social institution from media to science to portray man's sexual need for men as 'feminine', 'minority' and 'different'. Of course since the spaces are defined in such a way, it surely looks that way from the outside. And 'homosexuals' who fit in the space allocated for male-male sexual need are just as benefited by this process. So they support it full fledged.
d) The forces of heterosexualisation keep up the hostility in the men's space (now called straight) on male-male sexual desire or bonds. Thus the media would encourage and inculcate such hype where men are even scared to hold each other's hands in public.
e) any discussion of male-male sexuality takes place only in the homosexual space or context. Which means that it will be talked about as a freaky, abnormal thing or a 'different, 'feminine', 'minority' thing at best.
all this makes sure that straight men disown their same-sex feelings while homosexuals (half-males/ half-females and sexual freaks) claim all of it aggressively.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION ITSELF IS AN INVALID CONCEPT!
The problem with the definitions provided by the heterosexual society and its science is that........
...... they create definitions based on how they would want the society to look, without any consideration for how people really are.......
...... and then force people to fit into them by bending and breaking them.
People are simple. They will believe in the definitions that come from a position of authority without challenging them. In any case as individuals they don't have the power to challenge them, and the definitions make sure that they remain powerless and isolated to do so.
And the thing about the concept of sexual orientation is that western(ized) people don't have the knowledge to challenge these definitions, because the western culture just does not recognize gender as a valid and distinct human trait, so westerners lack the ability to consciously consider it as a key player in the whole issue of sexuality.
And then what happens is a great distortion of natural traits and needs of people, of the kind that happens in the west (in India too, but only to a lesser extent). Thus e.g., when 'straight' (whose real meaning is masculine gendered males who are socially accepted as 'men') is defined as 'heterosexual', then the majority of men will bend and break themselves to be heterosexual. The fault lies totally with the definitions which are invented and forced from the top.
And likewise, since (male) homosexuality is defined as the sexual attraction of a male for another male, cleverly ignoring the important differences of gender (----- on the assumption that it is the desire itself which forms feminine) gender in males, and this definition is primarily built on the Hijra/eunuch/ faggot space/ trait, then straight identified men will shirk their sexual need for men like anything......... because although the formal definitions just talk about 'male sexual desire for men', in reality it is actually used for the 'third sex' which has (apart from being a denigrated feminine gendered male space) been the space for men banished from the men's community, since the ancient times.
____________________________________________________
While at the practical level feminine gender and receptive anal/ oral sex is the deciding factor between who will fit into 'homosexuality' and who 'into' straight......
..... at the formal level the difference is "exclusive sexual interest in men".
Do you know what that means? It exposes the motives of the vested interest group in devising the concept of homosexuality. It exposes their conspiracy very clearly.
It is not really "liking men" which is the problem here. The deciding factor is ------ WHETHER OR NOT YOU DO IT TO A WOMAN?
It is not liking men which makes you different from straight men (because most straight men like men) and force you in the homosexual space. It is not doing it with women that does.
And once you understand that you will also begin to see how this exactly tallies with the mechanisms of male oppression built thousands of years ago. There is a clear-cut non-breaking pattern in this conspiracy running during all these ages ----- it says:
Isolate the man who refuses to have sex with a woman (initially in order to reproduce) and debar him from manhood. Banish him into the fringes of the society.
Societies have sought to do this in order to force men with women, ever since these mechanisms were developed in order make the marriage institution viable. Because like in (mammalian) nature very few men had sex willingly with women in any reproductive season, unless forced, because they were too busy with their male bonds.
This is what created a strong vested interest over the ages, which have time and time again sought to consolidate their powers by seeking to isolate any kind of male-to-male bonds from the mainstream. They were unsuccessful because male spaces were very strong in the past. Religion was the first major defeat that men suffered at the hands of these vested interests. The other major and probably the final defeat came with industrialization, which gave these vested interests the power to destroy completely the male-spaces and heterosexualise them.
Science was abused (like religion) to give the vested interest group a tool to isolate male-male sexuality in a banished and denigrated third-sex space. This tool was called 'homosexuality'. This is the first time that the straight population was totally forced to give up male-male sexuality. Before that male-male sexuality had thrived for 2000 years quietly in mainstream (straight) male spaces, under the disguise and protection of male solidarity. And this is the story IN the west.
The vested interest group also finally managed to make male-female sexual desire itself the criteria for new manhood and converted this privilege into a powerful 'heterosexual' identity. Indeed they defined straight (or the status of being 'real regular/ mainstream/ masculine gendered men) itself as "heterosexuality'. Whereas earlier it was male-female sex and not sexual desire which made men eligible for social manhood. So you could absolutely disdain women, but if you married and just had enough sex to reproduce, you were then a 'man'. Today you're a man only if you have a sexual desire for women.
And because sexual desire was never a criteria for granting or denying manhood there was never ever a concept of 'sexuality'.
Oct 3, 2007
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.
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.
May 19, 2007
Two of the greatest myths about male gender and sexuality spread by the western society
(with strong backing from its scientific institution)
In the matter of human gender and sexuality, the western scientific institution has ------ instead of destroying the lies created by Christianity to manipulate male gender and sexuality ------ chosen to toe its line, and perpetuate ------ even strengthen those lies by giving it a stamp of science ------ by hook or crook.
What had happened was that the institutions of science, like all the other small or big institutions of the western society was hijacked by the vested interests, quite early on ----- as soon as it started getting powerful.
Here we are going to look at two of the greatest lies spread by the western world about human, particularly male gender and sexuality.
Myths that the traditional, non-westernised world knows to be untrue:
MYTH 1:
GENDER IS NOT A BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON
Human civilizations have, since the ancient times known about and recognized at least two distinct genders of males ------ the predominantly masculine gendered male and the transgendered male.
Femininity (as well as masculinity) in humans have long been established as a naturally occurring phenomenon. In fact in ancient India, in the Vedas the very word used for gender is “nature” (prakriti). In many ancient tribes, even today, there is this practice of identifying the 'different' male ----- the feminine gendered male, who is then raised not as a boy but as a distinct feminine gender.
Furthermore this femininity was not believed to be related with sexuality as is portrayed by the western world today. The feminine gendered male could chose female or male partner.
The politics of gender and sexuality has ever since, for long tried to redefine this 'third sex' space in terms of sexuality, and it was redefined to include only males who desired exclusive receptive sex from men. Although, these males were predominantly transgendered, the definitions were so mixed up that their transgenderism was considered to be a part of their sexuality for receptive sex where they treated their anus or mouth as vagina, and this kind of sex would fulfill their desire to be a woman (as they were performing the socially ascribed female role of a receptor).
In this process, the 'third sex' that liked women ----- that initially constituted the overwhelming majority of the 'third sex' category were totally wiped out of the scene……. they apparently went underground.
Also, those who went underground were masculine gendered males who liked receptive anal/ oral sex and the feminine gendered males who did not like receptive anal/ oral sex.
In the west however, the gender and sexual politics being played with males took a different route. Christianity came down heavily on transgenderism which was punishable by death. Soon transgenderism went almost completely underground for centuries, till even the phenomenon was totally wiped out from the society. When science took over from Christianity, it too disacknowldeged gender as a distinct biological phenomenon from human sex. It held that men were biologically supposed to be exclusively masculine while females were meant to be exclusively feminine. Any variance to this rule was considered to be a socially orchestrated anomaly.
And while the Scientific institution on one hand refused to acknowledge feminine gender in males as biological, it went on to deliberately confuse feminine male gender with male sexual desire for men. Because, like in the medieval times, the only visible group of males that liked men was the transgendered or the overly effeminate male who predominantly sought receptive sex with men. It was convenient for Science to only look at the issue from a superficial level and assume that what appeared on the surface was the true nature of male gender and sexuality.
The traditional societies considered only those males who sought exclusive receptive anal/ oral sex with males to be feminine gendered ------ which was also borne out by facts. However the west started to portray any kind of sexual desire between men as 'feminine' and 'different'.
And while the traditional world continued to accept transgendered males as a naturally different gender, the western science still considers it a disease, an abnormality, a socially caused phenomenon to be treated.
And while the scientific institution considers gender to be non-existent biologically, the social activists working around the issue of male gender and sexuality (including feminists and gays) consider male femininity or masculinity to be a matter of choosing socially prescribed roles of males and females that has nothing to do with nature. As per this belief, Femininity or masculinity doesn't reside within a person but is determined by, e.g., whether he wears male or female clothes………….. and is therefore considered a matter of social choice. Interestingly, sexuality is not considered to be a choice or to be socially orchestrated but instead held to be biologically ingrained in a person. This view of social scientists is quite different from that of the physical sciences, but both deny the truth of gender being a biologically occurring human phenomenon quite distinct from the outer sex.
The fallacy upon which the entire western outlook on male gender and sexuality is based can be understood in this way. There are two concurrent but different definitions of ‘gender’ popular in the west. And both of them are way off from the real thing.
(i) The first definition is the traditional western definition, where gender is equated with ‘sex’. Thus the masculine gender is the same as the male, and the feminine gender is the same as the female as per this definition.
(ii) The second definition is used by the so-called progressive section of the western society ------ the intelligentia and the social scientists. As per this definition Gender denotes the artificial social roles fixed for each sex by the society (e.g. blue for boys and pink for girls). Thus as per this definition, you can become masculine just by wearing men’s clothes and smoking ciggerrettes. And you can become feminine just by wearing lipstick. Gender is seen as something that exists outside of us, as an artificial behaviour.
To understand the real, biological/ natural gender please click here.
MYTH 2
MALE SEXUAL NEED FOR MEN IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY OCCURING PHENOMENON
The west is a society where the mainstream society has been extremely heterosexualised, where most men's spaces have been destroyed by heterosexualising them, and there is extreme hostility against man-to-man bonds in these spaces ------ even against non-sexual intimacy between men. At the same time male-to-male bonds are only allowed under the label of 'homosexuality' in the third sex 'homosexual' sphere.
In the western heterosexual society, there is no difference between the sexual need of a transgendered male for another man and between that of a man for another man. Both are considered homosexual, since the western society does not recognize gender as a valid human phenomenon. The traditional world does not consider relationship between a transgendered male (Hijra) and a man to be 'homosexual' in nature, since they have different gender identities.
Interestingly the western world makes a difference between the transgendered male's attraction for women and that of a man's attraction for women. The former is not allowed the straight space/ identity and is clubbed together with the 'homosexuals' as 'queer' or LGBT.
The traditional society made a stark distinction between those who displayed an exclusive interest (which is closely related to their femininity ------ whether biologically or as an assertion of their social gender) in receptive anal/ oral sex on the one hand and those who were predominantly penetrators or those who did not indulge in anal/ oral sex at all. While indulging in receptive anal sex was not always considered unmanly (like during the Muslim period in India), but transgendered males were supposed to indulge primarily in receptive anal or oral sex and were considered a distinct gender.
The western world on the other hand does not make a difference between those with predominant interest in receptive anal/ oral sex, and those predominantly into the penetrator role or those not into anal or oral sex at all. It clubs all male to male sexuality into the previously third sex space which is rechristened 'homosexual' or 'gay'.
All of this is a part of the conspiracy of the forces of heterosexualisation to force men to be (exclusively) 'heterosexual'. Naturally, under such conditions only a few men ever acknowledge their sexual need for men and hide themselves behind fake heterosexual masks and a fake repulsion for male to male physical intimacy.
The western society, including its scientific institution then holds this misleading scenario as a 'proof' of the majority of men being exclusively heterosexual, and sexual need for men being a rare phenomenon, an anomaly that occurs only in a few individuals in whom it insists something somewhere has gone wrong.
On the contrary, most traditional societies were although not supportive of man to man sexual bonds most of the time -------- at least not formally, accepted the fact, at some level, even if it was at the peer (straight) male level ------- that man's sexual need for men was a universal male phenomenon and that all men are capable of being attracted sexually to other men. However, they expected men to have self-control and to fight these desires.
E.g. in India it is still largely believed that all men are capable of being sexually attracted towards other men ------ at least in the men's spaces. A certain amount of sexual play is even allowed between men. It is called "Masti". The situation and beliefs are diametrically opposite in heterosexualised, westernised urban, middle class India, where it is propagated that man to man sexuality is a thing for feminine gendered males called 'homosexuals'.
Even in the west in some pockets which have escaped wide-scale heterosexualisation, e.g. black or Latino working class spaces, where men's spaces are strong, straight (i.e. mainstream/ majority of) men still engage in sexual intimacy with other men without considering themselves as non-straights or 'homosexuals or 'bisexuals'. It is still believed to be something that all men are capable and willing of.
And the older generation of westerners and many Christians still realize that all men have this inner capability to be sexually attracted to other men. They should know because they have had to develop such intricate mechanisms to force men to suppress these sexual needs. These people still believe that if you accept same-sex bonds as valid and manly sexual need, then every man shall start indulging in them.
At least the traditional society, including the western traditional society and religions like Christianity has been much more honest in their approach towards man to man sexual intimacy. The western society has on the other hand distorted facts and abused the institution of science in order to reach its goal of suppressing same-sex bonds in the mainstream without appearing to be 'violent' or 'unfair' on the surface.
In the matter of human gender and sexuality, the western scientific institution has ------ instead of destroying the lies created by Christianity to manipulate male gender and sexuality ------ chosen to toe its line, and perpetuate ------ even strengthen those lies by giving it a stamp of science ------ by hook or crook.
What had happened was that the institutions of science, like all the other small or big institutions of the western society was hijacked by the vested interests, quite early on ----- as soon as it started getting powerful.
Here we are going to look at two of the greatest lies spread by the western world about human, particularly male gender and sexuality.
Myths that the traditional, non-westernised world knows to be untrue:
MYTH 1:
GENDER IS NOT A BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON
Human civilizations have, since the ancient times known about and recognized at least two distinct genders of males ------ the predominantly masculine gendered male and the transgendered male.
Femininity (as well as masculinity) in humans have long been established as a naturally occurring phenomenon. In fact in ancient India, in the Vedas the very word used for gender is “nature” (prakriti). In many ancient tribes, even today, there is this practice of identifying the 'different' male ----- the feminine gendered male, who is then raised not as a boy but as a distinct feminine gender.
Furthermore this femininity was not believed to be related with sexuality as is portrayed by the western world today. The feminine gendered male could chose female or male partner.
The politics of gender and sexuality has ever since, for long tried to redefine this 'third sex' space in terms of sexuality, and it was redefined to include only males who desired exclusive receptive sex from men. Although, these males were predominantly transgendered, the definitions were so mixed up that their transgenderism was considered to be a part of their sexuality for receptive sex where they treated their anus or mouth as vagina, and this kind of sex would fulfill their desire to be a woman (as they were performing the socially ascribed female role of a receptor).
In this process, the 'third sex' that liked women ----- that initially constituted the overwhelming majority of the 'third sex' category were totally wiped out of the scene……. they apparently went underground.
Also, those who went underground were masculine gendered males who liked receptive anal/ oral sex and the feminine gendered males who did not like receptive anal/ oral sex.
In the west however, the gender and sexual politics being played with males took a different route. Christianity came down heavily on transgenderism which was punishable by death. Soon transgenderism went almost completely underground for centuries, till even the phenomenon was totally wiped out from the society. When science took over from Christianity, it too disacknowldeged gender as a distinct biological phenomenon from human sex. It held that men were biologically supposed to be exclusively masculine while females were meant to be exclusively feminine. Any variance to this rule was considered to be a socially orchestrated anomaly.
And while the Scientific institution on one hand refused to acknowledge feminine gender in males as biological, it went on to deliberately confuse feminine male gender with male sexual desire for men. Because, like in the medieval times, the only visible group of males that liked men was the transgendered or the overly effeminate male who predominantly sought receptive sex with men. It was convenient for Science to only look at the issue from a superficial level and assume that what appeared on the surface was the true nature of male gender and sexuality.
The traditional societies considered only those males who sought exclusive receptive anal/ oral sex with males to be feminine gendered ------ which was also borne out by facts. However the west started to portray any kind of sexual desire between men as 'feminine' and 'different'.
And while the traditional world continued to accept transgendered males as a naturally different gender, the western science still considers it a disease, an abnormality, a socially caused phenomenon to be treated.
And while the scientific institution considers gender to be non-existent biologically, the social activists working around the issue of male gender and sexuality (including feminists and gays) consider male femininity or masculinity to be a matter of choosing socially prescribed roles of males and females that has nothing to do with nature. As per this belief, Femininity or masculinity doesn't reside within a person but is determined by, e.g., whether he wears male or female clothes………….. and is therefore considered a matter of social choice. Interestingly, sexuality is not considered to be a choice or to be socially orchestrated but instead held to be biologically ingrained in a person. This view of social scientists is quite different from that of the physical sciences, but both deny the truth of gender being a biologically occurring human phenomenon quite distinct from the outer sex.
The fallacy upon which the entire western outlook on male gender and sexuality is based can be understood in this way. There are two concurrent but different definitions of ‘gender’ popular in the west. And both of them are way off from the real thing.
(i) The first definition is the traditional western definition, where gender is equated with ‘sex’. Thus the masculine gender is the same as the male, and the feminine gender is the same as the female as per this definition.
(ii) The second definition is used by the so-called progressive section of the western society ------ the intelligentia and the social scientists. As per this definition Gender denotes the artificial social roles fixed for each sex by the society (e.g. blue for boys and pink for girls). Thus as per this definition, you can become masculine just by wearing men’s clothes and smoking ciggerrettes. And you can become feminine just by wearing lipstick. Gender is seen as something that exists outside of us, as an artificial behaviour.
To understand the real, biological/ natural gender please click here.
MYTH 2
MALE SEXUAL NEED FOR MEN IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY OCCURING PHENOMENON
The west is a society where the mainstream society has been extremely heterosexualised, where most men's spaces have been destroyed by heterosexualising them, and there is extreme hostility against man-to-man bonds in these spaces ------ even against non-sexual intimacy between men. At the same time male-to-male bonds are only allowed under the label of 'homosexuality' in the third sex 'homosexual' sphere.
In the western heterosexual society, there is no difference between the sexual need of a transgendered male for another man and between that of a man for another man. Both are considered homosexual, since the western society does not recognize gender as a valid human phenomenon. The traditional world does not consider relationship between a transgendered male (Hijra) and a man to be 'homosexual' in nature, since they have different gender identities.
Interestingly the western world makes a difference between the transgendered male's attraction for women and that of a man's attraction for women. The former is not allowed the straight space/ identity and is clubbed together with the 'homosexuals' as 'queer' or LGBT.
The traditional society made a stark distinction between those who displayed an exclusive interest (which is closely related to their femininity ------ whether biologically or as an assertion of their social gender) in receptive anal/ oral sex on the one hand and those who were predominantly penetrators or those who did not indulge in anal/ oral sex at all. While indulging in receptive anal sex was not always considered unmanly (like during the Muslim period in India), but transgendered males were supposed to indulge primarily in receptive anal or oral sex and were considered a distinct gender.
The western world on the other hand does not make a difference between those with predominant interest in receptive anal/ oral sex, and those predominantly into the penetrator role or those not into anal or oral sex at all. It clubs all male to male sexuality into the previously third sex space which is rechristened 'homosexual' or 'gay'.
All of this is a part of the conspiracy of the forces of heterosexualisation to force men to be (exclusively) 'heterosexual'. Naturally, under such conditions only a few men ever acknowledge their sexual need for men and hide themselves behind fake heterosexual masks and a fake repulsion for male to male physical intimacy.
The western society, including its scientific institution then holds this misleading scenario as a 'proof' of the majority of men being exclusively heterosexual, and sexual need for men being a rare phenomenon, an anomaly that occurs only in a few individuals in whom it insists something somewhere has gone wrong.
On the contrary, most traditional societies were although not supportive of man to man sexual bonds most of the time -------- at least not formally, accepted the fact, at some level, even if it was at the peer (straight) male level ------- that man's sexual need for men was a universal male phenomenon and that all men are capable of being attracted sexually to other men. However, they expected men to have self-control and to fight these desires.
E.g. in India it is still largely believed that all men are capable of being sexually attracted towards other men ------ at least in the men's spaces. A certain amount of sexual play is even allowed between men. It is called "Masti". The situation and beliefs are diametrically opposite in heterosexualised, westernised urban, middle class India, where it is propagated that man to man sexuality is a thing for feminine gendered males called 'homosexuals'.
Even in the west in some pockets which have escaped wide-scale heterosexualisation, e.g. black or Latino working class spaces, where men's spaces are strong, straight (i.e. mainstream/ majority of) men still engage in sexual intimacy with other men without considering themselves as non-straights or 'homosexuals or 'bisexuals'. It is still believed to be something that all men are capable and willing of.
And the older generation of westerners and many Christians still realize that all men have this inner capability to be sexually attracted to other men. They should know because they have had to develop such intricate mechanisms to force men to suppress these sexual needs. These people still believe that if you accept same-sex bonds as valid and manly sexual need, then every man shall start indulging in them.
At least the traditional society, including the western traditional society and religions like Christianity has been much more honest in their approach towards man to man sexual intimacy. The western society has on the other hand distorted facts and abused the institution of science in order to reach its goal of suppressing same-sex bonds in the mainstream without appearing to be 'violent' or 'unfair' on the surface.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)