Men in westernized societies far too likely to commit suicide

Suicide: Top 10 Cause of Death in U.S Men

Posted Jun 04 2009 10:33pm 1 Comment

The news of David Carradine’s death ( David Carradine Dead From Apparent Suicide ) might have not registered with me had I not read of his cause of death, reportedly by hanging. That’s how my brother took his life four years ago. Did you know that suicide is the number 8 cause in the United States for death among men? They make up 80% of total suicide deaths. For women, it’s the 17th most common reason for death. Women do make more attempts (60%), but men use more violent and “sure” ways of dying, which makes them more likely to die from their attempt. For men, using a gun is the most common method of suicide - 11.2 out of 100,000, while it only happens in 1.5/100,000 women. The second most common in men is suffocation (including hanging), followed by poisoning. For women, the most common cause is poisoning. These statistics were taken from the Suicide Prevention Resource Center. Questions While we don’t know the circumstances around Mr. Carradine’s death, if you’ve ever known someone who has committed suicide, you know that their death leaves behind many questions. Did anyone notice anything? Could I have done something? Should I have done something? Why didn’t he say something? If I learned anything through my experience it’s that asking these questions don’t do anything because the one person who could answer them is no longer with us. Going through with it A social worker told me something interesting after JP died. She said that for most, the actual suicide isn’t the first time he or she wanted to do it. She explained that JP probably had planned this before but got interrupted or something stopped him from following through. Who knows? Maybe he got a phone call, thought of something, and then didn’t go through it that particular day - only to do it another one, the day he did die. Is is surprising that so many men successfully end their lives? I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s surprising at all. Even in today’s society, where men are given more freedom to be who they want to be, there’s still a huge stigma attached to mental illness, including depression and anxiety. It’s much harder for a man, in general, to admit he needs help than a woman to do so. Men are expected to suck it up, hide their feelings, move on. A woman can cry all weekend after a break up, for example, but a man is expected to go out on the town, find a new partner maybe. And sometimes, it just happens because even if the man reaches out, the system fails him. That’s what happened with my brother. He had reached out, he needed help, but the mental health system failed him. Instead, he self-medicated his pain and, given the outcome, not very successfully. Help yourself With Father’s day coming up, one of the best things for yourself, your own gift if you’re a father and a gift to yourself just because if you’re not, is to take care of your own mental health. Don’t let despair take over. Don’t let anxiety eat away at you. Don’t self medicate with alcohol and drugs. It doesn’t work. If you break a leg, you get it casted. If your appendix bursts, you get it removed. If your brain is making you sick, that can be looked at and helped. Do it for you. Do it for those who love you. Do it for people like Mr. Carradine and my brother (and the 2 sons he left behind) who didn’t get the help they needed. Please. ~~~~

Importance of manhood for males: evidences from a tribal society

Tribal rite robs youths of manhood

Robert Block - East London
The Sunday Times (London), p. 18, 29 December 1996


NOTE: Links with a right-facing blue arrow will take you off this site.

Sitting in loose hospital gowns, the youths looked sorry for themselves. They had reason to be. They had fallen into the hands of 'bush surgeons' who subjected them to crude circumcisions to mark their coming of age.

"...the quest for manhood has left more than 50 young Xhosa men
suffering infections and severe blood loss.
At least two have had to have their penises amputated.
Every year a number of boys dies from their injuries."

"All I wanted was to be a man," said one of the teenagers, on the verge of tears. "I'm not going to see that dream come true."

Each year doctors at Greys hospital in the Eastern Cape treat dozens of boys for horrific disfigurements inflicted during tribal circumcision ceremonies. These are usually carried out over Christmas when the youths return home on holiday from jobs in the cities.

In recent weeks the quest for manhood has left more than 50 young Xhosa men suffering infections and severe blood loss. At least two have had to have their penises amputated. Every year a number of boys dies from their injuries.

The mutilations and deaths have prompted calls for the closure of many 'initiation schools' and next month the Eastern Cape is planning to introduce the first legislation to regulate the circumcision ceremonies. The move has been attacked by traditionalists who see circumcision as an inalienable African rite of passage.

The initiation is supposed to be a joyous affair for Xhosa families and a crowning achievement in every Xhosa boy's life. President Nelson Mandela, the son of a Xhosa chief and himself the proud graduate of an initiation school, said in his autobiography: "I count my days as a man from the date of my circumcision."

Inrecent years, however, circumcisions that were once carried out by skilled elders have been performed by unscrupulous tribal practitioners for profit. Some of the victims report being operated on by men wearing balaclavas to hide their identity.

According to one study, 34 initiates died in the Eastern Cape, the poorest part of South Africa, after the operation last year. Another 13 suffered irreparable organ mutilation and 743 needed treatment of some kind for their injuries. In August, 26 boys from the region had their penises reconstructed by plastic surgeons as part of a project funded by the South African Red Cross.

"Refusal to undergo the process can result in
forfeiting the right to inherit property.
Youths who balk at the initiation are often scorned
and prevented from marrying in their area."

Traditional circumcision has always been treated as a secret part of African culture and discussion of the methods used is taboo. The ceremony is a solemn ritual supposed to make men of boys and women of girls - female circumcision is also rife in South Africa.

Refusal to undergo the process can result in forfeiting the right to inherit property. Youths who balk at the initiation are often scorned and prevented from marrying in their area.

Trudie Thomas, the Eastern Cape health and welfare officer, said the local government was not pushing for the practice to be outlawed but for traditional surgeons to be licensed.

Traditionalists reject charges that many of the bush schools' patients are doomed to abnormal sex lives or no sex lives at all. They accuse those who call for regulation of seeking to wipe out black culture. The teenagers at Greys hospital might not agree.

A more realistic categorization of male sexuality

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.

An interesting article about how manhood works

Here's an interesting article on manhood:
Growth into manhood -- by Alan Medinger

The author has captured the essence of manhood on the dot, as well as the process. However, he uses it to attack what he calls 'homosexuality,' but what apparently is the third gender attraction for males.

It is exactly by driving out sexual bonding and its desire from amongst manhood spaces and male peer spaces (which otherwise thrive on strong male sexual bonds), into a separate category of 'homosexual' which is nothing but the erstwhile category of 'third genders' (not men), that the western world stigmatizes sexuality between men, and pscyho-socially forces men to train themselves to be heterosexual.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Copyright 2000 by Alan Medinger
Excerpted by permission of the author


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter One Excerpt: The Journey
Homosexuality is at its core an identity problem. Such a man does not feel like a man, at least as he perceives the way other men feel about themselves. Dr. Bill Consiglio referred to this as "gender emptiness." He doesn't feel like a woman, and he may not yet have taken on a gay or homosexual identity, but he feels empty in some place where he senses he should feel solid….In terms of having gone through all the stages of growth that take most little boys from childhood to full manhood, he found the process too difficult or too painful, so he took his leave and skipped out of a part of it….

Now, 15 , 20 or 40 years later, if you want to resume your growth, you will have to venture back out into the world of men and boys. Essentially, you are going to have to develop your manhood in the same way that young boys do, through a process of learning, testing, failing, getting back up and testing again, and finally succeeding. We grow into the fullness of manhood by doing the things that men do.

Chapter Two Excerpt: Growth Into Manhood: Essential for Healing
(The homosexual man) will not recover until behavior, attractions and identity have all been dealt with and to some extent transformed. Although his natural inclination may be to focus on behavior and attractions -- because this is where he feels the most distress -- I believe that the richest fruit will be borne in his life if he focuses most strongly (and early on) in the area of identity.

This is true for two reasons: First, identity is more amenable to direct attack than behavior or attractions….(It) can be changed significantly through a program of conscious choices and specific actions…. Second, a man's incomplete male identity is what drives and directs homosexual behavior and attractions….

With respect to attractions, the essence of sexual attraction seems to be "differences" or "otherness"… What if a man does not have the inner sense that he is a man? Will he experience attraction to a woman? Will she be his "other"? No, and this is critical. If he feels that he is not complete as a man, his first longing will be not for women but for complete manhood; he will be drawn to the masculine in other males. This will be his "other." This will be his missing rib… It follows, then, that the development of our manhood - finding completion in ourselves -- will do great things both to decrease our same-sex attractions and to start drawing us sexually to women.

Chapter Three Excerpt: The Way a Man Develops
Growth encompasses the following steps:

1. Physiological…

2. Separating from the mother: This occurs…psychologically in the boy's taking on an identity separate from his mother.

3. Identifying with the father or "the man"…

4. Modeling after or imitating the father…

5. Testing his manhood: He wants to prove that he is like his father, so he tests himself to be affirmed that he is a man like his father, seeking affirmation first from his father and then from his peers.

6. Getting affirmed: He gets feedback from his father or peers that tells him he is indeed a man.

7. Accepting his manhood: Affirmation has been sufficient for him to accept internally that he is a man.

…Identification is a far less mysterious thing than bonding, and it is something that could occur at any time, even in adulthood. Hopefully, as you are reading this book, if you have never done so before, you will come to the point at which you will say, "Aha! I am not that different from other men. I am a man, and there is no reason why I can't grow into a full sense of my manhood."

…The primary affirmer in the early years usually is Dad…In early adolescence the search for affirmation is broadened. It focuses on peers. The process is competitive and has the potential to produce some losses and some pain. For this reason many boys will seek an environment where their successes will outnumber their failures. This process almost always takes place in a group environment, and the boy will start fulfilling that strange, almost universal male longing to belong to a group of men. The combination of achieving, being affirmed, and belonging can make this a wonderful experience for a young boy.

Chapter Five Excerpt: Is It Possible for Us Now?
If the steps outlined in chapter 3 are truly necessary for growth into manhood and you skipped some of them or went through them only partially, then at some point you still have to go through them if you are ever to experience full manhood. God heals our physical, emotional, and even our spiritual brokenness, but it is safe to say, God does not heal our immaturity. He wants us to grow out of it….In one way or another, you will have to go through all of the steps that lead to full, mature manhood - separating from the mother, identifying with the father or the "man," modeling, testing my manhood, getting affirmed, accepting my manhood.

…Like a boy, we must be affirmed by men; they are the ones we still see as having the authority to affirm manhood. And like it or not, like a boy, affirmation must come from what we do.

…Manhood is formed in the company of men, and so affirmation must be sought on their terms. This clearly presents a dilemma. You may not like watching football and you may have no ability to fix cars. But a broader understanding of masculinity will expand the areas in which you can recognize and receive affirmation from men. For example, if three men in your church have decided to rebuild the fence around the church playground and they decide to ask you to join them, the very asking will be affirming. Implicit in their asking is the statement that you are one of the men.

…The primary principle of the program is also the basis of this book: We grow into manhood by doing the things that men do.

Chapter Seven Excerpt: Understanding the Masculine
The problem in the homosexual man is not that he has too much of the feminine but too little of the masculine. Can there also be too much of the feminine? Could we have too great a capacity to nurture, to communicate, to understand, too great an ability to respond and help? No, any man who has a surplus of these things is blessed and is likely to be a blessing to others. Maybe in your homosexual struggles you have thought that you are too sensitive, too verbal, too intuitive. I don't think you can be. Look at yourself again. Do these qualities make your life difficult? Are they what hold you back from getting on with your life? I doubt it. Isn't it your inability to initiate, to exercise authority, to function as you are expected to do in the physical world of men that give you such distress?

…This is not the only problem at the root of male homosexuality, and I am not saying that it is present in every struggler, but it has been in most of the men whom I have encountered in this ministry over the last 20 years.

The good news -- the really great news -- is that it is not too late to develop the masculine part of you….

.....

Evidence that manhood equals heterosexual sex in the west, even today

By: Matthew Bruner



As a child of the '70's now with three young sons of my own, I have been asking this question……"when does a boy cross that line and become a man"? I find myself thinking often about my own sons and the men they will someday be. I think about my influence on them as a father, and then compare their lives to my own childhood. I look back through my history and think about the men who were coaches, mentors, and fathers in my life that helped push me across that line into manhood.

Boys need men in their lives. Women obviously play a role that is irreplaceable in a boy's adolescent experience. However, there is something that can only be imparted from another man….something that despite all of men's weaknesses and flaws can only come through a male figure. It is for that reason that I look at our culture and challenge the parameters of responsible adulthood and the definition we have given for maturity and manhood. I suggest that we have lost our definition of manhood and thus lost the pathway to manhood. Young men need older men in their lives to establish various 'rite of passage' opportunities that would mark the defining moments of coming into manhood.

In America we tend to look at age for the most part as the indicator for "maturity." At 13 the boy is now at least kind of a "little man", busting out of the kid years and into the teens, which in our culture means finding independence (i.e., giving your parents hell for the next 4+ years). Teens seem to view this span of 13-18 as a small stint in the teenage phase with 18 as the release into true adulthood. This is because our culture has a whole set of laws for 18 year olds and crossing this line marks some significant things.....voting, buying smokes (legally), and joining the military, to name a few. Then, there is that magic 21. Yes, this is the age when you are now not only mature enough to vote, smoke, and fight for your country but you can consume alcohol at a plethora of establishments one had to formerly sneak into. In most states 21 is that magical time when the young man should be able to drink responsibly. Oh, I almost forgot, another "man establishing" moment culturally…the loss of virginity (at an ever decreasing age I might add!).

After turning 21 there are no other big steps of maturation associated with age, with the exception of the 65 mark. This is the age when we as a culture have said, "You deserve to retire; you're old." (I am a little biased against this age defined marker as I am personally surrounded by "old" family members that do not believe in retirement.)

Age happens. We can't stop it and every year we are a year older--no matter how mature or immature we may be. We all know 14 year olds that are more mature than 16 year olds and 16 year olds that should not be behind the wheel of any type of vehicle. I realize I have taken a broad sweep of American culture in relation to age and that in fact there are very mature teenagers out there...somewhere. There are also very mature 21 year olds that have successfully crossed through these age defining moments.

What if we are looking at it all wrong? What if we broaden our definition of manhood and maturity to include concepts like bravery, responsibility, self control, meekness (power under control), discipline, empathy toward others, self sacrificing, etc? Then, what if we set up specific opportunities that would challenge and test boys and qualify them for manhood?

Author Robert Bly reminds us, "The ancient societies believed that a boy becomes a man only through ritual and effort--only through the 'active intervention' of the older men." He tells of such a ritual in Africa where the boy has to take a sort of pilgrimage before he can be called a man. He first has to go out and find a wild bee hive, collect the honey in it and bring it back to the elders. He endures the stings and pain of this event, but that is only the beginning. While mom takes the honey he gathered and makes a honey beer, he goes off for a couple of nights alone in the wilderness (a quest if you will). He returns then to the elders where he is circumcised. If he cries or screams, he has failed his test. If he endures, he celebrates as a man with the elders, has his honey drink, and later that day is introduced to his mother as though it is the first time he has ever met her.

I realize that this is a radical example, but it is black and white. After reading this short explanation, we know now what it takes to be a man in this ancient culture. It is definable and can be measured. It is a "pass / no pass" test!

Young men that have failed to cross that line into responsible adulthood desperately need men in their lives to call them into manhood and acknowledge their bravery, responsibility, sacrifice…whatever! I am thankful for the men, fathers, coaches, and mentors that have set up definable and achievable rites of passage for my life….to push me out of immaturity and into manhood!

(Robert Bly, "Iron John")

About the Author:
Matthew Bruner is the Director of Men of Valor Ranch in Northport, WA. Prior to founding Men of Valor Ranch, Matthew worked for Straight Arrow. For more information, contact him at 509-732-8936 or matthew@menofvalorranch.com, or visit his website, www.menofvalorranch.com

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.

Another world: Shivananda Khan is a Real Man

September 2004


There we were, more than a hundred gay* men from across the world at the International AIDS Conference in Bangkok in July. It was the middle of the afternoon and we were commenting on a statement of principles for HIV interventions for men who have sex with men. Many of us knew each other from years of such conferences and working together and the atmosphere was relaxed. In the chair, mediating between the floor and the panel who had drafted the statement, was Shivananda Khan, once London-based and (think Shakti) the doyen of HIV activism in South Asia. Shiv is one of nature's aristocrats; in a previous life he was surely a princess, both decorative and functional, the power behind the throne as her maharajah dallied in the harem.

At some point - don't ask me how we got there; it seemed logical at the time - Shiv asked rhetorically, "are there any real men in this room"? I stuck up my hand and looked round. Only one other hand was raised. Perhaps a few others were too shy to assert themselves in public, but the point had been made: most of those in the room, who shaved regularly or let their beards grow, whose chests were flat or muscular and who were endowed with male rather than female genitalia, because they were gay, they did not consider themselves "real men".

Shivananda, of course, had kept his hands firmly by his side. Shiv is tall and handsome and of decidedly masculine appearance, with no more feminine traits than several of my heterosexual friends. When I had earlier accused him of being a "real man", he had mock-frowned and said "hush! You'll ruin my reputation." As discussion moved back to the statement of principles, I pondered the implications of this impromptu vote. If the majority was right, then I was at best confused, or at worst lying. Because I was gay I couldn't be a "real man", or if I insisted on being a "real man" I couldn't be "gay".

I remembered a conversation last year at a ceremony in Bangkok when an elderly senator was given an award for services to the gay community. "Is he gay?" I asked Nick, a local activist. "Of course not," said Nick, "he has children". From a Western perspective, that did not answer my question, but for Thais it was perfectly acceptable. Men who are known to have sex with women - as proven by the offspring - are "real men", even if they have sex with men. Which means that men who only have sex with men are not real men.

The same point was made by Aditya Bondyopadhyay, another Indian activist, responding to a column where I criticised the phrase "males who have sex with males". (read here) Aditya argued that in South Asia "males" was preferable to "men" because "feminised males who adopt many indigenous identities [kothi, dhurrani, murat, zennana, Aqwa Hijra, Kathoy, Bacqla, Waria, Faffafini, et al], do not consider themselves as 'Men'. They just possess the physical body of a 'male' individual. Their self definition, more often than not, is that they are 'women' or 'women like'."

Of course underlying this discussion is different understanding of the word "man". In South Asia, Thailand and many other cultures, manhood is determined by not by appearance, but by behaviour, particularly sexual behaviour. Those who are penetrated defer to those who penetrate; real men penetrate and everyone else is a woman, or woman-like. They may look like men, but they are not real men.

In anglophone societies - and, I suspect, in any culture where men who have sex with men do not define themselves by who penetrates whom - most gay men consider themselves "real men". They insist on complete legal and social equality with other men and many sculpt their bodies to be decidedly masculine in appearance and wear clothing that emphasises their maleness. Indeed, given that so much of men's fashion in the west originates in gay men and is copied by other men, it is arguable that it is gay men who are the real men and other men who are continually trying - and often failing - to imitate them.

We could stop at this point and accept that the meaning of the phrase "real men" differs in different parts of world, just as "thong" has different meanings for Brits and Australians, and "fanny" has different meanings for Brits and North Americans. It sometimes leads to confusion, but there is no harm done.

Except there is an inherent bias in the term "real". "Real" implies authentic, correct, good, valuable. A "real man" is a man who has all the qualities of men. A "real man" is something to admire, to aspire to. If I deny that I am a "real man" I am automatically denigrating myself. You are real; I am fake. You have qualities which I lack. You are admirable, I am shameful. You are valued by society; I have no value. I may be intelligent, physically and emotionally strong, brave, virtuous, kind, while you are a coward, inconsiderate, violent and dishonest, but because you penetrate me, you are superior to me because you are a "real man".

Furthermore, men who deny that they are real men and who call themselves effeminate, feminine, women or woman-like, reinforce not only their own secondary status in society, but that of women. If I am inferior to "real men" because I am womanly, then all women are inferior.

Ultimately, therefore, no matter how vociferously I argue for the rights of men who have sex with men in society, as long as I deny being a real man and as long as I accept this division between "real" and other men, I implicitly recognise my secondary status in society. I want to be tolerated, not accepted as an equal. I accept that where a man puts his penis is more important than whether he is honest or capable.

I'm exaggerating, but not much. I'm fully aware of the years of work that activists around the world have put into improving the lives of men who have sex with men - activists who have put their own comfort and health and sometimes even lives on the line, while I have pontificated from the comfort of a London house or Bangkok apartment. Nonetheless, I believe that activists who accept the terminology of "real men" and who therefore accept that men who penetrate are of greater value than those who are penetrated, they are reinforcing rather than combating the stigmatisation of both effeminate men and of women.

There are two ways of overcoming this. One is to extend the definition of "real" to include all men. You are a man of masculine gestures, a man who is the penetrating partner in sex; I am a man whose mannerisms are effeminate and exaggerated and I prefer to be the penetrated partner in sex. But we should both be of equal value in this society; if you are real, then so am I; if your identity is real, then so is mine; if you have society's full respect, then, dammit, I insist on equal respect too. In short, if you are a real man, then so am I.

However, to insist that all men are "real" in this way is to shift the meaning of "man" from behaviour to physical appearance, in other words towards a more anglophone use of the term, as discussed earlier, which may not be appropriate in many cultures. An alternative approach is to abolish use of the word real in these circumstances. You are a man - or a male - who prefers to penetrate; I am a man - or a male - who prefers to be penetrated; they are men - or males - who take pleasure in both activities. We are of equal value and words such as real are at best meaningless and at worst demeaning and stigmatising.

So what it is going to be? That all men - and women - are real and worthy of respect, or that "real" is an irrelevant word that should never be uttered. Personally, I choose the former option. Which means that as far as I am concerned - irrespective of their behaviour between the sheets or on the streets - like me, Shivananda Khan and every other beard-shaving, testosterone-producing, penis-endowed man across the world always have been and always will be real men.

* I know, I know... Not every man who has sex with men identifies as gay, but whatever individual men call themselves in whatever language they speak and wherever they live, in this column I'm using gay as shorthand for "I am a man who enjoys sex with men and I am happy to tell the world - or at least my hundred closest friends- that I do".

.....

The journey from "namard" (non-man) to "homosexual" and how it disempowered men

The entire world has a concept of a category of males who are males, yet not men. They're known as non-males in different ways, e.g. Namard in India. Originally, they were known as males who were females from inside, or males who had a female soul. However, the politics of male gender and sexuality redefined them and stigmatized them as "non-men males." The male gender and politics, by the start of the middle ages, had already been misdefining the non-males as "males who cannot penetrate" and hence "get penetrated by men." Mind you, this is not the same as the today's identity of 'men who like men.' (1) They were not men, but non-men males, and (2) What defined them was their act of indulging in receptive anal sex, not their attraction to or sexual desire for men, which was rightly seen to be present in all males.

This definition of manhood, needless to say, acted as an absolute pressure on men to have sex with women to be qualified as one of the men. And it took away their space to say that they don't like to have sex with women, because, although, desire was not part of the now formal definition of manhood, the anti-man forces, informally, widely enforced the rule that not wanting to penetrate was the same as not being able to penetrate (which was seen as being because of impotency, which was propagated to be the same as being a 'non-man' male, something which lead to many of them want to be penetrated by men. It's the myth created by the politics of medieval male gender and sexuality, which the modern anti-man forces, when they defeated the men's spaces, further distorted to create the concept of 'homosexuals' and later, their opposites, 'heterosexuals.')

The non-males were formally exempt from this pressure to have sex with women, but then they never really wanted to be part of the men's identity, group or space. They wanted to be 'diferent.' They were NOT one of the men. They did not want manhood. They wanted 'womanhood.' In fact, some of them actually wanted to get rid of the outer signs of it (penis) and many went to great lengths to appear 'women' from the outside. They were already women from the inside.

It were the lesser feminine of these males, who were not outright transgendered, yet were still non-men males, who thought of the idea of defining themselves as 'men who like men,' when the new human institution of science, building upon mores and beliefs that Christianity created, demolished the gender differences between the 'men' males, and the 'non-men' males, and said, anyone born with a penis is a 'man.' The non-man males had heen looking for a new identity in this new scheme of things. Till now they'd survived underground in the Christian society as 'third genders,' as 'non-men' males.

One of them (Karl Ulrichs), a self-professed 'female inside male body' -- sincerely believing in the outer appearance of men created by the politics of gender and sexuality -- started to see the difference between the 'men' and the 'non-men' males in terms of sexual preferences. The men were outwardly only having sex with women (The fact however, was, that almost 100% of them were having sex with males, mostly other 'normative' males (men), and many were into deep emotional bonds with them, that were for all practical purposes romantic bonds ... even in a highly hostile Christian society, that considered sodomy a sin. In fact, the men openly acknowledged their interest in each other within men's spaces. But outside of the men's spaces: In formal spaces, in front of women, and in front of 'non-men' males, they always displayed an exclusive interest in women. Thus for these spaces, men were already seen as basically 'heterosexual' -- but it was never their identity. Of course, women and men had no way of seeing the pressures that were working on men, because these pressures exploited the need for 'manhood' that men had, and women and non-men had no way of understanding 'manhood' or this need. Indeed, it was also because, men could not talk about this pressure or acknowledge that they feel it, because, just doing it would put a question mark on their manhood -- not by men themselves, but by the formal society, controlled by vested anti-man interests.

So, Mr/Ms Karl Ulrichs, 1869, started a new concept, a social category which he called 'males who wanted to have sex with males', which later Westphal, a crooked scientist, further developed into the clinical concept of 'homosexuality.' Of course, the entire Western world, heavily influenced by the Christian need to keep men off from each other, immediately saw in this theiri perfect saviour in the present scientific world, which needed a 'Scientific' flog to beat men's bonds.

Meanwhile, the entire non-man community of the time (which did not include most non-males who wanted women) eagerly lapped up the new concept and the new social space/ category/ identity that the modern world was happily giving over to them. The modern West was only too happy to let the non-men define themselves as 'men who like men,' because, they knew, this would mean, that the men would disown it like fleas. But, in those early years of so-called 'homosexual movement' (which is actually a modern non-man movement), the protagonists openly defined themselves as a 'third sex' or an 'intermediate sex.' Later on, it was decided to drop the reference to gender, as almost as part of another conspiracy, the emerging queer throught process was: Gender is trash, the real difference is who you want to have sex with. And the non-men became so powerful with the modern world giving them more and more social power and space, in order to use them as pawns in their game to control men's gender and sexuality, that the modern non-men aggressively started to impose their concepts on the real, normative men, who broke the formal, modern men's code and acknoweledged liking men. They defined them as 'closet cases' and denigrated them as 'one of them' but "who cannot come to terms with their sexuality." For these 'gay chauvinists' anyone who wants to love another man without accepting their categorization is someone who is "unable to accept his sexuality" thereby passing the root of the problem from the conspiracy against men onto the victims of it.

Not that the men did not protest. A number of men have continuously protested and warned against the invalid concept of 'sexual orientation' and its dangers. I

Indeed, the concept of 'homosexuality' and 'sexual orientation' proved lethal for men's bonds in men's spaces. They wiped it out from the 'straight' spaces and made them totally, well, near totally 'heterosexuals.' This is the power of modern Science to work against and destory nature.

Meanwhile, as Science becomes more and more powerful to effectively kill men's ability to love another man, Christianity continues to wield immense influence in the highly fundamentalist US, as the basic driving force, to use any available means -- whether by hook or crook (and Christianity is infamous for its blatant use of unfair meanas to get its ways, like when it pursues religious conversions) -- to keep up the intense hostility against male need for affection and intimacy from men.



The anti-men forces.

Originally, they were the rulers who just wanted to employ men like livestocks to given them more and more children to become their 'subjects.' These rulers, reserved the right to love and have sex with men to themselves, so much so that it came to be seen as a luxury that only noblemen could indulge in freely.

But, as time passed by, and rulers changed, and power went from the kings to 'religion' especially in the West, the conspiracy against men that disempowered men a great deal, created artificial sources of power, using the power wrested from this disempowerment. And vested interests grew around these unnatural, artificial power sources, that sustained their power from it. These power sources were based on the continuous disempowerment of men for their sustencance, and thus these anti-man vested interests, not from the rulers, but from within the subjects, had an immense vested interest in keeping men enslaved and disempowered. These vested interests who were already very powerful, would invade and capture every new, promising human institution that the real men created, that had the power to liberate them -- starting with 'religion' (the anti-man forces controlled religion, and abused its power to make sex between men a sin against god ... and to force men to be married, procreate and even to 'love' their women) ... and then going over to Science in the modern world (and science created the system of 'sexual orientation' with which men could be forced to be heterosexual with the threat of being isolated as one of the non-males (now wrongly known as 'homosexuals', and all those studies on 'homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' that validate the unnatural concepts), and yes, of course, the Media.

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).

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).

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.

......

"Men", "Third Gender" division is an inevitable reality

AS LONG AS MANHOOD IS CHERISHED AMONGST MALES, THE MALE SPECIES WILL CONTINUE TO BE DIVIDED INTO TWO GROUPS -- one for those who want manhood. One for those who just don't fit into manhood.

The entire world (except the modern west) has known these two groups of males as "men" and the "third gender."

There cannot be a human society where this is not applicable.

It's no different in the west. You too have two groups. But the conspiracy against men just misdefines the two gender male groups in terms of sexuality rather than gender.

Also, the break off point for the feminine males is much earlier in the modern west than the rest of the world.

However, slowly, the truth finds its way, and queer heterosexuals are already part of the gay community as the 'T' in LGBT.

The anti man forces allow this because this fits in with their agenda of promoting m-f desire as manly and m-m desire as third gender.

Unfortunately, the masculine gendered males that (want to) acknowledge liking men are not that lucky, as the anti-man forces in the West make sure that they are not given any space in the straight (manhood) space or identity.

The making of heterosexuals

The way the western society inculcates a strong hatred for one's own sexuality for men, which is a universal and constant male quality, is by basing one's personal sense of manhood on 'heterosexuality,' rather exclusive heterosexuality, through a complex set of visible and invisible psycho-social mechanisms that condition, train and pressurise males right from their forming years of manhood and sexuality. Once, one's personal sense of manhood is firmly based on being free of sexual need for men, it makes sure that the man would himself, even when no one else is looking, fight till death his own sexuality for men. Condemning those in others is only a way to reinforce this fight, which tends to weaken by those who openly accept it.

The more the desire for men, the greater the need to fight and reinforcements through public condemnations.

... and the invention of the concept of 'homosexuality' (that actually is about a third gender's sexuality for men) and creation of the separate category of 'homosexuals' based on the erstwhile third genders, serves perfectly well to reinforce the lie that desiring men is an unmanly trait. That is what the politics of male gender and sexuality is all about.

And that is what is the essence of conspiracy against men. Deep rooted behind this conspiracy is the age-old greed for more and more population, in order to compete with the other 'tribes' and the fear -- not totally baseless --that if men are allowed to be sexual with other men, few would like to go to women so regularly. And if they start forming committed bonds, it would be impossible to sustain the 'marriage' institution.

What we need to do as a society is to come out of this fear psychosis, because, we don't need all that population anymore, and its time to liberate men from the burden of compulsory procreation in order to prove they're men, because it doesn't prove anything.

As long as men are bound in the heterosexual identity, where manhood is defined as 'heterosexuality' itself, and the third genders keep defining themselves as 'men who like men' this seems impossible to attain.

Sexual identities misrepresent the true sexual needs of men

Sexual identities represented by the concept of 'sexual orientation' or the 'homo-hetero' divide represent only the acknowledged sexual behaviour of males. And men will acknowledge only those sexual behaviours that fall inside the society's purview of manhood, especially taking care to disown sexual behaviours or desires that are distinctly labelled as queer/ effeminate/ third gender, the experiences of 'gay' identitied males notwithstanding.

There are a number of extremely complex pscycho-social mechanisms that are part of a complex, yet invisible politics of male gender and sexuality, that create a wide gap between the deepest sexual desires and needs of males and the final sexual behaviour that is acknowledged socially, again, the experiences of 'gay' identified males (who're actually third gender males, not 'men', the latter being masculine gendered males), notwithstanding.

There are several gaps and steps between the deepest, orignal sexual needs of men and the final sexual behaviour they acknowledge socially, and there is intense, hidden but complex politics, manipulation and oppression of male gender and sexuality at each step. There are the "deepest sexual needs", many parts of which otten lie latent due to social politics, then the sexual needs which find space in the subconscious mind, then there are those that find space to grow in the conscious mind, then tthere are those that find the space to grow in the 'personal' social space, and finally, there is the acknowledged sexual behaviour. Because of the presence of politics of male gender and sexuality, none of these steps may tally with each other. E.g. most men do not even allow the sexual needs that exist at the conscious level to find expression even in there private, personal social behaviour, let alone being acknowledged. Others may give them expression but not acknowledge them.

For Western science, to conveniently assume that the sexual categories defined by the West represent the deepest sexual needs of males, and to study these sexual identities for their biological connections is too simplistic, not to be a part of science's way to contribute the age-old conspiracy against men.

The truth is that these sexual categories suit only the 'gay' identified males, whose deepest sexual thoughts tally with their chosen identities. And it is so for a reason. Because, these identities have been tailor made for them, although, they're a gross misrepresentation of the male gender and sexuality as a whole. It's like groping the tail of the elephant and then defining the entire elephant as a rope.

What is so different about the 'gay' identified males that makes their case special. You will not understand the real difference unless you acknowledge human gender (masculine vs feminine identity) as a real, valid phenomenon. Unfortunately, western society makes it very difficult if not impossible for people, esp. gays, to acknowledge human gender. Gays also have a personal stake in not recognizing gender, since their binary sexual identity depends on the negation of gender and its confusion with sexuality.

Gays are third genders, not men, if we define 'men' as masculine gendered males (not necessarily macho), and 'third genders' as transgendered males. And the truth is that the sexual identities defined by the West have been rooted in politics of gender and sexuality, and there basis is strongly gender rather than sexuality. Thus, the 'homosexual' identity is actually, the original and biological third gender/ transgendered male identity redefined as 'men who like men'. This gender factor is however hidden and westerners are incapable of seeing it due to their cultural disability. But, this is the only reason that some males fit in so nicely in this 'sexual categorization' with hidden gender baggage and others struggle or prefer to hide or suppress their sexual feelings for men, rather than take on the 'gay' identity. For the gays they're just people incapable with dealing with their sexuality. But in reality, they are reacting to the hidden feminine gender attached with the 'homosexual' identity, that is inimical to their masculine gender.

And this is the reason, why, for gays their deepest sexual desires matches their sexual identity, but for straights it often mismatches, in different degrees. To built the scientific theories of human male sexuality, especially of man's sexuality for men, on the basis of the experiences or the biology of 'gay' identified males is a gross abuse of the scientific process and the spirit of science.

Human gender plays such a strong part in the entire social-sexualization of men, and in their final choice of sexual behaviours and even conscious desires, that for science to understand the truth about human sexuality without acknowledging human gender is suicidal for the truth.

The problem is, this is what the western scientific institution really wants. To muddle the truth. But westerners will never accept that. Because, they worship the scientific institution like it were god. Like their ancestors worshipped the Church, and believed everything the church said about god.

.....

The oddities of Western manhood

After having fraudulently established Heterosexuality as the new definition of Manhood, the Western society propagates male softeness -- in fact, male servility to women in sexual contexts (the only context in which men are expected to see women) as 'masculine' and 'manly'. This servility is easily carried forward in all interactions of men with women, since, in any case, sexuality is the only context in which manly men are expected to see women in the West.

At the sametime, manly, masculine males are expected not to be soft, and certainly never servile towards another man in a sexual context. That is propagated as the queerest of things to do. Men are expected to become hard like rock, indifferent and antagonistic to other men, in the sexual context. The anti-man forces, then easily carry forward this expectation from men into all interactions between men, and even non-sexual softness of a man for another is tagged as effeminate (i.e. 'gay').

This is only a small part of the politics of gender and sexuality which is part of the anti-man conspiracy, used by the Western society to manipulate not only the social and sexual behaviour or men, but even their very thoughts.

However, in reality, or, in nature, softness and servility towards a man who loves you, only enhances your manhood. This softness allows your masculinity to merge with the masculinity of another man, and this combination does wonders to the masculinity and manhood of each man.

In western, heterosexualized contexts, where each man is out to prove is repulsion for guys, and those who show softness towards other guys are disempowered artificially, if a man does show softness to another guy he loves, the other man, even if he loves the man too, will respond with rudeness, as he becomes extremely insecure about his own love for another man. This situation then harms the manhood of the man who shows softness towards the other. If he continues to show this softness/ servility to another man who continues to show rudeness to him, even while they share a 'relationship' of some sort, it makes the first male emasculated, and thus 'gay' or 'homosexual' while the other man keeps his manhood and remains 'straight'. But this is brought about through an unnatural, social engineering and doesn't reflect the reality.

In nature, softness and servility towards women, especially in sexual contexts severely depletes a man's masculinity and manhood, in a way, no other activity can. Softness and servility towards women tends to transfer the man's masculinity on to the woman and transfer her femininity on to the man. In the end, both are queered. Masculinity and femininity don't naturally merge. They negate each other.

However, in western, heterosexualized spaces, this natural process is reverted through artificial social engineering. When a man shows servility towards another female, his membership of the straight (manhood) is strengthened, which increases his manhood and power. His sense of manhood is artificially augmented and he is looked at as an ideal by his peers, who are all competing to achieve heterosexuality as the new 'manhood'. This of course, queers the men's gender as a whole. This manhood of a 'heterosexual' male servile to women, that makes him do extremely feminine stuff such as performing oral sex on women, or be emotionally bonding with the woman, may be a reality, but it has been brought about by an unnatural process, by reverting the process of nature through 'science.'

This is how modern science adds to the ancient politics of male gender and sexuality.

In every male dominated, macho, warrior cultures of the past or even the present, male servility to another man in a love bond was considered highly masculinizing for both the men. The most prominent example is the servility of Hanuman to Ram. Hanuman is THE deity of macho males in India. He is manhood deitified. He grants manhood to his worshippers. But, ancient societies are full of such examples. Indeed, the every warrior culture promoted such male romantic bonds where each man was servile to the other, but was disastrous for the enemy. Whether it was the sacred bond of Thebes or the mighty warriors of Samurais, male servility in a love bond with another man was rightly considered the ultimate act of manhood. And, unlike the manhood of modern west's heterosexuals, there was nothing unnatural about this. This happened naturally, through a natural process of development of manhood.

At the sametime, servility or softness to a woman, and thus a contact with a woman has been considered the ultimate queering or feminizing act or trait by a man. All these warrior cultures thrived by avoiding any contact with women, except for procreation. Any further contact apart from vaginal sex for procreation was avoided like plague by these warrior cultures, even within marriage, which had become a social duty of men in the societies by now. Eg. Hanuman stayed away from women, even their shadows. And his macho warrior followers called Pehelwans, to this day avoid even the shadow of women, and remain unmarried for their entire life. Even the married devout followers of Hanuman have only procreative sex with their wifes, while others stay away from sex with their wives/ girlfriends on Tuesdays. This is to please a god who grants manhood. Similarly, amongst the Greeks, it was believed that too much sex with women, even vaginal intercourse is a sign of femininity. In India, even today, a man who is servile to women is called "Joru ka ghulaam" a negative term that points to the lack of manhood in the male. Men in such societies will never even dream about performing oral sex on their women. And certainly will baulk at the idea of holding their hands, especially in public.

The Samurai warriors, although married, had romantic bonds only with another male, and had a very social, superficial relationship with their wives. It is said that Samurai warriors slept with their wives with a dagger below their pillows, because they did not trust their wives at all.

Indeed, there was also a time, at the very beginning of human civilization, when adolesent males were sown with the seeds of male sperm through anal sex in order to masculinize them and to remove the femininity that had accumulated in them through living with the females all these years, as can still be witnessed in the far off, Samoan warrior tribes of Papa New Guinea. These warrior cultures looked down upon 'whores' so much, that they were thought to be witches out to rob men of their manhood.

This hatred of 'whores' or sexually promiscuous or 'heterosexual' women is still rampant in male dominated, machoistic societies of the world. INterestingly, the Western feminine society glorifies the whores and their queered males bow before them.

An analysis of the actual differences between 'Straight' and 'gay'

AT THE BROADER, societal level, the actual difference between 'straight' and 'gay' is not of sexuality, but that of 'normal'/ masculine/ regular/ mainstream/ majority guys vs the 'third gender' or 'males with a female identity'. And so, even if, one rejects the notion of dividing males on the basis of their sexual attraction, the differences of gender, and hence two different identities will always be there. Those who have been identifying themselves as 'homosexuals' will then just start calling themselves 'third gender', but they will still be different. The 'heterosexual' (sic) third genders will also be merged with this category (who actually are already merged with the gays as the "T" in LGBT).

But within the 'normal'/ masculine/ regular/ mainstream/ majority guys, at the practical level, the actual difference between 'straight' and 'gay' becomes not that of having sexual feelings for men or of acting on them (of course, 100% of this population has a strong sexual need for men which may be suppressed), but that of acknowledging these feelings.

So, straight males give vent to their sexual feelings for men all the time, at least in their youth or when they're in an all-male company, albeit, superficially, without acknowledging these, and it doesn't make them 'gay'. This is why, finding an excuse for vending their attraction for men, is so important for straight males, even if these excuses may be flimsy.

This applies even when a straight male is actually in a 'relationship' with another straight male, where fidelity is expected of each other. But, nothing is ever acknowledged. Everything is done quietly, and it doesn't affect their 'straight' identity.

However, the moment, these feelings, or the secondary feelings or acts that emanates from them -- of jealousy, possessiveness, hurt, cajoling each other, being angry at each other, missing each other, or any of the relationship issues, however slight or intense, are even slightly acknowledged, the straight identity is threatened.

And this is why, within the straight/ normal/ masculine/ mainstream/ majority male population, the difference between 'straight' and 'gay' is extremely superficial.