Western Heterosexuality not possible unless men are broken from men

All this heterosexuality would not have been possible unless men were made extremely fearful of anykind of intimacy with men -- even social... because those who've been conspiring to bring about this situation (i.e., by inventing the concept of sexual orientation, or by incessantly propagating the third sex nature of the 'homosexual' orientation, or through various misleading scientific studies building one lie on top of another) know quite well, that unless, extreme force/ pressure/ fear is used upon men -- of the kind seen in the West, where men are even scared to walk hand-in-hand with another man -- men can't be forced to be heterosexual.

All this 'repulsion' between men, which is unprecedented anywhere in the world, and extreme in nature (just like Western Heterosexuality) isn't natural, and something this unnatural, takes a lot of human efforts, planning and resources.

Just like, to heterosexualize an individual male, the society needs to systematically block a person's sexual need for men through training, brainwashing, conditioning, threats, punishments, rewards, motivation, instilling fears and hatred deep down with him (and to achieve all this doesn't come cheap... but then industrialization has made human societies with vulgar amounts of resources to indulge in such exuberance), especially my making him believe that his sexual need for men is part of his 'femininity', that he'd never like to see come out or be developed, and even if he accepts his sexuality for men as masculine, there is enough social femininity tied with acknowledging the feeling (which goes against his inherent masculinity) that is going to keep the male fight off his sexual need for long. And then, of course, there are the innumersous social consequences of allowing theh sexual need for men to survive.

But, even in the extremely heterosexualized West, straight men have not been able to completely kill off their sexual need for men, and it does come out whenever it finds a safe vent.

Sexual Identity is not fixed and unchangeable

Sexual Identity is not fixed and unchangeable, but lends itself to social manipulation and engineering.

Homosexuals indulge in such double-standards, just like the rest of the Western culture. On the one hand, they keep seeing sexuality is a spectrum (but never really believing it), and on the other hand not only supporting the theory of 'sexual orientation', but also saying that sexuality is fixed and unchangeable.

If I'm feminine gendered, then I'd in any case feel 'different' and out of 'place' in a group of masculine gendered males. (just like a masculine male will feel different in a group of feminine gendered males). The gays, confused by their society's mixing of Gender with sexuality, confuse their feminine gender with their sexual feelings for men, and claim that they feel 'different' because of their sexuality. And, from there, they easily infer that anyone who feels sexuality for men, like them, should feel different from other men, and be one of them, and if such a man is resisting, then he is simply not accepting himself.

The strong relation that masculine males who like men feel with the main masculine male group/space/identity, is negated by the refusal of the Western society to acknowledge Gender (masculinity) as natural and valid. This invalidation of genuine feelings of gender also negates the feeling of being 'different' that masculine males who like men have with the 'gays'. This invalidation of gender insists that masculine males who like men are the same as 'queers' (gays) and 'different' from the main group of masculine males (straights), because of their 'sexual orientation'. This is the Forces-of-Heterosexualization (FOH) which controls the Western society, imposing their own agenda on men, through the oppressive concept of 'Sexual orientation'.

While masculine males do not feel this 'difference' of gender with other masculine males, in fact, it is because of this gender that they feel a part of the masculine male group. When the gays aggressively claim, that if you've sexual feelings for men, then you're 'different' from those masculine males, then the masculine male who likes men deep down does not agree. His sexuality for him is just a gender role, that he needs to adjust and hide, in order to be where he belongs -- in the group of the masculine males. And if masculine males are called straight, he's a straight too, and not gay. For they may define 'gay' as a man liking another man, but he realizes deep within him, without being able to place this feeling correctly, that 'gay' is about a feminine gender that he is simply not. If the Western society recognized 'masculinity' and 'femininity' as natural and valid, men would have been able to place their deep down discomfort, correctly.

Gender (masculinity/femininity) is the reason that effeminate and straight-acting males easily take to the 'gay' identity (effeminates do it more easily than straight-acting... the more feminine you're, the better you fit into the 'gay' identity, and vice versa). And Gender is the reason why masculine males do not fit into the 'gay' identity (even when they take it, for not knowing better, misguided by the Western propaganda). This plight of men will continue, till the Western society recognizes Gender as a natural and biological phenomenon.

heterosexualizing innocent minds

The FOH don't mind showing dating and sexual situations between boys and girls to kids on Disney channel, because their goal is to make boys heterosexual, but they don't want to show guys liking other guys on mainstream tv.

...

Forcing young boys to be heterosexual -- is it not their abuse?

Boys go through intense pressure in heterosexual societies to be heterosexual, i.e., emotionally, sexually and socially be interested in girls... masculine boys have no escape from this, because the society will not acknowledge their masculinity unless they prove their heterosexuality. Feminine guys have an escape from this, in that they can choose to be 'gay' or 'homosexual'.

Is it right for the society to pressurize such young and innocent boys to be heterosexual?

Destroying nature outside and inside

To create a society against nature requires huge investments in -- the more against nature you want to go, the more investment it requires.

It requires huge investment to destroy men's spaces (to heterosexualize them), and to create fear hostility in the new spaces against male-male intimacy -- both of the sexual and social kind. They achieved fear/ hostility against open male to male sexual intimacy long ago, due to which it had gone underground (primarily through investing heavily into religious doctrines that forbade it).

But since they couldn't create hostility against male to male social intimacy (like holding hands in public or hugging, embracing, kissing in public), male to male sexual bonds survived all these years amidst straight men in disguised forms, behind the scenes, but very much in the mainstream (straight) men's spaces.

They couldn't destroy male social intimacy back in the middle ages because it required investments of such huge magnitude that was not possible for the Forces of Heterosexualization back then. For one thing you needed to destroy men's spaces and to control them, which was just not possible, considering they were so strong. You had to remove all the injunctions against male-female non-marriage sex. In short you needed to reorganize the entire society -- against the grain of what comprises 'straight men'.

The Forces of Heterosexualization got this enormous financial power through industrialization in the modern world. This also gave them to create entirely new social spaces, which they heterosexualized from the very beginning. The forces of heterosexualization gained full control over the fruits of industrialization since its inception.

It's ironical that resources generated by destroying the nature outside (through industrialization) is used to destroy nature inside of men (by heterosexualizing them).

Making everything heterosexual

Everything in India today (since they started heterosexualizing it) is in male-female pair -- I mean all dance forms are being heterosexualized, all presenters on TV are made into male-female pairs (when earlier they used to be two males or two females), all advertisements show a man-woman couple kissing or hugging or just being together.

To question or object to that is to "go against human rights" (in the words of the Forces of Heterosexualization). But to create fear/ hatred against man-man intimacy is for them, going forward, being modern -- a good thing.

Forcing proximity with women and distance from men

While most men are geared -- as far as nature is concerned -- only to have sex with women, and not 'love' them or form emotional and social bonds with them -- as is the case with all mammalian species, many other men are capable of having an emotional/ social bond (love relationship) with both the sexes, although the majority of them, under natural cirucmstances will prefer men over women.

It is the second variety of men, that the society concentrates on changing through its heterosexualisation process. And one of the important tricks that the heterosexual society follows is to cut off proximity of men from other men and force proximity with women. Becasue, it is proximity that eventually leads to romantic bonds.

The heterosexualisation of social spaces, wherein men and women -- on the pretext of their being the same -- are forced into the same living, studying, working, entertainment, etc. spaces, makes sure that men and women find that proximity that can lead to the second variety of men falling in love with them.

But, before that, the society must cut these men off from men, so that they don't develop a romantic thing with them instead -- which would be their first preference. And this is done, not so much physically as psychologically.

How it works is this: They create such a negative hype and hostility against sexuality towards men that men are afraid even to touch each other -- like they do in the West. When its a male space, men find excuses such as hazing and mocking 'gays' to indulge in same-sex eroticism, if not sex, (that is what most men seek in the first place). But when its a heterosexual space, with women in it, then men have to be totally cicumvent about their same-sex desires, because women not only expect men to fall for them, they are the first to 'point out' and thus 'denigrade' the man as 'homosexual' or third gender, when they see even the slightest sign of physical proximity between men, beyond terse handshakes or maybe tense formal hugs. Thus, men do not recognise their sexual interest in each other, even silently (as in male spaces), and for the fear of it coming out, they keep away from each other as far as possible.

And, of course, in a heterosexual space, the pressure to prove your sexual interest in women gets to its extreme. Now, there are no escapes for men.
How it works on the men from the second category, is that they are cut off from other men, but they find it comparatively easy to bond with the women in that heterosexual space.

And, that is how man woman relationships follow, which are then glorified and showcased by the society through all the hype created by the media and entertainment industry. Even, when the percentage of people who, inspite of all these pressures and conditioning, do not form heterosexual romantic bonds is almost as high as 70%

Its the gays who invented the straight identity

What has happened is that with the introduction of the concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality, the Forces of Heterosexualisation have redefined manhood as a sexual interest in men (with straight = heterosexual), actually its a definition made by the gays, who want to have complete control over man to man sexuality, not by straights.

With, this a man is not considered a masculine man, unless he has a woman next to him. And this makes men very insecure without the company of women, and that explains the straight rush for women.

Just look at all the advertisements on TV after Indian's heterosexualisation. Even an advertisement on male underwear always has a woman in it. The fear being generated is, if there's not a woman in your life, you won't be considered a man.

And likewise, lack of manhood is defined in terms of a sexual interest in men

The origins of Male Heterosexuality

It appears that the Christian society, in the middle ages, started to glorify man's love for women, and towards the beginning of the beginning of the modern era, men were expected to court women to marry -- instead of winning them in contests, etc. or through socially entered contracts as in the rest of the world.

This indirectly put a pressure on Western men to display an interest in women, and this "interest in women" indirectly became a source of power for Western men. But never so strongly, that it would lend itself into a separate concept in itself. As long as men's spaces were strong, that was not about to happen.

The concept of sexual interest in a particular 'sex' was invented from the top (by the rulers) and then forcibly made popular. And, it was not originally started for men's interest in women. The concept was originally started for man' sexual interest in men, in order to isolate and persecute it, as well as to misinform public view by making it seem 'feminine' by classifying third sex interest in receptive anal sex as 'man's sexual interest in men'.

The concept of a man's sexual interest in women, or heterosexuality came much later, and men's spaces just didn't accept the term so willingly. Not until, the new category of 'homosexuals' created by the rulers became very, very strong and created the term 'straight'.

However, even the term straight is not really accepted by men so willingly, even to this date, and is only used either by gays themselves to refer to the non-gays, or by men when they need to distinguish themselves from the gays (i.e. feminine gendered males who like men).

Gays are a creation of the heterosexual society

Gays have been created by the society, by forcing men to disown their interest in intimacy with men, and letting meterosexual males in large numbers to become representatives of "men who like men".

The Western society wants complete eradication of man to man bonding

The modern Western society has waged a war against man to man sexuality like its a virus that needs to be completley eradicated from the men's population. The traditional society was content with suppressing this 'virus' so that it does not come in the way of marriage and reproduction, and did not need to be totally eradicated.

For this complete eradication of this 'virus' the Western society has created the strategy of quarantining man to man sexual need in the third sex 'homosexual' space, which has been specially created by the institution of science for this purpose.

However, in reality, its the Heterosexualisation which is really a disease. And the concept of sexual orientation, which needs to be fought by men.

But, how will they fight, as long as they are busy serving their oppressors for greed of the social powers granted by them.

Why not fight against this disease and snatch their powers to grant social manhood and power to us. Why not snatch our control of men's spaces from those Forces of Heterosexualisation? And be the masters of our own manhood and spaces.

The term "Heterosexuality" is oppressive and unacceptable

Man woman sex, and male-female sexual attraction is a positive attribute, a 'godly' attribute, if you please, BUT only if it is not imposed by the society and is allowed as per its natural occurrence. When it is imposed and exaggerated by the society -- that too to such an extent as in the West, it becomes a highly negative attribute, an "evil", in fact the root of all the world's problems today.

Any good thing in excess becomes bad!

However, to call male-female sexual attraction or love as "Heterosexuality" is not acceptable, because the very concept of "Heterosexuality" seeks to divide male-female attraction from male-male attraction in order to exaggerate and promote the former and isolate and wipe out from the mainstream the latter. Heterosexuality is a negative term because it doesn't allow men to bond with other men.

For Media Heterosexuality is the end all and the be all

The media celebrates heterosexuality and nothing else but heterosexuality. No other human relationship or quality is as important as heterosexuality, the right of heterosexuality and its power supersedes all other human bonds and qualities. Anything which goes against its principle is derided and taken to task by the media, especially man's need for other men, which if ever shown positively is only in the context of the "third sex" (gay).

They want heterosexuality to be the be all and end all of the society -- nothing else is important or should be given any space in the society.

They cry hoarse over restrictions placed on heterosexuality by the traditional society as "oppression" and "backwardness" or "narrowmindedness" (afterall, it doesn't happen in the West). But are the first ones to further strengthen the mechanisms that place restrictions on man to man bonding.

The forces of heterosexualisation, by defeating, suppressing and even isolating from the social mainstream, all other human values and relationships, have become so powerful in the West, that they find it impossible to believe that it can be challenged anywhere in the world, especially in a modern free society like India.

So, they are taken aback when Indians protest the unabashed celebration of crass and exploitative Heterosexuality like Valentine or IPL Cheerleaders.

How are men made heterosexual

It seems the main problem is that men are trained not to see each other as sexual objects adn objects of desire, especially for romance. This effectively blocks their primary sexuality, which is towards other men. So they divert all their sexual energy to women, and never really think about men consciously, although, apart from intense but underhand and superficial ways. they fall in love with women, chase them and are mad about them... but only because they've been blocked from loving men. But, if one day, by chance a man knocks on their door and shows asks them to tread the path that the society has forbidden and which they've for long blocked, then they are forced to deal with this. And then a struggle ensues.

It is not only the male-male bonds that the heterosexual society denigrates by propagating it as 'unmanly' ... the heterosexual forces also degrade one of the other strongest -- in terms of nature -- human bonds: that of the mother and her son.

The western heterosexual society -- through its extremely powerful media and entertainment industry -- propagates it as unmanly, to be affectionate towards one's mother. A 'real' man -- as per the definition prescribed by these forces -- while sucks up to girlfriends, wants to keep an emotional/ social and physical distance from his mother. 

Men who are attached to their mothers are propagated as weaklings. However those that are attached to their girlfriends and allow themselves to be subdued by them are actually propagated as 'real' men (straights).

An example of how a man can be trained to dislike something he originally likes

I used to like the way the Americans spell words like Organization -- that is with a Z instead of S. The British English which we use in India goes "organisation", i.e. with an S.
Then I started working as an editor trainee in a magazine where they wanted to use only the British version, and I was told to look out for all words with "zation" or "zise" in the end and change it to "sation" and "sise", respectively. And, slowly, I learned to see the word as 'unacceptable', and stopped liking it.
Now, whenever I see the word organization or vandalize, immediately, a negative image comes to my mind

What is wrong with Heterosexualisation

An immense amount of social investment goes into manipulating and diverting human, especially male sexuality (and mutilating it in the process) towards reproduction -- in order to presumably 'benefit' the human society as a whole. 

Today, when we are positive that we do not need all that human population, and that we actually need to cut down, then investing in the mechanisms that force men to divert their sexuality towards women, and then forcing them to cut down reproduction is totally unexplainable.

Indian movies as the forebearers of heterosexualisation

The heterosexualisation process in modern India started with the advent of the Christian Britishers. And when they left, Nehru and others amongst the class of elite Indians who were in power and were extremely westernised and wanted to make India into 'Europe', started in their earnest to heterosexualisae the Indian society.

Heterosexuality was indeed contrary to the core of Indian culture and values. And, so when the Indian film industry started to copy the western heterosexual movies they seemed to contrary to what happened on the ground in the Indian society -- by portraying man-woman love -- and that too to such an extent that Indians associate movies with the story of love between a hero and a heroine. Every film must have a hero and a heroine, who fall in love and fight the society to be with each other. It has been the same thing for over 60 years of independance, and for Indians it is difficult to today imagine a movie which is based on anything else than a heterosexual love story. 

How contrary this was to not only the nature of humans, but the essence of Indian culture is clear from the fact that for many years in the beginning, people boycotted movies. For generations it was considered a characterlessness to go to view movies. But of course, and unfortunately, movies like media have a tremendous power to change the society, especially since it is so glamourous, and especially, because the powers that be were forcing the Indian society to westernise from all other quarters ... people's attitude towards movies changed, but love marriages did not become acceptable till about 25 years ago. Today, of course, it is a different story, eversince the third generation of the Nehru clan -- Rajiv Gandhi set about to greatly heterosexualise the Indian society. Today, of course, with the globalisation process he started, the forces of heterosexualisation are enforcing male-female sexual openness on our culture.

Freedom to Heterosexuality is death knell for men's spaces and this is extremely harmful for men and their rights. Since men's spaces are already crippled for thousands of years and unnatural Heterosexuality is their greatest enemy.

Heterosexuality is a sham

Everything about the Western concept of Heterosexuality is a lie, including its so-called 'homophobia'.

Post your notes on Heterosexualisation

You can post here your own observations about Heterosexualisation