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).
October 28, 2008
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.
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.
October 6, 2008
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%
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%
September 30, 2008
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
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).
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".
September 25, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)