The Name of the Game

We know that the modern western, heterosexual concept of "Sexual Orientation" is only good for isolating those men who want to openly and "blatantly" seek intimacy with other men. We also know that there never was any such concept in the world.

Societies give names to those human relationships that it wants to give importance to. E.g. the Indian society has elaborate names for a lot of blood relatives and in-laws, including separate names for maternal and paternal in-laws, maternal and paternal uncles and aunts and so on, because for the Indian society these relationships are very important and need to be recognized so that they fit into the kind of society Indian culture seeks.

Indian culture has just a broad name "dost" or friend for male friends, because the formal society doesn't want to promote or recognize such bonds. But since men's spaces have carried on their male friendships, and inspite of non-recognition by the society they continue to play an important part in men's lives, the word is still in use. Although, a male friend has no social or legal right or claim over his friend, and no social obligation or duties. Whatever there is between two male friends is just mutual, based on mutual trust.

Indian society has no name for love bonds or sexual intimacy between two masculine males (men), because it wants to portray that such intimacy is not even possible and doesn't exist at all, so that it may seem weird to men themselves to harbour such feelings (although everyone does, but they're also conditioned to feel ashamed for it!). Since, men did not have such bonds openly, they did not give even an informal name to it (although, they have given a name to sexual play between men called "masti"). However, men continued sexual and emotional intimacy with men behind the label of "friendships" which even provided them with safety against being barred socially from manhood.

But, the ancient Greek societies, and there are still such sociesties that exist in the most unlikely places -- and they're all macho, warrior societies -- placed great importance on romantic bonds between (straight) men. Therefore, they had special names for such relationships -- name for one's male lover ... since these bonds were constituted around age, there were separate names for the older and the younger lovers.

However, in none of these societies, were there names that differentiated between men who liked men and men who liked women. None of these names held a man who liked man as a different 'gender' of man, like the term 'homosexualit y' or 'homosexuality' suggests. The idea that males who like women and men are essentially and biologically different from each other form a different gender is purely a Western one, totally invalid and the most harmful part of the larger conspiracy against men.

However, even if the anti-man Forces of Heterosexualization were to implement this differentiation fairly, it would work against their very own interests. Because, then 90% of men will become homosexuals and it would sound strange to call the remaining heterosexuals as 'straight'. Because straight means 'normal', 'regular' and 'masculine'. Then Heterosexual would be the gays and be classified along with the Third Gender.

That would be the natural scheme of things.

However, the Forces of Heterosexualization are able to use this system of isolation against male-to-male intimacy only because the society has strong pscyho-sexual mechanisms and hostilities in place against man to man intimacy, which operate at the deepest level of man's existence, and which the forces of heterosexualization keep thrusting on men, perpetually.

It's due to these pressures continually applied on men that men are kept from choosing the 'homosexual' label, when this system of sexual apartheid is used, and which gives the heterosexual society and its men the present shape, which shows men as primarily, constantly and exclusively heterosexual, and the third gender minority as 'homosexual'.

From http://notes-on-men-and-manhood.blogspot.com/