Types of Straight men

Straight Men in heterosexualized spaces consist of the following:
All of the following have significant to exclusive sexual attraction for men, although most will never ever acknowledge it.
1. Straight acting heterosexuals: These are people who fit in the most snuggly in the heterosexualized spaces, because they are naturally capabale of an emotional and social bond with women and they relish it. They have a significant femininity inside them, which is often disguised by extreme social manhood granted to them under the straight identity. They also often have a strong desire to cross-dress or even transexual tendencies. Their visible feminine acts are often ignored by the enormous artificial 'masculine' image that comes with the 'heterosexual' tag in heterosexualized societies.
They are actually meterosexual males, that is they have a strong femininity, but also have enough masculinity to have a masculine ego. While they have a strong sexual desire for men, their emotional desire is partly or completely towards women. The more their emotional/ social bonding desire is towards women, the more queer they are.
Some of them are however, made 'heterosexual' through the various mechanisms of heterosexualization of men.


2. Real straights: These are males who are masculine and the real constituent of the men's spaces or the real 'straights'. Their primary characteristics include:
- they are predominantly masculine gendered.
- they have no natural desire for emotional or social bonding with women, in fact, by nature, they are quite averse to it.


Real straights can be further divided into two parts:
- Type 1: Those who have a purely physical desire for women (largely vaginal intercourse), ranging from strong to moderate. However, this desire is not constant but intermittant/ periodical, and is largely non-discriminatory, i.e. they usually just need a release and are not very choosy about who they take as a partner. However, if they have freedom, they are very choosy about who they choose as a male partner. Under natural circumstances, (which is altered by the heterosexualization of men and society) they tend to be promiscuous vis a vis women, but committed and monogamous vis a vis a man partner.
- Type II: Core Group: Those who, as far as their real nature is concerned, have minimal to no physical desire for women. However, they have to pretend such a desire to stay in the straight group in a heterosexualized society, and are one of the most disadvantaged groups.
The machoest straight men come from this group. This group is also the core of the straight space or the men's spaces. They hold the men's spaces together, and are the real strength or power of men's spaces and of men. The rest of their qualities are similar to those of Type I mentioned above.

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.

Men's sexual rights vs Women's sexual rights

In the pre-heterosexualized/ pre-modernized/ pre-westernized world, both men and women had their own share of burden, as far as sexuality is concerned. The consequences of the sexual roles may have had implications for women only in the sexual field for women, but for men it had far reaching consequences that permeated every aspect of their life. However, the good thing was that the various playing forces -- the anti-man forces (which ruled the formal space) and men's spaces (informal spaces) -- created a sort of balance, where both men and women were compensated for what they lost, and neither could exploit the other sexually.
Under the pre-modern system, while women were supposed not to have any sexuality for men, men were supposed to have an everready, never ending, sexuality for women, that was expected to define their very existence.
The modern West, with its anti-man forces getting extremely powerful through the wealths of industrianlization and the tools they developed (ab)using science, liberated women from their sexual burden and gave them space to be sexual with men.


However, they did not liberate the man from his sexual burden -- on purpose too -- in fact, they took these burden to the extreme and concretized them through science -- by reinventing the 'manhood' identity itself as 'heterosexual' thus making sure that there is no escape for men from their sexual enslavement to women.


This had the effect that:
1. The delicate balance created by the earlier humans between the inter-gender powers of men and women --both visible and invisble -- was lost.
2. Women now had extreme exploitation powers over men -- both, in the sexual arena and the social arena.
3. Men lost all leeway, and now they don't have any respite from their burdens. The only way to escape the pressures now is to leave manhood, and all its privilieges and take on the disempowered, third gender gay identity, which is not an option for men at all.
It's ironic when the same anti-man forces who have brought this about and who perpetuate and enforce this new system, talk passionately about women's rights.

The anti-man 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.

Why heterosexuality is unnatural ...

Never in the history of mankind has the world witnessed such enmasse male heterosexuality, as in the west. The west likes to sell this heterosexuality as 'natural,' biological and also seeks to distort the history of mankind in order to show them as heterosexual as well, however, the truth is that all that heterosexuality seen in the west is artificially/ unnaturally generated, and can be termed as 'induced heterosexuality.'
As Biologist Bruce Bagemihl claims in his unprecedented book "Biological exuberance," the kind of heterosexuality we witness in the west is not found in the natural world. In his study he concludes that this heterosexuality doesn't form more than 5% of animal sexuality.

Indeed, even if we look practically, heterosexuality cannot be all that pervasive and constant, year long thing. Because of the single reason that it is inherently tied with reproduction. And, so, you MAYNOT take it casually or for romantic bonding purposes, the way it is glorified in the west. The purpose of male-female sex is strictly and limited to reproduction, and it may not cross that line under natural conditions. Under natural conditions, sex and romantic bonds between males is the norm for non-procreative purposes. It is not for nothing that it is sexuality for another man which is an uniform trait of males, especially, mammalian males, rather than sexuality for females. The purview, extent and depth of male sexuality for females is extremely limited in nature.


Let's see what are those artificial/ unnatural factors that make 'heterosexuality' possible.
1. Breaking men from men: The first and foremost is the suppression of man's capability to desire men. Unless, men are broken sexually and romantically from other men, men will not divert their sexual energies into heterosexuality. And, indeed this is the reason why most human societies have come to be so hostile to desire between men -- in fact, modern west looks down upon any kind of intimacy between males -- even friendships.

2. Forcing men with women: No amount of breaking men from men can force men with women, unless some other crucial mechanism is used. And, that is why the societies have employed the route of "social manhood," the singlemost important factor in a man's life to force men with women. It has always been achieved by making sex with women the basic requirement to clear the 'manhood test,' that all societies have required their males to go through, in order to become a 'man,' socially. And, failure to prove one's 'capability' to penetrate women results in a punishment for men worse than death -- to be labelled/ categorized as a 'third gender,' or a 'non-man' (gay in modern west).

3. Other mechanisms: The other mechanisms have been employed by societies since the ancient times, although, the scope of their control on men was limited in those days. Things however got immense boost in the modern west, and science has developed several tools to achieve the above two crucial (for the society's pov) goals.

Science has also helped in removing the most important physical barrier in making 'heterosexuality' 'practical' at a vast scale. And, this has been through the invention of birth control measures, that ensure that male-female sex can be ridden of reproduction, so as to enjoy it in the same manner as male-male sex (at least, on paper -- in reality, male-female sex can not equate male-male sex in terms of pleasure, although, its a 'forbidden fruit.'). This mechanism is both ironical and unfair, because, 'heterosexuality' has received the power it has today, only because of the fact that it results in reproduction, that societies have struggled and competed for in all these ages.
If sex has to be broken from reproduction, then the entire exercise of breaking men from men and forcing them with women looses its logic.


And this is what the world needs to understand, particularly the men -- because, the effeminates (third genders, heterosexuals, gays) and the sexually promiscuous women tend to benefit from the oppression of men this causes. They have all the interest in perpetuating this oppression, and they will always seek to oppose any attempt to liberate the men. It's the men (straight men, if you please) and only the men who can liberate themselves.

Transexuals and Transgenders are third genders

The west has done a great disservice to humanity by reducing genders to a binary. This partly reflects the western mentality that only that which can physically be seen is real, the rest is non-existent. Although, gender can be physically seen (in terms of dresses, mannerisms, expressions, etc.), the west only looks at the outer-sex organs of people in order to decide their gender. However, this totally misses an important feature of gender that resides within us.


The fact however remains that there are, in actuality, as many as six different human genders. Since, only two human genders constitute the majority, and the rest are in a minority, eversince the politics of male gender and sexuality took birth, the human genders were reduced to just three, the world over. The West, took this politics a step further and reduced the three genders to just two.
However, the most important reason for the west's discarding the other gender identities apart from the binary male and female, in particular its discarding of the biological concept of 'inner-sex' is because, inner-sex is unimportant as far as reproduction is concerned, and the west is so pathologically obsessed with reproduction, that anything that is immaterial for reproduction is negated by the west.
However, this has created a lot of human traits and people redundant as well as diseased. One such group -- the effeminates/ transgendered males that liked men, sought a way out of this mess, by redefining themselves (albeit wrongly) as 'men who like men,' with all its consequences for men. Now, although, the west did not want to recognize 'gender orientation' as valid, it had no qualms about validating the existence of 'homosexuals' (sexual orientation) because it fits perfectly into its politics meant to denigrate and stigmatize man-man bonds. By calling a group of effeminate, amoral and sexually promiscuous queens 'men who like men,' the western society and its science saw a perfect opportunity to denigrate the very trait of man desiring another man, and to make this trait inaccessible to males with manhood, by categorizing it completely into this transgendered zone.


However, left unnoticed is another group of people who were rendered 'abnormal' and denied validity by the western society -- these were people who were extremely transgendered -- i.e. males who simply had no male identity inside them. I.e. they are feminine gendered to the extreme. While gays fit into the male-female binary system, and they can be feminine without needing to alter their body, and were happy with having a separate gender category for themselves even if it was defined in terms of 'sexuality,' the extreme third genders, became total misfits into the binary system.


A totally healthy, normal and positive gender thus started to see itself as diseased, and also developed an intense hatred for the male body -- a phenomenon also witnessed in lesser form in the non-western world, which although, had a third gender, but, gave little rights to the physical hermaphrodites. In the non-western world, such people would become physical eunuchs -- and there is a myth in places like India, that the term 'third gender' signifies only the physical eunuchs, and for a long time, western 'homosexuals' were thought to be physical eunuchs as well.


This phenomenon is taken to the extreme in the west, and transexuals have simply no place in the society -- not even a denigrated one. So, they seek a sex change operation, which, at least, superficially changes the outer sex of the individual, even if the surgically altered sexual organs cannot operate like the biological ones.
This need to castrate or alter one's sex will not be there if only the society can recognize and give a healthy and positive space to the transexuals as 'third genders,' because no matter how much they would love to be seen as 'biological women,' this is not practical -- neither socially nor biologically.

The heterosexualization of (straight) men

Young men know that they are supposed to develop a strong enough sexual need, a sexual comfort, a sexual space for women in their hearts/ minds and that time is running out. The bigger sexual need they are able to develop for women, the easier their life is going to be.

No one talks about it, but almost all straight men (except those to whom it comes more naturally) struggle quietly, without letting anyone know of this struggle, to develop a place for women in their life, because unless they do it, they're going to be queers not men. Mere talking about girls can only take them so far. When men's spaces are strong you can get away with just talking about girls till you get married. And you don't really need a sexuality for women to get married, you only need to do the needful. Marriage is more of a social responsibility. No one cares or knows whether you really enjoy the sexual company of a woman. However, the more heterosexualized the society is, the more you're under pressure to develop a sexuality for women, because they want action, not mere talking.
Its the social mechanisms of man's oppression that have generated this need in men to develop a sexuality for women (or face the consequences), and it is the same mechanisms which help the men to do it, for one thing, by placing such huge social value for men in girls. This social value keeps men inspired to run after the girls. In other words, men run after the girls for the social value attached to them, and the social power attached to heterosexuality than for their intrinsic sexual value. The pleasure, and everything else is secondary, which may or may not happen. Sex is a pleasurable sensual activity in itself, and if all the other avenues of releasing sexuality are physically or psychologically closed for men, then the only avenue available automatically becomes pleasurable for you. Technically, you can also develop a sexuality for animals, if they're the only beings you can actually have sex with. It is the same principle that the Forces of Heterosexualization use to explain so-called 'homosexuality' in prisons.


The heterosexual society has created a huge socio-psychological prison for men, where sexuality between men is marginalised into a queer ghetto, severely stigmatized and kept away from the mainstream men's spaces (straight spaces). Thus a sexuality for men becomes inaccessible for normal, regular, masculine guys who are known as 'straights' (in traditional societies, they're just known as 'men' and gays are known as 'third gender'), who are conditioned to fight off and hate any such sexual feelings within them. They are trained to see their sexual need for men (which is biologically a part of being a masculine gendered male), as a burden that they must get rid of, if they want an easy life. Taking on the queer 'gay' identity is out of the question for masculine gendered males, who'd rather die than have to take it -- So, classifying sexual need for men as 'gay' is practically creating a huge wall between men and their sexual need for men, a wall that men can never break. Its a straight line that men will never dare to cross.


Men don't care for sexual pleasure or any pleasure
That sexual pleasure in itself means little to men over their manhood, is clear from the fact that in case study after case study, where typical young straight men became intensely but unwittingly, sexually and emotionally involved with another man, short of falling in love, they still fought off these feelings and either avoided having real sex (which in any case often doesn't involve anal/ oral sex) with their lovers (which were acknowledged as just friends) or allowed themselves to have unacknowledged sex with them, but broke off the relationship which was at its zenith, when they were faced with the pressure from the 'lover friends' to acknowledge these feelings. The avoidance of sex as well as breaking off the bond was extremely painful for them, and had it been towards a girl, they would have made quite a show of their distress, and even have contemplated suicide. However, here they just internalize their pain, move ahead and then try to seek the company of a girl to transfer all that heightened but unfulfilled sexual need. So, although, straight men make a huge show of their sexual interest in girl and the pleasure they derive from it, in reality, pleasure means little to straight men. What means is their straight identity, because the straight identity is related with manhood. And the Queer identity is related with a loss of manhood.


Also, in all of these case studies, straight men although became intensely emotionally involved, they did not fall in love with their male lover friends, some of whom were non-heterosexual straights (in non-heterosexulaized societies, masculine males who exclusively desire men are counted as striaghts) or were 'gay', fell in love (which means they were not so inhibited about a relationship with a guy). Some of these straight men went on to fall in love with girls.
While some of this love was a put on, others were more genuine. But whether they were fake or genuine, one thing was for sure, they were all, especially flamboyant about their love for the girls and made a great pommp and show of it. They also seemed to be unusually involved with the girls, with unusually heightened feelings and unusual care they showed towards their female partners -- something that they constantly withheld from their male partners. However, even in the genuine cases of these male-female love, men were able to fall in love with girls because they value their relationships with girls, while they did not value their relationships with a man, and you can't fall in love unless you value something. Their lover friends, on the other hand greatly valued these relationships and had a place for it in their hearts as well as their life. Thus they allowed themselves to fall in love, while the straight men did not allow themselves to do that.

Acknowledging their sexual need for or interest in another male may have more than just the social connotations for straight men. They may actually also render the inbuilt socio-psycho mechanisms inside them useless, if they only acknowledged this sexual need even in private (like in a private survey). This is why they NEVER acknowledge their need even with the partners they're having an intense sexual relationship with, or if they, in the heat of the moment, acknowlege it, they make sure to go back on it and deny it later, when they remember to fight with the intimacy. Because, not acknowledging something that exists has tremendous implications. If you consider an existing trait as non-existing it practically ceases to exist, even when it does so. And then it ceases to affect your personal sense of identity as a 'straight' male.
Another thing that is evidenced from the case studies is that, men who naturally develop enough sexual feelings for girls, that is, they did not have to struggle a lot to achieve this, they are less macho, often softer, than those who struggle a lot to develop these feelings. But they also tend to be more open about relating sexually with other men, especially once they 'prove' their heterosexuality, and have lesser hassles in doing so than men who have had to struggle a lot, and especially those, who're still struggling.
This struggle to be heterosexual tends to take a lot of toll on the health of straight men, who tend to age much faster than males who don't have to struggle so much. This is one reason why gays tend to look younger than straight males of similar age. But, straight men are willing to pay any price to be heterosexual, as long as it is required for 'manhood'.
Sexuality for men a great threat to straight men
In inumerable case studies, where young straight men in their late teens or early twenties, with yet undeveloped heterosexuality, fell unwittingly into relationships with men -- (and this happened not only in cases where men's spaces were strong, but also in heterosexualized spaces, and even in the former cases, there was enough opportunity for young men to court women in private, although, there were lots of opportunities for close intimacies to develop between men) -- men saw their increasing involvement with a male lover, a big threat to their heterosexualization process. They realised, without anyone having to tell them that, if they allowed their sexual feelings for men to develop and gave it a 'valued' place in their lives, (a place they want to reserve for girls, because of the social pressures, even if the sexuality for girls is not fully developed yet), they may never be able to develop an adequate sexuality for girls. Because, in order to develop this sexuality your 'sexual' zone should be vacant. If it is filled up with need for a man, it would be almost impossible to change this in the future, if the sexuality for men takes root. Therefore, in 100% of these cases, men fought with their desire for their male lovers and tried to kill their growing emotional and social intimacy with them. It was an extremely painful process in all of these cases as these men really cared for their lovers at the sametime. So, it was a unique struggle where they were torn apart between a hatred of their sexual feelings for men and a very strong desire for their male lovers. Of course, in the end the social mechanisms won, and the bonds, all of which were extremely intense broke, sometimes without being 'consumated' at other times after a long sexual involvement.
Straight stated definition of 'gay' is different from straight 'practised' definition of 'gay'.
Straight men are forced to acknowledge the defintion of 'gay' given by the Forces of Heterosexualization. But for all practical purposes, they have their own functional definition of what comprises 'gay' and what comprises 'man' or 'straight' male.
When asked straight men will use the definition of 'gay' given by the formal society -- those who like men are 'gay'. However, in practise, it is not the liking of men that makes you gay. It is acknowledging that liking that does. And each straight society has different levels of freedom it allows to unacknowledged sexual acts between men. For example, in buses in Delhi, India, men can feel up other men, even masturbate them using their elbows, while making it seem casual, but using your hands is 'gay'. As 'wierd' as it may sound to western gays, no one will think of you as 'gay' if you quietly felt up another man using your elbow or any body part, except your hands. It is something straight males do to each other quietly. You will be thought of as 'gay' if you acknowledge your interest or cross the straight codes of sexual conduct with men, or showed a sexual disinterest in girls.
Spaces for straight men to give vent to some of their suppressed sexual need for men:
But men do create silent, unspoken and unacknowledged, fearful spaces within the heterosexualized spaces, where whenever they get a chance (which is rare) they give vent to some of their suppressed sexuality for men, but always taking care to camouflage their sexual acts by hiding behind socially acceptable excuses like non-presence of girls, losing inhibition after drinking, watching girl porn with guys, or just doing it because they're getting bored (always letting it be known that they have no real interest in men). These acts of giving vent to their sexual feelings for men often doesn't include things like oral/ anal sex, but rather stuff like seeing naked, feeling up or masturbation. It most certainly never involves more mushy things like kissing or embracing -- which are held decidedly 'queer' (Its clear that what the men want to do with other men sexually is determined by what is allowed within the straight identity/ manhood roles, rather than what they really desire deep within). Also, men never cease to take advantage of socially approved occasions like hazing (ragging) or handling of prisoner of wars in army, etc. to give vent to their sexual feelings for men. These excuses provide men a space where they can indulge in sexuality for men without being threatened to be burdened with the 'gay' identity. Even within the heterosexualised straight spaces, men sometimes are able to find or make for themselves pockets of men's spaces... and whenever they do, their sexual interactions with other men become more open and blatant. This is why the Forces of Heterosexualization are too keen to put girls in every personal space of men, (i.e. heterosexualize their spaces) so that they don't get any excuse or opportunity to give vent to their sexual need for men. The more they are able to suppress this sexuality for men, the more it becomes possible to channel this sexual need into 'heterosexuality'. When they attempt to 'cure' homosexuality, this is actually what they seek to do, to suppress a man's sexual feelings for men and to channelize it into women, although in most cases it is too late. You have to do it before the sexual feelings for men get too developed. Doing it after these feelings become developed is almost impossible.
Men often feel freer to indulge in their sexuality for men when they are in a position of power over other men who are in a vulnerable position. This is one situation where they would not be afraid of being 'queers' simply because they have social excuse, plus they are in a position of power over the men they are sexually exploiting, and thus more 'manly'. Queers can only be powerless, unmanly, sissies. Also, straight men have usually mutilated most of the softer, positive sides of their sexuality for men, and in any case, what they allow themselves to enjoy in these situations are hardened, negative, exploitative aspects of their sexuality for men, that has survived. The negative things often survive, when the positive aspects of a human trait have been killed by the society.
We all have images of how the Western armymen behaved with Iraqi men they captured in war. The first thing they'd do would be to strip them, to feel them up, to make them masturbate, to make them indulge in sexual acts with other men (or even with the armymen). And indeed to watch them being sexually humiliated by women, that has a special sexual value for straight men. The armymen had a perfect excuse, and they never failed to take pictures and videos of their sexual exploitation of prisoners to keep with them forever.
Stripping and sexually humiliating men before others, especially in front of girls, has immense sexual value for straight men. There are various reasons for this, which would be a topic for another analysis. Those in power in the Western society, have kept enough spaces and excuses for them to indulge in this fetish, and when it is so given sanction by the mainstream society, it ceases to be 'queer'. Therefore, in western culture, men are often made to strip down for medicals, often in public situations like army recruitments etc. when there is no apparent need for this humiliation. Women, on the other hand are not required to go through such humiliation.
Seen in this light, the stripping of four youths in full public view by the US army takes on another dimension, that the society will never want to acknowledge. Straight male sexuality for men often finds quiet, unacknowledged vent in social, non-sexual situations like stripping or feeling during medicals, in search operations, etc. There is a cover for men in such situations and the society considers only acts or men that involve anal/ oral sex to be 'queer' -- or at least an open acknowledgement of an interest in men. The social cover provided by these situations mean that men can indulge in sexuality for men without acknowledging their needs. Many of us are aware of this, but we aren't really able to conceptualize it, because it is not recognized in the society as such, and social acknowledgement/ non-acknowledgement makes a lot of difference in our ability to comprehend the reality.
Since there is no social space for normal, regular guys to talk about or acknowledge the pain that straight men go through while mutilating their sexual need for men, men too don't really lament over what they've lost or what they've suffered. There is no scope for complaining. Indeed, they don't see it as loss, they're socially conditioned to see it as a gain and a big relief from having to be queers.
Another aspect of straight male sexuality for men, is that although they feel freer to give vent to their hardened sexuality for men when in a position of power over vulnerable men, they tend to give vent to the softer side of whatever has remained of their sexuality for men, when in sexual situations with men who are more powerful, manly or macho than them. Of course, to be powerful and macho implies in heterosexual societies that neither of the two sides ever acknowledge their interest in each other. They indulge in the acts, often in the dead of night or behind an excuse, and pretend as if nothing ever happened.
PROBLEMS IN AWAKENING STRAIGHT MEN ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THEIR OWN OPPRESSION


Even when straight men are so oppressed by the mechanisms of social oppression, many of them, like a typical victim, are allegiant to these mechanisms and directly and indirectly support and strengthen them. This is ironical, yet true, and one of the biggest impediments in doing any work around this issue.
Men feel grateful to these oppressive mechanisms for being helpful to them in fighting with their own sexual needs when they are the most vulnerable against these needs. Ironically, men tend to see their own sexual feelings aS their enemy and the mechanisms that help them fight themselvs as their 'friend'. This is because, they see, the manhood = heterosexual connection as inevitable and biological -- something which is inalterable, as if they owe their manhood to these social mechanisms without which they just cannot be 'heterosexuals'.
What they don't realise is that if there were no anti-man social mechanisms, there would be no connection between manhood and heterosexuality and no need for men to fight with their real sexual needs as it is their real selves that can procure them their much needed manhood. When straight would mean not heterosexual but a male who is simply masculine gendered, although loving another male would be acknowledged as an integral part of this manhood, as it is in nature.
But most of all, men are scared to be labelled as 'gay' to associate with this sort of work/ campaign.


ENDNOTE
Its true that most men eventually develop a working heterosexuality, but even if they don't, they get the manhood status, embedded in the straight identity and that is the only thing they really care about (it would be just easier on men if they can develop a working heterosexuality, because it would be less stressful for them then). However, this is not a need that was provided by the nature, neither is this connection between heterosexuality and 'manhood' or 'sexual interest between men' and queerhood real. These connections as well as the need for being heterosexual is created by the society.
Therefore, if we can do away with the social need to be heterosexual, men will not have to feel happy about killing an important part of their own selves.

Men's sexual need for men is a defeated trait...

Man's sexual need for men is a historically defeated trait... and the social place granted to it, amidst the queers, both signifies and concretizes this defeat.
And 'straight' men choose to abandon this falling/ fallen ship, and throw their lot with 'heterosexuality', which is the human trait that is the conqureror... not very noble or manly, but they do fight with their sexual need for men and conquer it.
And, homosexuals are the ones that either accept to be 'slaves', deprived of manhood, because their sexual need for men has become their weakness and they can't leave it... or the ones who are already slaves (i.e. queers/feminine) and have no need for social manhood because of their femininity.
The first kind of homosexuals are the 'unmanly' kinds. The second ones are the Third gender, they're just being themselves.
But, in all this, there has not been many real men, who have neither abandoned the falling ship, nor accepted defeat by foregoing their manhood (by accepting the gay identity)... They are the ones who fought the enemy -- the anti-man forces, the Forces of Heterosexualization -- till there last breath... suffering a great deal in the process.
Some such men have been Alfred Kinsey and Michel Foucalt... But I know there have been hundreds of more... Today, they have the means to get together and organise themselves (through the internet and the shrinking world)... and they should really get their act together and wage a real war -- Like real men do!

Was Sherlock Holmes a homosexual?

I saw the serial on Sherlock Holmes and I thought about how they were speculating that he might be 'gay,' (eventhough he is a fictional character). I thought of other known single men in the history, and all those unknown masculine gendered males, who avoided getting married and led a lonely life, just because they did not want women in their life, and there was no social space for men to say they would like to live with a man.
However, the moment you classify them under the western concept of 'homosexual' with its entire third gender background, suddenly these masculine gendered males appear to be effeminate, or at least, not manly enough, with something lacking in their manhood, as is to be expected with the third genders. And, to think that these men guarded their attraction for men with such secrecy, sometimes, forgoing their sexual needs altogether only so to avoid being classified with the third genders.
Its such a misrepresentation of these men, to call them 'gay,' and unfair to them. But, if they could do it to one of the most manly guys in the world, Alexander the great and his lover Hephaistion (ref. the movie "Alexander the Great"), who conquered this world, the ordinary men don't stand a chance.
-------------------------------------------------
Also funny about these explanations by modern-day queered westerners is that in those times, men hardly had girlfriends, although, most got married, ... but marriage was not at all about sexuality in those days, but a social/ religious duty or a manhood role for men, AND, you could not be married for a number of reasons (of course, its besides the point that every masculine gendered male has an interest in men).
Men in those days were not forced to be publicly intimate with women to prove their manhood, like in modern day west, and so, men were hardly publicly intimate with women. AND, it was the most 'normal' thing to do for two men to share a bed, so to arrive at any decision on Sherlock's sexual preferences using the modern day unnatural western lifestyle as the criteria, is plain and simply absurd.
Once again, homosexuality is an invalid, queer, western concept.
The concept of Homosexual and Homosexuality is simply invalid.

Is heterosexuality unnatural?

Of course, gays and other anti-man forces will vehemently deny this. They will claim that there is no pressure on straight males to be heterosexual, and that sexuality is ingrained and fixed and not taught and people do not consciously change or limit the flow of their sexual desires ... but that is all invalid ... of course, gays (i.e. effeminate males who like men exclusively), do experience it, but its an experience particular to these non-men who like men, because they fit into the heterosexual set up snuggly (of manhood=heterosexuality; and Queerhood=homosexuality).

This article from a western source, does hint at this pressure/ conditioning to be heterosexual, which both gays and other anti-man forces refuse to acknowledge, because of their vested interests.

"I like men" vs "I am gay"

There's a world of difference between saying "I like men." and that, "I am homosexual."
The first means that you're a man that happens to desire men. The second means that you're an entirely different gender from men. A third gender. That you're effeminate, and have either a strong female identity, or at least a weak male identity.
The fact is that almost all men have the inner desire for other men, and therefore, there should be no need to say, "I like men." It would be like saying, "I have two eyes." Everyone has two eyes. However, its because of the intense politics of western male gender and sexuality, that has made it appear as if most masculine gendered males are heterosexuals -- and exclusively so -- that one even needs to say, what should have been self-evident from the fact that you're a man.

The stigma of third gender has been conspiratorially transferred by the anti-man forces onto male desire for men, through the concept of homosexuality

Intimacy and sexual desire between men has been stigmatized for men in Western societies, NOT because of religion, but PRIMARILY, because of its association with the term 'gay' or 'homosexual.' And this is so, because Gay is nothing but a rehash of the traditional third gender identity and repackaging it as 'men who like men.' By doing this, the anti-man forces have cleverly shifted the stigma from male femininity and receptive anal sex to the very desire between men.
Unfortunately, with entire generations now being brainwashed in the West, people have -- on the conscious level -- forgotten this third gender basis of the stigma behind desiring other men, although, it still operates as the primary source of stigma, yet unacknowledged. And this makes it all the more tricky. Because, now this stigma of third gender has been totally transferred into the trait of male desire for men, and people have forgotten the 'third gender' stigma totally.
And unless, this anti-man mechanism is exposed and 'homosexuals' are exposed for who they really are -- third genders that like men (that makes them want a separate category), we can never liberate the man's power to bond with another man, and thus, we can never liberate the man himself.

The role of 'sexual orientation' in pressurising men to disown their need for men

When the society defines a sexual interest in men as 'queer' or 'gay', then it makes the desire an extreme burden for men -- who are in an intense race for social manhood for survival, in which they have to prove that they are not queers, however queer is defined in that society. Its a competition that gays and women are just not aware of. They only know about straights what is told or shown to them.
Isn't this burdening of man-to-man desire a clear-cut social conspiracy against men in the name of 'Sexual Freedom'?
As long as the feminine gendered males who lust for men, continue to fill up the 'gay' category created by the anti-man forces, and thus give it validity, these anti-man forces will continue to enforce sexual apartheid/ seggregation (sexual orientation) on men, and claim at the sametime that they are actually giving freedom to male need for men (which they equate with 'gay').

The Origins Of Homosexuality And Heterosexuality

The following is in brief the history of politics around human Gender identities that have resulted in the modern Western concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality:
ANCIENT WORLD:
In the ancient world, humans were divided into three distinct gender identities:
1. Man: (predominantly, not exclusively, masculine males)
2. Women: (predominantly feminine females)
3. Third Gender: (Both male and female at the sametime, including, Feminine males; Masculine females; hermaphrodites, etc.)
Sexual preferences or orientation was just not an issue in determining these identities. you could be a man and sexually desire anyone or anything, you'd remain one of the 'men'... ditto for Third Gender.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIDDLE AGES
Around the middle ages, Gender identities became politicized in order to force 'Men' to get bound into marriage and reproduce more than they do naturally -- by restricting male-male sexual/ romantic bonds.
The formal definitions of gender identities were changed as follows, by bringing in the element of sexual acts in the definitions (but not sexual orientation):
1. Man: Male who penetrates
2. Woman: Females (they get penetrated)
3. Third Gender: (males/ eunuchs/ hermaphrodites who seek to be penetrated by men)
The practical definitions of gender identities essentially remained the same (as humans basically tend to associate, relate and identify on the basis of their biological gender, not anything else): i.e. men were essentially masculine gendered males, but they took on the 'penetrator' roles (not identities) in sex, and disowned an interest in receiving penetration from anyone. In fact, they competed to prove a repulsion towards being penetrated.


The Third sex, continued to be essentially feminine gendered males, who now took on the role of receiving penetration from men. Masculine males who were caught having receptive sex were seen as 'lesser males' but not really third sex.
Third gender that desired women went completely underground, because the society didn't want to give them any space or recognition, in order to portray man-woman vaginal intercourse as 'manly'.
With this, through intense social engineering in middle ages, the third gender, which was once the most revered of human genders, now became extremely marginalized and stigmatized, and men started to avoid anything that was associated with them, in order to avoid being labeled as 'half-males/ half-females'. The worst dishonor for a man, for which he was justified to kill another, was to call him a 'third gender' (e.g. a Catamite in ancient Greece, or a Hijra in India).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MODERN WEST
In the beginning of the modern era... with the advent of science, the forces which were empowered by the above mentioned politics and were now ruling the society (Forces of Heterosexualization), initiated the following reorganisation of society:
1. Destroying men's spaces and heterosexualizing them, often in the name of 'women's liberation'. This made men and their bonds especially vulnerable -- as it was already a love that could not speak its name.
2. Science started to call the third sex (which was called by various local names, such as mollies, queers, faggots, etc. which all meant (like Hijras) the feminine gendered males who had receptive sex with men)... they labeled these members of the third sex as "men who liked men". You see, science did not recognize human gender (masculinity/ femininity) as a valid trait distinct from human sex (male/ female), so they called these half-males/ half-females people as 'men', something that was used only for 'masculine gendered males' earlier.
But that did not mean that in reality, these gender traits stopped making a difference. In reality gender continued to be the basis of human identities. Only it now started to be confused with 'sexuality'.
3. When science so redefined the third gender, men started to disown any kind of liking for another men like plague, in order to escape being identified as a half-male/ half-female. Thus they started to be seen as exclusively heterosexual, whether or not they really liked women, since being masculine, they were under intense pressure to prove their 'penetrating' status, which was now changed into a proof of desire for women.
However, men never wanted this pressure to be converted into an identity.. and they themselves never called themselves 'heterosexuals'. Straight men are always the ones who have a direct stake in keeping male sexuality as fluid.
It were the newly empowered third gender, which were now being called the 'homosexuals', who imposed upon the 'men' the 'heterosexual' identity, which they called 'straight' (i.e. normal/ regular guys). As you can see, 'normal', 'regular' male has the connotation of gender, i.e. being masculine, but it was seen as synonymous with being heterosexual (sexuality).
Even today, the 'Men' call themselves 'heterosexual' or 'straight' only when forced to do so, in order to distinguish themselves from the queers (gays). Otherwise they just call themselves 'men'.
4. The male Gender identities have been redefined by the modern West as follows:
a). Man: (now called Straight/ heterosexual male): Male who has a constant and exclusive sexual desire for women.
b). Third gender: (now called Gay/ homosexual/bisexual 'man'): Male who has any kind of sexual desire for men.
5. The practical definitions of gender identities still remain essentially the same (as humans basically tend to associate, relate and identify on the basis of their biological gender, not anything else): Thus 'Men'-- now 'Straight males' -- are still essentially masculine gendered males, but they now take on heterosexual roles and claim to have exclusive and constant sexual need for women. In fact, they compete to prove a repulsion against male eroticism and against the desire for men itself.


6. CONFUSING GENDER WITH SEXUALITY: The Gender identities are now known in the West as Sexual identities (as human gender and sexual identities and traits are confused as 'one' -- Heterosexuality constituting 'Manhood', while 'Homosexuality' constituting 'Queerhood').
To like men is now supposed to indicate an effeminate streak in a male, no matter how 'manly' he tries to behave. There are times when someone refers to a man who exhibits a sexual interest in another man as 'masculine', but it is more as a patronising thing, or an exception, never considered real. Yet it was not so in the pre-sexual orientation days. As long as liking men will be associated with the queer identity/ space, men who acknowledge their sexual interest in men will have to struggle to be counted or seen as 'men' or as 'masculine males' (also known as Real men in the West).
Even Western science conducts experiment on the queers and claims that "Men who like men" have biological constituents of females (like a female like brain).
Similarly to like women is to have proved one's manhood. No further proofs needed. If you become insecure about your manhood, just exhibit even a fake interest in girls, and you will gain back your confidence as a man, and your social image as a 'man'.
No matter, how much some gays may deny it, but its true that both within the gay world and outside, 'gay' and 'effeminate' is used interchangably both within gay world and outside, as in "you're looking so gay", or "you don't look gay". Its the gays who have stigmatized the entire range of male to male desire, by defining themselves as 'men who like men'.
The third gendered male is today also referred to as a 'man', but he is known as a lesser 'man', a queer 'man', a gay 'man', an effeminate 'man', a different 'man'.
The Western society has so much done away with Gender as a trait and confused those traits with 'sexual preferences' that, today, Gender is thought to be non-existent... and it is sexuality that is supposed to distinguish between normal, regular, masculine guys from the 'different', alternative', effeminate or less manly guys. That is why gays so much insist on defining straight as heterosexual, while claiming at the same time that both hetero and homo can be masculine.
7) The original stigma that was attached earlier to Third sex, and male effeminacy is now transferred to what is called 'gay' or homosexuality. But slowly as people forget the concept of gender, this hatred and stigma continues and grows, and has male effeminacy as its base, but, is now seen totally in terms of a desire for another male. The hatred is transferred from the trait of effeminacy to the trait of liking men, which has become extremely stigmatized.
However, in the straight world, if you're straight (i.e. normal, masculine) and you desire another male quietly without acknowledging it, they will not only accept you as one of them, they'll even seek you to fulfill their own suppressed sexual feelings for men. The line between straight and gay as far as straights are concerned is 'acknowledging' the need.

Top Scientists Get to the Bottom of Gay Male Sex Role Preferences

It’s my impression that many straight people believe that there are two types of gay men in this world: those who like to give, and those who like to receive. No, I’m not referring to the relative generosity or gift-giving habits of homosexuals. Not exactly, anyway. Rather, the distinction concerns gay men’s sexual role preferences when it comes to the act of anal intercourse. But like most aspects of human sexuality , it’s not quite that simple.

I’m very much aware that some readers may think that this type of article does not belong on this website. But the great thing about good science is that it’s amoral, objective and doesn’t cater to the court of public opinion. Data don’t cringe; people do. Whether we’re talking about a penis in a vagina or one in an anus, it’s human behavior all the same. The ubiquity of homosexual behavior alone makes it fascinating. What’s more, the study of self-labels in gay men has considerable applied value, such as its possible predictive capacity in tracking risky sexual behaviors and safe sex practices.

People who derive more pleasure (or perhaps suffer less anxiety or discomfort) from acting as the insertive partner are referred to colloquially as “tops,” whereas those who have a clear preference for serving as the receptive partner are commonly known as “bottoms.” There are plenty of other descriptive slang terms for this gay male dichotomy as well, some repeatable (“pitchers vs. catchers,” “active vs. passive,” “dominant vs. submissive”) and others not—well, not for Scientific American , anyway.
In fact, survey studies have found that many gay men actually self-identify as “versatile,” which means that they have no strong preference for either the insertive or the receptive role. For a small minority, the distinction doesn’t even apply, since some gay men lack any interest in anal sex and instead prefer different sexual activities. Still other men refuse to self-label as tops, bottoms, versatiles or even “gay” at all, despite their having frequent anal sex with gay men. These are the so-called “Men Who Have Sex With Men” (or MSM) who are often in heterosexual relations as well.
Several years ago, a team of scientists led by Trevor Hart at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta studied a group of of 205 gay male participants. Among the group’s major findings—reported in a 2003 issue of The Journal of Sex Research —were these:

(1) Self-labels are meaningfully correlated with actual sexual behaviors. That is to say, based on self-reports of their recent sexual histories, those who identify as tops are indeed more likely to act as the insertive partner, bottoms are more likely be the receptive partner, and versatiles occupy an intermediate status in sex behavior.

(2) Compared to bottoms, tops are more frequently engaged in (or at least they acknowledge being attracted to) other insertive sexual behaviors. For example, tops also tend to be the more frequent insertive partner during oral intercourse. In fact, this finding of the generalizability of top/bottom self-labels to other types of sexual practices was also uncovered in a correlational study by David Moskowitz, Gerulf Reiger and Michael Roloff. In a 2008 issue of Sexual and Relationship Therapy, these scientists reported that tops were more likely to be the insertive partner in everything from sex-toy play to verbal abuse to urination play.

(3) Tops were more likely than both bottoms and versatiles to reject a gay self-identity and to have had sex with a woman in the past three months. They also manifested higher internalized homophobia—essentially the degree of self-loathing linked to their homosexual desires.

(4) Versatiles seem to enjoy better psychological health. Hart and his coauthors speculate that this may be due to their greater sexual sensation seeking, lower erotophobia (fear of sex), and greater comfort with a variety of roles and activities.
One of Hart and his colleagues’ primary aims with this correlational study was to determine if self-labels in gay men might shed light on the epidemic spread of the AIDS virus. In fact, self-labels failed to correlate with unprotected intercourse and thus couldn’t be used as a reliable predictor of condom use. Yet the authors make an excellent—potentially lifesaving—point:

Although self-labels were not associated with unprotected intercourse, tops, who engaged in a greater proportion of insertive anal sex than other groups, were also less likely to identify as gay. Non-gay-identified MSW [again, “Men Who Have Sex With Men”] may have less contact with HIV prevention messages and may be less likely to be reached by HIV-prevention programs than are gay-identified men. Tops may be less likely to be recruited in venues frequented by gay men, and their greater internalized homophobia may result in greater denial of ever engaging in sex with other men. Tops also may be more likely to transmit HIV to women because of their greater likelihood of being behaviorally bisexual.

Beyond these important health implications of the top/bottom/versatile self-labels are a variety of other personality, social and physical correlates. For example, in the article by Moskowitz, Reiger and Roloff, the authors note that prospective gay male couples might want to weigh this issue of sex role preferences seriously before committing to anything longterm. From a sexual point of view, there are obvious logistical problems of two tops or two bottoms being in a monogamous relationship. But since these sexual role preferences tend to reflect other behavioral traits (such as tops being more aggressive and assertive than bottoms), “such relationships also might be more likely to encounter conflict quicker than relationships between complementary self-labels.”
Another intriguing study was reported in a 2003 issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior by anthropologist Mathew McIntyre. McIntyre had 44 gay male members of Harvard University’s gay and lesbian alumni group mail him clear photocopies of their right hand along with a completed questionnaire on their occupations, sexual roles, and other measures of interest. This procedure allowed him to investigate possible correlations between such variables with the well-known “2D:4D effect." This effect refers to the finding that the greater* the difference in length between the second and fourth digits of the human hand—particularly the right hand—the greater the presence of prenatal androgens during fetal development leading to subsequent “masculinizing” characteristics. Somewhat curiously, McIntyre discovered a small but statistically significant negative correlation between 2D:4D and sexual self-label. That is to say, at least in this small sample of gay Harvard alumni, those with the more masculinized 2D:4D profile were in fact more likely to report being on the receiving end of anal intercourse and to demonstrate more “feminine” attitudes in general.

Many questions about gay self-labels and their relation to development, social behavior, genes and neurological substrates remain to be answered—indeed, they remain to be asked. Further complexity is suggested by the fact that many gay men go one step further and use secondary self-labels, such as “service top” and “power bottom” (a pairing in which the top is actually submissive to the bottom). For the right scientist, there’s a life’s work just waiting to be had.