Tuesday, April 8, 2008

#170: Holding Hands

Unlike Iran, homosexuality probably does exist to some extent in India. With so many dance remixes, styles patterned on Bollywood kitsch, open-toed shoes and silk, how can it not? In India, though, homosexuality is one thing, and holding hands is quite another.

In many places throughout Asia, holding hands amongst men is considered a common demonstration of hetero friendship. While crossing chaotic streets or sauntering down the sidewalk chewing paan, Indian men show no shame in interlocking fingers and pressing palms.

One NRI even claims to have seen "macchans," the alpha males of college campuses, locking arms with the lieutenants of their pack in India, and "goondas" holding hands just before launching an assault on a local tea shop that refuses to serve their gang free chai.

In America, though, hand holding between male friends is strictly prohibited by heteronormative social mores. Locking feet in a bhangra circle, however, is completely acceptable and straight. Lifting weights together in sleeveless tees and making eye contact in the full body mirror at the gym while executing synchronized bicep curls is also allowed. But hand holding between close friends? No, that'd be totally gay.

If you are an Indian male visiting family in India, do not be alarmed if upon first meeting you after several years of absence your cousin Anirrudah immediately grabs your hand and holds it next to his thigh for a long period of time. Also do not be alarmed if he is several years older than you, pushing 30, living with his parents and still single. This is the Indian custom of saying, "How have you been, brother? I'm not allowed to touch girls in my family's presence so this is as good as it gets."

Anirrudah will continue to hold your hand as his parents give your family a tour of their flat and introduce you to the goats that roam freely through their back yard. If you jump in alarm at the sight of wild animals, even for a second, Anirrudah will clasp your hand tighter and laugh a toothy grin in your face. "Are you frightened?" he will ask. Never, under any circumstance say yes. Just smile and breathe. It's not gay, just totally uncomfortable.

132 comments:

Subhash said...

holding pinkies is much more functional and thus manly. It gives the holders more reach and is not as sweaty under the hot sun.

The Warcraft King said...

I just busted out laughing - I was in Mumbai recently and WHY THE HELL ARE DUDES holding hands is my question.

Anyways, it was funny - thanks.

Pashmeen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Strat8 said...

I lived in Bombay for the first 22 years of my life, and I myself always wondered why all these random dudes on the street held hands....I always assumed they must be gay. In any case, believe me, regular guys don't do that. I don't know how things work on the street among the poor and the uneducated, but it does not exist in the educated urban middle and upper classes. If some random guy had wanted to hold my hand, I would have been just as creeped out as someone anywhere else in the world.

Subhash said...

Strat8 - Firmly grip your brothers' palms, whether they be members of the hoi polloi or otherwise, in the manly name of bromance.

enagar.com said...

lets say its a cultural thing... and indians r wired very different from dudes from USA

Joel said...

Hence, the title of the blog enagar.com!

George Paul said...

like strat8 said, it does not exist in the "Urban middle class" AKA: watches Friends or Full House....

Amused said...

As a woman, I find it a total turn-off to see two "hetero" (?) men holding hands, as I see in India when I visit relatives.

The question then is - why is it still a taboo in many places for opposite genders to hold hands or hug in public?

I just don't get it.

And you do not see women holding hands with each other anywhere near to the same extent you do men.

I say it's all due to a lack of a dating culture in India (outside of the metros).

The affection gets misplaced when you are a single man in your mid-twenties who has never even kissed a woman, or you are a married man in your 30s who is not allowed to hold the hand or massage the feet of his wife in front of mama while watching TV.

deena said...

on a related note, my bf's mom always said that there are no gay people in india, that it's a north american social "problem," hahahaha! sorry mama:

http://gaybombay.org/misc/aboutgb.html
http://members.tripod.com/gaydelhi/

theDudecares said...

"holding hands" in Haji Ali, Mumbai.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishashukla/2597635027/

Anonymous said...

I also observed this regularly while in India. My wife, who is Indian, informed me that it's the guys from the villages who do this, not the more westernised middle class. She wasn't really sure why they do it though. I also observed guys walking along with their arms around each others shoulders, while whistling at and making leud remarks to women they passed. I was quite perplexed to see this, as to see guys walking like that in Melbourne (Australia) would almost certainly mean they were gay.

Clearly men in India, at least from the villages are far more comfortable with showing affection to their male friends.

Anonymous said...

Or the truth be told. Indian men are far more homo social and androgynous. As a queer guy in India , you never have to worry about getting bashed for cuddling with you partner in public.
Simple explanation is the best one
There are lots of queer guys in India who do as the please without caring about labels.

Indian Vegetarian Cooking said...

I bet these two guys are holding the hands to make sure they can cross heavy traffic roads in India with the help of each other. A big support dude. Or they might be saying to each other we are going to have a good dinner tonight ...

Anonymous said...

In India, all places are too crowded and friends get frequently lost while in the street. So friends always hold hands. They sometimes even kiss so that people around them move away in disgust.

My defense. I cant think of any thing else.

Anonymous said...

funny, i googled it as i've seen some inidian construction workers holding hands the other day. i don't think it's gay at all. men who are not afraid of touching another man are likely the more hetero than those who are creeped out by the idea.

Anonymous said...

Here in Singapore, I've seen some who held hands and even saw a guy put his head on his friend's shoulder. I know they're straight guys. For years, I've brushed off the "why's" and it's only today that I tried to search in Y! 'Why do Indian guys hold hands?' LOL
Ty for this post! I enjoyed reading it :)

Anonymous said...

i am part indian you know

Karan said...

while making out in public is acceptable in western culture ,holding hands of your close friend is considered gay.I don't understand how a culture which is so free can be so narrow minded about such a small thing as holding hands.

hiddenson said...

Funny interesting post :)

@Karan

Sure, let's talk about narrow minded, while it's still borderline taboo for opposite genders to show signs of affection... while travelling women can hardly walk the streets without getting all sorts of looks and comments from all social classes... while you have to triple check your wardrobe to not shock or appear indecent when in the meantime Indians can walk freely in their ethnic clothes all over South East Asia, UK, and what not.

Really? Narrowmindedness? You guys could hold each other by the crotch for all I care, but learn to respect other cultural differences too!

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

@ Warcraft King: After you're finished laughing, you should ask yourself the question, why are western males so scared of holding hands with each other. I'll give you the answer, because the anti-man wimps rule the western men's spaces -- and they condition men by inculcating this fear in them -- by equating it with the 'third genders' whom you call 'gay'.

@ strat8: Indian wimps copying westerners goras really piss me off. Stop trying to misrepresent India, so you can please your gora sahibs.
It is true that western education instills fear of intimacy between men, however, till about a few years ago, (before they heterosexualized/homosexualized India to such an extreme extent), men have always held hands with each other -- even those in urban, educated areas -- except those who are great copycats of the stupid westernerss, with no brains of their own, or those who are real wimps.

@ George, Strat8 is wrong, but he is increasingly becoming right -- unfortunately for men.

@ Amused, as a man, I'm utterly disgusted to see a woman holding hands with a man, because such a woman is a whore, and glorifying this practise is glorifying whoreness.


@ Deena, your mother in law is partly right. Till recently, there were only three categories in India, men, women and third genders. Manly men who had sex with men were part of men (Indian 'straight'), and feminine males who had sex with men were part of 'third gender' like the feminine males who had sex with women (Indian 'gay'). Those who call themselves 'gays' were actually the third genders.

@ anonymous western queer: I hope you stupid queers would stop equating what you stupidly call 'homo-sociality' with androgynity and 'hetero-sociality' with masculinity -- because the truth is quite the opposite.

Queers don't have to worry about doing what they want in most places in the world, its the manly, non-androgynous males who have to worry about these things. I'd change your sentence like this:

"There are lots of straight (non-western definition of straight)/ non-queer/ manly guys in India who do as the please without caring about labels."

George Paul said...

@Reclaiming Natural Manhood did you actually say that a woman holding a man's hand makes her a whore!!??
WOW, i cannot even comprehend the lunacy in that statement!!

Anonymous said...

Not just India either. I've travelled in Egypt considerably and seen unlikely pairings of policemen and soldiers holding hands just fine! Its possible that the police I saw (traffic cops, an endangered species in Cairo) were holding hands just so they could be sure the other guy hadn't been swept away by a passing truck.

As someone brought up on and happy with the western norm, I still found this just fine to see. What other people do to express comradeship or even affection of any level is none of my beeswax. It would be nice to see my terrible open-mindedness reciprocated (even if only mildly) in places like the UAE, though. If Joe Public in Dubai is afraid of being corrupted by the terrible sight of a married hetero couple walking hand-in-hand, they could always either not look, or perhaps think that these two people may actually love each other? When even non-lewd/mild public displays of married affection are banned, that society ends up doomed, IMO!

Anonymous said...

Well, how about an indian and a chinese men hold hands? What does it mean? I just saw it on a train.. (toilet, brb)

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

@ George Paul, you think the normal societies are lunatic, because you Americans have built an unnatural, pervert society, with the power of money and technology, where the whores are celebrated as 'normal'.

I mean its pathetic, that the whores and wimps of the world, not only display their pervertness with gaiety in the west, they even chide the normal cultures for not being perverts like them, and make fun of these cultures.

There is hardly a woman left in your society, that is not a slut. And btw, men who hold hands with women are wimps -- they should be part of the LGBT, the queer movement. For that matter, there is hardly a man left in the West.

And, do you want to know what is really lunatic -- men afraid to hold hands with other men, because of fear of social ridicule (its the social ridicule and the minidset that creates it, that is lunatic).

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

Sure, let's talk about narrow minded, while it's still borderline taboo for opposite genders to show signs of affection...
@ hiddenson,
You make a lot of big deal ahout so-called 'heterosexuals' and whores not being able to hold hands in public -- but do you have any idea that male-female relationships have been given the upper place in the society, over other relationships, including those between men, only because of their procreative value. But this power cannot be unlimited. Wherever there is power, there has to be restraints, so that it doesn't become abusive. And male-female relationships have become abusive of other human traits, including that of friendships and affection between men, over siblings bonds, over parental bonds ...
Do you know how many psycho-social mechanisms exist to force men with women, in order to make them procreate. You can't use that power to indulge in heterosexual pervertness, and use all the power but refuse to bind it to procreation.
As long as the male-female relationship enjoys tremendous social powers, it has to follow certain norms. It can't afford the irresponsible social display of sexuality practised by gays.
Otherwise, leave the social power granted to heterosexual relationships, and very few men will then care for them.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

@ hiddenson,

Why are rights of men any inferior than the rights of women? Are you a feminist/Queer/woman? or just an anti-man?

Can two male friends cross the road in the US hand in hand, if they feel close to each other, without being jeered at, or even stoned?

Why is heterosexual pervertness put on such a high pedestal in the west, that it surpasses the rights of everything and everyone else?

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

@ the Anonymous fellow who is happy with the western norms -- you must be queer (gay or hetero) or a woman to be happy with the western norms -- because, they are extremely unjust and anti-man.

You can't compare the freedom for two men to hold hands with the freedom for heterosexual couples to hold hand.

Men are not allowed socially or legally or religously to love or have sex with each other in marriage, like men and women are == not even in the west, where they can't do that without being 'gay.' It's like saying its ok for a woman to date men, by being a 'whore.'

At least, this social intimacy as it exists in normal societies should be the norm everywhere, because that is the only space available for any kind of male bonding, which is an important and healthy facet of life, much more than the heterosexual pervertness you're vouching for.

Allowing heterosexuality the freedom to be socially or sexually intimate in public, when it is already given such extreme powers in marriage -- i.e. a total reign over the formal space ... will make the trait of heterosexuality all powerful, abusive and exploitative, like it has become in the west, and it will not even allow men to hold hands, socially, as we can see in the west.
It's only fair to expect restraint from heterosexual relationships, even if some wimps fit in very well in the anti-man western system.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

@ Deena, thankfully, the only whores that were there in India were in the red light areas.

Now you'll be happy to see whores with bfs all around the place, and like in the west, they hate to see men holding hands, because the bitches are so pampered by an unnatural society.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

@ enagar.com, Indians are not wired diferently from the US ciitizens.

And holding hands between men is not a cultural thing. It's a biological thing -- found amongst all men in all cultures, all across the time.

On the contrary, hand holding between man and woman is a western/ christian cultural thing, only found in the modern west -- although, to some extent it started after Christianity started to rule the west.

It's one of the most effeminate things to do, as any non-westernized male will tell you.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

@ Karan, when any human trait is given more powers than it deserves over another, then it tends to be abusive and seeks to wipe out its rival trait.

Heterosexuality is worshipped and given power to the level of pervertness in the west ... and in turn, it cannot co-exist with even social intimacy amongst men. This is the worst form of intolerance and disrcimination, but since, the victims are men, who cares?

YOu can't even imagine stigmatizing hand holding between females, because in the west, women have power, while men don't.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"In many places throughout Asia, holding hands amongst men is considered a common demonstration of hetero friendship."
A very misleading statement.

You should know, that originally, there are no 'heteros' in India. Men are just men. They do what is their social duty and they fulfil the traditional norms of manhood, that don't force men to have relationships with women or to love them, but just to penetrate them in marriage and beget children. And then they are free to be men, unlike in the west.

Of course, men are open to sexual and romantic bonds with other men, in the privacy of men's spaces, again, not because, women are not available, but because, men need men, much more than they need women. In fact, their natural need for women is pretty low, except when they're queer, and there is a lot of natural/ mutual repulsion for women, after a certain point -- sexually/ emotionally and sexually. In fact, in all macho societies, the popular saying goes, (ancient Greece), if men could reproduce amongst themselves, they won't need women at all), and (Pathan society) Women are for reproduction and men for pleasure.

The kind of 'heterosexuality' displayed by western males is actually, not only pervert but characteristics of only a few males in nature.

Men hold hands with men, because men want to, not becasue they can't hold hands with women. Of course, in India, they can do anything they want with women in private -- so they're not really repressed (except the whores and perverts). Western males, on the other hand are pressurised to hold hands with women and to not hold hands with men, just like they are presurised to date women (otherwise you're gay -- something men just hate, not because they don't desire men, but because, gay means lack of manhood/ third gender/ namard).

Abhirup said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sybille said...

U gotta be kidding me haha. It is not normal for men to hold hands unless they are gay. Men and women who are dating should totally hold hands in public! Some of you indians are so backwards no wonder india is not developped!

Anonymous said...

Great, so dudes holding hands is normal. Such a relief :-) its very sweet actually. Btw i have seen many indian hetero couples perched on motorcycles kissing, hugging, holding hands, talking etc. Soo i dont know, who says this is banned? How is it 'not allowed' when i saw literally hundreds of straight couples do this. Straight, gay and friends (both straight and gay) should hold hands. Don't be controlled by norms of what men should and shouldnt do -- That is basically dumb. Thanks :-)

Anonymous said...

@reclaiming natural manhood- you clearly have too much time on your hands. think you need to calm yourself down!

Rg said...

It's a different culture, language, and body language. I have traveled all over the world and have come to appreciate it all.

Anonymous said...

I think it's interesting, because it's not something we see in the west from heterosexual men. I won't disrespect it. But to say that affection with the opposite sex is wrong...huh? I had no idea, I honestly thought heterosexual men liked affection w/women. Maybe I'm a "whore" though.

Abhirup said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

To the anonymous poster who talked about heterosexual men's affection for women --

The truth is there is no such thing as a heterosexual man or a homosexual man, even in the west -- these categories are misleading.

There are only men and there are third genders (effeminate males).

And, men who show affection to women or any amount of emotional closeness are less straight (where straight means males with manhood), and gay means males without manhood.

Anonymous said...

@Reclaiming Natural Manhood,

There is no heterosexual or homosexual man? What really do you mean? We are born with our sexuality, whatever it is.
And isn't your country one of the biggest homophobic nations existing today?

Anonymous said...

Well the only reason Americans are so weirded out by it is because Americans have no culture. If you go to a country and want to understand it, well then that's your problem. You don't need to understand WHY, that's just how it is. You have to throw away everything you know in the culture you are used to to adapt to another. Strat8, get some culture, stop being ignorant and grow the fuck up.

Anonymous said...

In India, a man holding hands with girls other than wife is called as a girly boy or unisex.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

In any manly culture a man holding hands with a woman -- wife or not -- is considered girlish or unisex, esp. if done publicly, certainly not in public.

The problem is that there are hardly any men left in the west. They're all unisex.

Manhood only involves penetrating women, and has no room for passive emotions.

Openyourmind said...

@ Reclaiming Natural Manhood

You seem to believe that what is Indian is right. No, there are many cultures in this world (as there are religions), who are you to say which one is correct? If anything, the multicultural nature of the West probably makes it a closer estimate of the true "innate" nature of people.

Using India as an example of what is "natural" is very misguided; the strict religious/cultural rules that prevent male-female intimacy in India are an extremely unnatural state of affairs (evolutionary speaking). But I agree that the cultural disgust of (heterosexual) male-male intimacy in the West is also unnatural. However, civilized people engage in monogamy so married men should not be sleeping with their male friends, if only to prevent the spread of STDs.

Indian men holding hands is most likely a product of culture. Men in other cultures express affection in different ways such as through shared humour and hugging.

What you seem to be saying is that people are innately sexually attracted to both sexes i.e. bisexuality. I agree to an extent, studies have shown that our sexuality lies on a continuum.
From your posts, my guess is you are more to the "homosexual" side of this continuum. Women disgust you (probably a combination of biological factors & a culture that denies the formation of male-female affiliation) and so you can't understand why men and women in the West have deeply passionate romance that is not merely about "penetration".

Intimacy/affiliation in male-male relationships is important, as is intimacy/affiliation in male-female relationships. Evolutionary, women needed men to care about them deeply in order to elicit their protection. Men needed to form more pack-like social relationships.

You seem extremely ignorant and set in your ways - open your mind a bit, please. Perhaps in a society where women are completely depersonalised by culture & religion, manhood may only involve "penetrating women". But in the West, men are attracted to women both sexually and for their minds/personality. You might view these emotions as "passive" but that is merely indicative of how you were socialized and emotionalized in your development. In a civilized modern society, emotions regarding same or opposite-sex people are no different.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

Openyourmind, if I'm not mistaken you're Bulan again -- the third gender Indian guy that likes men, that pesters me incessantly with his queer view of the world, using differing usernames. Your problem is that you fail to understand the world of men, and being a third gender you think what you see from the outside of men is their real self.
But, in any case, since, you've asked this question on an open forum, I'd answer this like I'd to any other poster.

Anonymous said...

"the world of men" is again a cultural construct. Your idea of a man seems to be simply "penetrating women" and fornicating with their male friends. Luckily men nowadays are not so primitive.

Any decent human-being has out-civilized our dark, primitive roots (which have consisted of rape, peadophilia, cannibalism etc etc).

That you believe men should not be emotionally attached to women in their lives (yet oddly you think it's fine for men to be emotional and intimate with their male friends o.O) is just frankly odd. The ability to form emotional attachments is what makes us decent, moral beings (even animals form strong affiliations - see Prairie voles).

And no I'm not this "Bulan" of which you speak.

Anonymous said...

It is also very narrow-minded of you to think "being a man" is showing no emotion, and expressing no affection (except to male friends - again, your line of thinking is bizarre).

A real man shows love to the women in his life, because women perhaps innately need more emotional reassurance that they are loved. Not showing love is the mark of a cruel man, who puts his selfish needs (such as not wanting to show vulnerability) above those of others.

Human contact (whether it is male or female) is designed to be soothing and reinforcing - unless you have Autism.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"the world of men" is again a cultural construct."
You're forwarding a typical lgbt pov. and its totally distorted.

You seem to think that everything that contradicts the hetero-homo divide is a social construct, and the only biological reality of this world is the lgbt and its so-called counterpart 'heterosexual.'

The reality is the only social construct is 'sexual orientation.' NOT, the world of men. All mammals have male groups/ spaces distinct from female and 'third gender' spaces.

Any decent human-being has out-civilized our dark, primitive roots (which have consisted of rape, peadophilia, cannibalism etc etc).

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous above,
To be fair,we should not have either 100% heterosexuality or 100% homosexuality.
Men fornicating with their male friends and not showing emotions to women is as bad as men only showing affection to women but staying aloof from other men due to fear of being called 'gay'.
I think we need a balance. Which cannot happen unless we keep up with gender stereotypes and artificial gender roles rather than embracing nature as it flows.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"we should not have either 100% heterosexuality or 100% homosexuality."

Very wrong. Things should be left to nature. Human beings should not interfere in things like emotional needs of individuals.

In fact, we should have neither homosexuality or heterosexuality. Both of these are third gender, invalid terms that actually mean the 'third gender' and the 'manhood' identities, wrongly defined in terms of desire towards men aor women.

"Which cannot happen unless we keep up with gender stereotypes and artificial gender roles rather than embracing nature as it flows."

(a) Rejecting gender roles is one thing, rejecting gender identities is unnatural and unhealthy. So, if you reject the feminine gender of males as a separate gender, and instead redefine it in terms of sexual desires, then it is unnatural exercise. And, anti-man too.

(b) The biggest gender role of men is to desire women. And, unless men are freed from that, they can never flow naturally. The biggest anti-man mechanism through which a compulsory exclusive desire for women is enforced as a prerequisite for manhood is by renaming the manhood identity as 'heterosexual.'

Similarly, a desire for men has been invalidly made the gender role of third genders in the west, which is achieved through renaming the third genders as 'homosexuals.' And this puts the biggest pressure on men to suppress their need for sexual/ romantic and social intimacy with another man.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"as bad as men only showing affection to women but staying aloof from other men due to fear of being called 'gay'.
"
Gay is a third gender, emasculated identity, and it is perfectly normal for men to fear the term 'gay' and hate it intensely.

Men should not have to be 'gay' to desire men, just as women should not have to be 'whores' to desire men.

Although, the society does reserve all the formal space for male female relationship, and leaves no space for relationships between normal men. When women already have such a sole right over men, formally, then it makes sense to put some restrain on this power unduly given to women, and demand that any woman that shows desire for men be considered a 'whore.' Unless, women agree to forsake this artificial power over men vested in them.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

The only reason the society doesn't want to leave male sexuality to nature, is, because it knows that if it does that, then hardly any man would prefer relationships with women. And, reproduction process will suffer.

This can be verified with any other mammalian species and any human society, which allowed men to be men without having to reproduce by penetrating women.

Anonymous said...

A flaw in your argument is that if women are all whores then society wouldn't need to encourage male-female relationships.

There are many places where men can gather in groups, and if they are distracted by women then doesn't that just prove that men innately enjoy the company of women? On a whole, men prefer to be physically intimate with women, and you can argue this is a social construct until you're blue in the face but that's the way it's been since the dawn of civilization.

Nature has made it so men are attracted to women. Sexual contact between males makes much less evolutionary sense than sexual contact between males and females.
If men innately preferred sex with men than with women then we would have died out a LONG time ago!

Whether humans are pair-bonders is a contentious topic, but women undoubtedly needed men in prehistoric times otherwise they would have died, so men must have some innate affection for women.

It seems like you have extrapolated the phenomenon of men holding hands, into all men wanting to have sex with each other. Just because YOU have homosexual tendencies, does not mean these other men do.
I hug my parents, it doesn't mean I want to do anything with them sexually. You are taking an innocent act of close human contact and construing it as indicating want for sexual contact (they are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!).

Now I don't doubt that men have a high sex drive, and as they say "any hole is a goal". But I think man's desire for woman greatly outweighs their desire for other men.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"A flaw in your argument is that if women are all whores then society wouldn't need to encourage male-female relationships"

I never said all women are whores. Look at mammalian world, females seek sex only when they need offsprings, otherwise, they don't let males near them. Humans are just every bit mammals, with sexuality distorted by thousands of years of unnatural politics.

Even in the non-west, even today, women hardly care about women, and don't want to hang out with men. They are only interested in marriage and children -- children being their basic drive in life.

The west in order to promote 'heterosexuality' glamourizes the whores and psychologically pressurises all women to be whores. Also, being whores gives power to women over men, in the western society, because men are forced to bow down to the sexual power of women, in order to qualify for manhood.

Also, the society does not need to promote women to be sexual with men -- because, most women at some point of time, need sex with men, in order to get offsprings. However, most men, under natural circumstances, do not care for women, esp. not for most part of their lives, especially in youth. A small portion of men care for reproductive sex in the later adulthood -- around 39 years of age ... And, only a very minor percentage of men -- app. 2 - 5% of men care for a deep, exclusive, year after year relationship with women. That is nature.
If men are broken from other men, with social mechanisms, like in most human societies, and particularly in the west, then a lot of men can train themselves to transfer their sexual/romantic/social needs from men to women -- and that is why these anti-man mechanisms to break men from men and force them with women exist. However, A large number of men can never fully transfer their need from men to women, so they lead unfulfilled lives -- because, becoming lgbt is not even the last option for them -- they'd prefer death. Because lgbt means losing your manhood.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"and if they are distracted by women then doesn't that just prove that men innately enjoy the company of women?"

Men are never distracted by women when they are with men. It's only that in westernized societies men are trained to pretend that they are distracted by women -- its calling 'acting up.' Men are put in an extreme, cut-throat race for manhood, where each one has to prove how much they need women, and men are made to feel especially vulnerable, when they are in an all-male company -- especially, because then the sexuality between men comes into play (have you ever seen what men do when they are all on their own --- they usually play sexual games with each other, whether suppressed sexual needs for men is vented out in the form of pranks and other such stuff). The more insecure men are made to feel in all male groups (its just like making men feel insecure when they hold hands with another man), the more they will talk about women, in order to feel secure about their manhood again (because, proving your interest in women gives manhood to men on a platter in westernized societies). This has nothing to do with an interest in women, but about trying to win the race for manhood, by winning important manhood points from the society. It's called politics of manhood.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"On a whole, men prefer to be physically intimate with women."

I have worked with and studied men very, very closely, in groups, individually -- everywhere, in non-westernized societies, and I've seen how they are forced to be heterosexual as the society westernizes.

If all men wanted physical intimacy with women -- so exclusively, then men would never have been so insecure about their heterosexual status, that you can scare them into non holding hands with each other, simply by calling them 'gays.' And, there would be no hatred for third genders who call themselves 'gays,' because, it would leave women all for the men. Men hate gays because, they are third genders who stigmatize the trait of men liking men for the men. They steal men's spaces to desire men.

There was no need for such extreme psycho-social mechanisms to force men with women, and to break men from men, if most men naturally feel such a strong need for intimacy with women.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"and you can argue this is a social construct until you're blue in the face but that's the way it's been since the dawn of civilization."
It's funny, how the west, esp. its LGBTs think that how westerners think and behave today is how the entire world has always been. That is simply bullshit.
Just a few years ago, things in India were WAY different. Hardly any man had girlfriends, even when you could always have them with just a little secrecy. Afterall, a few men did have girlfriends. But, most men were not only happy without girls, they hated girls who tried to intrude into men's spaces -- esp. sexually. So, men resisted women's entry into army, boys resisted having their schools made into co-education schools, and so on. Not too long ago, I saw a group of street rowdies harrassing a girl (whore) on bus who sought to stand in the midst of the boys in the bus crowd, in order to be 'close' to them. They openly called her a whore and discouraged her behaviour. This tendency has been all too common amongst boys -- to fiercely protect men's spaces, esp. against sexually aggressive women. If men were really heterosexual, these men should have felt suppressed and should have welcomed these whores with open arms. (Things are different today, because, the forces of westernization have artifically changed the roles of manhood using their immense financial and technical powers).
Men spaces guard their spaces against women all over the world. All macho, masculine traditions thrive on keeping women out. The wrestling warriors in India (pehlwans), e.g., keep away from even the 'shadow of girls.' The fiercest warriors vow never to marry girls. Male sports even in the west, till recently, kept away from girls. It's the queers and women who have forced men's spaces to become heterosexualized.
Not long ago, when our society was only starting to be heterosexualized, and a whore called 'Rakhi Sawant,' held a huge public programme, where she danced half naked in front of a rowdy male youth crowd, making sexual gestures to them. The rowdies got so enraged, that they created a riot, broke the platform and stopped the programme. That is true male nature, without the extreme pressures to be heterosexual.
The heterosexualized western media in India, suddenly took notice of this event, and took it upon itself to raise 'Rakhi Sawant' to the status of stardom -- in order to mainstream female heterosexual aggression.
About a decade ago, there was an advertisement often displayed on TV, where a whore asking for a lift from a macho, alpha male, was snubbed by him, who left her behind. The forces of westernization that followed soon after, took strong exception to the ad, and made a counter ad, making fun of that macho male, saying he is not 'man' enough.
The westernized media and other forces of heterosexualization, have used immense western capital to force men to become heterosexualized against their wishes, by forcefully changing the roles of manhood. Indeed, in today's schools and colleges in Indian meteros, boys are shamed for holding hands with friends. And, they are shamed for not having girlfriends or for not having had sex with girls. This is what the western society has done to its males already.
You put a gun on the men and force them to be heterosexual, and then you claim, its natural for the masses to do so.
This is the real secret behind 'man's heterosexuality.'

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"Sexual contact between males makes much less evolutionary sense than sexual contact between males and females."
Oh, so we're talking Darwinism here. Y'know what, western science has taken over the age-old western obsession with reproduction from Christianity as well as the task of breaking men from men and forcing them on women.
This obsession with reproduction as being the sole purpose of life, is really pathological in the western society -- be it its science or its religion.
Reproduction is a an important aspect of life, but surely, not the only purpose of life. It's not even a purpose of life --- its just a means. And, you the connection between sex and reproduction in mammals is simply a coincidence. Reproduction process, during evolution has decided to piggy back on 'sex' as the route to achieve offsprings in mammals. However, it had not always been so. Also, sex existed even before reproduction became sexual. It has its own purpose, which western science doesn't want to acknowledge.
Western science is not free from the biases of western society, which has been ruled by Christianity for two thousand years.
In short, there is only a tiny need for male-female sexual contact, in order to achieve reproduction. And, you don't need any further emotional or social bonding beyond what is needed for procreation. This is much more than what the western lgbt concept concept of 'heterosexuality' is all about.
Furthermore, only a small percentage of males need to be engaged in the reproduction process, and for it they only need once in a bluemoon sex with females, mostly in the latter part of their lives.
If food is important for living, you cannot go on eating 24 hours a day. Every good thing has its limits, otherwise, it ceases to be good and becomes a monster -- as has been done with male-female relationships.
Most of today's problems -- starting with Population explosion to environmental degradation, to a fall in the quality of life for every species including humans, can be attributed to the society's obsession with reproduction and hence, male-female sex.
Only a minor part of overall human sex is by nature intended to be between male and female. The rest is for forming strong bonds between two males or two females. This is the same with every mammalian species studied (See "Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemihl).
And, the Darwinian theory of sexual evolution is bullshit. At least, it only holds true minimally. Like the biologist Johann Roughgarden said, the peacock does not have beautiful feathers so that it can hook the females (that the accepted western science claims) but because it is required for socialization amongst other peacocks.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"If men innately preferred sex with men than with women then we would have died out a LONG time ago!"
In nature, the only exclusively and truly heterosexual males are the transgendered ones -- who thinks they are females.

Besides, today the world is on the verge of dying out because of male-female sex (over reproduction).

And, what is the fun of forcing the entire population of men to mate with women enmasse through the use of unnatural technological means like the contraceptives.

You anti-man people, first use the excuse of reproduction to force heterosexuality on men, and then, strive to break the connection of male-female sex from the burden of reproduction, so that you can enjoy it in the same way as men are supposed to enjoy with other men. So, that you can make sex between men totally redundant. But, that is unnatural, and anti-man.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"but women undoubtedly needed men in prehistoric times otherwise they would have died, so men must have some innate affection for women."

It's funny how the west has distorted facts about human nature.

If you look at the mammals, say, the elephants -- the females live in all female groups, and are completely happy about it. They don't need males. Nor do males need females, and are happy in their own male spaces. During the mating season, a few of the males, who are over 45 years of age, seek to impregnate the females (at other times, if a female comes to a male, she may be attacked and killed). And males do have strong sexual/ romantic bonds with each other.
There are a few 'heterosexual' males, who don't want to live in the male spaces (those are the equivalents of the true human heterosexuals). But, they have it real hard, because the female groups won't accept them. They live very lonely lives.
In sheep, another mammal, these 'heterosexual' males live in female groups as though, they were female themselves. There are other clear indications from other species, including humans, that these naturally heterosexual males are transgendered. So, its the heterosexuals that are a minority, and who are different and who should belong in the lgbt group. Gay should actually mean a 'heterosexual' male.

Then again, just because of your premise that females need males, it doesn't follow that it is natural for males to have affection for females as well.
In the ancient Greek society, e.g., where men were not pressurised to be married before they turned 30, the only males who did have relationships with girls were the effeminate, gay males. And, therefore, they would command entire harems of whores, ready to indulge them, endlessly. In this situation, it was the male who was in commanding position, as he was in short supply for the women. In the mammalian kingdom too, its the handful of males that control large harems of females. But, unless they are transgendered, the males only do this during a certain period of their life. And these minority of males (who are not transgendered) still spend a considerable part of their youth, in men's spaces, forming strong male bonds. Also, the non-transgendered males do not have emotional 'bonding' with the females, and don't form 'pairs.' They just do them for a certain period of time, and then they leave them, and come back to the male groups. Most males however, never leave the male spaces for feamles.
So, you see, its 'gay' not to hold hand with men. And its 'gay' to hold hands with girls.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"
It seems like you have extrapolated the phenomenon of men holding hands, into all men wanting to have sex with each other. "

Should I call it your conceitedness or your naivety, that you should really believe that I have extrapolated the phenomenon of men holding hands, into all men wanting to have sex with each other." "Having sex with each other," in any case, sounds like what sex perverts do -- whether with men or women or third genders.

The scare created against men holding hands is just a small visible symptom of the huge conspiracy going on in the west to break men from men.

And, I got to know of men's universal need for love/intimacy with men, from growing up in non-westernized India and working deeply on gender and sexual issues with men. I'm not extrapolating anything. I have seen, observed and experienced this universal male need for men, first hand, and I know that it is, in most cases, far more strong than male need for women can ever be. In fact, when I was growing up, men would usually try to put off marriage as far as possible. Today, they can't say that openly and pretend, as if they couldn't wait to get married.
This would also explain the immense hostility that societies have for man-man bonds, and why societies have been at war with it for so long. Because, men need to be broken from other men, in order to be forced with women.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"Just because YOU have homosexual tendencies, does not mean these other men do.
"
It's funny that I never even had 'homosexual' tendencies. Only third genders have 'homosexual' tendencies. And, only third genders talk of 'man-man' desire as 'homosexual tendencies.' Are you an lgbt?

"You are taking an innocent act of close human contact and construing it as indicating want for sexual contact (they are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!).
"
It's so funny, you accuse me of doing it -- its the west that does it. It calls men who hold hands as 'gay.'

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"Now I don't doubt that men have a high sex drive, and as they say "any hole is a goal". "

Your arguments do thrive on stereotypes.

But, funny, the concept of homo-hetero divide totally rules out this traditional stereotype of men.

"But I think man's desire for woman greatly outweighs their desire for other men."

If we accept the western theory, then all masculine gendered males are exclusively, constantly and extremely heterosexual, while only a very rare minority of males, who are 'different' and feminine gendered are attracted to other men, and hence they are classified as lgbt.

Now, if the western science/culture was being honest, it would not make such a distorted statement -- one that rules the western society so deeply, that the entire society is deeply divided on the hetero-homo lines. And, lest you say that men are naturally heterosexual for taking on the hetero identity -- I have to tell you that this is because the politics of manhood attaches manhood with the heterosexual identity. Otherwise, men would not even touch that identity.
Oh, and in a society which is divided between hetero-homo, I'd decidedly be heterosexual, because of my manhood. It's another matter, that since, my society is not originally heterosexual, I'd strive to stop its heterosexualization.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous above,
I don't agree with you that just because women needed men for protection,and evolution requires procreation, men must have innate and that too and exclusive affection for only women.
If you argue that men have affection for women because they give offsprings, then that does not necessarily rule out they may be attracted to same-sex as well and that, their love of women is just because of cultural reasons such as raising a family together.In this case, the choosing of a mate is for social reasons and not something naturally liked.
On the other hand,if you claim that this feeling of love is innate and happens just spontaneously, then, you need not even bring evolution theories into account. Because, what happens spontaneously does not always have any social purpose. I mean,it is not like, a man is always drawn to an attractive woman on the street because he has thoughts of sex with her for evolutionary procreation for benefit of society. Rapes and sexual harassment by straight men don't occur keeping reproduction in mind and often this kind of physical attraction does not have any social goal at all. The laws put against women showing their bodies such as burqua for women in muslim countries are actually there so that they don't have to bear unwanted sexual attention from heterosexual men. This means that this kind of attraction of straight men to women is not beneficial to society but rather, can be highly destructive.

@Reclaiming Natural Manhood
I think you mean most men are bisexual or pansexual.
If there were a large number of gay or bisexual men,such similar protections as of women in muslim nations,would have been there for young boys too.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

hmmm, a western feminist woman's pov.

The problem is the west has been ruined by distorted, vested pov of feminists and queers, which rule men and manhood.

First of all, there is NO such thing as straight and gay and bisexual -- so stop using them when talking out of western contexts. Please don't ruin other societies by your dirty politics.

There is just a man's attraction for men and a man's attraction for women. There is no straight man's attraction for women or a gay man's attraction for men.

Women have a vested interest in heterosexualization of men, especially, masculine, sexually aggressive and dominant women, who like to rule men and control their lives, and so they support the anti-man system of sexual orientation, as well as the third genders who wrongly define themselves as 'men who like men.'

Sexual orientation is a conspiracy against men to force them to be heterosexual, and feminist/masculine women are one of the strongest vested interest group in the oppression of men.

As for protection for boys in Muslim countries -- that is a strange logic, as there are so many other factors in play, BUT, yes, the fact is, that in Muslim countries boys are also protected from men.

See this comment by indscribe on this site for example:

http://www.anindianmuslim.com/2006/05/seven-beautiful-couplets-of-urdus_28.html

Comment:

"Gay is not the term, it is Pederasty--the classical homosexuality.

Meer was bisexual just like many in those days were.

He had relations with women, as also with young boys--Amrad or Aghlam. It was ironically considered a matter of prestige to have as many 'aghlaams' as possible.

Read any account of that era, it was too common then. Till 1940s, this 'waba' was quite common and that was why boys were not allowed to leave homes after sunset.

It was something that was so widely accepted that nobody bothered to discuss it much.

However, read Tazkira-e-Khush-moarka-e-zeba or any other text of the era that throw light on it.

Or the autobiographies of Akhtarul Iman or even hockey player aslam sher khan's 'To Hell with Hockey' which is available online.

In his autobiography Zubair Rizwi writes how his father had to secretly take him away from North India to Hyderabad, to save him from gangs of perverts in the city, as he was growing.

As far as poetry is concerned, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi's legendary work on Meer 'the four volumes of Sher Shor Angez' must be read by every Meer-shinaas.

That's a subject I don't particularly like discussing. However, if you know any poet or litterateur who is 60-70 plus, he will tell you about the era."

प्राकृतिक मर्दानगी said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

Of course, as a strong vested interest against men, you completely ignore that there is immense pressure on men to desire women. And that it has to have a strong influence on the sexual choices of men. And on their choice of 'sexual identity.'

Anonymous said...

@Reclaiming Natural Manhood,
I am sorry if I hurt you somehow but that was not how I meant it.I just said that if men are not really straight,then there wouldn't be so many laws for protecting young girls, atleast, not more than for young boys.
In my area,I take extra precaution for my teenage daughter being covered than my adolescent son.
Sorry but my intention was not to spam and create any vested interest here. Also I have been supportive of men holding hands as you can see in my previous posts.

Neolosky said...

"It's another matter, that since, my society is not originally heterosexual, I'd strive to stop its heterosexualization."

Lolz, are you kidding? Just because holding hands is accepted in India does not mean sex among men is. I am a lesbian who has been to India before as a tourist and heterosexuality forms the backbone of Indian civilizations.Homosexuality is a big taboo thing in India or perhaps most of traditional Asia.Infact,unlike the west, India hasn’t made all efforts to legalize homosexuality because it hasn't really even considered the possibility that men or women could ever be romantically attracted to same sex. If anything, it has normalized men or women holding hands together only because it is platonic affection and there is no possibility ever considered that two individuals of same sex may ever be sexually attracted!

In the west on the other hand, we have heterosexual people who fear of being seen as homosexual/bisexual if they hold hands with same gender,simply because the concept of the possibility of same-sex attraction among a certain section of individuals has been formally recognized here.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

@anonymous above,
I'm sorry, I overreacted. Please forgive for my strong words.
The problem is that I am tired of westerners trying to categorize us as hetero/homo and then going on with their analysis, when I know that they simply distort everything the moment they divide people as hetero/homo.
Like this western lgbt chauvinist called Neolosky.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"Just because holding hands is accepted in India does not mean sex among men is."
come out of your ugly, dark and dingy lgbt well, and see the outside world for what it is -- and do remember to take off your tainted hetero-homo glasses.

Just because sex among men is not formally accepted does not mean that we are a heterosexual society.

This world is NOT divided between heterosexual and homosexual, and the absence of one doesn't mean the presence of another.

I remember an incident that I heard from a retired Director of a premier medical institute in India. This was some 20 or 25 years ago, a group of doctors were discussing HIV/ AIDS.
These were the times, when the western terminologies of homo and hetero were still unheard of (homo was sometimes used for third genders, but there was simply no concept of a 'heterosexual').
Someone mentioned that in India, the HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual sex.
You know what the doctors felt? They were amazed and someone got up and said, "I had no idea that there were so many of those in our country!"
Unless the faggots spread the lie of there being 'homosexuals' there is no sense of being a 'heterosexual.'
If you called someone a heterosexual a few years ago, in India, you might get badly beaten up.
My younger uncle once joked in front of my elder uncle that the elder uncle had a love marriage with my aunt.
This enraged my elder uncle so much that he chided off the younger uncle bitterly, and warned him, never to say such demeaning things about him again!!

That my dear lgbt chauvinist, is the truth of non-western heterosexuality, that you people are so fond to assume. Like in your own society.

If you don't make up the 'heterosexuals' out of the blue, how will your invalid identity as an lgbt be possible?

That is why you go about forcing the 'gay' identity on people all around the world.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"India hasn’t made all efforts to legalize homosexuality because it hasn't really even considered the possibility that men or women could ever be romantically attracted to same sex."

Neolosky, what has men or women being romantically attracted to same-sex got anything to do with 'homosexuality'?

There is no such thing as 'same-sex' -- at least, it is an incomplete descriptor. You cannot not consider the Gender identity of people (different from sex identity -- gender refers to inner sex).

So, unless you say whether you're talking about a feminine or a masculine male's sexuality ... and whether towards a feminine or masculine male or towards physical hermaphrodites, the entire concept of 'sexual orientation' is useless, and it only serves to make man-man desire inaccessible to men by stigmatizing it!

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"In the west on the other hand, we have heterosexual people who fear of being seen as homosexual/bisexual if they hold hands with same gender,simply because the concept of the possibility of same-sex attraction among a certain section of individuals has been formally recognized here."

Are you sure, its as simple as that!

So, will the so-called 'lgbts' be scared of holding hands with the opposite sex, for the fear of being considered what you call 'heterosexual?'

The truth is that there is a very strong anti-man lobby in your society -- such as the gays and some men -- who go about putting pressure on men to stop holding hands with each other, by condeming them as 'gays,' BECAUSE, gays are simply stigamtized for men - not because they like men, but because, they are males without manhood (or half-males/ half-females, or females inside male bodies, or effeminate males, etc).
But, this fact is seldom clearly stated, so man=man desire has to take the shit.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

There would be no 'heteronormativity' in the west, had the faggots not insisted on calling themselves 'men who like men.' And, had they not forced the 'men who like women' identity on the males with manhood.

Neolosky said...

Perhaps due to our cultural differences,I am not sure I have understood your points.

"Just because sex among men is not formally accepted does not mean that we are a heterosexual society.

This world is NOT divided between heterosexual and homosexual, and the absence of one doesn't mean the presence of another.
"

Do you mean Indians are not expected to have romance and sex within the strict confines of a heterosexual
marriage set-up and they marry only as a social obligation? But,considering this aspect, how would I
be acepted there if I came out to my family I am not interested in men but women? How on earth would I
be accepted under a sexually conservative culture where even heterosexual love-affairs are done in
stealth? But does this imply more freedom in India? No.

Neolosky said...

"So, unless you say whether you're talking about a feminine or a masculine male's sexuality...."
Ahh.Now I get that you are trying to bring the gender equation here. Yes you do bring up a good point here. However a feminine gay male is called as such and a masculine gay man is called as such. I am not sure why the terms themselves aren't sufficient? Is it because of femininity b. eing stigmatized and sexuality among men equated with only these feminine males? However, that is just media. In reality, most men attracted to men realy aren't effeminate. It is often a part of their masculinity and they don't have any gender problems. I am also a feminine lesbian. So yes, I do feel pretty upset when they call me with terms like 'dyke', 'queer' etc. But then, that is just plain IGNORANCE.

Neolosky said...

"If you called someone a heterosexual a few years ago, in India, you might get badly beaten up.
My younger uncle once joked in front of my elder uncle that the elder uncle had a love marriage with my aunt.
This enraged my elder uncle so much that he chided off the younger uncle bitterly, and warned him, never to say such demeaning things about him again!!"

I understand this is because of a sexually conservative culture in India. Indians don't like to be pompous about their romantic lives. But how does that rule out heterosexuality as normal? I mean the point here is if the uncle would feel anything positive if told he likes men?

Neolosky said...

"Are you sure, its as simple as that!
So, will the so-called 'lgbts' be scared of holding hands with the opposite sex, for the fear of being considered what you call 'heterosexual?'"

That is laughable as lgbt folks always would wish they were heterosexual. Infact, I have tried to date men before to show I am seen as normal and heterosexual. The only thing is later I realized it is not for me. Most of my female friends are straight and enjoy relationships with men, I am particularly indifferent to men. So even the conservative Christian view that sexuality is a choice is wrong.

Neolosky said...

"The truth is that there is a very strong anti-man lobby in your society -- such as the gays and some men -- who go about putting pressure on men to stop holding hands with each other, by condeming them as 'gays,' BECAUSE, gays are simply stigamtized for men - not because they like men, but because, they are males without manhood (or half-males/ half-females, or females inside male bodies, or effeminate males, etc)."

I do understand this people equating sexuality with gender but as I said, that is just a puritanical/traditional view of things and is ignorance.Yes,whatever it is, man holding hands or man having romance with man, needs to be made acceptable. Probably it is just that man holding hands is accepted in India and the latter in the west. However,we should strive for a culture where we can just be themselves regardless of emotional and sexual preferences. In that aspect, neither the west nor the east is particularly healthy and we do have a long way to go.

Neolosky said...

"If you don't make up the 'heterosexuals' out of the blue, how will your invalid identity as an lgbt be possible?

That is why you go about forcing the 'gay' identity on people all around the world."

I think you are trying to advocate that sexuality is in a spectrum and that the heterosexuals are not really all that heterosexual but having some degree of bisexuality.Yes, in some ways I agree. But the fact is my female friends are more towards hetrosexual and I am more towards lesbian.That is what we imply when we say sexuality is not a choice to conservative people. I have had a hard time convincing my mom that I did not choose to get drawn to other women.

Neolosky said...

"There would be no 'heteronormativity' in the west, had the faggots not insisted on calling themselves 'men who like men.' And, had they not forced the 'men who like women' identity on the males with manhood."

Do you mean lgbt portrayed the people as heterosexual?
But you see, heteronormativity is some kind of practice that was started before the dawn of human civilizations. Its practice is what led to the oppression of non-heterosexuals especially once it began to be forced upon everyone regardless of sexual preferences.
So,as per my analysis, had there been no heterosexuality as norm there would be no lgbt.

Anonymous said...

@Reclaiming Natural Manhood
It is not that we do it with some interest on our part. It is just that we are from different culture and what we know of the reality here in the west may not be applicable in other places.
Probably in the non-west no man can love another man and it is a criminal offence to do so. However, in the west men are allowed to love men if they are gay/bi/pan.
It could also be something else. According to you, men can desire men universally if allowed?
However, as per my viewpoint, whatever it is, we should strive ahead for a free and fair culture instead of debating which culture is better.Also, love is not really a gender-role. It is a natural feeling that should be allowed to grow to its full potential in whatever way an individual desires.

Anonymous said...

Look at straight men's opinions on this matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA&feature=player_embedded#!

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

The one above is most definitely from a spammer called Bulan.He keeps up brining up the same thing thousand of times over and over again. I am going to ignore this poster.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"But,considering this aspect, how would I be acepted there if I came out to my family I am not interested in men but women?"

In a society, where marriage is not related with romance, and is just a social contract between two families, and not between two individuals, and where the well-being of the family and community is more important, and where the society does not question what you do secretively, as long as you fulfill your social obligations -- in such circumstances, people usually do not need to avoid marriage, and its not half as cumbersome ... esp. if since they can fulfill other needs behind a social facade.

However, people may still reject marriage -- and, under traditional, joint family system, they still don't have to lead lonely lives, as the jointy family takes care of them.


"How on earth would I
be accepted under a sexually conservative culture where even heterosexual love-affairs are done in stealth?"

A woman wanting a relationship with another can simply live in with another, without letting other know that their relationship is sexual. No one would bother them, even if they came to know what they were doing. As long as they don't make an issue of it, themselves.

Although, I have to say that I am not saying that we don't need to change the non-western systems -- its just that this change should not be in the direction of the west, but away from it, towards the nature of humans.


"But does this imply more freedom in India? No. :"

You have no idea how much more freedom this means. But, this is far much more true for men than for women and third genders.

You see, the society has much more vested interest in controlling the sexuality of men, rather than controlling the sexuality of women -- this is because, most women are naturally inclined to reproduce (even if they hate sex with men), whereas, most men are not inclined towards reproduction, and not year after year like in the case of females.
That is why men are controlled through social mechanisms that control manhood -- the most precious thing for men in life. And, the western concept of 'homosexual' seeks to exclude sexuality between men from the concept of manhood.

Neolosky said...

I do think men may be allowed more fluidity in sex with other men if done secretly, in India.
However, women might have it really hard,is something I can guess for sure.Even in villages.
I had read this one case of a horrible social marginalization just a while back.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-27/india/31439625_1_police-station-maur-lesbian-relationship

Neolosky said...

"Although, I have to say that I am not saying that we don't need to change the non-western systems -- its just that this change should not be in the direction of the west, but away from it, towards the nature of humans."

The non-west is more conservative and makes love among same genders illegal. The west may end up misrepresnting a few things related to the science of human sexuality, but, considering the freedom to be oneself is the bigger advantage here.
A natural society is not one where there are thousands of killings under the name of morality,religion and civil code.Do you not feel happy about the same-sex marriage rights in the states by Obama? Is your government ready to implement it in India as well?

Neolosky said...

" And, the western concept of 'homosexual' seeks to exclude sexuality between men from the concept of manhood."

You need to be precise about this because this is something I am unable to really grasp considering the social realities in my culture.
Are you speaking out of some far fetched conclusion or have you done real research work? Do you have evidences of how many men could be attracted to men? Studies, journals, or any scholarly articles or thesis on this?
I have not found useful discussions on this issue and there have been all kinds of surveys, some indicating the percentage of such men being just 2% and others like Kinsey going as high as 50%.
Current statistics formally going around are 5-10%.
As far as women are concerned, there have been studies that indicate lesbianism and bisexuality in women account for just 2-3% of females, yet, studies like those of Meredith Chivers indicate most females are bisexual.
I havent been able to lay trust on any of these research works for the simple reason that they all make far-fetched conclusions and never arrive at data from surveying diverse populations.

I have visited your blog and read some interesting articles there. You have seemed to invert the entire aspect of male sexuality, by claiming that majority of men are attracted to other men and have a secondary sexuality for women.Is this coming out of a long survey? Also, could cultural differences create certain differences in sexuality of males (or females for that matter)?

Anonymous said...

"this is because, most women are naturally inclined to reproduce (even if they hate sex with men), whereas, most men are not inclined towards reproduction, and not year after year like in the case of females."

Funny, as a 20 year old female I would say you have got this the wrong way around. Personally, outside of social expectations (e.g. that if you get past 40 and aren't a mother then society tuts and looks down on you) I have no desire to have children. The only reason I would have children is if my husband wanted them and so I'd need to have them to keep a family.
In Western society it is incredibly common for working women to not want children, whilst the husband desperately does. If it was more socially acceptable for men to adopt and raise children I think there would be a lot more single men with children. But for men to be interested in children, outside of their own, is seen as "creepy/pedo" or "unmanly".

Just because women are biologically capable to bear children doesn't make them any more inclined to want to have children. The oxytocin rush only kicks in once you've given birth. Men also experience an increase in oxytocin when they become fathers, facilitating their affiliation towards their new son/daughter.

From looking at the animal kingdom, males are the ones who initiate the act of sexual reproduction (in response to some pheromone release or physical change of the females), the females don't consciously decide they want children. Looking at the animal kingdom is quite silly though, humans have an infinitely higher level of consciousness, and social/cultural norms are undoubtedly much more influential than any biological drives. This is the issue I take with your stance on male sexuality. What if everything you believe and have experienced is just because of the culture? You say that guys in your culture didn't desire woman sexually or romantically, and that male sexuality in the West (where men clearly consciously and implicitly desire sexual and romantic contact with women) is merely a product of socialization. How can you say that yet fail to consider that the characteristics of male sexuality in your culture are also merely a product of socialization? Your culture is after all a "culture", the clue is in the name. There is nothing about Indian culture which makes it an example of the "default" for male sexuality. Have a read about African tribes, most of which have some form of male-female courting and marriage.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

However, women might have it really hard,is something I can guess for sure.Even in villages.

Things have become more difficult eversince the 'gay' movement started in true earnest (after millions of HIV money was poured into India). Besides Punjab and Haryana are exceptionally conservative states.
Otherwise, not too long ago, even in Punjab, there were women who would 'marry' women openly, and sometimes lover pairs would enter into social bonding contracts. I have also heard about scores of suicides by female pairs -- and so things may not have been all that good for women. However, if you go back into more unwesternized and unheterosexualized India, then, where women's spaces were extremely strong, sexual bonds between women were all too common, even if hidden, and A Muslim author (I've forgotten her name), who migrated to Pakistan, has written a book about her experiences of one such harem of females, where such relationships were common. There have always been women who refused to get married (some of my aunts have done that), and they've never had any problem, in fact joint families always took care of them. Maybe, they did not have open relationships in an individualistic manner as in the west, but, I don't think they were sexually suppressed. Women who desired relationships with men were likely to be more suppressed -- although, there too, they could always do so secretively.
See, when all sexual relationships are in secret, and even sexual relationships with in marriage is conducted in utter privacy, with no public display of affection, then you're not isolated because you desire women, and you don't miss not being able to openly love a woman. You fit in perfectly well and yet carry on a beautiful relationship.
That is still not to say that we don't need to change -- but not in the direction of the west or of the lgbt.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"The non-west is more conservative and makes love among same genders illegal."

All over the non-western world, except possibly some christian societies, sex between two males(sex between two males isn't necessarily same-sex, it can also be heterosexual -- so the western nomenclature is invalid) was never 'criminalised' or punished legally. It's the westerners who, as part of their medieval empires, introduced these laws in the non-western world, and also taught us to be hostile to such relationships. It's just that we have not been able to unlearn it -- how can we, when we have become only more westernized.
In any case, sex between men was the easiest thing to get in the non-west -- something which has been rendered impossible in the western world by the lgbt. If you want sex with a male, you must lose your manhood and become 'gay.'
And as far as love between two males is concerned -- it was always openly accepted and even encouraged between men -- even if in the guise of deep, friendship. You could always be sexual in private.
And, in any case, none of these laws were ever directed at sex between two women. It was not given any significance, because the focus of the societies has always been to control male sexuality.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

""The non-west is more conservative and makes love among same genders illegal."

Is there one place in the west, where a man can be sexual with another man, without losing his manhood?

In other words, is there one single place in the west, where a man can be sexual with another man without being 'gay'?

If the society allows you to be openly sexual with another man, only after shifting you in the marginalized 'gay' (third gender) identity/ community, then that is no freedom for men, only for the effeminate males/ third genders. And, mind you, this is nothing new -- all societies, across the world have allowed sex between feminine males (or males without manhood) and men -- only, they did not call it 'homosexual' but considered it as sex between two opposite genders.
At least, a man could penetrate another male or a boy, without losing his manhood. In the west, a man simply has NO space to be sexual with another man. Even hand holding with a man can make him liable to lose his manhood (and be called 'gay').

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"The west may end up misrepresnting a few things related to the science of human sexuality, but, considering the freedom to be oneself is the bigger advantage here.
"
Only women and third genders (effeminate males who have no need for manhood) have freedom in the west.
Men simply have no freedom. They must bow down to women sexually or lose their manhood. You call that freedom?
West is the most fucked up society in the world -- as far as sexual rights are concerned -- yet, outwardly it pretends as if it gives its subject complete freedom -- esp. to men. And, this is the worst form of oppression, where the oppression is totally hidden and unacknowledged.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"A natural society is not one where there are thousands of killings under the name of morality,religion and civil code."
That is the result of thrusting heterosexuality on us by the west.
That is known as cultural friction. This is what happens when one society forces its cultural norms and values on the other, from the outside.
Afterall, when the society has already given space to heterosexual relationships formally under marriage, what is the pressing need to implement western style heterosexuality.

Marriage was never meant as an institution to facilitate heterosexual romance. In nature only about 5% of males would want that. The rest just hate that. Marriage is only meant as a means to facilitate better reprouduction. If you force it into an institution to facilitate heterosexual romance, then there is bound to be a backlash. Afterall, relationships between two men and two females are much more suppressed. If anything needs liberation its them, not heterosexual relationships.
How would US react, if India were to force its values and cultural norms on the west, and force men to hold hands? I am sure, the vested interests would kill and be violent.
Any change has to come from the inside and be needed by its people. It has to be needed by its subjects, and it should not happen just because it happens in the west. Then only can you avoid cultural backlashes.

Do you not feel happy about the same-sex marriage rights in the states by Obama?
If you tell me about one state in the west, where I can marry a man without having to be 'gay' then, I would really feel happy about it.

If a man has to be 'gay' in order to marry a man, then, I'd rather that sexuality between men is not recognized at all.


"Is your government ready to implement it in India as well?"
I pray to god that it is not, and that sense would prevail before such relationships are totally 'homosexualized'/ third genderized/ emasculated.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"there have been all kinds of surveys, some indicating the percentage of such men being just 2% and others like Kinsey going as high as 50%."
The term "such men" is very demeaning, and based on the misconcept that men who have a desire for men are a minority, or are different from the rest of the men.

The surveys only show those who are tagged 'gay' -- and this represents only the non-men or third genders, who like men. The real men never acknowledge their interest in men in westernized societies, even if it's exclusive.

"Current statistics formally going around are 5-10%.
"
This only represents an agreement reached by the two anti-man factions, the lgbt and the formal western society, as to the number of 'gays' that they can be claimed.

The actual 'gays' (that is third genders) are indeed around 2%-5%. The actual men who like men (or have the natural potential to do so) are close to 100%.

"yet, studies like those of Meredith Chivers indicate most females are bisexual."

Women rule in the west, and women's sexuality is now becoming truly liberated. It's a reflection of the social power of women in the west that their near universal attraction for women is now being acknowledged. Men, on the other hand are extremely oppressed -- esp. in regards to their sexuality.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"Is this coming out of a long survey?"

This comes out of my own personal experience of growing up and living in Indian men's spaces, and also working with them on the issues of male gender and sexuality (manhood).

I have found that men universally have this disguised (though, not totally suppressed) attraction for men (which is different from an attraction for 'gays' -- i.e. the effeminates), and that in most cases this attraction remains either hidden or suppressed, except when a 'man' (not a 'gay') scratches this facade and tries to reach out to this inner 'man' in the other. Then, this attraction usually becomes extremely strong, even stronger than that for women -- but, this also triggers an inner struggle within the man to control his passions for another man -- and I've so far not been able to find a way to inspire men to win this inner war -- also, I've been impatient with men so far. And this requires extreme patience and investment into someone.

"Also, could cultural differences create certain differences in sexuality of males (or females for that matter)?"

Cultural can play a very strong role -- most of it negative. That is, it can help crush a man's sexual need for men totally -- like they do in the west. Most men end up mutilating their sexuality for men, without recognition.

It can also force men to channelize this suppressed sexuality into women, a secondary sexuality for many (but, not for a big section of men) -- but, men can never do it fully, and they are succesful only in varying degrees.

Furthermore, it can create vested interest groups, like the third genders, who are given the space to desire men, and those who do naturally, thrive in this arrangement as 'homosexuals.' Similarly, the natural 'heterosexuals' who are a minority in nature, but are given absolute control of the manhood space (straight), are another major vested interest group.
And so are women who are into men, since, this system gives them extreme power over men, since men may get their manhood only if they service women sexually, emotionally and socially -- and the more they service women, the more manhood points they get.
No wonder, western 'straight' males feel extremely insecure in all-male spaces, and always need a woman around, to cover up this insecurity.
The facebook group called 'men' e.g., is not only open to women, it also makes it clear outfront, that "of course, we like women." Because, unless they say that, they'd be seen as 'gay' by the western society. This is the extreme to which men are oppressed -- they cannot even unite as 'men' on a common platform, without proving that they are indeed willing to service women.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"Funny, as a 20 year old female I would say you have got this the wrong way around."

It is possible that I may have gotten it wrong -- this information I have gathered only through watching discovery channel programmes, since childhood. Although, they have portrayed males as being obsessed with females, universally, and having no sexual or romantic interest in another male, being a man in a non-heterosexualized male space, I could see that this information was wrong. But, I had no way to verify the truth for women.

However, there are still a few things to consider here. Most women do feel comfortable in a heterosexual system, and they don't seem to need to be pressurised to do so, as for men. I am not aware of any social mechanism that forces women to desire men, yet, they mostly seem to do so.

This is not possible unless, they near universally have a desire for reproduction. Because, in nature, sex between male and female is intricately linked to reproduction. That is an unavoidable consequence of male-female sex. You can't have 'heterosexuality' in nature -- i.e., male-female sex or love just for the sake of it. Western society has made it possible only because of modern technology/ contraceptives. Which means that it is 'unnatural.' Women have to be made partially 'men' through social and technological means (contraceptives, pads, etc) while men are made partially women, by taking away their social power, and their natural masculinity (which is dependant on their bonds with men).

So, if indeed some (or a lot) of women are not geared for reproduction, then most of them have to be interested in other women.

I have read that 20% of women have a gene which makes them promisucous and desirous of sex with a number of males -- I gather this is without reproduction in mind. These women then would be having sex with men for the sake of it, with no need for reproduction. These are the only truly 'heterosexual' women I can think of in nature, and they must exist only as an exception.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"I have no desire to have children."

This is what my best female friend told me too. And, it is difficult for me to understand this.

Most women I know are extremely attached to their children, much more than they are to their husbands.

Afterall, even women who get 'married' to women, desire children, and end up raising their own kids they get through artificial impregnation.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

""In Western society it is incredibly common for working women to not want children,"

Is it possible that the western society is so much indulgent to women and their bodies, that there is simply too much to enjoy with this physical body, that one doesn't need to forego all this for the sake of raising up children. Afterall, you can't really take care of yourself or your body, once you are a mother. And, you certainly don't want to give up all that, when you're just 20, and starting life.

"... whilst the husband desperately does."

In the west, most of the men that get married are likely to be those that are naturally heterosexual -- and that is why, the percentage of married males in the west is so drastically low (and the percentage of single mothers so high). Naturally heterosexual males are the ones that do want to raise their own children.

Actually, for that matter -- most men, including myself, would likely want to produce our own children -- I guess, also raise them. Although, this would only be once we reach our forties.

I don't know how much of this need is natural and how much socially generated.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"From looking at the animal kingdom, males are the ones who initiate the act of sexual reproduction (in response to some pheromone release or physical change of the females), the females don't consciously decide they want children."

On the other hand, females totally reject the males (as per the western television channels), unless they are ready to have children. It also makes sense, since, offsprings are an unavoidable consequence of male-female sex, whether or not females or males like it. And since, its the mother who ends up raising the kid (along with another females -- there are no heterosexual pairs amongst mammals), the female can't take male-female sex too casually, even if the male can.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"Looking at the animal kingdom is quite silly though,"

I don't disagree that we shouldn't look at the animal kingdom, although, this is a statement I often hear from the westerners. I guess, this is because, the westerners have come so far from human nature, that they hate the idea of going back to it.

This idea that humans are essentially different from animals is a Christian invention, and totally broken from reality.

But, think about it, after all is said and done, we are animals too. We feel hunger, thirst, need for society, need for company, need for sex, everything, just like the animals do. Animals too have the entire range of emotions that we do.

"humans have an infinitely higher level of consciousness,"

Higher level of consciousness cannot take us away from our valid basic needs and drives. They can complement it and make us realise our natural potentials in a much better way.

But, if a 'consciousness' takes us away from what is natural and healthy and valid, then, it is not 'higher consciousness' -- but a negative influence.

"and social/cultural norms are undoubtedly much more influential than any biological drives."

Social and cultural norms too, if they are meant to oppress us, and to create a hurdle in our realising our full potential as human beings, ... then, they are definitely a negative influence.

The society has any use only if it helps each individual live out his or her life to his/her full potentials. If it can't, then the social and cultural norms need to go.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"What if everything you believe and have experienced is just because of the culture?"

Culture has the power to destroy, but it cannot create something that is not there already.

My culture does not support or encourage relationships between men. It's just that the social mechanisms that it has for suppressing men can break men from men in the formal spaces, but not in the privacy of men's spaces. And, the truth is that the men have to still fight a lot of psycho-social stigmas, in order to give vent to their desire for men, even in men's. That they cannot acknoweldge it, or cannot give these relationships any social significance, is also because, there is no recognized social space for men to love another man.

It's just that the men use the tiniest space available to them to love other men, only because, the non-western society doesn't have the kind of resources (and 'scientific' tools like 'homosexuality') to reach out to the extreme nook and corners of the 'men's/manhood spaces.'

This is because their universal desire for men is NOT culturally generated, but biological. There are no social norms in the society that require them (leave alone force them) to desire another man. On the other hand, there are a number of extreme social mechanisms not only to force him to kill his desire for men, but also to be sexual with women, only, these social-mechanisms are not powerful enough to invade some extreme portions of manhood spaces.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"You say that guys in your culture didn't desire woman sexually or romantically, and that male sexuality in the West (where men clearly consciously and implicitly desire sexual and romantic contact with women) is merely a product of socialization."

I'm not claiming that just for my society. I'm claiming that even for the west. The difference between non-western society and western society is in the degree of oppression of men.

However, it is not that there is no sexuality for women. A minority of men are predominantly heterosexual. There are many, who are 'made' heterosexual, since, they have a secondary sexuality for women, which, once the primary sexuality (towards men) is blocked, can be transferred to women in various degrees. Then a large number of men, simply learn to go by, by forgoing their sexual needs and adjusting with heterosexuality, because, afterall, sex in itself can be enjoyed, regardless of who is the partner. Only some men remain, who are simply repulsed and cannot adjust to the idea of being sexual with women.

Because, the manhood roles in my society have only control over men's sexuality in formal spaces, in the men's spaces, they simply need to talk a lot about girls (in order to prove their 'manhood'). They don't have to actually have relationships with women. There are a lot of men who simply bluff about having sex with women (all because it gets them manhood points). But, the men have all the space NOT to have actual sex with women, and certainly, they can do without having emotional or social relationships. There is no formal space for such relationships, esp. outside of marriage.

Now, if men really felt strongly for relationships with women, they would get it secretively, in large numbers. But, men, simply don't care.

In the west, it is impossible to be eligible for even basic manhood, unless you claim sexual interest in women. So, every regular guy, ends up faking or exaggerating his interest in women, and take on 'heterosexuality' as an identity -- though the identity part is directly forced upon men by the third genders (homosexuals).

In short, even though, the basic nature of the oppression of men remains the same in the west and non-west, the difference is that of degree. The similarity of these societies is their obsession with breaking men from men and forcing them with women. The basic difference is that in the non-west, the men's spaces are still in existence, and they have some privacy, in an informal way, that serve as important leeway, or breathing spaces for men, where men can give vent to their biological needs, and the society has neither the intention nor the means to check what men are doing in those spaces. And men remain silent about these things too. In the west, these men's spaces have been destroyed and women instated into them.

"How can you say that yet fail to consider that the characteristics of male sexuality in your culture are also merely a product of socialization?"

I have seen men struggle to develop their heterosexuality. I have seen men pretending to love girls, when they couldn't give a damn. I have seen men pretend to obsessed with men. I have seen men trying to create an interest in girls bodies, to feel arousal upon seeing female bodies, ... all because, there is terrible pressure on them to be heterosexual -- and I'm talking about both the semi-westernized and the westernized urban spaces in India, the latter function more or less like the west.

If men felt about women in such large numbers, there would be no pressure on men to desire women. Just the division of men into 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' is part of this pressure on men, that takes away their very private spaces where they could desire without formally losing the manhood status. The fear of 'gay' is the most lethal weapon that breaks men from men.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"There is nothing about Indian culture which makes it an example of the "default" for male sexuality."
It's not just the Indian society. It's the entire world, except the modern west vs the modern heterosexualized west.

The difference between us and you is that we are more closer to nature, and you're farthest from it. We're in the same direction though. The anti-man direction. The direction of heterosexuality.

"Have a read about African tribes, most of which have some form of male-female courting and marriage."

The human civilization has been built upon the oppression of men -- that of breaking men from men, and forcing them with women. It would have been impossible for humans to proliferate the world, if it had not forced the men to be broken from other men and forced with women. But the purpose for most of the anti-man conspiracy has been reproduction. It was the western world, which for the first time, made heterosexuality itself an end in itself, even without the need for enhancing reproduction. All these milleniums of anti-man mindset has placed the anti-man forces comfortably in power.

Most of the harm was done at the initial stages itself, although, in the beginning a lot of leeway was left for men. Over the ages, this leeway has been further taken away from men, more and more, as and when the vested interests got more and more tools to achieve this.

In the medieval world, religion became a tool, particularly in the western world. In the modern west, science has given the anti-man forces such extreme tools to control the deepest levels of men's psyche's that was not available to the earlier human beings. Science has been abused to exploit the vulnerabilities of men, and drive him to an extreme corner.

The Christian societies have further influenced lots of tribes and their practices.

However, there are still evidences of tribes, which were secluded from the rest of the world, which are close to the original ways of the humans, where the only 'marriage' was between two men, and where men and women met only for reproduction. Even there we could see that there is some pressure on men to reproduce. But, this society is very close to how other mammalian males live.

It's a pity that westerners go there and force their own laws on these most ancient tribes and seek to heterosexualize them, criminalizing their ancient customs as pedophiles.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"I havent been able to lay trust on any of these research works for the simple reason that they all make far-fetched conclusions and never arrive at data from surveying diverse populations.
"
Sexual surveys are a farce.

Men are under an extreme pressure to be sexual with women. Or to at least, claim to do so.

Even men who manage to expand their personal sense of manhood to include secretive relations with another man, esp. in the west, will never acknowledge their desire for men formally or informally. Often they don't even acknowledge their desire to their partners, indeed often not to themselves. They keep inventing socially acceptable excuses for their actions (the most common being, under the influence of booze, girls are not available, just experimenting, and so on).

Add to this, the fact that men have such extreme of 'gay' -- because they know subconsciously or consciously that this means 'third gender' (non-man male).

Under these circumstances, if you go to men and ask them to fill up a form saying whether they are homosexual or heterosexual -- even in utmost privacy, the majority of regular males will say they are heterosexual -- even when they may not feel an iota of attraction for women -- and they are not wrong, because, they realise subconsicously, that 'straight' or
'heterosexual' actually means 'males with manhood.'

It's mostly the third genders (effeminate males), who will claim to be 'gay.'

Neolosky said...

@Reclaiming,
So you mean most of lgbt identified males today are effeminate or third-genders? Now as I said before here itself, I have known all along that many gay men are masculine and their attraction to men is also an intrinsic part of their masculinity. In other words, I myself never sub-consciously associated 'gay men' with effeminacy, although there are a minority of gay males who are effeminate. I also quite often used to admire a lot of masculine gay men and used to even think perhaps these are more macho than straight men, considering they are so much fond of masculinity and live with so much macho splendor with other men.
So when you claim that straight men don't want to acknowledge their attraction to men due to fear of being seeneffeminate, I find I am unable to relate to it,atleast in the west. Because, in our minds,probably men having sex with men has little to do with gender discordance and more to do with their extra machoness sometimes.Just like women having sex with women also has little to do with being a dyke or butch.
But then again, it could be because I myself have had to fight these traditional stereotypes by stupid people which conflate gender with sexual-orientation, so I just happen to know more.

Neolosky said...

"even in utmost privacy, the majority of regular males will say they are heterosexual -- even when they may not feel an iota of attraction for women -- and they are not wrong, because, they realise subconsicously, that 'straight' or
'heterosexual' actually means 'males with manhood."

But why would they not atleast want to increase the numbers or percentage by claiming some attraction to other men? Would they not want that the percentage of men desiring men rise above, say, to that Kinsey stats of 50% or even more, so that they can then get an opportunity to let out their suppressed sexuality without having to be a sexual minority or gay?

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"So you mean most of lgbt identified males today are effeminate or third-genders?"

1. There is a difference between saying 'gay' is a third gender identity and that "most of lgbt identified males today are third genders."

Even if some of the masculine gendered males join the lgbt identity, it still doesn't change the third gender nature/ history of lgbt.

2. 'Homosexual' started as a third gender identity. Originally, there were 100% effeminate males in it, Today, there are some masculine gendered males too.

3. There can be no valid system of categorization that merges the feminine gender and masculine gender males in the same category, and negates their gender differences.

Neolosky said...

"It was the western world, which for the first time, made heterosexuality itself an end in itself, even without the need for enhancing reproduction. All these milleniums of anti-man mindset has placed the anti-man forces comfortably in power"

Men desiring sex with women or women desiring men without the burden of reproduction has been taken as the ultimate proof by our cultures that a majority of people are indeed heterosexual. For example,proliferation of porns and female nudity among men and male nudity among women.
I still remember how my classmates used to tease us and each other as dykes and lesbos if we did not enjoy male pornos.
I took things for granted that majority of people are heterosexual for enjoying such promiscuous sex with the opposite gender.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"Now as I said before here itself, I have known all along that many gay men are masculine and their attraction to men is also an intrinsic part of their masculinity."

I have worked closely with various shades of men, and I know that there are some masculine gendered males, that only usely use the 'gay' definition. But, that is because, they are brain washed and they don't have a choice.
However, the important point is that they don't really identify with the gay identity, and for the most part only socialize with the straight males and relate only with them. However, such males are mere mavericks. Many of these males are now disassociating with the lgbt, e.g., the g0ys. However, unless and until they are totally integrated with the straight identity, they will remain third genders.

Besides, they are the first ones to leave the gay identity if they are given the choice to love men without being 'gay.' The third genders, however, are very adamant about a separate 'gay' identity. And, they fight tooth and nail about the separate 'gay' identity.

THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS: that ultimately, it is the manhood identity that is important, not the actual masculinity or femininity. Natural masculinity or even pretended masculinity is useful only in as far as it can get you the manhood identity.
If you have a third gender identity, you might as well wear a dress and do ballet. Being masculine or pretending to be masculine with a third gender identity is simply a waste of masculinity.

And, the manhood identity is today called 'heterosexual' -- thanks to the lgbt, and the third gender identity is called 'lgbt.'

Therefore, it is totally immaterial, if there are also masculine gendered males in the 'gay' identity. They are third genders for all practical purposes.

Besides, go to any lgbt march or a gay bar and see for yourself -- its not only me, its what I've heard from a number of men in the west.

You're known by the company you keep. The identity you pick up for yourself is even more identification of you. If a male takes up the third gender identity, if he claims to be masculine it would be a big joke.

Also, I doubt if you can really tell who is masculine gendered and who is not. Most lgbt people think, that masculinity is simply about pretending to be straight (hence such males are known as 'straight-acting' in the gay circles). Masculinity is also not merely about taking up the gender role of men. Natural masculinity is not dependant upon all of these things. Natural masculinity however is about feeling different from the feminine gendered males, and relating genderwise with the other masculine gendered males, no matter what their sexual preferences. A male, who happily takes up an identity that separates him from other regular guys, and feels totally comfortable in an identity that is shared by third genders, cannot claim to be masculine gendered, no matter how much he pretends to be masculine.

Neolosky said...

"See, when all sexual relationships are in secret, and even sexual relationships with in marriage is conducted in utter privacy, with no public display of affection, then you're not isolated because you desire women, and you don't miss not being able to openly love a woman. You fit in perfectly well and yet carry on a beautiful relationship."



This is an excellent point you have mentioned.If there is no sexual identity,either for heterosexual or not,then,there is no question of feeling oppression in formal spaces because nobody bothers you regarding whom you love.
Sexual oppression happens when one sexuality is promoted above another-in this case, heterosexuality.
But nevertheless,does anyone in non-west still not have an idea of what ind of love is supposed to be normal or not? Like,would your uncle feel anything positive if told he likes men even if he did feel enraged when pointed out he had love marriage?

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"But why would they not atleast want to increase the numbers or percentage by claiming some attraction to other men? Would they not want that the percentage of men desiring men rise above, say, to that Kinsey stats of 50% or even more, so that they can then get an opportunity to let out their suppressed sexuality without having to be a sexual minority or gay?"

You don't understand. Men are conditioned to be at war with their own sexual need for men. They simply don't want to accept it or to allow it. Even if they realise that the society is oppressing men, they still thank the society for all it has done to help them kill their own sexuality for men. Because, they are programmed by their socialization to hate their sexuality for men. BECAUSE, the third genders claim it as their identity. And, they hate anything in them, that maybe associated with the third genders.

Also, don't think that men consciously know how the society is oppressing them or even that it is oppressing them, (they just learn to live with everything), they can't analyse their discomfort and they're simply not organised to do anything about it. But, they do subconsciously hate the faggots for stealing their space to be intimate with men.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"Like,would your uncle feel anything positive if told he likes men even if he did feel enraged when pointed out he had love marriage?"

My uncle unfortunately died. But, if you tell an old timer that you like men, and if you're a male with manhood, they'd completely understand. They'd have felt that themselves. What they won't understand is, why you don't want to get married, because, no one ever considers marriage to be related with how you feel sexually. It's simply a social/ religious obligation.

I remember, when I had still not started my career, I used to talk to an older guy in my office about issues around sexuality, including male-male sexuality. He said something that beautifully summarizes how things were understood in those days. He said, "we must never talk about male-male relationships in a positive or accepting manner. Because, if we do, then every man will start doing this to each other (and he rubs the thighs of a boy sitting next to him), and no one would go to women."

"This is an excellent point you have mentioned.If there is no sexual identity,either for heterosexual or not,then,there is no question of feeling oppression in formal spaces because nobody bothers you regarding whom you love."

Yet, I am not saying that eventually, we should not become a society that acknowledges and accepts various forms of sexualities. However, it would be a society free of 'sexual identities.' Simply because these sexual identities are based upon a number of invalid assumptions, including a confusion deliberately created between gender orientation and sexual orientation.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

"Would they not want that the percentage of men desiring men rise above, say, to that Kinsey stats of 50% or even more, so that they can then get an opportunity to let out their suppressed sexuality without having to be a sexual minority or gay?"

Noone really thinks that having sexual attraction for men makes them 'gay' (even if they may say so outwardly). Men say what they're supposed or trained to say. However, men think, they're gay only if they acknowledge that they have such feelings.

Acknowledgement is one of the big criteria for deciding who's gay and who's not. Acknowledgment breaks the code of manhood conduct and with it the man crosses into queerhood.

Of course, the basic thing that makes you gay remains a feminine gender. In fact, if you're really transgendered, then it doesn't matter if a male likes women. He's still 'gay.' That is why Transgendered heterosexuals are in the lgbt, not in the straight category.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

Bulan, we had a deal that you'd stay away from me.

Stop posting as Neoloski, and if you break this deal, you can simply forget about working with me in the future.

Reclaiming Natural Manhood said...

Don't you ever get tired asking the same questions over and over again, pretending to be so many different individuals. You're a mental case. You seriously need to start taking some psychological treatment.

I refuse to be an object of your pscyho obsession.

Nikita said...

Russell Peters about the Indian men
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjsXTaBfHkY&feature=related

Suraj said...

Holding hands is male-bnding and friendship not sex. There is no need to comment on other cultures so unabashedly.

Andrew Ewers said...

Removing those comments. Just think it is funny is all. Not the comments but the fact that we know there are comments but now we can't see them. Why tell us at all if they cannot be read?

Dee said...

Im not saying all Indian men in India are like this, but its funny how indian men say the west is anti-man, but India is one of the most anti-woman countries there are. From female infanticide, honor killings, dowry burnings, child brides, being forced to have sons over daughters, eve teasing, gropings on buses and other public places, not to mention blaming and shaming the victim of rape or marrying her off to her attacker. I am not suprised this cultural viewpoint about men's role and spaces is shared among many men. I dont see any of these things happening to women in India happening to men in the west. Although there has been progress, there is still some inequality for women in the west. They are paid on average less than men, dometic and sexual abuse is still prevelant etc... Everything is blamed on the west as if it is the root of all evil and the east is so great. Even rapes and homosexuality is blamed on the west. Some indian politicians and others blamed homosexuality on western influences and rapes as well. Its time to look in your own backyard and stop criticizing.

chotu said...

About holding hands
I India it is general and not a big deal, I think its human nature. Do girls in West do not hold hands too?

It lacks any sexual thing, but for many it may be sexual too :P we just like holding hands and hugging we do not think of sex then. I think in west it is only because of fear of stigma of called homosexual they avoid holding hands. Many straight guy think that gay is stigma :P

It is only cultural difference! But soon it i changing in urban are! Sad!

About comments
The comments are stupid from west and hilariously funny from east.
Its not disgusting, if you fin i disgusting then what about m2m? again it is not because we are sexually repressed :P its funny we are holding hands from childhood and even after marriage!

and Mr. manhood cool down, i know what are you trying to say but others can not, I also think its sad that western stereotype is imported in India and then mixed with eastern hypocrisy ha produced stupids blindfollowers.
But why are you pissing them off with extremist views! although interesting you try to prove hetero is un natural :P

chotu said...

And in USA they shower together? Naked in front of each other?
Still problem with hand holding?
HILARIOUS :p

We can rest on cultural difference but i still believe holding hand is natural while not holding is just a product of stigma and stereotype!

chotu said...


I think holding hands are natural and its

doesn't matter on the gender of two person,

but due to culture one is stigmatized either

way. In one culture man can not hold hand

because of stigma of immorality , in other

man do not hod escaping stigma of 'gay'.

Naturally man is inclined to hold hand of

another person ad sexuality has nothing to do

with it. But then I find bizarre western

theories that say that it is because of

sexual repression of Indians (Whose traditional

education consist of Kamashastra study and

modern indian education i still lagging

behind). AS man can not hold hand of girls,

so they hold hand of man. This is stupid

because it has a presumption that whatever is

in west is only natural. Since they do not

see man-man intimacy apart from romantic

association, they assume that it is common

across he world. Well, Men hold hand in many

other culture too, in south east asia,china

and in tribal where sexual liberalism is

high. So this theory is stupid and works on

same logic which dictates man-man sex un

natural. The normal thing is holding hand has

nothing to do with sex or sexuality, like child

hold hands without any sex/sexuality

consideration. Instead not holding hand has deep

sex, moral and stigma playing behind. therefore

here man-woman hold is seen wrong, or bad but

good this thought is diminishing.
In west men hold hand is seen as romantic

involvement and though they are doing very

well in sexuality matters, stigma of being gay

is still there. even if they accept other

being gay somehow they do not want them self

to be called one unless they are.

The question should not be 'Why men hold hand

in India?' because it is most natural human

thing instead it should be 'Why man-woman do

not in India?' and 'Why me do not hold hand

in West?'

Anonymous said...

Random guys don't hold hands. But friends do. Don't assume that they are gay.

Anonymous said...

Disgusting! I would never go to that third world cesspool called India where they abort female babies but if I ever had to go there, I would be holding hands only with females since I am a straight male!

Anonymous said...

I could write a book and a half, citing a multitude of sociology, psychology, and biology articles, justifying this harmless, social practice in India.

But I think I'll just be crude and straightforward: the only faggots are the ones saying, "That's gay...Straight guys don't do that...Only impoverished, hoodlum rats would do that..."

NO, you are the fags: you have your overinflated, Westernized heads shoved right up your ass. Yet you don't have shit to say.

Your sense of masculinity must be pretty goddamn fragile if mere handholding with another guy can destroy it.

Give me a fucking break, basura blanco...