Jai Saraswati Maa The Open and Free western society --- a blatant lie For more than two thousand years, the society has taken extreme measures to tie down men to participate in the reproduction process and the raising of children. Given the close bonds that the human male shared with each other that was virtually impregnable, the society sought to achieve its goals in two ways, which were very effective: - By de-institutionalising male sexual bonds and making them socially shameful - By forcing men to marry and produce children. Amongst the measures that were taken to assure this, the most effective measure was to change the rules of masculinity to accomodate "marriage" and a "disdain for open sexual desire for men". Even though these measures were unnatural for men, and hard on them, men have borne their oppression for more than two thousand years, primarily because the society did give them a leeway --- a breathing space. This was done by way of a wonderful phenomenon called a 'cover' or a (social) 'purdah' --- something that does not exist anymore in the western so-called 'open' societies. This means that men had a lot of freedom to do a lot of natural male stuff behind the scenes (i.e. in private) as long as they publicly upheld the social norms of masculinity --- i.e. got married, produced children and pretended not to have a sexual interest in straight men (sexual interest in third gender males was allowed). To be more specific, the society allowed men to express their sexual need for men under a cover --- without talking about it or acknowledging it in anyway. Two straight men who liked each other would just get together on some pretext --- and there were plenty of pretexts --- and then have some mutual fun. If there was an intense feeling for each other it may be expressed in terms of deep friendship that could last a lifetime. No one else in the society would suspect anything --- it was so normal for two men to be intimate with each other --- even two men living with each other or sleeping in the same bed was no big deal. And even if someone suspected they would look the other way, because for one thing the members of the society had an enormous respect for this 'purdah' and second that the issue of sex or love between two straight men was absolutely unspeakable (however, not un-do-able in private) Numerous such committed bonds flourished without anyone ever knowing about them. Some becoming famous as an example of true friendship. There'd be no acceptance or acknowledgment of a sexual liking for each other or (especially) of men in general, even between each other. Sex between men was the theme of innumerable men's jokes. The sexual intimacy would persist under some pretexts (of which there were many). The strongest pretext would be an absence of women. And in a society where men and women lived separate lives (in keeping with their nature), such pretexts were aplenty. Two friends cum lovers would eat, sleep, and do everything else together, like two normal straight men did. That there was no such thing as 'homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' (though there was a third gender passive male) made it easier for men too. However, any acknowledgment of what was going on between the two men by one of them would amount to breach of a basic rule --- something that would make the continuance of the relationship impossible, unless the one 'breaking' the implicit contract takes on the 'lesser male's' role.(This lesser male role bordered on the third gender male – today's homosexual). And the relationship would become an unequal one, where the other man would keep his pretense of not having any real interest in the man and just doing it to bide his time or as a favour to the other man. Therefore in most cases men would not even think of crossing their limits. They would live out their love behind this purdah, while performing the social duties of men at the same time and upholding social values on the outside. Take away this purdah and the two men will just kill the relationship and pretend as if nothing ever happened. The forebearers of the modern heterosexual society knew that, and did just that --- took away this age old male cover. Another thing that helped men in those days was that "marriage" back then did not mean 'bonding' with women. There was absolutely no need to love or be romantic to your wife. In fact someone who bonded too closely with his woman was laughed at as being 'unmanly'. Relationships between men and women in marriage were limited to occasional sex and the family matters --- ration, children, relatives, etc. Men spent most of their time outside of the house with other men. And as far as male-female relationships outside marriage were concerned the society was extremely hostile to it. You would better not be seen even talking to a woman that you are not related to or married to. A man or woman may never do such a thing as even touch each other's hands in public. ****** The nature of earlier male oppression had allowed men to be themselves under this 'purdah', and gave men a breathing space. Indeed men found it extremely distasteful to talk about sexual desire for men even in private. However amongst the men there was a tacit acceptance that all men shared this sexual desire to be with other men, but this desire must not be spoken of. Lifting of this cover would mean instant death of this freedom and men turning into 'heterosexuals' so fast as if by magic. All the male eroticism would vanish into thin air. The modern western society that claimed to be free and fair was in reality extremely hostile to sexuality between men, and so without showing the least of concern for men: - came down heavily on this cover men had enjoyed for centuries and took it off at one sweep, making the men go helter skelter seeking refuge under a 'heterosexual' identity. - While the society claims to be fair and equal, it actually intensifies, makes more sophisticated and institutionalises the oppresion of male need for other men. This makes sure that the heat is turned on on men in full force as the social cover is lifted –lifted in the name of 'openness' and 'freedom' Men are forcefully exposed, become vulnerable, and are then isolated through a pseudo-scientific concept known as "Sexual orientation". - At the same time the society does away with all pretexts or social opportunities that men used to bond with men. It basically: o finished off all male only spaces in the society. So now there will be girls sitting in male gyms, schools will be co-ed, women will join the army amidst men, and so on. Everything that has to do with men will be a male-female thing --- from T.V. news casts to sports events to male prisons to nurses in male hospital wards. o re-organises the society into mixed gender spaces that are extremely against men bonding with each other. Such spaces isolate men who do bond with other men as 'homosexual' (i.e. a third gender category that was earlier meant only for the feminine male who was exclusively passive). o Makes bonding with females a compulsory thing for men – propagates is as a basic natural trait of men. Ironically, bonding with women was considered an extremely womanly and deplorable thing for a straight man. It was fit only for the third gender male in the past. Marriages now become love-marriages and customs such as dating are introduced, that all men have to go through. In an environment where women are available a dime a dozen, it is impossible to claim absence of women as a pretext for being with men. o Unlike the past, physical intimacy between man and woman in public becomes acceptable and 'normal' while between men becomes almost 'banned'. So while man and woman kiss each other in public --- even two brothers can't hold hands in public without causing raised heckles. Kissing between men --- a common form of greeting in the past disappears as a practice replaced by kissing between "opposite sexes". o Glorifies sexually aggressive women who in earlier societies were stigmatised as 'whores' as the ideal woman. At the same time stigmatises a male being too close to another in a mixed gender setting as a 'homo' --- even if he is masculine. In the past it was the most normal straight male behaviour. o The society no longer glorifies or celebrates friendships between men, which are always viewed with suspicion. It's a clear signal that the society wants to break men from each other so as to disempower them. It is no surprise that as societies turned from the traditional order where men had a social cover, to the modern one that claims to be open and free, men have always opposed this openness in the beginning. Men instinctively knew that talking about issues of sex between men is not going to be good for them, because it will in the end be made inaccessible to them. While talking about sex with women openly will take away their pretenses thus intensifying their pressures. The modern western heterosexual society is the exact opposite of an open and free society. If at all, it is a skewed way of opening up. ****** The freedom that the earlier straight men enjoyed behind the scenes was limited but was enough that prevented men from revolting for two thousand years. Indeed the modern 'open' world looks down upon this 'purdah' as hypocrisy. But this hypocrisy helped the society maintain an unnatural order for its supposed gains for so long and made it easier on the victims (i.e. men). Today's society has intensified the oppression of men several times, without giving them the leeway of this 'hypocrisy'. All this in the name of being 'open'. What remains to be seen is how long will the male race which is now driven to an extreme corner continue to take things lying down. Will it finally revolt in a big way or will it forever accept an inferior and subservient position to women? ******
I would see it this way, if all people were homosexuals we wouldn't survive as a species so therefore I'd conclude it isn't natural for nothing in nature wants to stop its own species from survival.
hmm i read a bunch of this and got sort of lost when i realized this was the first post i made in sciforums. i think. at this point i think sexual orientation is imprinted or conditioned with or by some particular pathology. i see heterosexual and homosexual to be dysfunctional in the same way, that each are adverse to sexual affection with a particular gender, and the more healthy of the possible orientations is bi-sexual. perhaps heterosexuallity isnt natural but neither is fearing and repulsing same sex affection, which strangely seems one of the main inspiration for homosexuality to exist. heterosexuality is no more natural than homosexuality but it has on its side the potential for procreation. if same sex affection sharing were unnatural then what explains the affections a father shows his infant or young boy? that comes to an end after social pressure and conditioning coerce a boy away from that affection with his father and for the heterosexual father the practice is banned by previous social conditioning and when the boy developes into puberty and begins to express himself as man. i tend to think that heterosexuality for a boy is inforced at a young age in groups of boys by threats of violence thru fear of being named gay, and being forced out of his circle of friends, and i tend to think in some or many cases homosexuality in males at least is inspired by the fear and total lack of comprehension of the female in contrast to the comfort and comradery they feel for their male friends combined with some repulsion for the heterosexual males in general. shrug,
